|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 30. January 2007 07:40
William DeJong: "If you take a Perspex sphere (S), hang a stone in its center from an opening in the top, and put S in the sunshine, the stone produces a shadow So on S. The stone starts absorbing heat and for some time the influx of energy (IE) into the sphere exceeds the outflux (OE). Inside So, the temperature is lower than outside of it. When heating up, the stone starts radiating energy. After some time, the stone has absorbed a maximal amount of heat, and radiates all the heat that reaches it."
It never reaches a state where the temperature is equal on both sides of the sphere. The temperature differential depends on the size of the spheres and the amount of sunlight. Everyone knows this, William, whoever sits in a window and enjoys the Sun on their face.
If a planet always faces the Sun, the lighted side will be warmer than the shaded side. The differential will depend on how fast the heat conducts through the planet which depends on its size and composition. If the planet is enclosed within a sphere, the differential will remain, though it may be changed by how much radiant energy is conducted through and reemitted by the containing sphere. If the enclosing sphere contains an atmosphere, the atmosphere may also move heat by convection. This mechanical motion may continue as long as the Sun shines. The amount of turbulence will depend on the size of the atmosphere, the gravity of the sphere, the composition of the atmosphere, presence of an ocean, shape of the terrain, and the amount of radiant energy. It may even result in a complex motion called "weather", a turbulent process which can also continue as long as the Sun shines.
Nor did you attempt an explanation of how the similar experiment with duckies can continue to generate mechanical motion forever (as long as the Sun shines). Our duckies are a simple example of how a heat engine can be constructed that taps into the energy gradient of sunshine.
[ 30. January 2007, 09:45: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 30. January 2007 13:17
William: quote:
This work can consist of, for instance, making a generator run, resulting in the production of electricity, which can be stored in a battery as electrical energy.
Once the battery is fully charged, any electrical power generated thereafter will dissipate as thermal energy, making the outflux of energy equal to the influx once again.
quote:
It extracts a flow of energy out of S, until the temperature difference has equalized. Then, the engine stops.
That's why heat engines are useful only in cases of a sustainable temperature difference. The temperature difference on S is sustained as long as the sun shines, as sciwall has noted.
quote:
Apparently, you did not conduct the experiment I described in my post of January 23.
Apparently you didn't either. Unless your stone is an ideal black body (which the earth definitely is not, see here), you will see a temperature difference.
[Edit: Actually, I guess you'll see a temperature difference even if it is an ideal black body. Maybe sciwall or Zachriel can correct me on this if I'm wrong.]
[ 31. January 2007, 12:38: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 01. February 2007 12:57
2nd class: "[Edit: Actually, I guess you'll see a temperature difference even if it is an ideal black body. Maybe sciwall or Zachriel can correct me on this if I'm wrong.]"
Heh. I thought you were going to correct me for neglecting to mention albedo. If it had perfect conductivity or perfect reflectivity, there would be no thermal difference. But William did suggest a "stone", which regardless of its particular composition or albedo, is not generally an ideal black body.
2nd class: "Unless your stone is an ideal black body (which the earth definitely is not, see here), you will see a temperature difference."
E.g., the Earth has strong O2 and CO2 absorption lines.
[ 01. February 2007, 12:59: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 06. February 2007 04:46
Hi, Zachriel and 2ndClass,
Sunlight can produce hot water after the construction of a sunboiler, or electricity after the construction of a solar panel, or motion after the construction of a "ducky". If sunlight hits the molecules of a gas, differences of temperature and pressure will emerge in the gas. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that these differences will equalize. This happens largely by circular convection streams in the gas ("weather"). In convection streams, temperature differences are present. But after reaching dynamic equilibrium, on average over a longer period of time (longer than the circulation time of the longest convection stream), temperature differences will be absent anywhere in the gas.
Just putting a stone in the sunlight will not produce a sustained temperature difference between the shadowed region and the non-shadowed region of a gas surrounding it. This can be proven in three ways:
1. Empirically . Just sit at your desk, hang a stone on your desk lamp, and measure the temperature of the air inside the shadowed region and outside of it. When measuring the temperature of the air, pay attention to stick the thermometer in the "soup" not in the "fire" (see my post of 24 November 2006, point 1). Make the circular convection streams in the state of dynamic equilibrium visible by blowing some cigarette smoke over your desk, and observe how the air mixes continually and differences of temperature and pressure are equalized.
