|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 07. November 2006 07:03
quote:
Sciwall posted 31. October 2006. If we took the metal sphere filled with water and a thermocouple in the center and placed it at various points on the surface S, what would it say?
On the surface S, the distance to the sun varies between 150 million km plus or minus 100,000 km. As a result, small variations in the intensity of solar radiation are present on S in the order of one pro mille. When heating a metal sphere filled with water at various points on S, temperature differences of the water in the order of one pro mille will be found. But we are not discussing the temperature of a container filled with water, but the temperature of the atmosphere at a distance of 100,000 km from 2ndEarth. There, the scarce molecules are not captured in a container, but move freely around. The 2ndLaw points out they will move in such a way that any difference (e.g. of temperature, energy, concentration, information, complexity) will equalize. When molecules can mix freely, differences of temperature are not preserved or will expand, but equalize. Therefore, the average intensity with which in a sample of molecules will hit a thermometer is equal anywhere on S. As a consequence, sphere S with 2ndEarth in its center is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
In space traveling, we cannot replace sophisticated solar panels by a Perspex sphere with a stone hanging in its center casting a shadow on the sphere, producing a structural temperature difference to feed a heat engine driving the equipment on board. Temperature differences equalize. There is no hidden "quinta essentia" in matter, which will make differences maintain themselves and expand them ever further. Many people, however, keep searching (like the Alchemists) for such a "quinta essentia" in matter. In particular, they believe that such a "quinta essentia" is hidden in the DNA. They are convinced that longtime random incremental processes of mutation and selection of the DNA can make differences in information content and complexity grow, resulting in the expansion of a small and simple DNA-program of a bacterium into the 3 gigabyte DNA-program of humans.
DNA, however, is, as any other structure of organic or inorganic molecules, subjected to the fundamental property of reality that any difference ultimately equalizes. Although the DNA molecule is relatively stable, it is continuously attacked by radiation, chemical influences, and temperature changes. As a result, the DNA in every human cell loses about 5000 adenine or guanine bases per day by depurination and about 100 cytosine bases per day by deamination to uracil.Without the repair of these mutations, the 3 billion characters of the human DNA code would turn into utter chaos within a lifetime. In the cell nucleus, however, mechanisms are present that continuously search the DNA for mutations. If a mutation is noticed, an SOS signal is emitted, alerting and gearing up the repair mechanisms, and the cell cycle is not allowed to pass certain checkpoints until the mutation is repaired. If the repair does not succeed, the cell cycle comes to a standstill and the mutation cannot be passed to copies of the cell, resulting in the abortion of the mutation when the cell dies. The mutation repair and abortion mechanisms are present: (1) at the level of a single DNA string using the sister DNA string of the same DNA molecule as a back-up, (2) at the level of the chromatides using the sister chromatide of the same chromosome as a back-up, and (3) at the level of the chromosomes using the sister homologous chromosome as a back-up.
In our schools and universities, pupils and students are made to believe that random processes of mutation (= damaging) will make a DNA-program function better and make it grow ever further. The clear empirical facts are that mutation of the DNA leads to dysfunctioning, cancer, and hereditary diseases. In the numerous obstacle races in living nature for shelter, food, and a partner, organisms and populations with damaged DNA and non-functioning mutation repair systems are not fit to survive.
In the fantasy world of macro-evolution by random processes, random mutation of the DNA will make its information content grow ever further. In the real world, random processes of mutation will equalize the difference between information and non-information, and will ultimately whipe out the information content of the DNA.
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 07. November 2006 16:50
quote:
On the surface S, the distance to the sun varies between 150 million km plus or minus 100,000 km. As a result, small variations in the intensity of solar radiation are present on S in the order of one pro mille. When heating a metal sphere filled with water at various points on S, temperature differences of the water in the order of one pro mille will be found.
Humor me for a moment William, I am not sure you know what you are talking about and want to see if you really know the thermodynamics of the system you describe.
What about the area of the surface 'S' that is eclipsed from the sun by the earth? Lets call this subarea of 'S' 'So'. Using the metal sphere thermometer already described, will there be a substantial temperature difference between points on 'So' and other points on 'S'? Remember, this is still about the metal sphere filled with water and a thermocouple at the center.
[ 07. November 2006, 16:51: Message edited by: sciwall ]
IP: Logged
|
|
MK
Member
Member # 2974
|
posted 09. November 2006 21:41
Bruce Fast said
Show me a specific empirical example of this please.
