Which one will rule?
Why?
Pan Pax
Which one rules?
Which one will rule?
Why?
Pan Pax
Which one will rule?
Why?
Pan Pax
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons Yesterday at 11:39 AM+)
Which one rules?
Which one will rule?
Why?
Pan Pax
Which one will rule?
Why?
Pan Pax
- The dictionary definition(s) for the word ENTROPY has many meanings:
- For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
- A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
- A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
- The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
- Inevitable & steady deterioration of a system or society.
B and D seem to contradict and (I) would go for what (I) have believed to be the 'traditional' which would be B.
A works too though ~ but, in both B and A the definition of a 'closed system' is simply an opportunity to circumscribe a premature 'closed' as this question is in relevance to the Entire Universe/Cosmos.
Order V Disorder.
(Stellar performance)
Pan Pax
A works too though ~ but, in both B and A the definition of a 'closed system' is simply an opportunity to circumscribe a premature 'closed' as this question is in relevance to the Entire Universe/Cosmos.
Order V Disorder.
(Stellar performance)
Pan Pax
Unless you remove gravity, EM, strong forces, genetic code, i.e. all organizing forces/principles, the universe will not 'run down'.
There is planet,star, and galaxy formation,
plant, animal, and human generation.
An isolated system might, but because the universe is dynamic, those systems don't remain isolated. At all levels, you find some form of recycling.
Also, matter near 0 Kelvin, becomes extremely ordered.
There is planet,star, and galaxy formation,
plant, animal, and human generation.
An isolated system might, but because the universe is dynamic, those systems don't remain isolated. At all levels, you find some form of recycling.
Also, matter near 0 Kelvin, becomes extremely ordered.
And the synthesis of Atoms into higher ordered elements ~ in Stellar Fusion processes ~ is also Building greater Order - in the Universe, and increasing the total amount of available Gravitational energy too.
Pan Pax
(some else likes to discuss actual physics ~ Neat)
Pan Pax
(some else likes to discuss actual physics ~ Neat)
QUOTE (•SHEOL• Yesterday at 1:47 AM+)
Entropy & Heat.
Which the element (atom) bond energy, (valency number) proximity to heat causes it to gain (electromagnetically attract other atoms), or loss weight (electromagnetically repel other atoms), etc.
- Example of a decrease of entropy : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas).
- Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid).
The (atom) element(s) proximity to heat determines (the bond energy &) which element(s) (valency number) will be able to coalesce, etc.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 04:19 PM)
QUOTE (•SHEOL• Yesterday at 1:47 AM+)
Entropy&Heat.
Which the element (atom) bond energy, (valency number) proximity to heat causes it to gain (electromagnetically attract other atoms), or loss weight (electromagnetically repel other atoms), etc.
- Example of a decrease of entropy : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas).
- Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid).
The (atom) element(s) proximity to heat determines (the bond energy &) which element(s) (valency number) will be able to coalesce, etc.
Not surprisingly, you got it backwards.
ice->steam, increasing entropy
steam->decreasing entropy
You are misapplying D when you should be using A or B.
QUOTE (barakn Today at 12:40 PM+)
I would recommend you study both "Entropy & Enthalpy"
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 05:45 PM)
QUOTE (barakn Today at 12:40 PM+)
I would recommend you study both "Entropy & Enthalpy" I'm glad that you recognize that enthalpy is involved, but you are still wrong. The entropy of the steam is higher than that of ice. Unlike you, I provide a reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Ice_melting_example, where we find this quote: "It is important to realize that the decrease in the entropy of the surrounding room is less than the increase in the entropy of the ice and water."
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 04:19 PM)
QUOTE (•SHEOL• Yesterday at 1:47 AM+)
Entropy & Heat.
Which the element (atom) bond energy, (valency number) proximity to heat causes it to gain (electromagnetically attract other atoms), or loss weight (electromagnetically repel other atoms), etc.
- Example of a decrease of entropy : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas).
- Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid).
The (atom) element(s) proximity to heat determines (the bond energy &) which element(s) (valency number) will be able to coalesce, etc.
I believe you have that backwards. Solids would have the lowest entropy while gases would have the highest. It is a common mistake.
Regards,
Caleb
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Jan 31 2008, 09:48 AM)
the definition of a 'closed system' is simply an opportunity to circumscribe a premature 'closed' as this question is in relevance to the Entire Universe/Cosmos.Order V Disorder.
Pan Pax
Pan Pax
In our universe, there's no such thing as an closed, or isolated galaxies, solar systems, or planets & if anyone were to take a block of the strongest (metallic) substance on Earth & continue to bring it closer & closer to an extreme heat source, everyone will be able to visually see that mass of strong elements (atoms) go through the same phase below.... (each element has its boiling point) from a solid, then to a liquid & then to a gas & to reverse that process simply reduce the proximity of that atom / object to that extreme heat source, use the temperature of the sun's core to better understand that, Earth is not a big ball of gas like Jupiter, etc & its not a big ball of ice like Neptune, etc for good reasons.
- Example of a decrease of entropy : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas).
- Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid).
QUOTE (barakn Today at 1:16 PM+)
I'm glad that you recognize that enthalpy is involved, but you are still wrong. The entropy of the steam is higher than that of ice. Unlike you, I provide a reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Ice_melting_example, where we find this quote: "It is important to realize that the decrease in the entropy of the surrounding room is less than the increase in the entropy of the ice and water."
I'm not wrong I read the same link, but you must not forget about the "Chemical Equilibrium" which is affected by the proximity to extreme heat, or away from extreme heat.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 06:56 PM)
[/b]
You got it wrong again . There is an increase of heat, and therefore an increase of movement when ice turns to water, and water turns to steam, and vice - versa. As the particles lose order, entropy increases.
- Gehn
- Example of a decrease of entropy : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas).
- Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid).
You got it wrong again
. There is an increase of heat, and therefore an increase of movement when ice turns to water, and water turns to steam, and vice - versa. As the particles lose order, entropy increases. - Gehn
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 07:13 PM)
I'm not wrong I read the same link, but you must not forget about the "Chemical Equilibrium".
Where is a chemical reaction going on? There is not a change it is water the entire time.
Regards,
Caleb
Where is a chemical reaction going on? There is not a change it is water the entire time.
Regards,
Caleb
QUOTE (Gehn Today at 2:15 PM+)
You got it wrong again . There is an increase of heat, and therefore an increase of movement when ice turns to water, and water turns to steam, and vice - versa. As the particles lose order, entropy increases.
- Gehn
I'm not wrong, an element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its bond energy, which will determine its valency number, which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of.
Tell me Gehn, why isn't the Earth a ball of ice, or why is the Earth the mass that it is?
. There is an increase of heat, and therefore an increase of movement when ice turns to water, and water turns to steam, and vice - versa. As the particles lose order, entropy increases. - Gehn
I'm not wrong, an element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its bond energy, which will determine its valency number, which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of.
Tell me Gehn, why isn't the Earth a ball of ice, or why is the Earth the mass that it is?
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 07:24 PM)
An element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its bond energy, which will determine its valency number, which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of.
Tell me Gehn, why isn't the Earth a ball of ice, or why is the Earth the mass that it is?
The phases of water in terms of increase in entropy by increased heat are not controlled by the molecular bonds or valency of the electrons in the bonds(intramolecular forces) but rather the intermolecular forces (van der waals, hydrogen bonding etc.) The rest of your statement makes no sense. I don't understand your question about the earth but you directed it toward Gehn so I will let him suffer through it.
Regards,
Caleb
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 07:24 PM)
I'm not wrong, an element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its bond energy, which will determine its valency number, which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of.
I'm going to do you a favor by assuming that the last part of your sentence starting with "which dictates" is some sort of argument about solar system formation and why planets have the masses and composition that they have. In that case the sentence fragment was intended for the discussion on planet order where you also posted your nonsense about entropy http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...hl=planet+order . Slow down a little bit, try not to mix up your posts between different discussions, and maybe you'll start to make more sense. Although that's a pretty big maybe.
I'm going to do you a favor by assuming that the last part of your sentence starting with "which dictates" is some sort of argument about solar system formation and why planets have the masses and composition that they have. In that case the sentence fragment was intended for the discussion on planet order where you also posted your nonsense about entropy http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...hl=planet+order . Slow down a little bit, try not to mix up your posts between different discussions, and maybe you'll start to make more sense. Although that's a pretty big maybe.
QUOTE (calebthechemist Today at 2:50 PM+)
The phases of water in terms of increase in entropy by increased heat are not controlled by the molecular bonds or valency of the electrons in the bonds(intramolecular forces) but rather the intermolecular forces (van der waals, hydrogen bonding etc.) The rest of your statement makes no sense. I don't understand your question about the earth but you directed it toward Gehn so I will let him suffer through it.
Regards,
Caleb
Tell me, calebthechemist.
What is heat?
What produces heat?
Why is our universe (space) very cold?
What is heat?
What produces heat?
Why is our universe (space) very cold?
Well the physical definition is the transfer of energy from one body to another due to a difference in temperature. Is that what you are looking for or are you thinking of thermal energy? My guess is that you are thinking of the later which is vibrational and kinetic energy of the molecules and atoms.
Heat isn't really a thing you "produce" since it is a transfer of energy. Maybe I am wrong in this or being too narrow in my definition. Again I think you are thinking of thermal energy. If the latter is what you mean then heat is produced by many different means. I implore the physics gods of the forum to correct or confirm my thinking in this.
It is a vacuum(for the most part) so it will not contain much thermal energy.
Also, as your name says..... chemist, I assumed that you have knowledge in chemistry, therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
I am but a lowly chemist but I do know that your description here is wrong. Strings are more fundamental than elements(atoms) in string theory.
What is heat?
What produces heat?
Why is our universe (space) very cold?
Well the physical definition is the transfer of energy from one body to another due to a difference in temperature. Is that what you are looking for or are you thinking of thermal energy? My guess is that you are thinking of the later which is vibrational and kinetic energy of the molecules and atoms.
Heat isn't really a thing you "produce" since it is a transfer of energy. Maybe I am wrong in this or being too narrow in my definition. Again I think you are thinking of thermal energy. If the latter is what you mean then heat is produced by many different means. I implore the physics gods of the forum to correct or confirm my thinking in this.
It is a vacuum(for the most part) so it will not contain much thermal energy.
You can produce (different levels of) heat (right now) by rubbing both of your hands together & even to the point of blistering up your hands if you speed-up the oscillation(s).
Also, as your name says..... chemist, I assumed that you have knowledge in chemistry, therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
I am but a lowly chemist but I do know that your description here is wrong. Strings are more fundamental than elements(atoms) in string theory.
I never said that, Branes (or strings) consist(s) of atoms, but energy, (or heat) the brane itself is simply another form of energy, or heat.
If our universe (regardless of the beginning of the Big-Bang, in the middle, or at the end) was very hot & stayed very hot, I don't believe that our Brane would have coalesced, therefore I believe that, there wouldn't have been a Big-Bang, etc.
Regards,
Caleb
Tell me, calebthechemist.What is heat?
What produces heat?
Why is our universe (space) very cold?
QUOTE (calebthechemist Today at 2:50 PM+)
The rest of your statement makes no sense.
Also, as your name says..... chemist, I assumed that you have knowledge in chemistry, therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
Also, as your name says..... chemist, I assumed that you have knowledge in chemistry, therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
One of my sister's kids said something amazing, about Superman, which I thought about & had to agree with 100%.