2. Analytically , using the laws of thermodynamics (see for instance my posts of 16 and 23 January 2007).
3. Logically , by proving from negative demonstration. If only putting a stone in the sunlight would produce a sustained temperature difference inside a gas surrounding it, this difference could be multiplied using a thousand stones and replace the compressor of a refrigerator that builds temperature differences. In areas where the sun shines a lot, stone-based refrigerators would make high-tech and expensive electrical refrigerators superfluous. This may be possible in the world of the Flintstones. Not in our world.
Let S be a 100,000 km. radius imaginary sphere with 2ndEarth (equal to our Earth, except the presence of living organisms) in its center. S is put in the sunlight. In equilibrium, the temperature in space at S is equal anywhere (see proof 1, or proof 2, or proof 3 above). Consequently, 2ndEarth is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases. The claim of the advocates of the theory of macro-evolution that the free moving energy coming from the sun will make the entropy on 2ndEarth decrease, is false.
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 06. February 2007 09:30
Hi William,
Well, I see you still miss the point, so I will try one more time to explain to you. Wondering though, what is your training in thermodynamics? I ask this because you are making some very very simple errors that I would think anyone with even a little training would be able to spot. Have you had any formal training or are you self taught?
While I appreciate you trying to show your POV by analogy (a perspex sphere with a stone in the center), I hope you realize this analogy is completely inappropriate to describe the heat flow of an imaginary surface a long distance from the the earth. The biggest problem of course is that in space (near vacuum), convection and conduction (which you allude to a lot in yor 'real world examples') are basically non existent, with almost all heat transfer occurring by radiative means. So bearing that in mind, lets see if we can come up with a better analogy, ok?
I was thinking something like this. Take a nearly evacuated sphere of diameter 10m, and hold the wall temperature at 0C (simply for convenience). Inside this evacuated sphere are two 1 cm spheres and a thermocouple. Sphere 1 has a radiogenic core and its outer surface maintains a constant temperature of approximately 400 degrees C. Sphere 2 is inert and 1 meter away from sphere 1. For simplicity, lets assume that all the objects are black body emitters and absorbers.
Two questions -
1) At dynamic equilibrium, what is the temperature of sphere 2?
This is a very basic thermodynamically question William, one that any college sophomore in a physics or engineering thermodynamics class would be able to calculate. It touches on some of the important principles involved in radiative heat transfer in space though, so I think it is important for you to learn, if you do not know already, how heat flows in such a system.
The second question is two parted -
2) If you take the thermocouple and place it midway between the two spheres and let it reach dynamic equilibrium, what is the steady state temperature? (you can assume the thermocouple is microscopic in size and does not block radiation from sphere to sphere). If you then move thermocouple to the opposite side of sphere 2, so it is the same distance away from sphere 2 and sphere 2 completely eclipses sphere 1, will the steady state temperature change? If so, what is the temperature at dynamic equilibrium?
I think you will not be able to figure out question 2 unless you can solve question 1, so if you have difficulties William, you can ask for help and I will do what I can.
[ 06. February 2007, 09:36: Message edited by: sciwall ]
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 13. February 2007 04:19
Hi Zachriel,
Thermodynamics teaches us that any difference, for instance of concentration, will equalize. As a consequence, the concentration of molecules in the space that surrounds the objects in our universe will increase continuously. Ultimately, all matter in the universe will be spread equally. Since the spreading of matter over the universe has started quite some years ago, your claim that space is empty is false. Indeed, the concentration of molecules in space is low, but this does not make the convection of molecules non-existent. Therefore, the model of "the hanging stone on a desk lamp", and the finding that there is no sustained temperature difference between the shaded and the non-shaded region, is valid for 2ndEarth that is put in the sunshine. (Notice that we have discussed your claim that space is empty before. See the rebuttal in my post of November 21, 2006.)
Sciwall : [William], I ask this because you are making some very very simple errors that I would think anyone with even a little training would be able to spot. Have you had any formal training or are you self taught?
For many months yet, we have been discussing the abilities of the free moving energy of the sun. In my post on February 6, it was proven in three different ways (empirically, analytically and logically) that just putting a rock in the sunlight will not produce a sustained temperature difference in a gas surrounding it. Analyzing your reactions on this threefold proof and on my post one week earlier, four observations can be made.