Question: Do you believe in an Intelligent Designer or just Intelligent Design?
IP: Logged
|
|
MK
Member
Member # 2974
|
posted 09. November 2006 21:43
Bruce Fast said Complex organic compounds even form in interstellar nebula.
Show me a specific empirical example of this please.
Question: Do you believe in an Intelligent Designer or just Intelligent Design?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 10. November 2006 08:28
MK: "Bruce Fast said Complex organic compounds even form in interstellar nebula."
Actually, that looks like something I posted.
Complex molecules have been detected in the circumstellar envelopes of old stars. In particular, anthracene and pyrene. These molecules contain 24 and 26 atoms respectively, which are arranged in specified, complex patterns called benzene rings. (They're not just a random collection of atoms strung together.) Of course, there may very well be even more complex molecules in nebulae, but due to the limits of observational astronomy, it is a wonder we can detect them at all.
The Astrophysical Journal 2004, Discovery of Blue Luminescence in the Red Rectangle: Possible Fluorescence from Neutral Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Molecules? Uma P. Vijh, Adolf N. Witt, and Karl D. Gordon
The questionmark has been subsequently removed by additional observations. In addition, amino acids, methyl formate and acetic acid have been detected in nebulae or meteorites.
"And these two molecules are almost certainly far from the biggest being built in the Red Rectangle. 'There is no limit - eventually this will form particles of a million atoms or more,' Witt told New Scientist. 'We are looking into a factory for organic molecules.'"
[ 10. November 2006, 12:15: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. November 2006 13:07
I realize that I was not asked this question but I can state with great confidence that there very definitely WERE one or more designers with intelligence far beyond our capacity to comprehend. There is neither any evidence for nor any need for them to any longer exist. Pardon me for interrupting.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 12. November 2006 20:37
Sciwall,
I think William has humored you for at least a moment. The suspense is killing me. Will there be a substantial temperature difference between points on 'So' and other points on 'S'?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 13. November 2006 13:05
Melvin,
Yes, using the 'thermometer' described, there will be a significant (> 200 K) difference between the measured 'temperature' of 'So' and the rest of 'S' if you let the probe reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 14. November 2006 04:06
quote:
Sciwall posted 07. November 2006 : What about the area of the surface 'S' that is eclipsed from the sun by the earth? Lets call this subarea of 'S' 'So'. Using the metal sphere thermometer already described, will there be a substantial temperature difference between points on 'So' and other points on 'S'? Remember, this is still about the metal sphere filled with water and a thermocouple at the center.
You are still confounding the measurement of the temperature in space with the measurement of the temperature inside a metal sphere filled with water somewhere in space. If you are asked to measure the temperature in your garden, you will not take a metal sphere, fill it with water, put a thermometer inside it, and lay it the grass in the sun. (Or would you really do that?).
Let's examine in more detail the measuring of the temperature of (a) the atmosphere on Earth, (b) the atmosphere higher in the sky and (c) the atmosphere in space.
1. When measuring the temperature of the atmosphere in, for instance, a sunny garden, meteorologists apply a "meteorologic box", which allows the molecules of the atmosphere to enter the box freely and to hit the thermometer that is positioned inside, but prevents the sun to shine directly on the thermometer. If the temperature of the atmosphere in your garden is, for instance, 20 C and you take the thermometer out of the box and place it directly in the sun, is will soon read about 40 C. (Compare the measurement of the temperature of some soup in a pan on a fire: you need to stick your thermometer into the soup, not into the fire. Both measurements are interesting, but should not be confounded).
2. When we tie a meteorologic box with a thermometer inside it to a meteorologic balloon and let the balloon move up into the sky, the temperature that is read by the thermometer steadily drops, since the concentration of molecules in the atmosphere decreases, as well as the number of molecules hitting the thermometer. When moving up further, using a rocket, the concentration of molecules in the atmosphere becomes very small, as well as the number of hits on the thermometer inside the meteorologic box, and the temperature will move close to the absolute minimum. The 2ndLaw teaches us that any difference, for instance of concentration, will ultimately equalize. Stars and planets will ultimately turn into dust, which will spread equally over the universe. This spreading of molecules over the universe is going on for a long time yet. Therefore, space is not empty. The scarce molecules in it will hit the thermometer and drive it above the absolute minimum.
3. Let X be a point in space that is on a 150 million km distance from the Sun. Using a thermometer inside a meteorologic box, we measure a temperature T1 at point X. Next, we move away from the Sun. After journeying a 100,000 km, we pass point C, and moving on for another 100,000 km we reach point Y. In Y we measure a temperature T2.