He said (last night) that, the reason(s) for Superman's super-human-abilities was due to the 2 factors below:
1. The element(s) that his body was made from.
2. Hydrogen.
Now a large majority of us have seen the movie, "the people living within the galaxy, that contained the planet Krypton, its sun was dying (or used-up all of its Hydrogen (atoms) reserves & was going through its red giant, etc phase producing only Helium (just like out yellow dwarf sun is doing right now & will turning red also & will be growing bigger in about 5 billion years from now) & Superman's father & all of the people living on the planet Krypton (for whatever reasons, wasn't technologically advanced enough to have spaceships for all &) didn't have super-human-abilities & was powerless to prevent their own destruction(s), so Superman's father put his infant son into one spaceship & sent him to our galaxy, where he as an infant immediately started exhibiting super-human-abilities, because of our yellow dwarf sun (star) which is (currently) not dying & is still using Helium (atoms) to produce Hydrogen (atoms), which one of my sister's kids said that, the 2 factors above gave Superman his super-human-abilities & he also said that, the Kryptonite element must contain (to some percentage) Helium (atoms), which (naturally) was the only substance that prevented all of the people on planet Krypton & Superman himself (as an infant & grown man) from exhibiting any super-human-abilities."
He said (last night) that, the reason(s) for Superman's super-human-abilities was due to the 2 factors below:
1. The element(s) that his body was made from.
2. Hydrogen.
Now a large majority of us have seen the movie, "the people living within the galaxy, that contained the planet Krypton, its sun was dying (or used-up all of its Hydrogen (atoms) reserves & was going through its red giant, etc phase producing only Helium (just like out yellow dwarf sun is doing right now & will turning red also & will be growing bigger in about 5 billion years from now) & Superman's father & all of the people living on the planet Krypton (for whatever reasons, wasn't technologically advanced enough to have spaceships for all &) didn't have super-human-abilities & was powerless to prevent their own destruction(s), so Superman's father put his infant son into one spaceship & sent him to our galaxy, where he as an infant immediately started exhibiting super-human-abilities, because of our yellow dwarf sun (star) which is (currently) not dying & is still using Helium (atoms) to produce Hydrogen (atoms), which one of my sister's kids said that, the 2 factors above gave Superman his super-human-abilities & he also said that, the Kryptonite element must contain (to some percentage) Helium (atoms), which (naturally) was the only substance that prevented all of the people on planet Krypton & Superman himself (as an infant & grown man) from exhibiting any super-human-abilities."
QUOTE (barakn Today at 3:33 PM+)
I'm going to do you a favor by assuming that the last part of your sentence starting with "which dictates" is some sort of argument about solar system formation and why planets have the masses and composition that they have. In that case the sentence fragment was intended for the discussion on planet order where you also posted your nonsense about entropy http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...hl=planet+order . Slow down a little bit, try not to mix up your posts between different discussions, and maybe you'll start to make more sense. Although that's a pretty big maybe.
Tell me Barakn, what dictated the mass & elemental composition(s) of the planets / objects from the sun at the center of our solar system & on out below?
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.
Tell me Barakn, what dictated the mass & elemental composition(s) of the planets / objects from the sun at the center of our solar system & on out below?Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.
What I see in our universe, galaxy, solar system & planet is ENTROPY & not ORDER, which is why I voted for Entropy & not order, but of-course we have the rights to see whatever we want to see.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•Posted on Today at 8:42 PM+)
What is heat?
What produces heat?
Why is our universe (space) very cold?
Well the physical definition is the transfer of energy from one body to another due to a difference in temperature. Is that what you are looking for or are you thinking of thermal energy? My guess is that you are thinking of the later which is vibrational and kinetic energy of the molecules and atoms.
Heat isn't really a thing you "produce" since it is a transfer of energy. Maybe I am wrong in this or being too narrow in my definition. Again I think you are thinking of thermal energy. If the latter is what you mean then heat is produced by many different means. I implore the physics gods of the forum to correct or confirm my thinking in this.
It is a vacuum(for the most part) so it will not contain much thermal energy.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•Posted on Today at 8:42 PM+)
Also, as your name says..... chemist, I assumed that you have knowledge in chemistry, therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
I am but a lowly chemist but I do know that your description here is wrong. Strings are more fundamental than elements(atoms) in string theory.
QUOTE (calebthechemist Today at 4:49 PM+)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•Posted on Today at 8:42 PM+)
What is heat?
What produces heat?
Why is our universe (space) very cold?
Well the physical definition is the transfer of energy from one body to another due to a difference in temperature. Is that what you are looking for or are you thinking of thermal energy? My guess is that you are thinking of the later which is vibrational and kinetic energy of the molecules and atoms.
Heat isn't really a thing you "produce" since it is a transfer of energy. Maybe I am wrong in this or being too narrow in my definition. Again I think you are thinking of thermal energy. If the latter is what you mean then heat is produced by many different means. I implore the physics gods of the forum to correct or confirm my thinking in this.
It is a vacuum(for the most part) so it will not contain much thermal energy.
You can produce (different levels of) heat (right now) by rubbing both of your hands together & even to the point of blistering up your hands if you speed-up the oscillation(s).
QUOTE (calebthechemist Today at 4:49 PM+)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•Posted on Today at 8:42 PM+)
Also, as your name says..... chemist, I assumed that you have knowledge in chemistry, therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
I am but a lowly chemist but I do know that your description here is wrong. Strings are more fundamental than elements(atoms) in string theory.
I never said that, Branes (or strings) consist(s) of atoms, but energy, (or heat) the brane itself is simply another form of energy, or heat.
If our universe (regardless of the beginning of the Big-Bang, in the middle, or at the end) was very hot & stayed very hot, I don't believe that our Brane would have coalesced, therefore I believe that, there wouldn't have been a Big-Bang, etc.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 05:42 PM)
What I see in our universe, galaxy, solar system & planet is ENTROPY & not ORDER, which is why I voted for Entropy & not order, but of-course we have the rights to see whatever we want to see.
Yes ~ well, (I) had tried to specify the Universe/Cosmos ~ not the rest so - your gone afar for what your talking about.
As for the rest of you well, enjoy yourselves .....(I)'m'a leaving now.
Pan Pax
(Here too)
As for the rest of you well, enjoy yourselves .....(I)'m'a leaving now.
Pan Pax
(Here too)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 09:36 PM)
Tell me Barakn, what dictated the mass & elemental composition(s) of the planets / objects from the sun at the center of our solar system & on out below?
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.
There you go again, posting to the wrong discussion.
And has anyone mentioned how offensive your abuse of bold type and different font sizes is? It hurts the eyes.
Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.
There you go again, posting to the wrong discussion.
And has anyone mentioned how offensive your abuse of bold type and different font sizes is? It hurts the eyes.
You're correct & I'm sorry about that Mr. Robin Parsons
QUOTE (Barakn Today at 5:40 PM+)
There you go again, posting to the wrong discussion.
And has anyone mentioned how offensive your abuse of bold type and different font sizes is? It hurts the eyes.
Barakn, let us & everyone else who comes to Mr. Robin Parsons's thread show him respect & not go off of his topic.
And has anyone mentioned how offensive your abuse of bold type and different font sizes is? It hurts the eyes.
Barakn, let us & everyone else who comes to Mr. Robin Parsons's thread show him respect & not go off of his topic.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 08:42 PM)
You can produce (different levels of) heat (right now) by rubbing both of your hands together & even to the point of blistering up your hands if you speed-up the oscillation(s).
So you are meaning "heat" as in thermal energy. Ok now we are clear.
So you are meaning "heat" as in thermal energy. Ok now we are clear.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 08:42 PM)
... therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
You said it here. Perhaps you misspoke.
You said it here. Perhaps you misspoke.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 08:42 PM)
If our universe (regardless of the beginning of the Big-Bang, in the middle, or at the end) was very hot & stayed very hot, I don't believe that our Brane would have coalesced, therefore I believe that, there wouldn't have been a Big-Bang, etc.
I am not really sure I understand your statement here. My knowledge of String Theory goes no deeper than The Elegant Universe. I anticipate that the physicists on this site will not be persuaded by this argument against the Big-Bang model.
To get back on topic I would say there is only Entropy since we can define somethings order based on Entropy so the initial question is irrelevant. Maybe I am mistaken and am always willing to learn.
Regards,
Caleb
I am not really sure I understand your statement here. My knowledge of String Theory goes no deeper than The Elegant Universe. I anticipate that the physicists on this site will not be persuaded by this argument against the Big-Bang model.
To get back on topic I would say there is only Entropy since we can define somethings order based on Entropy so the initial question is irrelevant. Maybe I am mistaken and am always willing to learn.
Regards,
Caleb
"ENTROPY"affects all things, don't require any maintenance & is another form of matter energy (or potential heat & work) itself.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 11:31 PM)
"ENTROPY"affects all things, don't require any maintenance & is another form of matter energy (or potential heat & work) itself.
I would ask for an explanation of this buy I am afraid of the answer I would get.
I would ask for an explanation of this buy I am afraid of the answer I would get.
QUOTE (calebthechemist Today at 6:45 PM+)
I would ask for an explanation of this buy I am afraid of the answer I would get.
That statement pertains to the (inevitable) decay (rate) of all matter & thanks to "Stephen Hawking" we know that, ENTROPY even affects (dark matter & energy, or) black holes & they die too.
What I want to do is give "BigDumbWeird" credit for mentioning "Super-Gravity", which I view as having that level of gravitational attraction because it's a wormhole (or conduit) to the "STRING" dimension(s).
I willing to say that thanks to some (future) Nobel prize receiver we'll know that, "ENTROPY" even have dominance in there too.
I view "Black-holes" & "Super-Gravity" as, you opening your front door & you naturally would be subjected to the environment of that other side (without stepping outside) notice how a Black-hole(s) gravitational field lines will always be in proportion with an objects proximity to the singularity & the Strings dimension(s) environment.
That statement pertains to the (inevitable) decay (rate) of all matter & thanks to "Stephen Hawking" we know that, ENTROPY even affects (dark matter & energy, or) black holes & they die too.
What I want to do is give "BigDumbWeird" credit for mentioning "Super-Gravity", which I view as having that level of gravitational attraction because it's a wormhole (or conduit) to the "STRING" dimension(s).
I willing to say that thanks to some (future) Nobel prize receiver we'll know that, "ENTROPY" even have dominance in there too.
I view "Black-holes" & "Super-Gravity" as, you opening your front door & you naturally would be subjected to the environment of that other side (without stepping outside) notice how a Black-hole(s) gravitational field lines will always be in proportion with an objects proximity to the singularity & the Strings dimension(s) environment.
I meant to say that, I believe the Black-hole(s) "Super" gravitational attraction & magnitude(s) within its field line(s) will be proportionate to its mass & to your (continuing) proximity to its singularity, or the environment within the string(s) dimension(s).
I also view the death of the Black-hole(s) as you simply closing your front-door to that environment, as it closes the Black-hole(s) mass decreases & the "Super" gravitational attraction & magnitude(s) decreases as thanks to "ENTROPY" the "String(s)" dimensional door(s) closes until it's 100% closed & the Black-hole(s) die.
I was also thinking about how amazing it's that, also because of "ENTROPY" these "Super-Gravity" wormholes (or door ways) are created by the collapsing of stars over 20 solar masses to form black hole, or again open a door to the "Sting(s)" "Super-Gravity's" dimensional environment.
But, it has yet to be validated (by some future Nobel prize receiver) that, "ENTROPY" has no dominance within the dimension of the "String(s)" & the "String(s)" totally dominates "ENTROPY"
But if you factor in the fact that, our "String, or "Brane" still exist I would have to vote that, "ENTROPY" don't even exist within that dimension & that the "String(s)" & the "Super-gravity" within the "String(s)" dimensional environment reigns supreme.