1. You keep ignoring that the measuring of the temperature of a gas (the "soup") that is heated by the sunlight (the "fire") cannot be done by sticking a thermometer into the "fire". (See also my post of November 24, point 1).
2. You keep ignoring the fundamental property of our universe that any difference (for instance of energy, heat, temperature, pressure, concentration, information or complexity) will ultimately equalize. As a consequence of this property, differences of temperature and pressure in any free moving gas will equalize soon into a dynamic equilibrium.
3. You believe that the circular convection flows in a gas, which equalize differences in temperature and pressure, represent a "weather machine" that builds up differences.
4. You think that the energy of the sun that is harnessed by a sunboiler, a sunpanel, or a ducky, can be adequately described as "free moving energy".
5. You keep believing that free moving molecules have the intrinsic desire to combine themselves, preserve the resulting structures, and expand them ever further, although the laws of thermodynamics tell us that any difference (for instance of energy, heat, temperature, pressure, concentration, information or complexity) will ultimately equalize.
I have the impression that all arguments possible on the abilities of the free moving energy of the sun have been exchanged, and that further discussing this subject is useless.
The final conclusion of discussing the abilities of the free moving energy of the sun is that it can be proven in three ways (empirically, analytically and logically) that 2ndEarth positioned in the sunlight is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases. (Also see conclusion 3 of my post on December 5, 2006).
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 13. February 2007 06:38
quote:
I have the impression that all arguments possible on the abilities of the free moving energy of the sun have been exchanged, and that further discussing this subject is useless.
Well William, that is certainly your choice. Good luck to you and I hope you make the effort to educate yourself further in thermodynamics so you can correct the glaring mistakes in your assertions and conclusions.
I think it has been adequately demonstrated that there is a maintained temperature difference on the eclipsed region of your hypothetical surface S. If anyone else disagrees with this, I am certainly willing to discuss further though.
So, unless anything else comes up or anyone else wants to discuss, I will simply respond to your final 'conclusion' -
quote:
The final conclusion of discussing the abilities of the free moving energy of the sun is that it can be proven in three ways (empirically, analytically and logically) that 2ndEarth positioned in the sunlight is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
So what? We know that for any system, net entropy always increases. The above is a meaningless and content free conclusion.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 20. February 2007 03:23
quote:
Sciwall , posted 13. February 2007: I think it has been adequately demonstrated that there is a maintained temperature difference on the eclipsed region of your hypothetical surface S.
Science can be seen as a continuing search for truth. In this search, empirical evidence, theoretical analysis and logic play an important role. In my post of 6 February, I presented empirical proof, analytical proof and logical proof that there is no maintained temperature difference between the shaded region on S and the non-shaded region, and that 2ndEarth, put in the sunlight, is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
Anyone is free to put empirical proof, analytical proof and logical proof falsifying a claim or theory aside. But by doing so, one leaves the scientific domain and enters the domain of religion where different rules hold and claims and theories can be put forward without the possibility of falsification.
====================================================================================
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
OF THE ISCID-DISCUSSION (APRIL 2006 - FEBRUARY 2007)
OF THE PCID-PAPER "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF THERMODYNAMICS AND EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE" (PCID, Vol 4.1 July 2005)
(If the link http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2005/4/1/dejong_everyday_experience.php does not give entrance to the paper mentioned above, please use:
http://www.evoskepsis.nl/docs/Evolutionary%20theorie%20and%20empirical%20science.pdf )
1. A fundamental property of our universe is that all differences (e.g. of temperature, energy, density, pressure, concentration, information or complexity) 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 tell 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. In his initial experiment, Miller found that random flashes of lightning can make basic substances stick together as building blocks for life and that new flashes of lightning destroy them again, the bigger the sooner. Therefore, Miller adjusted his experiment and constructed a transportation system moving away the produced building blocks for life to a safe retort. In his adjusted experiment, Miller showed that the production of an ever concentrated organic soup requires directed effort. The initial Miller-experiment combined with the adjusted Miller-experiment falsify the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random processes can make molecules order themselves into ever expanding structures.