4. Within a wide range around C space is in equilibrium for ages, and differences in temperature have equalized (according to the 2ndLaw). Therefore T1=T2.
5. If T1 and T2 would differ, this difference in temperature would equalize (according to the 2ndLaw). But this would contradict that the space around C is in equilibrium, and is therefore impossible.
6. From the darkness of outer space, we take 2ndEarth (identical to our Earth, except the presence of living organisms) and place it in C. 2ndEarth heats up and starts to radiate energy. After some time, equilibrium is reached and the influx of energy (IE) through the surface of an imaginary 100,000 km sphere S around C equals the outflux of energy (OE).
7. In this state of equilibrium, the temperatures in point X and Y are equal. If not, a heat engine could be attached to the temperature difference and produce an additional amount of energy (AE). But this would contradict IE=OE and is therefore impossible.
8. Sphere S with 2ndEarth in its center is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases. The Sun, thus, does not provide a flow of free energy that will make differences on 2ndEarth maintain themselves and make them increase ever further.
Everybody knows intuitively that putting a rock, or a pan filled with water with some organic molecules in it, into the sun will not make differences grow ever further. The theory of macro-evolution, however, claims this will happen. In our schools and universities pupils and students are trained to disregard their intuition and their everyday experiences and are made to believe this theory blindly. The lengthy discussion here at ISCID on the ability of the free moving energy of the sun to make differences maintain themselves on 2ndEarth and make them grow ever further, demonstrates the success of the advocates of the theory of macro-evolution. They have succeeded in replacing common sense, every day experience, and empirical science, by believes one simply has to accept.
Albert Einstein based his theory of relativity on the conviction that the laws of physical science hold anywhere in the universe. Following Einstein, the 2ndLaw holds on Earth as well as far away in space. On Earth, putting a Perspex sphere with a stone hanging in its center into the sun will not lead to a structural temperature difference on the sphere a heat engine can be connected to, producing free energy. The same holds for a 100,000 km radius imaginary sphere with 2ndEarth in its center that is put in the light of the sun. The claim that the universe is full of free energy that will make differences grow ever further is no more than wishful thinking. It is "Alchemist-thinking" and in flat contradiction with empirical evidence and empirical science.
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 14. November 2006 15:55
Hey William,
I could say a lot here, but instead, I will simply ask -
Would the metal sphere filled with water with a thermocouple at the center measure a 'temperature' that is significantly colder when it is on the 'So' subregion of the surface 'S' that is eclipsed from the sun?
Of course, the correct answer is yes, but wondering if you will agree or not. I think this is a useful place to begin the exploration of how one meaningfully measures the 'temperature' of almost completely empty space, but if we can not even agree on this, am not too hopeful that we can delve more deeply into the thermodynamics of empty space.
What do you think?
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 21. November 2006 05:15
quote:
Sciwall , posted 14. November. I think this is a useful place to begin the exploration of how one meaningfully measures the 'temperature' of almost completely empty space, but if we can not even agree on this, am not too hopeful that we can delve more deeply into the thermodynamics of empty space.
1. When moving a sun-boiler through space it will be heated higher close to the sun than far away. We agree on that.
2. When measuring the temperature of the atmosphere on earth, high in the sky, or in space, we need to apply a thermometer, not a sun-boiler. Question 1: Do you agree, Yes or No?
3. When measuring the temperature of an atmosphere of (scarce) molecules that is heated by the sun, only the molecules of the atmosphere should be allowed to hit our thermometer, not the sunbeams. (Compare the heating of some soup in a pan on a fire: we should stick the thermometer into the soup, not into the fire). Question 2 : Do you agree, Yes or No?
4. Take an isolated cylinder C of volume V containing a gas G. If you pump away the gas molecules, the temperature inside C will decrease. After emptying C almost completely, the temperature inside C will be close to the absolute minimum. In this situation, temperature is still a meaningful concept and the laws of empirical science still hold. Question 3 : Do you agree, Yes or No?
5. The history of empirical science shows a continuous search for more sensitive and accurate instruments for measuring differences of distances, temperatures, energy, etc. When reaching the limits of our present measuring tools, we should not start to jettison physical laws and scholarly principles how to conduct valid measurements (see point 2 and 3), but start developing more accurate measuring techniques. Question 4 : Do you agree. Yes or No?
6. You suggest that in space temperature is either a meaningless concept or zero. As a consequence, no temperature differences are present on a 100.000 km radius imaginary sphere S with 2ndEarth in its center. Your suggestion leads to the conclusion that S with 2nd Earth in its center is a "zero-left-term-system", for which the entropy increases. In fact, your suggestion supports the conclusion you try to question.
quote:
Zachriel, posted 10. November 2006. Complex molecules have been detected in the circumstellar envelopes of old stars… which are arranged in specified, complex patterns called benzene rings. …..'We are looking into a factory for organic molecules.'
The 2ndLaw teaches us that any difference, for instance of concentration, will ultimately equalize. Stars and planets will ultimately turn into dust, which will spread equally over the universe. This spreading of molecules is going on for a long time yet. Therefore, space is not empty, but is filling ever further with molecules lost by stars and planets. Random processes can make "molecular ripples" in this "molecular sand". But random processes cannot maintain these molecular ripples and expand them ever further, as the 2ndLaw teaches us. On a beach, we can observe beautiful, complex ripples of sand, but the random forces of wind and water cannot maintain and expand them ever further. The same holds for the molecular ripples we are observing in space. There is no molecular factory present in space, or a "quinta essentia" hidden in matter, here on Earth or far away in space, that will make molecular complexity maintain itself and expand itself ever further.
Beliefs are assumptions that cannot be proved. Nevertheless, many beliefs are rational; for instance: the belief that the 3 gigabyte DNA-program in each human cell, and the mutation repair systems that maintain it and keep it functioning, are designed. The belief, however, that matter possesses a hidden property to maintain differences and expand them ever further is irrational, since it is in flat contradiction with empirical evidence and empirical science.
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 21. November 2006 10:34
William,
Gladly answer your questions, but could you first answer my one first -
quote:
Would the metal sphere filled with water with a thermocouple at the center measure a 'temperature' that is significantly colder when it is on the 'So' subregion of the surface 'S' that is eclipsed from the sun?
Thanks!
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 28. November 2006 04:36
quote:
Sciwall , posted 21. November 2006. Gladly answer your questions, but could you first answer my one first - Would the metal sphere filled with water with a thermocouple at the center measure a 'temperature' that is significantly colder when it is on the 'So' subregion of the surface 'S' that is eclipsed from the sun?
A sun-boiler that is put in the shadow will be heated significantly lower than a sun-boiler that is put directly in the sun. We agree on that.
Please answer now the 4 questions in my 21 November post. I hope the answering will lead to the insight that the measurement of the water temperature inside a sun-boiler somewhere in space should not be confounded with the measurement of the temperature of the thin atmosphere of free moving molecules in space. The 2ndLaw teaches us that the (scarce) molecules in space will move in such a way that all differences (for instance of concentration, temperature, energy, or complexity) will ultimately equalize.
quote:
Sciwall , posted 14. November. I ... ...am not too hopeful that we can delve more deeply into the thermodynamics of empty space.
I'm less pessimistic.
When looking into deep space, spectral redshifts of galaxies can be observed, which increase proportionally with their distance. The Big Bang theory explains these redshifts by hypothesizing that a long time ago all matter was concentrated in one point, and exploded, resulting in galaxies moving away from each other, the further away the faster. This explanation is challenged by the discovery (using the Hubble telescope) of blueshift galaxies, interconnected with bridges of matter.
In order to expand a cylinder filled with molecules, we must apply a force on it that drags the molecules inside apart. In the Big Bang theory, the volume of the universe is expanding ever faster, requiring an ever-bigger force on the universe. Where does this force come from?
When observing fireworks, we see the fragments of the exploding rockets firstly move away at a high velocity. Subsequently, the velocity decreases proportionally to the distance the fragments have moved away from the explosion point. The 2ndLaw confirms these observations: any difference (for instance of velocity) will ultimately equalize. The Big Bang theory, however, claims exactly the opposite: the greater the distance, the higher the velocity.
The presence of blueshift galaxies (1), the necessary presence of a force on the universe to make it expand ever further (2), and the contradiction of the Big Bang theory with the 2ndLaw (3), suggest that the Big Bang theory is invalid and that the observed redshifts need to be explained differently.
On short distances, the surface of the earth seems to be flat. On longer distances, however, the surface appears to be curved, resulting in the distortion of the observations of far away objects. Our universe may be curved as well, resulting in the distortion of observations and a spectral redshift of far away light emitting objects. A curved universe (like a plane wrapped around a sphere) has no center and no edge, but is contained in itself. Any point in it is equivalent. The hypothesis that the universe is curved and that this intrinsic property reveals itself on long distances by a redshift of a radiating object which is proportional to its distance to the observer, can be tested by the radio signal of Voyager 2. Its frequency is known. The prediction is that the frequency will decrease when the distance to the Earth becomes very large.