I believe that, if we (one day somehow) become technologically advanced enough to create a spacecraft that can emit an 100% neutrally charged magnetic fields around the ship & a Nano-body- suit which is programed to also emit an 100% neutrally charged magnetic fields around the suit, we could easily travel through space, Black-holes, even through "Strings" & actually visually see ours & other "Strings" & we'll be able to travel easily double the speed of light, of-course only because of our 100% neutral charge, the second we loss our 100% neutral charge we'll once again only be able to travel (if technology permits) at the normal speed of light, be subjected to the "Strings" Black-hole(s)" "Super-gravity" environment, etc.
Also once again "ENTROPY".
I also view the death of the Black-hole(s) as you simply closing your front-door to that environment, as it closes the Black-hole(s) mass decreases & the "Super" gravitational attraction & magnitude(s) decreases as thanks to "ENTROPY" the "String(s)" dimensional door(s) closes until it's 100% closed & the Black-hole(s) die.
I was also thinking about how amazing it's that, also because of "ENTROPY" these "Super-Gravity" wormholes (or door ways) are created by the collapsing of stars over 20 solar masses to form black hole, or again open a door to the "Sting(s)" "Super-Gravity's" dimensional environment.
But, it has yet to be validated (by some future Nobel prize receiver) that, "ENTROPY" has no dominance within the dimension of the "String(s)" & the "String(s)" totally dominates "ENTROPY"
But if you factor in the fact that, our "String, or "Brane" still exist I would have to vote that, "ENTROPY" don't even exist within that dimension & that the "String(s)" & the "Super-gravity" within the "String(s)" dimensional environment reigns supreme.
I believe that, if we (one day somehow) become technologically advanced enough to create a spacecraft that can emit an 100% neutrally charged magnetic fields around the ship & a Nano-body- suit which is programed to also emit an 100% neutrally charged magnetic fields around the suit, we could easily travel through space, Black-holes, even through "Strings" & actually visually see ours & other "Strings" & we'll be able to travel easily double the speed of light, of-course only because of our 100% neutral charge, the second we loss our 100% neutral charge we'll once again only be able to travel (if technology permits) at the normal speed of light, be subjected to the "Strings" Black-hole(s)" "Super-gravity" environment, etc.
Also once again "ENTROPY".
I am not convinced you really understand anything about entropy. I think you mostly like to read your own writing or are pulling my chain. Either way this is a fruitless conversation as there is no real discussion of physics.
Regards,
Caleb
Regards,
Caleb
You have to look closer, I'll give just one of other examples in physics (which I posted above) the process or "death" caused by "ENTROPY" of any Black-holes we must give thanks again to "(Stephen) Hawking radiation".
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 10:50 PM)
QUOTE (Barakn Today at 5:40 PM+)
There you go again, posting to the wrong discussion.
And has anyone mentioned how offensive your abuse of bold type and different font sizes is? It hurts the eyes.
Barakn, let us & everyone else who comes to Mr. Robin Parsons's thread show him respect & not go off of his topic.
You're blaming me for going off topic? After you burst forth with some bizarre speculation about Superman and asked questions related to the Planet Order forum, all the while using twice the space used of anyone else by using large characters? The topic was entropy and order, I corrected your false statements about entropy and provided links that could have been used to further explore the concept of entropy. I think you are trying to increase this forum's information entropy by providing misinformation.
And Parsons may be mad now but will surely come back to see whether Order or Entropy wins.
You have to look closer, too... I'll give just one of other examples in (theoretical) physics (which I posted above) "String(s)" physics is applied to explain their exist(s).
And as I also said, there's reasons (that exist) why we have not yet been able to visually observed & confirmed that, "ENTROPY" has no dominance in the dimension of the "String(s)", or do (or "Order",or "Entropy").
And has anyone mentioned how offensive your abuse of bold type and different font sizes is? It hurts the eyes.
Barakn, let us & everyone else who comes to Mr. Robin Parsons's thread show him respect & not go off of his topic.
You're blaming me for going off topic? After you burst forth with some bizarre speculation about Superman and asked questions related to the Planet Order forum, all the while using twice the space used of anyone else by using large characters? The topic was entropy and order, I corrected your false statements about entropy and provided links that could have been used to further explore the concept of entropy. I think you are trying to increase this forum's information entropy by providing misinformation.
And Parsons may be mad now but will surely come back to see whether Order or Entropy wins.
You have to look closer, too... I'll give just one of other examples in (theoretical) physics (which I posted above) "String(s)" physics is applied to explain their exist(s).And as I also said, there's reasons (that exist) why we have not yet been able to visually observed & confirmed that, "ENTROPY" has no dominance in the dimension of the "String(s)", or do (or "Order",or "Entropy").
QUOTE
Which one rules?
Entropy is not a law, it is being repealed.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which one rules? |
Entropy is not a law, it is being repealed.
Which one will rule?
Which one will rule?
Order has always governed mass far better that chaos.
The problem is not in recognizing that if life, when it is cold it will move to warmth, or adjust (put on a coat) in an evolutionary form.
What most do not recognize is that energy disassociated to a system is not just blowing away but entangling other mass. Remember energy never just dissolves…… think causality.
Life abuses entropy and this fact is something most do not comprehend and then if you go into the depths of physics each can find it is entropy that damaged Planck…. Hence why planck’s constant is incorrect!
To recognize energy and the entanglement of mass by energy (em) then Einstein’s spooky action at a distance is in fact that gravity between mass. All mass associates by the energy upon the structures versus the mass itself…. See the BEC condensate to provide the experiment evidence.
It’s pretty basic!
QUOTE
Why?
Because the energy between structures is entangled and the either/or is based on life rather than death. Meaning life is purposed to continue.The problem is not in recognizing that if life, when it is cold it will move to warmth, or adjust (put on a coat) in an evolutionary form.
What most do not recognize is that energy disassociated to a system is not just blowing away but entangling other mass. Remember energy never just dissolves…… think causality.
Life abuses entropy and this fact is something most do not comprehend and then if you go into the depths of physics each can find it is entropy that damaged Planck…. Hence why planck’s constant is incorrect!
To recognize energy and the entanglement of mass by energy (em) then Einstein’s spooky action at a distance is in fact that gravity between mass. All mass associates by the energy upon the structures versus the mass itself…. See the BEC condensate to provide the experiment evidence.
It’s pretty basic!
Hi, retard, here's my reply:
I'm not wrong, an element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its bond energy, which will determine its valency number, which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of.
In non - transition elements, valency is determined by the number of bonds which can be formed e.g. sodium has a valency of 1 - if it forms an ionic bond it will loose 1 electron, becoming a cation (Na+). If it forms a covalent bond, 1 electron pair will be shared.
Tell me Gehn, why isn't the Earth a ball of ice, or why is the Earth the mass that it is?
Well, you see, ice is the solid form of water. Earth is almost all, well, earth. I guess you're one of those dumbasses who think that because Earth's surface is mostly water, it's all almost water.
- Gehn
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+Feb 5 2008, 07:24 PM)
I'm not wrong, an element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its bond energy, which will determine its valency number, which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of.
In non - transition elements, valency is determined by the number of bonds which can be formed e.g. sodium has a valency of 1 - if it forms an ionic bond it will loose 1 electron, becoming a cation (Na+). If it forms a covalent bond, 1 electron pair will be shared.
QUOTE
Tell me Gehn, why isn't the Earth a ball of ice, or why is the Earth the mass that it is?
Well, you see, ice is the solid form of water. Earth is almost all, well, earth. I guess you're one of those dumbasses who think that because Earth's surface is mostly water, it's all almost water.
- Gehn
Gehn,
From what I have observed if SHEOL's knowledge of chemistry is anything like his knowledge of thermodynamics he probably doesn't even know what valency is.
Regards,
Caleb
From what I have observed if SHEOL's knowledge of chemistry is anything like his knowledge of thermodynamics he probably doesn't even know what valency is.
Regards,
Caleb
Well, I usually try to abstain from jumping into thread just to point out stupidities, but quite often, my self-control fails. (Being on this forum is like being a kid in a candy shop when it comes to that.)
However, this time I actually have something constructive to add.
Entropy and Order are two extremes of the same measurement. That measurement is precisely a measure of the number of ways in which a system can be re-ordered without changing it's macroscopic properties (Gross electrical charge, gravity, mass, the ratio of constituent particles, etc, etc...) An object such as the sun has a very high entropy, since you can swap the positions of various hydrogen atoms to an enormous degree without changing the sun in even a single macroscopic way. Similarly, the earth has a very high entropy, since you can swap grains of sand and motes of dust and the location of buildings, cars, people, animals and plants to an enormous degree without changing the macroscopic properties of earth.
That being said, Entropy rules the universe, since Order is nothing but a word which describes low-entropy systems.
Now for the stupidities part I mentioned.
All quotes are from SHEOL:
That's backwards, and even after being told as much, you still cling to this not-just-flawed-but-completely-wrong statement.
That's backwards, and even after being told as much, you still cling to this not-just-flawed-but-completely-wrong statement.
I'm not wrong I read the same link, but you must not forget about the "Chemical Equilibrium" which is affected by the proximity to extreme heat, or away from extreme heat.
There is no chemical reaction occurring as water heats from ice to liquid to steam, nor is there a chemical reaction occurring in when the opposite happens.
A completely flawed belief. The valency number and bond energy have nothing to do with heat.
A completely flawed belief. The valency number and bond energy have nothing to do with heat.
Also, as your name says..... chemist, I assumed that you have knowledge in chemistry, therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
Once again, you demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of even elementary physics while trying to make claims about string theory...
Strings aren't made of elements in string theory.
Elements are made of particles which in turn are made of fundamental particles which in turn, are 1-to-whatever-branes in string theory. There are no strings. Only 1-branes, but that's ok, after all, a 1-brane looks like a string.
So you claim you never said it (which you did,) then you reiterate it, then you claim that heat is a fundamental force in physics???
Dude, whatever you're smoking, stop. Or whatever medications you're not taking, start.
So you claim you never said it (which you did,) then you reiterate it, then you claim that heat is a fundamental force in physics???
Dude, whatever you're smoking, stop. Or whatever medications you're not taking, start.
"ENTROPY"affects all things, don't require any maintenance & is another form of matter energy (or potential heat & work) itself.
That doesn't make one bit of sense.
I meant to say that, I believe the Black-hole(s) "Super" gravitational attraction & magnitude(s) within its field line(s) will be proportionate to its mass & to your (continuing) proximity to its singularity, or the environment within the string(s) dimension(s).
If that was anything more than word salad, then you know NOTHING about supergravity. In fact, you don't even know what the word refers to, despite the fact that I previously provided you with the meaning in no uncertain terms.
More of the same word salad as in the last quote.
Funny side show…..
Each are so rapped up in what others suggest that not a one even recognizes the core ignorance causing the idea of entropy; heat and the ‘irreversibility.’ ( a time issue)
What the heck is heat in relation between atom A and B…… Heat is not a property of mass or energy but an ignorant description noted as energy imposing effects to mass.
Energy causes all resonance, all momentum and all association and in every case when you return to any interaction of atom A or B…. it is a wavelength of em….. not sometimes but every time.
Newton offered a frame to motion which has never applied to the micro.
What each may wish to do is isolate what each property described ‘is’ at both the micro and macro versus trying to use ‘laws’ in the incorrect lands.
There is only ONE WAY IT ALL WORKS ….. and the 2nd law of entropy is what ruins our sciences today, via planck…
Have a history lesson:
But we know if we are cold we put on a coat. So the fact that life abuses entropy is ‘stupid easy’ to recognize.