3. 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, which developed themselves into reproducing macro molecules, turned themselves into RNA, then into DNA, subsequently into cells, and finally arranged themselves into ever complicated organisms. This theory of macro-evolution 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 theory of macro-evolution is as invalid as the theory that the earth is flat or that the sun is spinning around the earth.
4. In the fantasy world of the theory of macro-evolution, random mutation of the DNA will improve it. In the real world, random mutation of the DNA leads to dysfunctioning, cancer, and hereditary diseases. In the fantasy world of the theory of macro-evolution, random mutation of the DNA will make its information content grow ever further. In the real world, 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. If these mutations would not be continuously repaired by mutation repair systems, the DNA program would turn into chaos within a lifetime. Despite the continuous mutations repair and the numerous struggles for food, shelter and a partner where individuals and populations with dysfunctioning repair systems are losers, the difference between information and non-information will equalize. Ultimately, the information content of the DNA will be wiped out.
5. When investigating the fossil record, any objective observer will notice that the shape of organisms may vary through time within a number of dimensions (small - large; broad - sharp; firm - fragile; curved - flat; et cetera). These variations can be fully explained by the mechanism of recombination and selection of alleles from the gene pool of a species. If also a mechanism of random mutation and growth of the DNA program of organisms would exist, resulting in the expansion of their genetic system space into new dimensions, numerous scrapheaps of unsuccessful trials should be present in the fossil record (for instance, a multitude of fossils of unsuccessful organisms produced by the random change process that turned a four-legged mammal and it into a whale). Any objective observer will agree that such scrapheaps are completely absent.
6. The (complicated) convection streams in the atmosphere of the earth equalize differences of temperature and pressure, and do not represent a "weather machine" that builds up differences.
7. Let S be a 100,000 km. radius sphere with 2ndEarth (identical to our Earth, except the presence of living organisms) in its center. S is put in the sunlight. It can be proven in three ways (empirically, analytically, and logically) that 2ndEarth is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases. As a consequence, the claim that the free moving energy of the sun can make molecules on 2ndEarth start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further, is false.
8. The further away from us, the bigger the redshift of galaxies. The Big Bang theory explains this observation by hypothesizing that galaxies move away, the further from us the faster, resulting in an increasing expansion of our universe, and increasing differences in the concentration of matter. Thermodynamics, however, teaches us that differences will not increase but will equalize, and contradicts the Big Bang theory. An alternative explanation for the increasing redshifts is that our universe is curved (like a plain wrapped around a sphere) resulting in an infinite but closed universe. The curvedness produces a distortion in the observation of objects, which become noticeable on long distances by a redshift. This hypothesis 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.
9. 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 taught by empirical science.
10. Beliefs (= assumptions that cannot be proven) can be subdivided into rational-beliefs and irrational-beliefs. The belief that the 3 gigabyte DNA-program in every human cell and the mutation repair systems that preserve its integrity are designed is a rational-belief, since all programs and mutation repair systems we encounter in our daily life are not produced by random processes but are designed. The belief that matter possesses an intrinsic property that maintains differences and expands them ever further is an irrational-belief, since it is in flat contradiction with empirical evidence and empirical science. This irrational-belief corresponds with the belief of the Alchemists that matter possesses a hidden, magic property (the "quintessence of matter").
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Our children should 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 of ordering 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.
14. 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 therefore 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 of rejecting untenable theories, serving the progress of science.
==================================================================================
IP: Logged
|
|
John Hewitt
Member
Member # 2686
|
posted 21. February 2007 03:07
I do not normally post to this forum, so perhaps I am missing something but, so far as I can see in the
"SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS"
Point 1 seems a basic and correct assertion and, with some reservations, point 6 could be called a thermodynamic argument. Points 2, 3, 4 and 5 seem concerned with chemical mechanisms. Point 7 may be a thermodynamic assertion but I cannot see how it applies to earth. Point 8 is astronomy. Points 9 onward again seem undirected to thermodynamics.
I cannot see how the thread of this thermodynamic discussion has managed to draw such conclusions.
[ 21. February 2007, 03:10: Message edited by: John Hewitt ]
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 21. February 2007 09:48
quote:
I cannot see how the thread of this thermodynamic discussion has managed to draw such conclusions.
It hasn't.
[ 21. February 2007, 11:12: Message edited by: sciwall ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic