Does procreation offer proof;

[Bishadi]

What I was talking about was ionic radii, used to determine how many atoms would cluster around each other, which in turn would dictate the crystal system and a lot of crystal properties.

look up the p680

P680, or Photosystem II primary donor, (where P stands for pigment) refers to any of the 2 special chlorophyll dimers (also named special pairs), PD1 or PD2[1]. These 2 special pairs form an excitonic dimer, which means that they behave in function as a single entity; i.e., they are excited as if they were a single molecule. The 680 number is its absorption maximum in the red part of the visible spectrum (680 nm). The primary donor receives excitation energy either by absorbing a photon of suitable frequency (colour) or by excitation energy transfer from other chlorophylls within photosystem II. During excitation, an electron is excited to a higher energy level

a collective of elements capturing a greater wavelength (photon)


it is what life does for a living

 

[Dinwar]

That really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I was discussing mineralogy, not biochemistry. It would hardly be surprising to find different techniques used in different fields (they would be after different things, have different errors and standards [95% vs 99% is a huge difference], different histories, etc).

 

[RussDill]

Ok Bishadi, let me see if I can get this. You are claiming that:

a) Heat alone cannot describe the entropy of a system.

b) Chemists typically do not use the wave model of the atom for day to day work, but instead use a more Bohr like model, which is typically a good approximation.

Is there anything I'm missing?

 

[Bishadi]

Ok Bishadi, let me see if I can get this. You are claiming that:

a) Heat alone cannot describe the entropy of a system.

correct.


ie... entropy is not a pure law, especially when describing life (life; abuses entropy (over all), period!)

b) Chemists typically do not use the wave model of the atom for day to day work, but instead use a more Bohr like model, which is typically a good approximation.

Is there anything I'm missing?

that you learned something

ie.... that above is oppposite of your claim.....(s)

And the irrational clinging to the bohr model of the atom when a) the Schrodinger model and how it relates to chemistry is so awesome and b) how a simple google search for 'chemistry orbital' makes it very clear which model actually gets used.


perhaps clear up you irrational claim!

.


No one observes electrons moving in orbits. Its a model. Additionally, whether or not a model is complete or incomplete is not determined by the percentage of people using it.



that perhaps there is more to comprehend, then you even remotely know.


ie..... from the DI-n-war to the others who insult with zero cause...... this thread is about biology and life.


ie.... life: abuses entropy!


FACT!

 

[RussDill]

correct.

Hooray, we all agree that there is more to entropy than just heat.

ie... entropy is not a pure law, especially when describing life (life; abuses entropy (over all), period!)

Wait, what? That doesn't follow from the above. Ok, first, entropy is not a law or a pure law, or a law of any kind, its a property of a system. What is the difference between a law and pure law anyway?

Do you have a problem with the 2nd law of thermodynamics beyond just that there is more to entropy than just heat? Can you describe the what problemn you have with the 2nd law using a modern interpretation of the 2nd law rather than one from 1850?

Can you give us an example of a closed system where entropy decreases? (eg, the system becomes more ordered)

ie.... that above is oppposite of your claim.....(s)

And the irrational clinging to the bohr model of the atom when a) the Schrodinger model and how it relates to chemistry is so awesome and b) how a simple google search for 'chemistry orbital' makes it very clear which model actually gets used.

A miscommunication. It was my assumption that you were implying that the Bohr model is correct and complete.

that perhaps there is more to comprehend, then you even remotely know.

Queue dramatic music!

ie.... life: abuses entropy!

No it doesn't. Give me a closed system with life in it. Show me how said life would increase the order of that closed system. Eg, put a rat in a sealed, darkened, insulated jar. What happens inside the jar? Do things become more ordered, or does the rat die?

 

[Bishadi]

The thread OP is quite easy to comprehend with enough material information;

Does procreation offer proof;

the life abuses entropy?




there is only ONE answer....................... yes


and this thread has enough to begin any class towards learning what is most important from all sciences;

how life works!


as far as i am concerned nothing will undo what many have gathered from this chain of threads opened and addressed during my short tenure.

perhaps one day, some of the per se professionals within this JREF (educational foundation) will begin to open the doors for the next generations to further the 'evolution of knowledge' beyond the ignorance of todays 'belief system' (paradigm)


did i mention that gravity is the entanglement of energy between points of matter?


enjoy as i have used up my resources and to be seeking an income (does anyone know if the iranians could use a better way of isolating 235)

I cannot consider this group a sound observance of skeptical inquiry any further. (the majority of posters are just insulting trolls)

It appears few like solid research if it directly provides evidence that ultimately shares that what many believe they comprehend is just blatantly wrong!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bishadi]

Hooray, we all agree that there is more to entropy than just heat.

so to create a law within physics using a law of steam engines, is just stupid; wouldn't you agree?

Wait, what? That doesn't follow from the above. Ok, first, entropy is not a law or a pure law, or a law of any kind, its a property of a system. What is the difference between a law and pure law anyway?

the right hand rule is a pure law

the 2nd belongs in the pirates code (a sort of guideline)

Can you give us an example of a closed system where entropy decreases? (eg, the system becomes more ordered)

sure, ring the bell of a school yard and watch the kids fall in line, return to class.

A miscommunication. It was my assumption that you were implying that the Bohr model is correct and complete.

too much ASSuming around this peanut gallery

No it doesn't. Give me a closed system with life in it.

the universe

ie.... as soon as you fullfill the requisite of the first law (all energy in, all energy within: causal description of the systems transitions)

the universe is closed and the only way to claim otherwise is to create new dimensions (layers or places that dont exist; kind of like a heaven or hell; no one has been there but lots of people speculate on junk that dont exist)

Show me how said life would increase the order of that closed system.

the laws of a community. Each follow prescribed pattern, reduces the disorder.


kind of like what living organisms do when they gather food.

Eg, put a rat in a sealed, darkened, insulated jar. What happens inside the jar? Do things become more ordered, or does the rat die?

the life existed breathing before the jar, so you must include the operatives to sustain that life (ie.... you cant close a system without removing requisites and since you cannot remove all interactions from any point of mass, then there is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, ever!!!!!)



ie... heat works fine for the ignorant because they have no idea what the heat is. To follow the law as absolute is just ignorance in motion.

 

[Dinwar]

there is only ONE answer....................... yes


and this thread has enough to begin any class towards learning what is most important from all sciences;

how life works!


as far as i am concerned nothing will undo what many have gathered from this chain of threads opened and addressed during my short tenure.

At last the dishonesty shows through. He was preaching to us, with no intent to engage in a meaningful discussion, and he's just so much smarter than all those stupid physicists that use theories that HIS theory will shatter.

When you publish this, let me know. I want to read the paper, and the fallout.

 

[iknownothing]

At last the dishonesty shows through. He was preaching to us, with no intent to engage in a meaningful discussion, and he's just so much smarter than all those stupid physicists that use theories that HIS theory will shatter.

If he can't even admit to error in his semicolon use, and try to to do better, then I think you're out of luck getting him to budge on his pet theories.

 

[RussDill]

so to create a law within physics using a law of steam engines, is just stupid; wouldn't you agree?

umm...no, the industrial revolution and the foundation of thermodynamics go hand in hand. The motivation behind thermodynamics may have been the carnot cycle, but it has grown far beyond that and so has its applications. I'm sure there are many branches of science that started out to solve one problem, but have in turn solved many other problems.

the right hand rule is a pure law

How many times do people on this forum and others have to point out to you that the right hand rule is not a law, it is a convention. That's why there is a Fleming's left hand rule and a Fleming's right hand rule.

the 2nd belongs in the pirates code (a sort of guideline)

Either the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds, or it doesn't. Pick one. If you say it doesn't hold, then you have to give me examples.

sure, ring the bell of a school yard and watch the kids fall in line, return to class.