Then to acknowledge most every system in nature has a ‘life’ to it in itself is only determined by how wide the scope is to observe this…. i.e… tectonics or even the weather.
It is our (mans) description that are the cause of the error but common sense sets in with depth of knowledge.
Entropy will be repealed as a universal law. Not that the sciences will quit using the model but that the TOE of existence does not have any application of such an ignorant observational platform.
Life abuses entropy…. It’s a fact!
Do you want proof?
See the BEC… and note how the energy is siphoned off the condensate.
Clear proof that, ‘energy direction is from a cold to hot’ based on the energy associating between the laser and the condensate.
Remember the term… it’s stupid easy!
However, this time I actually have something constructive to add.
Entropy and Order are two extremes of the same measurement. That measurement is precisely a measure of the number of ways in which a system can be re-ordered without changing it's macroscopic properties (Gross electrical charge, gravity, mass, the ratio of constituent particles, etc, etc...) An object such as the sun has a very high entropy, since you can swap the positions of various hydrogen atoms to an enormous degree without changing the sun in even a single macroscopic way. Similarly, the earth has a very high entropy, since you can swap grains of sand and motes of dust and the location of buildings, cars, people, animals and plants to an enormous degree without changing the macroscopic properties of earth.
That being said, Entropy rules the universe, since Order is nothing but a word which describes low-entropy systems.
Now for the stupidities part I mentioned.
All quotes are from SHEOL:
QUOTE
Example of a decrease of entropy : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas).
Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid).
Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid).
That's backwards, and even after being told as much, you still cling to this not-just-flawed-but-completely-wrong statement.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Example of a decrease of entropy : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas). Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid). |
That's backwards, and even after being told as much, you still cling to this not-just-flawed-but-completely-wrong statement.
I'm not wrong I read the same link, but you must not forget about the "Chemical Equilibrium" which is affected by the proximity to extreme heat, or away from extreme heat.
There is no chemical reaction occurring as water heats from ice to liquid to steam, nor is there a chemical reaction occurring in when the opposite happens.
QUOTE
I'm not wrong, an element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its bond energy, which will determine its valency number, which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of.
A completely flawed belief. The valency number and bond energy have nothing to do with heat.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not wrong, an element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its bond energy, which will determine its valency number, which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of. |
A completely flawed belief. The valency number and bond energy have nothing to do with heat.
Also, as your name says..... chemist, I assumed that you have knowledge in chemistry, therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
Once again, you demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of even elementary physics while trying to make claims about string theory...
Strings aren't made of elements in string theory.
Elements are made of particles which in turn are made of fundamental particles which in turn, are 1-to-whatever-branes in string theory. There are no strings. Only 1-branes, but that's ok, after all, a 1-brane looks like a string.
QUOTE
I never said that, Branes (or strings) consist(s) of atoms, but energy, (or heat) the brane itself is simply another form of energy, or heat.
So you claim you never said it (which you did,) then you reiterate it, then you claim that heat is a fundamental force in physics???
Dude, whatever you're smoking, stop. Or whatever medications you're not taking, start.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I never said that, Branes (or strings) consist(s) of atoms, but energy, (or heat) the brane itself is simply another form of energy, or heat. |
So you claim you never said it (which you did,) then you reiterate it, then you claim that heat is a fundamental force in physics???
Dude, whatever you're smoking, stop. Or whatever medications you're not taking, start.
"ENTROPY"affects all things, don't require any maintenance & is another form of matter energy (or potential heat & work) itself.
That doesn't make one bit of sense.
QUOTE
What I want to do is give "BigDumbWeird" credit for mentioning "Super-Gravity", which I view as having that level of gravitational attraction because it's a wormhole (or conduit) to the "STRING" dimension(s).
I willing to say that thanks to some (future) Nobel prize receiver we'll know that, "ENTROPY" even have dominance in there too.
I view "Black-holes" & "Super-Gravity" as, you opening your front door & you naturally would be subjected to the environment of that other side (without stepping outside) notice how a Black-hole(s) gravitational field lines will always be in proportion with an objects proximity to the singularity & the Strings dimension(s) environment.
I willing to say that thanks to some (future) Nobel prize receiver we'll know that, "ENTROPY" even have dominance in there too.
I view "Black-holes" & "Super-Gravity" as, you opening your front door & you naturally would be subjected to the environment of that other side (without stepping outside) notice how a Black-hole(s) gravitational field lines will always be in proportion with an objects proximity to the singularity & the Strings dimension(s) environment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What I want to do is give "BigDumbWeird" credit for mentioning "Super-Gravity", which I view as having that level of gravitational attraction because it's a wormhole (or conduit) to the "STRING" dimension(s). I willing to say that thanks to some (future) Nobel prize receiver we'll know that, "ENTROPY" even have dominance in there too. I view "Black-holes" & "Super-Gravity" as, you opening your front door & you naturally would be subjected to the environment of that other side (without stepping outside) notice how a Black-hole(s) gravitational field lines will always be in proportion with an objects proximity to the singularity & the Strings dimension(s) environment. |
I meant to say that, I believe the Black-hole(s) "Super" gravitational attraction & magnitude(s) within its field line(s) will be proportionate to its mass & to your (continuing) proximity to its singularity, or the environment within the string(s) dimension(s).
If that was anything more than word salad, then you know NOTHING about supergravity. In fact, you don't even know what the word refers to, despite the fact that I previously provided you with the meaning in no uncertain terms.
QUOTE
You have to look closer, too... I'll give just one of other examples in (theoretical) physics (which I posted above) "String(s)" physics is applied to explain their exist(s).
And as I also said, there's reasons (that exist) why we have not yet been able to visually observed & confirmed that, "ENTROPY" has no dominance in the dimension of the "String(s)", or do (or "Order",or "Entropy").
And as I also said, there's reasons (that exist) why we have not yet been able to visually observed & confirmed that, "ENTROPY" has no dominance in the dimension of the "String(s)", or do (or "Order",or "Entropy").
More of the same word salad as in the last quote.
Sheols wrong on the entropy thing.
As far as anything else in this thread goes.
When it comes to the fusion of elements, people always forget about the Photons and Neutrinos emitted.
If I take 4 Protons, and slam them together to make 1 Helium Nucleus (Following, for example, the PPIV Branch) I generate 1 Helium Nucleus, 2 Neutrinos, 2 Positrons, and a Gamma-ray.
So in all honesty, and take some time to think about this, which do you think has more disorder 4 particles, or six particles.
Even if we follow the main chain of the proton-proton cycle, we start with 6 Protons, and produce 2 Neutrinos, 2 Positrons, 2 Gamma rays, 2 Protons, and 1 Helium Nucleus.
Again, think about it, which do you think has more degrees of freedom, more chaos. The six particles you start with, or the nine particles you end up with?
As far as anything else in this thread goes.
When it comes to the fusion of elements, people always forget about the Photons and Neutrinos emitted.
If I take 4 Protons, and slam them together to make 1 Helium Nucleus (Following, for example, the PPIV Branch) I generate 1 Helium Nucleus, 2 Neutrinos, 2 Positrons, and a Gamma-ray.
So in all honesty, and take some time to think about this, which do you think has more disorder 4 particles, or six particles.
Even if we follow the main chain of the proton-proton cycle, we start with 6 Protons, and produce 2 Neutrinos, 2 Positrons, 2 Gamma rays, 2 Protons, and 1 Helium Nucleus.
Again, think about it, which do you think has more degrees of freedom, more chaos. The six particles you start with, or the nine particles you end up with?
Trippy,
I struggled, and still do at times, with the concept of entropy. Sometimes it is easy to picture the "disorder" but often it is very counterintuitive. However, when I learned about microstates and more importantly degrees of freedom everything made more sense. Your description is a perfect example of how not looking at the entirety of the data will lead to a wrong conclusion. One could look and see that you are going from two hydrogens to 1 helium in nuclear fusion and assume there was a decrease in entropy because things are becoming "more ordered" however looking at how you increased the number of particles and degrees of freedom. and so an increase in entropy makes things make more sense.. I am sure this concept is child's play to most of you on this forum but it was definitely an epiphany for me.
Regards,
Caleb
I struggled, and still do at times, with the concept of entropy. Sometimes it is easy to picture the "disorder" but often it is very counterintuitive. However, when I learned about microstates and more importantly degrees of freedom everything made more sense. Your description is a perfect example of how not looking at the entirety of the data will lead to a wrong conclusion. One could look and see that you are going from two hydrogens to 1 helium in nuclear fusion and assume there was a decrease in entropy because things are becoming "more ordered" however looking at how you increased the number of particles and degrees of freedom. and so an increase in entropy makes things make more sense.. I am sure this concept is child's play to most of you on this forum but it was definitely an epiphany for me.
Regards,
Caleb
QUOTE (calebthechemist+Feb 7 2008, 07:09 PM)
Trippy,
I struggled, and still do at times, with the concept of entropy. Sometimes it is easy to picture the "disorder" but often it is very counterintuitive. However, when I learned about microstates and more importantly degrees of freedom everything made more sense. Your description is a perfect example of how not looking at the entirety of the data will lead to a wrong conclusion. One could look and see that you are going from two hydrogens to 1 helium in nuclear fusion and assume there was a decrease in entropy because things are becoming "more ordered" however looking at how you increased the number of particles and degrees of freedom. and so an increase in entropy makes things make more sense.. I am sure this concept is child's play to most of you on this forum but it was definitely an epiphany for me.
Regards,
Caleb
That's the thing that most people struggle with actually, they forget that things like photons count when you're working out 'how much entropy'.
They look at things like a cooling lump of white hot iron and say "See, the particles were moving faster then than they are now at room temperature, therefore they're more ordered" they neglect to take into account that the white hot lump of iron has emitted how many photons?
The same argument applies with any self organizing system, including in evolution.
If I were to go and tidy my room right now, on the face of it, it might seem like i'm violating the conservation of entropy, but I'm generating how much extra body heat, and burning how much fuel in the process? Not to mention the amount of kinetic energy I'm sinking directly to the atmosphere merely by my movements.
I've made this point in another thread, but even an open system can be considered closed if you define the boundaries appropriatly, and examine it over an appropriate period of time.
When people think they've violated the conservation of entropy, usually all it means is they've forgotten to take something into account.
(No doubt Sheol will pipe up any time soon and accuse me of being a big dumb weirdo, but hey, that's a label I can live with).
I struggled, and still do at times, with the concept of entropy. Sometimes it is easy to picture the "disorder" but often it is very counterintuitive. However, when I learned about microstates and more importantly degrees of freedom everything made more sense. Your description is a perfect example of how not looking at the entirety of the data will lead to a wrong conclusion. One could look and see that you are going from two hydrogens to 1 helium in nuclear fusion and assume there was a decrease in entropy because things are becoming "more ordered" however looking at how you increased the number of particles and degrees of freedom. and so an increase in entropy makes things make more sense.. I am sure this concept is child's play to most of you on this forum but it was definitely an epiphany for me.
Regards,
Caleb
That's the thing that most people struggle with actually, they forget that things like photons count when you're working out 'how much entropy'.
They look at things like a cooling lump of white hot iron and say "See, the particles were moving faster then than they are now at room temperature, therefore they're more ordered" they neglect to take into account that the white hot lump of iron has emitted how many photons?
The same argument applies with any self organizing system, including in evolution.
If I were to go and tidy my room right now, on the face of it, it might seem like i'm violating the conservation of entropy, but I'm generating how much extra body heat, and burning how much fuel in the process? Not to mention the amount of kinetic energy I'm sinking directly to the atmosphere merely by my movements.
I've made this point in another thread, but even an open system can be considered closed if you define the boundaries appropriatly, and examine it over an appropriate period of time.
When people think they've violated the conservation of entropy, usually all it means is they've forgotten to take something into account.
(No doubt Sheol will pipe up any time soon and accuse me of being a big dumb weirdo, but hey, that's a label I can live with).
first law of thermodynamics rules entire universe.......second law rules only matter
http://www.iigss.net/Scientific-Inquiry/Ju...-Fiscaletti.pdf
in black holes matter transform back into quanta of space QS
QS have no entropy are basic quanta of energy never created never destroyed
in AGN space explodes back into elementary particles that form matter
transformation space-matter-space-matter is permanent,l universe has no end and no beginning is eternal - la say a-temporal
http://www.iigss.net/Scientific-Inquiry/Ju...-Fiscaletti.pdf
in black holes matter transform back into quanta of space QS
QS have no entropy are basic quanta of energy never created never destroyed
in AGN space explodes back into elementary particles that form matter
transformation space-matter-space-matter is permanent,l universe has no end and no beginning is eternal - la say a-temporal
QUOTE (barakn+Feb 6 2008, 03:28 AM)
And Parsons may be mad now but will surely come back to see whether Order or Entropy wins.
Sorry - Not angry - (Most assuredly not 'mad' as that is 'insane') more like amused.
Higher numerical order atoms are ~ organizationally ~ more ordered structures-states than any lower numerical elements.
Carbon is less organized the Uranium, (Structurally) so is the Universe Building greater Order or is it becoming more dis-ordered?
Pan Pax
(have fun!)
Higher numerical order atoms are ~ organizationally ~ more ordered structures-states than any lower numerical elements.
Carbon is less organized the Uranium, (Structurally) so is the Universe Building greater Order or is it becoming more dis-ordered?
Pan Pax
(have fun!)
Funny side show…..
Each are so rapped up in what others suggest that not a one even recognizes the core ignorance causing the idea of entropy; heat and the ‘irreversibility.’ ( a time issue)
What the heck is heat in relation between atom A and B…… Heat is not a property of mass or energy but an ignorant description noted as energy imposing effects to mass.
Energy causes all resonance, all momentum and all association and in every case when you return to any interaction of atom A or B…. it is a wavelength of em….. not sometimes but every time.
Newton offered a frame to motion which has never applied to the micro.
What each may wish to do is isolate what each property described ‘is’ at both the micro and macro versus trying to use ‘laws’ in the incorrect lands.
There is only ONE WAY IT ALL WORKS ….. and the 2nd law of entropy is what ruins our sciences today, via planck…
Have a history lesson:
QUOTE
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck was deeply interested in - even obsessed with - the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law (in one of its many versions), no process is possible in which the only result is the transfer of heat from a colder to a hotter body. With the help of the concept of entropy, introduced by Rudolf Clausius in 1865, the law can be reformulated to state that the entropy of an isolated system always increases or remains constant.
Born in 1858 as the son of a professor of jurisprudence, Planck was appointed professor of physics at the University of Berlin in 1889. His doctoral dissertation from the University of Munich dealt with the second law, which was also the subject of most of his work until about 1905. Planck's thoughts centred on the concept of entropy and how to understand "irreversibility" on the basis of the absolute validity of the entropy law - the version of the second law of thermodynamics formulated in terms of the entropy concept.
In the 1890s the debate about the second law centred on the statistical (or probabilistic) interpretation that Ludwig Boltzmann had originally proposed back in 1872 and expanded in 1877. According to Boltzmann's molecular-mechanical interpretation, the entropy of a system is the collective result of molecular motions. The second law is valid only in a statistical sense. Boltzmann's theory, which presupposed the existence of atoms and molecules, was challenged by Wilhelm Ostwald and other "energeticists", who wanted to free physics from the notion of atoms and base it on energy and related quantities.
Born in 1858 as the son of a professor of jurisprudence, Planck was appointed professor of physics at the University of Berlin in 1889. His doctoral dissertation from the University of Munich dealt with the second law, which was also the subject of most of his work until about 1905. Planck's thoughts centred on the concept of entropy and how to understand "irreversibility" on the basis of the absolute validity of the entropy law - the version of the second law of thermodynamics formulated in terms of the entropy concept.
In the 1890s the debate about the second law centred on the statistical (or probabilistic) interpretation that Ludwig Boltzmann had originally proposed back in 1872 and expanded in 1877. According to Boltzmann's molecular-mechanical interpretation, the entropy of a system is the collective result of molecular motions. The second law is valid only in a statistical sense. Boltzmann's theory, which presupposed the existence of atoms and molecules, was challenged by Wilhelm Ostwald and other "energeticists", who wanted to free physics from the notion of atoms and base it on energy and related quantities.
But we know if we are cold we put on a coat. So the fact that life abuses entropy is ‘stupid easy’ to recognize.
Then to acknowledge most every system in nature has a ‘life’ to it in itself is only determined by how wide the scope is to observe this…. i.e… tectonics or even the weather.
It is our (mans) description that are the cause of the error but common sense sets in with depth of knowledge.
Entropy will be repealed as a universal law. Not that the sciences will quit using the model but that the TOE of existence does not have any application of such an ignorant observational platform.
Life abuses entropy…. It’s a fact!
Do you want proof?
See the BEC… and note how the energy is siphoned off the condensate.
Clear proof that, ‘energy direction is from a cold to hot’ based on the energy associating between the laser and the condensate.
Remember the term… it’s stupid easy!
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Feb 8 2008, 03:11 AM)
Sorry - Not angry - (Most assuredly not 'mad' as that is 'insane') more like amused.
Higher numerical order atoms are ~ organizationally ~ more ordered structures-states than any lower numerical elements.
Carbon is less organized the Uranium, (Structurally) so is the Universe Building greater Order or is it becoming more dis-ordered?
Pan Pax
(have fun!)
Actually, according to the current paradigm, a uranium nucleus has more degrees of freedom then a carbon nucleus.
Even without invoking the current paradigm this is so, after all, which has more degrees of freedom? A pile containing 6 red marbles and 6 blue marbles, or a pile containing 92 red marbles and 146 blue marbles.
As I said earier, it's becoming more disordered, because in creating a single helium nucleus from 6 protons, you create 9 particles (including the helium nucleus).
Higher numerical order atoms are ~ organizationally ~ more ordered structures-states than any lower numerical elements.
Carbon is less organized the Uranium, (Structurally) so is the Universe Building greater Order or is it becoming more dis-ordered?
Pan Pax
(have fun!)
Actually, according to the current paradigm, a uranium nucleus has more degrees of freedom then a carbon nucleus.
Even without invoking the current paradigm this is so, after all, which has more degrees of freedom? A pile containing 6 red marbles and 6 blue marbles, or a pile containing 92 red marbles and 146 blue marbles.
As I said earier, it's becoming more disordered, because in creating a single helium nucleus from 6 protons, you create 9 particles (including the helium nucleus).
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 8 2008, 03:39 AM)
Funny side show…..
Each are so rapped up in what others suggest that not a one even recognizes the core ignorance causing the idea of entropy; heat and the ‘irreversibility.’ ( a time issue)
Speaking of being ignorant and wrapped up in your own ideas...
Each are so rapped up in what others suggest that not a one even recognizes the core ignorance causing the idea of entropy; heat and the ‘irreversibility.’ ( a time issue)
Speaking of being ignorant and wrapped up in your own ideas...
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 8 2008, 03:39 AM)
But we know if we are cold we put on a coat. So the fact that life abuses entropy is ‘stupid easy’ to recognize.
Yeah, you're igmoring the heat produced.
Yeah, you're igmoring the heat produced.
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 8 2008, 03:39 AM)
See the BEC… and note how the energy is siphoned off the condensate.
Clear proof that, ‘energy direction is from a cold to hot’ based on the energy associating between the laser and the condensate.
Remember the term… it’s stupid easy!
And how much heat is produced, and how much work is done by the LASER's before the beam even leaves the machine? Again, you're not considering the whole story.
Clear proof that, ‘energy direction is from a cold to hot’ based on the energy associating between the laser and the condensate.
Remember the term… it’s stupid easy!
And how much heat is produced, and how much work is done by the LASER's before the beam even leaves the machine? Again, you're not considering the whole story.
QUOTE
Actually, according to the current paradigm,
An honest man… thanksQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Actually, according to the current paradigm, |
An honest man… thanks
a uranium nucleus has more degrees of freedom then a carbon nucleus.
a uranium nucleus has more degrees of freedom then a carbon nucleus.
Ok then if I have a pound of U versus a pound of C … which is easier to move?….. ‘p/s please do not put a pound of U-235 in one spot… could be quite enlightening….’
QUOTE
Even without invoking the current paradigm this is so, after all, which has more degrees of freedom?
I disagree….QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even without invoking the current paradigm this is so, after all, which has more degrees of freedom? |
I disagree….
A pile containing 6 red marbles and 6 blue marbles, or a pile containing 92 red marbles and 146 blue marbles.
A pile containing 6 red marbles and 6 blue marbles, or a pile containing 92 red marbles and 146 blue marbles.
Or how about a pile of ‘x’ energy in one spot or Xy energy in one spot…. Mass is simply energy affixed in time. Basically what e=mc2 means, correct?
Rather than think mass (marbles) are isolated forms…. As we know they are not …. In other words, not a one marble is going anywhere unless a cause is imposed…. SO the U is far more fixed in constitute to order than a C atom. Heck a C associates far more readily to other mass by variant energy then just about any element out there. The beast… 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons……. How does it feel to be branded with knowledge on your (fore) head?
You were fair with your usage of the current paradigm all I am offering is a Socratic approach to observe the obvious.
Rather than think mass (marbles) are isolated forms…. As we know they are not …. In other words, not a one marble is going anywhere unless a cause is imposed…. SO the U is far more fixed in constitute to order than a C atom. Heck a C associates far more readily to other mass by variant energy then just about any element out there. The beast… 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons……. How does it feel to be branded with knowledge on your (fore) head?
QUOTE
As I said earier, it's becoming more disordered, because in creating a single helium nucleus from 6 protons, you create 9 particles (including the helium nucleus).
I disagree…. Again based on the premise….. once you begin your intended creation you had to invoke a whole bunch of order to the environment (the experiment)…..You were fair with your usage of the current paradigm all I am offering is a Socratic approach to observe the obvious.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 7 2008, 05:25 PM)
Actually, according to the current paradigm, a uranium nucleus has more degrees of freedom then a carbon nucleus.
Even without invoking the current paradigm this is so, after all, which has more degrees of freedom? A pile containing 6 red marbles and 6 blue marbles, or a pile containing 92 red marbles and 146 blue marbles.
As I said earier, it's becoming more disordered, because in creating a single helium nucleus from 6 protons, you create 9 particles (including the helium nucleus).
Trippy,
I am not super up to date with atomic theory. What exactly is the current paradigm? I am assuming it must allow for movement of protons and neutrons within the nucleus. I think unfortunately the lump of little tightly packed balls has been hammered into my head so much I can't help but think of it. So when I think of components of the nucleus as stationary I am thinking it is more ordered than a smaller nucleus.
Yeah we could say a heat pump violates the 2nd law too if we ignore the part where you plug it in.
Regards,
Caleb
Even without invoking the current paradigm this is so, after all, which has more degrees of freedom? A pile containing 6 red marbles and 6 blue marbles, or a pile containing 92 red marbles and 146 blue marbles.
