|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 01. December 2006 06:56
sciwall,
Concerning question [3], what about the temperature inside C, now a vacuum correct? In other words what is it exactly inside C that would have a temperature, the thermocouple? Take the thermocouple out. What would be the temperature inside C if there is nothing there?
Just curious.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 01. December 2006 07:43
Hey Melvin,
Do you think that if you pump out all the molecules from the cylinder, there is nothing left? Think about it, what else could be in the space besides molecules?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 01. December 2006 09:55
sciwall,
Fair enough. What if we pumped all of the matter out of C, assuming we could keep the walls from calapsing on themselves.? What would the temperature be then?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 01. December 2006 11:20
Melvin H. Fox: "Fair enough. What if we pumped all of the matter out of C, assuming we could keep the walls from calapsing on themselves.? What would the temperature be then?"
I think you missed sciwall's point. He indicated "if you pump out all the molecules from the cylinder". Now reconsider our vacuum container. In the middle is a thermocoupler, or perhaps hot soup for your picnic lunch. Will your soup stay hot forever? If not, how does the heat move out of the container across the vacuum barrier?
What ultimately happens to all energy? Now try again to answer sciwall's question, "Do you think that if you pump out all the molecules from the cylinder, there is nothing left?"
[ 01. December 2006, 11:26: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 02. December 2006 22:33
Hello Zachriel,
I suppose I need to know what is meant exactly by this “isolated” cylinder. Is the matter inside conserved? I guess not if the molecules can be taken out. Does the energy stay constant once the molecules leave? It seems William says YES, while sciwall and Zachriel say NO. Am I any closer to understanding what is being discussed or should I just hold my keys while you all hash this out?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 02. December 2006 23:17
Melvin H Fox: "I suppose I need to know what is meant exactly by this “isolated” cylinder. Is the matter inside conserved? I guess not if the molecules can be taken out."
Let's start with some hot chicken soup in a small container. This container is surrounded by a vacuum enclosed by a larger container. Let's call this assembly a "thermos". What happens? The heat of the hot chicken soup *radiates* across the vacuum. The vacuum is filled with photons! Eventually, the chicken soup will reach the ambient room temperature. (We normally silver the inside of the larger container to reduce absorption.)
Returning to sciwall's original comment: "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?"
Everything is radiating, the sides of a thermos, the Sun, the Earth, the stars, the cosmos, you. If you put an ideal thermometer in space, it will tend to reach an equilibrium temperature of about 280ºK at an Earthly distance from the Sun, or about 5ºK in deep space due to the cosmic background radiation and some local galactic heating.
Energy tends to 'smear out' or dissipate over time. Fortunately, there are vast reservoirs of hydrogen fuel in the Sun to last billions of years. This rich stream of energy drives the Earth's ecosphere.
[ 02. December 2006, 23:20: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 02. December 2006 23:27
So, when William uses the term “isolated” for his cylinder he is not using it in the thermodynamic sense of the word at all?
William, could you help me to understand your cylinder?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 03. December 2006 04:13
Hi Melvin,
Did you understand what Zachriel was saying? Take a cylinder, even when all the matter is pumped out there will still be a soup of photons within this space, and this soup of photons will have a 'temperature' that is equivalent to the temperature of the vessel walls. If the walls are thick steel at 30C, then any object you place in the empty space will eventually reach 30C. If the walls are 40C the same thing will happen (the object will reach 40C)
Does this make sense?
[ 03. December 2006, 04:14: Message edited by: sciwall ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 03. December 2006 09:13
Melvin H. Fox: "So, when William uses the term 'isolated' for his cylinder he is not using it in the thermodynamic sense of the word at all?"
A completely isolated system cannot exist in nature. Granted, if the cylinder was truly the only object in the universe, then the heat would radiate away and approach absolute zero. But William has posited a specific real physical situation in the Earth's atmosphere.
William DeJong: "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."
This is not correct. It's just not as simple as he would suggest. The thermometer will continue to be heated by the ambient soup of photons associated with the meteorological box as it is heated by the Sun, the Earth, the stars and the cosmos. Minimizing the sources of heat is a complex engineering problem, and as with all entropic processes, there is no magic insulation.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 03. December 2006 09:45
sciwall,
I think so. The thermal energy from the walls radiates from the walls through the now empty space. I do not think that the question I am asking is clear to you. What if the thermos is a perfect thermos? That is to say the wall of the thermos is an impenetrable thermodynamic barrier. Since it would keep any added thermal energy out and prohibit any internal energy from escaping, then it would stand to reason that no energy from within the wall itself would leave the wall. I am not saying such a device exists. I am just wondering if this is the sort of situation William was constructing. Understand that I have not read this thread diligently from its beginning and my question may in fact be ridiculous. If so, I apologize for wasting any of your time.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 03. December 2006 09:52
Zachriel,
Sorry, I did not notice your last post before I answered sciwall. I should pay closer attention it seems. This clears things up for me, unless William has rebuttal. Thank you both. I shall continue to read this thread with interest and limit my interruptions.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 05. December 2006 05:33
quote:
Sciwall , posted 30. November. 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?