The Big Bang theory is one of the pillars under the macro-evolution theory, by providing a time span of 14 billion years for random processes to create life. The calculation of these 14 billion years rests on the claim that the total amount of matter in the universe consists of (a) the 4% matter we have found yet and (b) the 96% matter that should exits as well in order to achieve a time span of 14 billion years, but is found not yet. Apart from this speculative calculation (which is only based on wishful thinking), the Big Bang theory is in contradiction with empirical evidence, empirical science, and the 2ndLaw in particular.
[ 28. November 2006, 04:53: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 28. November 2006 10:07
William DeJong: "This explanation is challenged by the discovery (using the Hubble telescope) of blueshift galaxies, interconnected with bridges of matter."
It can be shown that most blueshifted galaxies are local galaxies that are moving relative to other local galaxies, e.g. the Andromeda galaxy. Other blueshifts can be shown to be due to other motions local to the galaxy in question, such as rotations of galactic clusters or ejecta, e.g. Virgo cluster. This is the *expected* result.
William DeJong: "In order to expand a cylinder filled with molecules, we must apply a force on it that drags the molecules inside apart."
This is precisely incorrect. Absent other forces, a gas will expand without limit. It requires force to keep the molecules from moving apart.
William DeJong: "When observing fireworks, we see the fragments of the exploding rockets firstly move away at a high velocity. Subsequently, the velocity decreases proportionally to the distance the fragments have moved away from the explosion point."
In a vacuum, there is no change in velocity of the fragments of an explosion. In a fluid, the drag equation is complex and depends on the fluid's characteristics. The drag coefficient may vary from being proportional to velocity (lower velocities) to being proportional to the velocity squared (higher velocities).
[ 28. November 2006, 10:25: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 30. November 2006 10:28
Hi William,
Thanks for the answer, it looks like we should agree that pretty much anything (be it a "sunboiler", a large rock, or even a small particle) will be significantly colder when on the region of surface S that is eclipsed by the sun (So). Right? We will come back to this in a second, but first I will go ahead and answer your questions.
1. When measuring the temperature of the atmosphere on earth, high in the sky, or in space, we need to apply a thermometer, not a sun-boiler.
- There is no atmosphere in space William.
2. When measuring the temperature of an atmosphere of (scarce) molecules that is heated by the sun, only the molecules of the atmosphere should be allowed to hit our thermometer, not the sunbeams. (Compare the heating of some soup in a pan on a fire: we should stick the thermometer into the soup, not into the fire).
- Sure, letting the sunbeams directly impact the thermometer is not ideal.
3. Take an isolated cylinder C of volume V containing a gas G. If you pump away the gas molecules, the temperature inside C will decrease. After emptying C almost completely, the temperature inside C will be close to the absolute minimum.
- Nope, sorry William, I think this is where your reasoning has failed you. Take a cylinder of gas with a thermocouple in it. Place it in a room that is held at 22C and pump it totally empty. Pump the gas completely out and the temperature will drop as the gas expands. However, even with the cylinder completely empty of all molecules, the thermocouple temperature will slowly rise, and in due time, will equilibrate at 22C. Repeat the experiment at 30C and the final equilibration temperature will be 30C. Do you understand why this is the case William?
4. The history of empirical science shows a continuous search for more sensitive and accurate instruments for measuring differences of distances, temperatures, energy, etc. When reaching the limits of our present measuring tools, we should not start to jettison physical laws and scholarly principles how to conduct valid measurements (see point 2 and 3), but start developing more accurate measuring techniques.
- Sure. So tell me William, what is the preferred method for measuring the kinetic energy of molecules in nearly empty space?
Anyway, so lets go back to my original posed scenario with a metal sphere filled with water and a thermocouple at the center. Lets place one of these at the edge of the So region on surface S keeping it in full sunlight. Now, we place another one about 900 miles away on the So of surface S, fully eclipsed by the earth. Take these two objects and give them a rotational period around the earth of 1/365 days, so they keep their same relative orientations to the sun and earth on surface S as the sun revolves around the earth.
Object 1 in the full sun will be hundreds of degrees hotter than object 2 that is in the full shade. This difference will persist as long as the sun is shining. Both objects are on surface S. Do you disagree?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