As I said earier, it's becoming more disordered, because in creating a single helium nucleus from 6 protons, you create 9 particles (including the helium nucleus).
Trippy,
I am not super up to date with atomic theory. What exactly is the current paradigm? I am assuming it must allow for movement of protons and neutrons within the nucleus. I think unfortunately the lump of little tightly packed balls has been hammered into my head so much I can't help but think of it. So when I think of components of the nucleus as stationary I am thinking it is more ordered than a smaller nucleus.
QUOTE
And how much heat is produced, and how much work is done by the LASER's before the beam even leaves the machine? Again, you're not considering the whole story.
Yeah we could say a heat pump violates the 2nd law too if we ignore the part where you plug it in.
Regards,
Caleb
How is observing heat as being ridiculous such a bad thing?
Is heat a ‘description’ of em upon mass? Yes or No!
So basically if a person puts on a jacket you are observing the energy the person used and associated in order to share the cause? OK… so the observance to an increased environment is how you shared that there was a cause.
Sound familiar ….. ‘to reduce the entropic or uncertainties of a system, simply observe the associated energy.’
SO when you suggest a rock is cooling, please be certain the environment and the associated energy between the structures is observed otherwise the experiment is not observing like systems.
No …. It had a job and did well, but that is not the argument… the item to observe is that energy was used to remove energy from mass, directly!
From a ‘cold to hot’ path … not much to look at but reality……
The question is does energy increase a propensity to associate over above the mass itself? The answer is absolutely!
SO to have a 'direction' based on the energy is the correct idea to observe versus thinking mass follows chaos as a rule.
Is heat a ‘description’ of em upon mass? Yes or No!
So basically if a person puts on a jacket you are observing the energy the person used and associated in order to share the cause? OK… so the observance to an increased environment is how you shared that there was a cause.
Sound familiar ….. ‘to reduce the entropic or uncertainties of a system, simply observe the associated energy.’
SO when you suggest a rock is cooling, please be certain the environment and the associated energy between the structures is observed otherwise the experiment is not observing like systems.
QUOTE
And how much heat is produced, and how much work is done by the LASER's before the beam even leaves the machine?
Cooled the BEC correct? Was the laser there to remove a tattoo?No …. It had a job and did well, but that is not the argument… the item to observe is that energy was used to remove energy from mass, directly!
From a ‘cold to hot’ path … not much to look at but reality……
The question is does energy increase a propensity to associate over above the mass itself? The answer is absolutely!
SO to have a 'direction' based on the energy is the correct idea to observe versus thinking mass follows chaos as a rule.
QUOTE (calebthechemist+Feb 8 2008, 07:57 AM)
Trippy,
I am not super up to date with atomic theory. What exactly is the current paradigm? I am assuming it must allow for movement of protons and neutrons within the nucleus. I think unfortunately the lump of little tightly packed balls has been hammered into my head so much I can't help but think of it. So when I think of components of the nucleus as stationary I am thinking it is more ordered than a smaller nucleus.
Don't have a whole lot of time, on my lunch break.
But my understanding of the current paradigm is that it's the 'nuclear shell theory' essentialy, Nucleons exist in discrete shells, not dissimilar from electron orbitals.
Essentially, this theory allows transitions from more energetic states to less energetic states, in much the same way as electrons around the nucleus, (for example gamma ray decay of Cobalt-60) this theory also explains the observation of so-called 'magic numbers' in the periodic table (I think the explanation is, essentialy, that these so called 'islands of stability that the magic numbers represent are due to full or half full nuclear shells).
Does that help?
I am not super up to date with atomic theory. What exactly is the current paradigm? I am assuming it must allow for movement of protons and neutrons within the nucleus. I think unfortunately the lump of little tightly packed balls has been hammered into my head so much I can't help but think of it. So when I think of components of the nucleus as stationary I am thinking it is more ordered than a smaller nucleus.
Don't have a whole lot of time, on my lunch break.
But my understanding of the current paradigm is that it's the 'nuclear shell theory' essentialy, Nucleons exist in discrete shells, not dissimilar from electron orbitals.
Essentially, this theory allows transitions from more energetic states to less energetic states, in much the same way as electrons around the nucleus, (for example gamma ray decay of Cobalt-60) this theory also explains the observation of so-called 'magic numbers' in the periodic table (I think the explanation is, essentialy, that these so called 'islands of stability that the magic numbers represent are due to full or half full nuclear shells).
Does that help?
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 8 2008, 08:06 AM)
Cooled the BEC correct? Was the laser there to remove a tattoo?
No …. It had a job and did well, but that is not the argument… the item to observe is that energy was used to remove energy from mass, directly!
From a ‘cold to hot’ path … not much to look at but reality……
You do actually understand what you're talking about, don't you?
Apparently not.
IN the context of Physics, work is a measure of energy, specifically it's a measure of the energy used by the system.
When dealing with a refrigerator, for example (or a heat-pump), you're forcing heat energy from a cold area to a hot area, precisely the situation you are claiming violates the conservation of energy.
The point you're ignoring however, is that in order for a refrigerator to move (for example) 5kw of heat energy from the fridge to the surrounding environment, most fridge motors will do 6-8kw worth of work.
It's exactly the same with the LASER and the BEC. The LASER might suck a few mw worth of energy out of the BEC, but, the LASER it'self will generate a few kw worth of heat energy in the process.
This nonesnse you were spouting about jobs makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
No …. It had a job and did well, but that is not the argument… the item to observe is that energy was used to remove energy from mass, directly!
From a ‘cold to hot’ path … not much to look at but reality……
You do actually understand what you're talking about, don't you?
Apparently not.
IN the context of Physics, work is a measure of energy, specifically it's a measure of the energy used by the system.
When dealing with a refrigerator, for example (or a heat-pump), you're forcing heat energy from a cold area to a hot area, precisely the situation you are claiming violates the conservation of energy.
The point you're ignoring however, is that in order for a refrigerator to move (for example) 5kw of heat energy from the fridge to the surrounding environment, most fridge motors will do 6-8kw worth of work.
It's exactly the same with the LASER and the BEC. The LASER might suck a few mw worth of energy out of the BEC, but, the LASER it'self will generate a few kw worth of heat energy in the process.
This nonesnse you were spouting about jobs makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
@trippy
Might want to measure energy in KW-hr or joules. But, the general concepts are correct.
@ALL
Put a cold block in a warm room. The block becomes warmer. We say that we heated it up. It absorbed heat energy. It is hotter than it was. Heat transfer occurred. It is now in equilibrium with the room. It is now radiating and absorbing at the same rate, so, currently, there is no net heat transfer.
Say we cool the room down. Now, the block is hotter than the room. It still radiates but absorbs less until it is in equilibrium again. Heat transfer occurred.
We can calculate all this based on heat transfer. Thermodynamics is all about heat transfer.
So, how can you say heat is not "real". Sure, it is all about energy. But, the energy transferred between two things because of a difference in temperature is, by convention, called heat.
Might want to measure energy in KW-hr or joules. But, the general concepts are correct.
@ALL
Put a cold block in a warm room. The block becomes warmer. We say that we heated it up. It absorbed heat energy. It is hotter than it was. Heat transfer occurred. It is now in equilibrium with the room. It is now radiating and absorbing at the same rate, so, currently, there is no net heat transfer.
Say we cool the room down. Now, the block is hotter than the room. It still radiates but absorbs less until it is in equilibrium again. Heat transfer occurred.
We can calculate all this based on heat transfer. Thermodynamics is all about heat transfer.
So, how can you say heat is not "real". Sure, it is all about energy. But, the energy transferred between two things because of a difference in temperature is, by convention, called heat.
universe is an open system with entropy zero
the question above (is more order or entropy) is a wrong question
the question above (is more order or entropy) is a wrong question
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Feb 8 2008, 10:48 PM)
@trippy
Might want to measure energy in KW-hr or joules. But, the general concepts are correct.
@ALL
Put a cold block in a warm room. The block becomes warmer. We say that we heated it up. It absorbed heat energy. It is hotter than it was. Heat transfer occurred. It is now in equilibrium with the room. It is now radiating and absorbing at the same rate, so, currently, there is no net heat transfer.
Say we cool the room down. Now, the block is hotter than the room. It still radiates but absorbs less until it is in equilibrium again. Heat transfer occurred.
We can calculate all this based on heat transfer. Thermodynamics is all about heat transfer.
So, how can you say heat is not "real". Sure, it is all about energy. But, the energy transferred between two things because of a difference in temperature is, by convention, called heat.
i'm going to be polite, because although (to me) the post comes across as condescending, my experience of you tells me that that's just careless wording on your part, and I really can't be arsed getting into it with you (yet again).
actually, i meant to say joules, but for some reason i systematically replaced kJ with kw.
bizzare.
Might want to measure energy in KW-hr or joules. But, the general concepts are correct.
@ALL
Put a cold block in a warm room. The block becomes warmer. We say that we heated it up. It absorbed heat energy. It is hotter than it was. Heat transfer occurred. It is now in equilibrium with the room. It is now radiating and absorbing at the same rate, so, currently, there is no net heat transfer.
Say we cool the room down. Now, the block is hotter than the room. It still radiates but absorbs less until it is in equilibrium again. Heat transfer occurred.
We can calculate all this based on heat transfer. Thermodynamics is all about heat transfer.
So, how can you say heat is not "real". Sure, it is all about energy. But, the energy transferred between two things because of a difference in temperature is, by convention, called heat.
i'm going to be polite, because although (to me) the post comes across as condescending, my experience of you tells me that that's just careless wording on your part, and I really can't be arsed getting into it with you (yet again).
actually, i meant to say joules, but for some reason i systematically replaced kJ with kw.
bizzare.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 8 2008, 10:20 AM)
i'm going to be polite, because although (to me) the post comes across as condescending, my experience of you tells me that that's just careless wording on your part, and I really can't be arsed getting into it with you (yet again).
actually, i meant to say joules, but for some reason i systematically replaced kJ with kw.
bizzare.
trippy
it is quite clear you are not being scientific at all
Have you read anything about the BEC?
this is for kids and you
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html
after you read thru the material then try again.....
I don;t play games and have no reason to mislead.... if you wnat experimental evidence it takes integrity to comprehend what you are reading....
Light being energy rather than joules is the premise... everything works from there....
Energy is not a potential as wiki described otherwise Planck's h=fv... which most all of physics is based from is not a potential... just as e=mc2 is not a potential as wiki described
so either you grow with knowledge by integrity or you don't....
deal with it
actually, i meant to say joules, but for some reason i systematically replaced kJ with kw.
bizzare.
trippy
it is quite clear you are not being scientific at all
Have you read anything about the BEC?
this is for kids and you
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html
after you read thru the material then try again.....
I don;t play games and have no reason to mislead.... if you wnat experimental evidence it takes integrity to comprehend what you are reading....
Light being energy rather than joules is the premise... everything works from there....
Energy is not a potential as wiki described otherwise Planck's h=fv... which most all of physics is based from is not a potential... just as e=mc2 is not a potential as wiki described
so either you grow with knowledge by integrity or you don't....
deal with it
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 9 2008, 03:33 AM)
trippy
it is quite clear you are not being scientific at all
Have you read anything about the BEC?
this is for kids and you
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html
after you read thru the material then try again.....
I don;t play games and have no reason to mislead.... if you wnat experimental evidence it takes integrity to comprehend what you are reading....
Light being energy rather than joules is the premise... everything works from there....