In this example, the overall entropy of the system has increased. Each cell in each kid is metabolizing and also generating waste heat. The efficiency of the children really isn't that great and a good portion of the energy they use to line up gets wasted.

the universe

Answered the "Give me a closed system with life in it." without the "Show me how said life would increase the order of that closed system." isn't any good. Yes, the universe is a closed system, and yes it contains life, but the entropy of the universe increases with time.

kind of like what living organisms do when they gather food.

Do you not see that when an organism and gathers food, they are part of the same system? The organism lowers their own entropy by gathering the food, but that doesn't decrease the entropy of the system since the food is part of the system.

the life existed breathing before the jar, so you must include the operatives to sustain that life (ie.... you cant close a system without removing requisites and since you cannot remove all interactions from any point of mass, then there is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, ever!!!!!)

The universe is a perfectly closed system. But for sake of experimentation with thermodynamics, we can make systems that are isolated to certain degrees and account for that. In any case, if you want me to include "the operatives to sustain that life", then that would include the sun.

Are you aware that the sun is a huge low entropy source for the earth? All those photons arriving from a small point in the sky. That is low entropy. However, as the sun burns, it's own entropy increases, and the entropy of the overall solar system also increases.

 

[Reality Check]

The thread OP is quite easy to comprehend with enough material information;

Does procreation offer proof;

the life abuses entropy?

there is only ONE answer....................... yes

there is only ONE answer....................... the question as stated is idiotic. Life can never "abuse" entropy.

But:
Procreation definitely obeys the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy increases. You start with a simple system, e.g. a bacteria. You end up with a less simple system (lots of bacteria). Entropy has increased.

However we do not have to worry about this minor effect - the Sun is the dominating source of entropy increase.

 

[majamin]

ie.... the life of a single celled life (sperm/egg) is not increasing disorder, it is consuming within its environment (a process in action)

It may well be creating order out of disorder ... but this process does not involve a closed system ... it's necessarily OPEN ... how many times do we have to reiterate this point?

 

[bruto]

if you do not learn you could not say "momma"

and since knowledge evolves over time within the body of mankinds understanding, be certain the next paradigm shift will unroot the ignorant that hold onto a book and claim "the second law is absolute, even when we have no idea what heat is"


ie... when santa clausius shared the Cl (entropy) faraday/maxwell were just beginning the comprehension of the em (electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes) (the core cause of all that is 'energy')

Heat is not energy. it is the measurement of a system

Ie... if heat was causally understood prior (as energy upon mass) then i would bet the reduction would not be a law of disorder. Basic common sense.


ie.... the life of a single celled life (sperm/egg) is not increasing disorder, it is consuming within its environment (a process in action)

to put on on a coat when you are cold is a law breaker (per the 2nd) and the only way to discount that is to open up the system parameters until rendered for the bias. But them to observe there is no ending point to that expansion of parameters (how far you take the system out (earth, then sun, then solar system, galaxy, universe)) then it is easy to find that to the farthest expansion, that there is no perfect vacuum anywhere in existence to begin that 0 (Starting point of an absolute void). ie.... there is no perfect vacuum to measure 'c' as absolute either

And the proof is logical; there is no void between any points of mass (all are associated).

ie... the first LoT makes the second moot simply by comprehending a system to the absolute of causal understanding.

Learning is not evolution.

 

[soylent]

The first post didn't make any sense, so I took the liberty of putting it through bad translator; extra strength. Original in red, result in green:

Does procreation offer proof that; "life abuses entropy"?
And evidence of abuse in this country?

Meaning if a living thing divides itself (give a cell (sperm/egg for example) to live into the next generation, is that life avoiding simple equlibration?
In addition (such as batteries, such as music (egg / sperm alive from generation to generation), what is your budget?