Yes, Sciwall, I agree again that 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. But you completely miss the point that we are not discussing the temperature of sun-boilers somewhere in space, but the temperature of the very thin atmosphere of scares molecules on an imaginary 100,000 km radius sphere with 2ndEarth in its center. On this sphere no temperature differences are present. Therefore 2ndEarth is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
quote:
Melvin H. Fox , posted 02. December 2006 . William, could you help me to understand your cylinder?
I presented the isolated cylinder in order to explain that temperature is still a meaningful concept after pumping away (almost) all molecules from the cylinder. The claim that there is no temperature in space is nonsense.
I have the impression that further discussing the temperature of sun-boilers in space will not lead to new information or insights. Therefore, below a summary of the conclusions of the discussion so far.
SUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISCUSSION SOFAR
1. A fundamental characteristic of the reality we live in is that all differences (e.g. of temperature, energy, density, or concentration) will ultimately equalize. If, for instance, a temperature difference would not ultimately equalize, a heat engine could be attached to it and run forever, resulting in a perpetual mobile. The laws of thermodynamics teach us perpetual mobiles cannot exist. Increase of complexity is the opposite of equalization of differences. Since the natural course of events is the equalization of differences, increase of complexity is an unnatural course of events.
2. The initial Miller-experiment combined with the adjusted Miller-experiment, together, falsify the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution. The initial Miller-experiment makes clear that random flashes of lightning can make basic substances stick together as building blocks for life and that new flashes of lightning will destroy them again, the bigger the sooner. The adjusted Miller-experiment shows that only Miller's directed effort (constructing a transportation system to move away the produced building blocks for life to a safe retort) made the production of an ever concentrated organic soup possible.
3. The claim that space is full of free energy of the sun, and that this energy can make molecules on 2ndEarth (identical to our Earth, except the presence of living organisms) start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further, is nonsense. It can be proven that a sphere with a radius of 100,000 km and 2ndEarth in its center is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
4. Despite explicitly asking many times during this discussion, not any empirical evidence has been produced to confirm the basic hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further. Clearly this hypothesis is only grounded in wishful thinking and is no more than a belief. In line with the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould, this belief should be removed from the domain of science to the domain of religion.
5. Although the basic hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution is no more than a belief, this belief is presented as a scientific fact that is beyond discussion. Scientists who dare to question the theory of (macro) evolution are attacked with religious fire and their scholarly life is made difficult. In fact, we have returned to the Dark Ages, when the priests told the people what to believe and when heretics were excommunicated.
6. Our children should to be taught that the natural course of events is that all differences ultimately equalize and that the claim of Darwinism that molecules have an natural desire to order themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever-further, is no more than a belief. Moreover, they should be taught this belief is in flat contradiction with empirical science and everyday experience in homes, offices, factories and laboratories. It should become compulsory at schools and universities to conduct and discuss both the initial Miller-experiment and the adjusted Miller-experiment. In the discussion of both experiments, attention should be given to the differences between science and religion, and how religion often tries to hijack science to make itself credible.
7. In any book on evolution, the theory can be found that random processes (of lightning) have produced billions of tons of building blocks for life in the primordial oceans in hundreds of millions of years; these building blocks started to combine themselves into ever more complex molecules, developed themselves into reproducing macro molecules, turned themselves into RNA, then into DNA, subsequently into cells, and finally these cells arranged themselves into ever complicated organisms. This macro-evolution theory is (1) in conflict with empirical science; (2) is not supported by any empirical evidence; (3) is falsified by the combination of the initial Miller experiment and the adjusted-Miller experiment; (4) cannot be true, since if it were true complex molecules and molecular structures would become available without effort for free, putting the greater part of chemical industry out of business. The macro-evolution theory is as invalid as the theory that the earth is flat or that the sun is spinning around the earth.
8. In space, random flows of energy can make "ripples in the molecular sand". But random energy flows cannot preserve them and make them grow ever further, as demonstrated by Miller's initial and adjusted experiment and confirmed by empirical science.
9. When observing the fossil record, any objective observer will notice that the shape of organisms may vary along a number of dimensions (small - large; broad - sharp; firm - fragile; curved - flat; et cetera). These variations can be fully explained by the mechanism of variation and selection of allele combinations from the gene pool of a species. But we do not observe a scrapheap of organisms (e.g. a multitude of unsuccessful trials when changing a four-legged mammal into a whale) that did not survive after the expansion of their genetic system space into new dimensions by a random process.
10. 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 wipe out the information content of the DNA.
11. Beliefs are assumptions that cannot be proved. Nevertheless, many beliefs are rational; for instance: the belief that the 3 gigabyte DNA-program in every 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 that maintains differences and expands them ever further is irrational, since it is in flat contradiction with empirical evidence and empirical science. We should not join the Alchemists in their search for a "quintessence of matter", and return to the Dark Ages.