Energy is not a potential as wiki described otherwise Planck's h=fv... which most all of physics is based from is not a potential... just as e=mc2 is not a potential as wiki described
so either you grow with knowledge by integrity or you don't....
deal with it
Yes, I have done much reading, in fact the Physics department I was enroled at recently is very heavily involved in BEC.
You, however, are completely failing to grasp my simple point.
The BEC itself does not represent the entirety of the environment, or system, it represents a small part of it.
You do actually have at least some idea how LASER's produce light right?
It invlves the generation of heat in a material removed from the BEC, sure, we can bounce the LASER light around inside a fibre optic tube to move it to where we need it, but ultimately, the LASER, at it's source, generates heat, the same as any incandesant lightbulb. That heat increases the Entropy of it's environment (I've actually worked with the Argon LASERs in my chemistry department), and because the LASERs are being used to lower the Entropy of the BEC, when calculating the over all change of entropy, the change of entropy at the source of the LASER must also be taken into account.
I'm not the one being un-scientific here.
According to what you're saying, as Caleb has already pointed out, a Heatpump violates the conservation of Entropy because it decreases the entropy of the room it's cooling (as does any A/C unit, or your fridge for that matter).
it is quite clear you are not being scientific at all
Have you read anything about the BEC?
this is for kids and you
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html
after you read thru the material then try again.....
I don;t play games and have no reason to mislead.... if you wnat experimental evidence it takes integrity to comprehend what you are reading....
Light being energy rather than joules is the premise... everything works from there....
Energy is not a potential as wiki described otherwise Planck's h=fv... which most all of physics is based from is not a potential... just as e=mc2 is not a potential as wiki described
so either you grow with knowledge by integrity or you don't....
deal with it
Yes, I have done much reading, in fact the Physics department I was enroled at recently is very heavily involved in BEC.
You, however, are completely failing to grasp my simple point.
The BEC itself does not represent the entirety of the environment, or system, it represents a small part of it.
You do actually have at least some idea how LASER's produce light right?
It invlves the generation of heat in a material removed from the BEC, sure, we can bounce the LASER light around inside a fibre optic tube to move it to where we need it, but ultimately, the LASER, at it's source, generates heat, the same as any incandesant lightbulb. That heat increases the Entropy of it's environment (I've actually worked with the Argon LASERs in my chemistry department), and because the LASERs are being used to lower the Entropy of the BEC, when calculating the over all change of entropy, the change of entropy at the source of the LASER must also be taken into account.
I'm not the one being un-scientific here.
According to what you're saying, as Caleb has already pointed out, a Heatpump violates the conservation of Entropy because it decreases the entropy of the room it's cooling (as does any A/C unit, or your fridge for that matter).
Trippy,
Thank you for the explanation. I also did some reading up on my own and I think it makes more sense now. I will do further research to make sure I am not just fooling myself.
Regards,
Caleb
Thank you for the explanation. I also did some reading up on my own and I think it makes more sense now. I will do further research to make sure I am not just fooling myself.
Regards,
Caleb
I wish I could live in Bishadi's universe. If you don't like something just ignore it. Now that is my kind of science. It makes things so much easier. Next time I do a synthesis and the molecule isn't quite right I am going to just ignore the part that is wrong and move on! My productivity will go through the roof!
QUOTE (Bishadi+Feb 7 2008, 02:50 PM)
(SNIP) Or how about a pile of ‘x’ energy in one spot or Xy energy in one spot…. Mass is simply energy affixed in time. Basically what e=mc2 means, correct? (SNoP)
Agree with that one.
O.K. so lets change it from U 235 to iron at 26 with 55.8 'particles'. 26 protons and ~ 30 neutrons.
And (I) had Stated Structurally more ordered.
The current paradigm for all of this may just change a little bit ...soon, and what about the mass defect, (Wiki) the energy that appears as missing from the function.
And ~ about the entire Universe, it is a closed system and contiguous.
Pan Pax
O.K. so lets change it from U 235 to iron at 26 with 55.8 'particles'. 26 protons and ~ 30 neutrons.
And (I) had Stated Structurally more ordered.
The current paradigm for all of this may just change a little bit ...soon, and what about the mass defect, (Wiki) the energy that appears as missing from the function.
And ~ about the entire Universe, it is a closed system and contiguous.
Pan Pax
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Feb 10 2008, 01:40 AM)
Agree with that one.
O.K. so lets change it from U 235 to iron at 26 with 55.8 'particles'. 26 protons and ~ 30 neutrons.
And (I) had Stated Structurally more ordered.
The current paradigm for all of this may just change a little bit ...soon, and what about the mass defect, (Wiki) the energy that appears as missing from the function.
And ~ about the entire Universe, it is a closed system and contiguous.
Pan Pax
Irrelevant.
Iron-56 may be more tightly bound then Carbon-12, but it still has 56 particles in it's nucleus as opposed to 12. It still has more degrees of freedom then Carbon-12.
On top of that, it might be more tightly bound, but it's not rigidly bound.
It's not that hard, which has more ways it can be arranged, a pile of 6 red marbles and 6 blue marbles? Or a pile with 26 red marbles and 30 blue marbles?
Even if you glue the marbles in the second pile together with liquid nails, this is still true.
O.K. so lets change it from U 235 to iron at 26 with 55.8 'particles'. 26 protons and ~ 30 neutrons.
And (I) had Stated Structurally more ordered.
The current paradigm for all of this may just change a little bit ...soon, and what about the mass defect, (Wiki) the energy that appears as missing from the function.
And ~ about the entire Universe, it is a closed system and contiguous.
Pan Pax
Irrelevant.
Iron-56 may be more tightly bound then Carbon-12, but it still has 56 particles in it's nucleus as opposed to 12. It still has more degrees of freedom then Carbon-12.
On top of that, it might be more tightly bound, but it's not rigidly bound.
It's not that hard, which has more ways it can be arranged, a pile of 6 red marbles and 6 blue marbles? Or a pile with 26 red marbles and 30 blue marbles?
Even if you glue the marbles in the second pile together with liquid nails, this is still true.
It is ~ non the less ~ a more ordered Structure.
Pan Pax
Pan Pax
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
Well, I usually try to abstain from jumping into thread just to point out stupidities, but quite often, my self-control fails. (Being on this forum is like being a kid in a candy shop when it comes to that.).
To be totally impartial to what you & I've said, for grading you & I on what you & I'd "said" & "know", I will keep score(s).
To be totally impartial to what you & I've said, for grading you & I on what you & I'd "said" & "know", I will keep score(s).
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
However, this time I actually have something constructive to add.
Entropy and Order are two extremes of the same measurement. That measurement is precisely a measure of the number of ways in which a system can be re-ordered without changing it's macroscopic properties
You're wrong, you've mixed-up "Entropy" with "Enthalpy" (or a open system with a closed system).
Entropy is viewed as the measure of (only) two forms of disordered, or chaotic systems (a decrease of "thermodynamic heat", or energy) cold, or (a increase of "thermodynamic heat", or energy) hot.
Heat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Gibbs Free Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_energy
Enthalpy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy
You also said about order, "...are two extremes of the same measurement..." you're wrong, because order (of anything, even in religions) is referred to & viewed as a "Steady-State" (or a perfect equilibrium state) in which no change(s) has occurred to any (microscopic & macroscopic) object(s).
Order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order
Equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium
Thermodynamic Equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
Steady State (disambiguation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_...sambiguation%29
Entropy and Order are two extremes of the same measurement. That measurement is precisely a measure of the number of ways in which a system can be re-ordered without changing it's macroscopic properties
You're wrong, you've mixed-up "Entropy" with "Enthalpy" (or a open system with a closed system).
Entropy is viewed as the measure of (only) two forms of disordered, or chaotic systems (a decrease of "thermodynamic heat", or energy) cold, or (a increase of "thermodynamic heat", or energy) hot.
Heat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
Gibbs Free Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_energy
Enthalpy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy
You also said about order, "...are two extremes of the same measurement..." you're wrong, because order (of anything, even in religions) is referred to & viewed as a "Steady-State" (or a perfect equilibrium state) in which no change(s) has occurred to any (microscopic & macroscopic) object(s).
Order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order
Equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium
Thermodynamic Equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
Steady State (disambiguation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_...sambiguation%29
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
(Gross electrical charge, gravity, mass, the ratio of constituent particles, etc, etc...)
You're wrong, an (atom) element proximity to a sufficient amount of "heat" will determine what element(s) are formed & not formed, it will determine the electromagnetic (positive neutral, or negative) charge it will have & or not have, which is why our existence began with a Super Nova which caused the matter within our solar system to coalesce to give birth to our sun & its chaotic (open system) core in which its elements we're made of.
The sun's energy is emitted in various forms of light (Ultraviolet light, X-rays, Visible light, Infrared, Microwaves & Radio waves).
The sun also emits energized particles (Neutrinos & Protons) that make up the solar wind.
An object such as the sun has a very high entropy, since you can swap the positions of various hydrogen atoms to an enormous degree without changing the sun in even a single macroscopic way.
You're wrong, because the sun is emitting high energy (radioactive) particles into & through the dark matter, etc in space & in the process of creating elements, it's "burning" Hydrogen to make Helium, regardless if you're using any of the energy that it's emitting the sun (inevitably) will die & take our entire solar system with it.
Nuclear Fission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
Nuclear Fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
Similarly, the earth has a very high entropy, since you can swap grains of sand and motes of dust and the location of buildings, cars, people, animals and plants to an enormous degree without changing the macroscopic properties of earth.
You said that, "....the earth has a very high entropy....", you're correct, but I want you explain why I said you're correct (if you can).
You also said that, "....since you can swap grains of sand and motes of dust and the location of buildings...." now I want you to explain why you said that & depending on your answer, you will be (either) correct, or incorrect.
You're wrong, an (atom) element proximity to a sufficient amount of "heat" will determine what element(s) are formed & not formed, it will determine the electromagnetic (positive neutral, or negative) charge it will have & or not have, which is why our existence began with a Super Nova which caused the matter within our solar system to coalesce to give birth to our sun & its chaotic (open system) core in which its elements we're made of.
The sun's energy is emitted in various forms of light (Ultraviolet light, X-rays, Visible light, Infrared, Microwaves & Radio waves).
The sun also emits energized particles (Neutrinos & Protons) that make up the solar wind.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
An object such as the sun has a very high entropy, since you can swap the positions of various hydrogen atoms to an enormous degree without changing the sun in even a single macroscopic way.
You're wrong, because the sun is emitting high energy (radioactive) particles into & through the dark matter, etc in space & in the process of creating elements, it's "burning" Hydrogen to make Helium, regardless if you're using any of the energy that it's emitting the sun (inevitably) will die & take our entire solar system with it.
Nuclear Fission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
Nuclear Fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
Similarly, the earth has a very high entropy, since you can swap grains of sand and motes of dust and the location of buildings, cars, people, animals and plants to an enormous degree without changing the macroscopic properties of earth.
You said that, "....the earth has a very high entropy....", you're correct, but I want you explain why I said you're correct (if you can).
You also said that, "....since you can swap grains of sand and motes of dust and the location of buildings...." now I want you to explain why you said that & depending on your answer, you will be (either) correct, or incorrect.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
That being said, "Entropy rules the universe", since "Order" is nothing but a word which describes "low-entropy systems".
Now for the stupidities part I mentioned.
All quotes are from SHEOL:
You said that.... "Order" is nothing but a word which describes "low-entropy systems".
You're wrong, a "low-entropy systems" is the system(s) in which the decreasing of entropy ("heat") is causing other (disordered) chaotic-side of entropy ("cold") to increase.
Order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order
You're wrong, because as I stated (above) earlier "order" (of anything) is referred to & viewed as a "Steady-State" (or a perfect equilibrium state) in which no change(s) has occurred to any object(s).