IS the life of that mass (the energy) furthering?
Life (energy), which helps to remove?"

The analogy in question is; if all of the life of mankind began as a single celled critter some time back and has lived, divided and evolved over time, has that life ever equlibrated as an entity 'life itself'?
Level of human problems, but also to prevent long-term forecasts can be the destination of my life, equlibrated it.

I see the life as like the 'fire' within a molecular set of reactions, consuming, exchanging within its environment. SO when a life procreates that set of processes are simply furthing into the next generation; starting over but still in process.
Among the mass of watching people and the environment from a file with "simple." Just an example, but the right way the next generation.

And the evidence could be that life as a whole upon this earth has proved itself resilliant and surviving beyond the 'extinctions'.
Confirmation that we live on this planet resilliant no evidence of "genocide".

Does this make sense?

And if not, please explain.
This explanation is logical, if not, thanks.

 

[bruto]

The first post didn't make any sense, so I took the liberty of putting it through bad translator; extra strength. Original in red, result in green:

Does procreation offer proof that; "life abuses entropy"?
And evidence of abuse in this country?

Meaning if a living thing divides itself (give a cell (sperm/egg for example) to live into the next generation, is that life avoiding simple equlibration?
In addition (such as batteries, such as music (egg / sperm alive from generation to generation), what is your budget?

IS the life of that mass (the energy) furthering?
Life (energy), which helps to remove?"

The analogy in question is; if all of the life of mankind began as a single celled critter some time back and has lived, divided and evolved over time, has that life ever equlibrated as an entity 'life itself'?
Level of human problems, but also to prevent long-term forecasts can be the destination of my life, equlibrated it.

I see the life as like the 'fire' within a molecular set of reactions, consuming, exchanging within its environment. SO when a life procreates that set of processes are simply furthing into the next generation; starting over but still in process.
Among the mass of watching people and the environment from a file with "simple." Just an example, but the right way the next generation.

And the evidence could be that life as a whole upon this earth has proved itself resilliant and surviving beyond the 'extinctions'.
Confirmation that we live on this planet resilliant no evidence of "genocide".

Does this make sense?

And if not, please explain.
This explanation is logical, if not, thanks.

Aha! Now I get it!

 

[Mojo]

look up the p680

P680, or Photosystem II primary donor, (where P stands for pigment) refers to any of the 2 special chlorophyll dimers (also named special pairs), PD1 or PD2[1]. These 2 special pairs form an excitonic dimer, which means that they behave in function as a single entity; i.e., they are excited as if they were a single molecule. The 680 number is its absorption maximum in the red part of the visible spectrum (680 nm). The primary donor receives excitation energy either by absorbing a photon of suitable frequency (colour) or by excitation energy transfer from other chlorophylls within photosystem II. During excitation, an electron is excited to a higher energy level

a collective of elements capturing a greater wavelength (photon)


it is what life does for a living

That's actually rather brilliant. In a thread in which you are attempting to argue that life "abuses entropy" you post the reason it doesn't: it captures energy from the Sun.

 

[PixyMisa]

The thread OP is quite easy to comprehend with enough material information;

Does procreation offer proof;

the life abuses entropy?




there is only ONE answer.......................

No.

 

[Evilgiraffe]

when this is the bohr analogy:

. . .

snipped nonsensical manglings of 100 year old science

. . .

Bishadi, stop. I like chemistry. It has moved on a loooooong way from where you represent the current state of the art to be.

 

[Skwinty]

The wheels on the bus go round and round..

 

[Jack by the hedge]

to put on on a coat when you are cold is a law breaker (per the 2nd)

There's no need to overcomplicate this by invoking Bohr, Maxwell, Schroedinger etc etc. Bishadi's claim is encapsulated here - his declaration that putting on a coat to warm yourself violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I can't help but agree there is some aspect of this which appears to defy explanation, though perhaps he and I aren't thinking of the same part.