12. In the domain of religion, any guess, fantasy or belief on the origin of living nature is allowed. In the domain of science, however, we need a falsifiable (and therefor somehow testable) hypothesis that does not contradict empirical evidence and empirical science. If such a hypothesis on the origin of living nature is missing, the position: "We don't know yet" can be taken. Such a position is perfectly normal in any branch of science, and offers a possibility to reject untenable theories, serving the progress of science.
=====================================================================
quote:
William DeJong , posted 28. November . In order to expand a cylinder filled with molecules, we must apply a force on it that drags the molecules inside apart.
Zachriel , posted 28. November . This is precisely incorrect. Absent other forces, a gas will expand without limit. It requires force to keep the molecules from moving apart.
quote:
William DeJong , posted 28. November . 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.
Zachriel , posted 28. November . 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).
Let's examine the Big Bang theory in more detail. According to this theory, all matter was concentrated as one small ball, 14 billion years ago. Let A be an amount of matter on the surface of the ball. When traveling from A to the center C of the ball, we pass an amount of matter B. After the explosion of the ball, an imaginary observer at C firstly sees A move away, almost at the speed of light. Then, he sees B flung away chasing A almost at the speed of light. The center C of the ball stays in rest after the explosion. The 2ndLaw teaches us that any difference will ultimately equalize. Therefore, the difference in velocity between A and C, and between B and C will equalize. The further galaxy A has moved away from C, the smaller its velocity relatively to C will be. The Big Bang theory, however claims that the further a galaxy has been flung from C, the faster it moves away from it.
Conclusions:
1. The claim that the universe would expand without limit is in contradiction with the 2ndLaw.
2. The Big Bang theory is internal inconsistent. It claims that the further a galaxy has been flung away from C, the faster it moves away. Analysis of the events proposed by the theory, however, leads to an opposite finding.
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 05. December 2006 09:38
quote:
On this sphere no temperature differences are present. Therefore 2ndEarth is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
But wait William -
Lets take two rocks that sit on surface S. One rock (R1) sits in full sun at the edge of So (the eclipsed region of surface S). The other rock (R2)is 1000 miles away in the fully eclipsed So region of S. These two rocks orbit earth with a period of 1/365 days, such that they keep their relative positions.
Now by your own admission, R1 will be significantly hotter than R2, T(R1) > T(R2). Both are on surface S. Thus, significant temperature differences do exist on surface S.
Thoughts?
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 12. December 2006 04:51
quote:
Sciwall , posted 05. December. Lets take two rocks that sit on surface S. One rock (R1) sits in full sun at the edge of So (the eclipsed region of surface S). The other rock (R2)is 1000 miles away in the fully eclipsed So region of S. These two rocks orbit earth with a period of 1/365 days, such that they keep their relative positions. Now by your own admission, R1 will be significantly hotter than R2, T(R1) > T(R2). Both are on surface S. Thus, significant temperature differences do exist on surface S.
You still miss the point that we are not discussing the temparature of sun-boilers or rocks in space, but the the temperature of the very thin atmosphere of scarce, free moving, molecules on an imaginary 100,000 km radius sphere with 2ndEarth in its center. In addition, you overlook that the distance between both rocks will not stay fixed. The burning sun will make parts of the rocks to turn into fragments or dust. As a result the mass of the rocks will change, as well as the gravitation force that keeps the rocks in position. Sooner or later, the special position designed by you will disappear, as all specially designed positions in our reality will do, sooner or later.
quote:
William DeJong , posted 28. November. In order to expand a cylinder filled with molecules, we must apply a force on it that drags the molecules inside apart.
Zachriel , posted 28. November. This is precisely incorrect. Absent other forces, a gas will expand without limit. It requires force to keep the molecules from moving apart.
In addtion to my post of December 5, an alternative falsification of the claim that our universe is expanding ever further can be given.
In our universe, we observe concentrations of matter surrounded by large areas of almost empty space. The 2ndLaw teaches us that these enormous differences in concentration of molecules will ultimately equalize, resulting in the equal spreading of all matter over the universe. The claim that the universe is expanding ever further implicates that the concentration of molecules in almost empty space is decreasing ever more. The 2ndLaw teaches us precisely the opposite: the concentration of molecules in almost empty space is increasing.
Conclusion: The claim that the universe is expanding without limit is in contradiction with the 2ndLaw. The observed redshifts need an alternative explanation.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 12. December 2006 16:32
Just checking in to catch up.
SUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISCUSSION SO FAR
1. Stanley Miller predicted that his experiment would yield ever-expanding order.
2. Miller's experiment falsified evolution.
3. The 2nd Law also falsifies evolution.
4. Given two imaginary concentric spheres in a symmetrical system, the outer sphere can be at uniform temperature even though the inner sphere is not.
5. Radiation should be ignored in thermodynamic analyses. (Corollary: Light bulbs and photovoltaic cells violate the 1st Law.)
6. The 2nd Law says that all differences will equalize, even differences in particle velocities.
7. Expansion of the universe violates the 2nd Law.
I'll keep checking back to see if the list grows. This is all very fascinating.
[ 12. December 2006, 16:33: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