You said that...."Entropy rules the universe"...., which is exactly what I said below.
Now for the stupidities part I mentioned.
All quotes are from SHEOL:
You said that.... "Order" is nothing but a word which describes "low-entropy systems".
You're wrong, a "low-entropy systems" is the system(s) in which the decreasing of entropy ("heat") is causing other (disordered) chaotic-side of entropy ("cold") to increase.
Order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order
You're wrong, because as I stated (above) earlier "order" (of anything) is referred to & viewed as a "Steady-State" (or a perfect equilibrium state) in which no change(s) has occurred to any object(s).
You said that...."Entropy rules the universe"...., which is exactly what I said below.
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+)
"ENTROPY"affects all things, don't require any maintenance & is another form of matter energy (or potential heat & work) itself.
But, I'll explain the two reasons (below) why I made the above statement:
But, I'll explain the two reasons (below) why I made the above statement:
- Dark matter's (electromagnetic) gravitational attraction is what's causing all the matter within our universe to (spin &) coalesce, which is why we have galaxies, solar systems, planets & organic (intelligent) life.
But, there's a big problem the "increasing of entropy", in which will cause what is known as "The Big Crunch" due to the dark matter's (electromagnetic) gravitationally attractive affects will cause all the matter that came out of the Big-Bang to collapse back into itself, which the "increasing of entropy" will inevitably make our universe become "hot".
The Big Crunch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Crunch - Dark energy's (electromagnetic) gravitational repulsions is what's causing all the galaxies (each as one separate unit) in our universe to repel.
But, there's a big problem the "decreasing of entropy", in which will cause what is known as "The Big Freeze" due to the dark energy's (electromagnetic) gravitationally repulsive affects is causing all the galaxies (each as one separate unit) that came out of the Big-Bang & coalesced to move away, in which the "decreasing of entropy" will inevitably make our universe "freeze".
The Big Freeze
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Freeze
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+)
Example of a decrease of entropy : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas).
Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid).
Example of a increase of entropy : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid).
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
That's "backwards", and even after being told as much, you still cling to this not-just-flawed-but-completely-wrong statement.
You're correct, I should have "reversed" the examples (above) to look exactly like the one below:
Example of a "increase of entropy" : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas).
Example of a "decrease of entropy" : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid)."
You're correct, I should have "reversed" the examples (above) to look exactly like the one below:
Example of a "increase of entropy" : ICE (a solid) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- STEAM (a gas).
Example of a "decrease of entropy" : STEAM (a gas) -to- WATER (a liquid) -to- ICE (a solid)."
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+)
I'm not wrong I read the same link, but you must not forget about the "Chemical Equilibrium" which is affected by the proximity to extreme heat, or away from extreme heat.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PMB+)
There is no chemical reaction occurring as water heats from ice to liquid to steam, nor is there a chemical reaction occurring in when the opposite happens.
You're wrong, because an (atom) element proximity to a sufficient amount of "heat" will cause the "chemical reaction(s)" to occur & the "chemical equilibrium" state to change from a "Steady-State" (or a perfect equilibrium state).
Heat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Chemical Substance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance
Chemical Reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_reaction
Chemical Equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium
Flory-Huggins Solution Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flory-Huggins_solution_theory
I'm not wrong, an element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its "bond energy", which will determine its "valency number", which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of.
You're wrong, because an (atom) element proximity to a sufficient amount of "heat" will cause the "chemical reaction(s)" to occur & the "chemical equilibrium" state to change from a "Steady-State" (or a perfect equilibrium state).
Heat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Chemical Substance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance
Chemical Reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_reaction
Chemical Equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_equilibrium
Flory-Huggins Solution Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flory-Huggins_solution_theory
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+)
I'm not wrong, an element (atom) proximity to extreme heat will determine its "bond energy", which will determine its "valency number", which dictates if it's even able to become massive, or not & that proximity to extreme heat dictates exactly what elements it will consist of.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
A completely flawed belief. The valency number and bond energy have nothing to do with heat.
You're wrong, because you're forgetting about the birth place of (atom) elements, an atom proximity to a sufficient amount of "heat" is involved, which explains why only certain atoms (elements) with the same charge can be formed & fused together & separated within the (dense, pressure & temperature of the) core of a star & given a (positive, neutral, or negative) charge, in which will allow the atom(s) to (electromagnetically) form bonds with other atoms (elements).
Without the core of our sun, our solar system wouldn't even exist.
Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
Pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
Bond Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_energy#endnote_link
Valency Number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valency_number
Chemical Affinity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_affinity
Chemical Bond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond
You're wrong, because you're forgetting about the birth place of (atom) elements, an atom proximity to a sufficient amount of "heat" is involved, which explains why only certain atoms (elements) with the same charge can be formed & fused together & separated within the (dense, pressure & temperature of the) core of a star & given a (positive, neutral, or negative) charge, in which will allow the atom(s) to (electromagnetically) form bonds with other atoms (elements).
Without the core of our sun, our solar system wouldn't even exist.
Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
Pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
Bond Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_energy#endnote_link
Valency Number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valency_number
Chemical Affinity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_affinity
Chemical Bond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+)
Also, as your name says..... chemist, I assumed that you have knowledge in chemistry, therefore our entire universe consists entirely of (atom) elements, even in "String Theory" the string that our universe, etc exists within is made entirely of elements, even the Black holes itself (without sucking in any matter) is made entirely of elements, which you should (as a chemist, theoretical physicist, etc) know.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Once again, you demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of even elementary physics while trying to make claims about string theory...
Strings aren't made of elements in string theory.
Elements are made of particles which in turn are made of fundamental particles which in turn, are 1-to-whatever-branes in string theory. There are no strings. Only 1-branes, but that's ok, after all, a 1-brane looks like a string.
I did say that, but it's obvious you've misunderstood me, I was referring to energy when I said "elements" as in the type of energy in which the exterior of our dimensional (space & time) universe consist(s) of.
You've said that, "There are no strings...." you're wrong, because you don't understand that our spatial dimension has a boundary in which it ends & the outer wall of our dimension begins & there must be some type objects there & also there must be some type of environment there, just like Black-Holes (regardless of the mass) has something in it, it has a outer / inner wall, it has a (dangerous & unbreathable) environment & it lead to somewhere else, etc.
Our spatial dimension is a closed (separated) system, which is what separates one dimension from another, but you believing that our string don't exist implies that, you believe that our spatial dimension is an open system, which is wrong & you inadvertently & totally destroyed your own "Super-Gravity", etc essay.
Strings aren't made of elements in string theory.
Elements are made of particles which in turn are made of fundamental particles which in turn, are 1-to-whatever-branes in string theory. There are no strings. Only 1-branes, but that's ok, after all, a 1-brane looks like a string.
I did say that, but it's obvious you've misunderstood me, I was referring to energy when I said "elements" as in the type of energy in which the exterior of our dimensional (space & time) universe consist(s) of.
You've said that, "There are no strings...." you're wrong, because you don't understand that our spatial dimension has a boundary in which it ends & the outer wall of our dimension begins & there must be some type objects there & also there must be some type of environment there, just like Black-Holes (regardless of the mass) has something in it, it has a outer / inner wall, it has a (dangerous & unbreathable) environment & it lead to somewhere else, etc.
Our spatial dimension is a closed (separated) system, which is what separates one dimension from another, but you believing that our string don't exist implies that, you believe that our spatial dimension is an open system, which is wrong & you inadvertently & totally destroyed your own "Super-Gravity", etc essay.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+)
I never said that, Branes (or strings) consist(s) of atoms, but energy, (or heat) the brane itself is simply another form of energy, or heat.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
So you claim you never said it (which you did,) then you reiterate it, then you claim that heat is a fundamental force in physics???
Dude, whatever you're smoking, stop. Or whatever medications you're not taking, start.
I did say that, but it's obvious you've misunderstood me.
Dude, whatever you're smoking, stop. Or whatever medications you're not taking, start.
I did say that, but it's obvious you've misunderstood me.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+)
"ENTROPY"affects all things, don't require any maintenance & is another form of matter energy (or potential heat & work) itself.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
That doesn't make one bit of sense.
You're wrong, what didn't make one bit of sense was your "Cosmic Flatulence Theory", which you should thank the moderator(s) of this forum for deleting it a.s.a.p.
Be honest, (BigDumbWeirdo) everyone (for you & against you) know that, people only voted for you because they felt extremely sorry, sympathetic, sad, etc for you.
You're wrong, what didn't make one bit of sense was your "Cosmic Flatulence Theory", which you should thank the moderator(s) of this forum for deleting it a.s.a.p.
Be honest, (BigDumbWeirdo) everyone (for you & against you) know that, people only voted for you because they felt extremely sorry, sympathetic, sad, etc for you.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo Yesterday at 1:59 PM+)
QUOTE (•SHEOL•+)
What I want to do is give "BigDumbWeird" credit for mentioning "Super-Gravity", which I view as having that level of gravitational attraction because it's a wormhole (or conduit) to the "STRING" dimension(s).
I willing to say that thanks to some (future) Nobel prize receiver we'll know that, "ENTROPY" even have dominance in there too.
I view "Black-holes" & "Super-Gravity" as, you opening your front door & you naturally would be subjected to the environment of that other side (without stepping outside) notice how a Black-hole(s) gravitational field lines will always be in proportion with an objects proximity to the singularity & the Strings dimension(s) environment.
I meant to say that, I believe the Black-hole(s) "Super" gravitational attraction & magnitude(s) within its field line(s) will be proportionate to its mass & to your (continuing) proximity to its singularity, or the environment within the string(s) dimension(s).
I willing to say that thanks to some (future) Nobel prize receiver we'll know that, "ENTROPY" even have dominance in there too.
I view "Black-holes" & "Super-Gravity" as, you opening your front door & you naturally would be subjected to the environment of that other side (without stepping outside) notice how a Black-hole(s) gravitational field lines will always be in proportion with an objects proximity to the singularity & the Strings dimension(s) environment.
I meant to say that, I believe the Black-hole(s) "Super" gravitational attraction & magnitude(s) within its field line(s) will be proportionate to its mass & to your (continuing) proximity to its singularity, or the environment within the string(s) dimension(s).
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
If that was anything more than word salad, then you know NOTHING about supergravity. In fact, you don't even know what the word refers to, despite the fact that I previously provided you with the meaning in no uncertain terms.
You're wrong, the only thing that realistically gives the "Super-Gravity" 11-dimension any validity is the existence of "Multiverse, or Parallel Universe" & "Black-Holes" & if they didn't exist the acceptance of "Super-Gravity" would immediately become optional, or nonexistent itself, because trying to explain what's in the 11-dimension, or what type of environment is there, or even the need for the 11-dimension (a place where no one has been) you (obviously) wasn't going to be able to answer in a way that makes it plausible.
Multiverse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Parallel Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe_%28fiction%29
Super-Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergravity
Super Symmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
General Relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Newton Law Of Universal Gravitation
You're wrong, the only thing that realistically gives the "Super-Gravity" 11-dimension any validity is the existence of "Multiverse, or Parallel Universe" & "Black-Holes" & if they didn't exist the acceptance of "Super-Gravity" would immediately become optional, or nonexistent itself, because trying to explain what's in the 11-dimension, or what type of environment is there, or even the need for the 11-dimension (a place where no one has been) you (obviously) wasn't going to be able to answer in a way that makes it plausible.
Multiverse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Parallel Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe_%28fiction%29
Super-Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergravity
Super Symmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
General Relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Newton Law Of Universal Gravitation