Does procreation offer proof;

[Bishadi]

This makes no sense.

sure it does.

What the **** holds the cell walls together of your life (cells) (the phospholipid)? What is that cause at the molecule scale? What is the energy causing it?

How where strawberry blue mohawks?

I'd guess it's hydrogen bonds. I've said before I'm not a biochemist.

Those ARE hydrogen bonds.

again.......... you have no clue

How is that a biological issue?

how do you think plants absorb energy (ie.. the p680) from the sun?

From Wikipedia:

You can see their references.

Someone else answered that question earlier.

Again, how is this a biology question? I mean, it may be an interesting physics question, and it may have applications at some point to biology, but right now (if I understand your question properly), it's not biology.

yo have no business debating with me

 

[Bishadi]

At some point, words will not get you anywhere. It seems that no words that we've presented have been capable of convincing you that your "life abusing entropy" is flawed.

to folks who DO NOT HAVE the material knowledge to comprehend.

Prove us wrong, Bishadi.

procreation, cell division, life itself;

and the reason you and the few trying to debate with me do not comprehend it is because the existing sciences have NOT defined life so you could understand it.

the reason: just read the thead posts...........(read most all but mine will give you the very reason)

Show us that you are a very good scientist, capable of not just repeated many words over and over, but capable of demonstrating, with some math and data perhaps, how the 2nd law is refuted.

compare endothermic and exothermic reactions..... You will have your evidence directly!

notice the direction of energy flow (you pick which one is following the law)

 

[Bishadi]

I should believe you when you make **** up, for the good of mankind?

nope, you should be thinking for yourself

I should believe you when you make **** up, for the integrity of an educational forum?

nope, you should check it yourself versus relying on your educational forum

Neither, as mathematical conjectures subject to proof are not at issue here.[ However, that the laws of thermodynamics hold true despite the existence of life is as well established by observation as anything in science.

life, created the descriptions you are using. So they do not hold true unless an idiot discounts causal application to describe nature. (ie.... your very integrity is why you dont listen and choose not to apply comprehension to what you already know (that life procreates)

That is the very **** you made up that I was talking about. I do not believe it. Interestingly, the reason I do not believe it is not because it is **** you made up (after all people can make up **** that happens to be true), but because it contradicts centuries of scientific observation of nature.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Combine the centuries of material information and i will bet you would see it yourself and then the ***** you keep spouting, you can eat!

i dont want you to believe me and why i address these types of scenarios with open ended dialogue; it aint me, that dont know the material it is you and the trolls who post little but garbage.

no one here has rendered anything that anyone else could not see all by themselves.

life; abuses entropy (and procreation (cell division) proves it)

 

[Mojo]

compare endothermic and exothermic reactions..... You will have your evidence directly!

notice the direction of energy flow (you pick which one is following the law)

Notice that endothermic and exothermic reactions are not isolated systems (there's a clue in their names).

 

[Mojo]

life; abuses entropy (and procreation (cell division) proves it)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When i cannot understand a set of material i look up the definitions of each word, then reread the material.

Try it!

As I thought I had made clear, the individual words you use are not the problem. The problem is the meaningless way you arrange them. I might understand you if you expressed yourself in grammatical english.

Try it!

 

[bruto]

When i cannot understand a set of material i look up the definitions of each word, then reread the material.

The most clearly defined words can still be strung together to make nonsense. Likewise, the most clearly defined words can be strung together to make a comprehensible lie. If you truly believe that knowing the meaning of the individual words is enough to make an utterance comprehensible, then it's no surprise that every reader of your material seems to agree that you are failing. Blaming others for failing to comprehend your word salad will not lead to a successful communication of your ideas. If your ideas make any sense at all you owe it to yourself to take an honest look at your ability to communicate, because no idea, good or bad, can survive the deficiency of your expression.

 

[Emet]

Okay, Bishadi, I am convinced. You are a deep thinker, and all of the other posters are not.

Could you answer something for me?

Since Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey;
A kiddley divey too,


wouldn't you?

 

[Mojo]

nothing within all of the universe is isolated.

Therefore according to the second law of thermodynamics it is possible for the entropy of some things within the universe to decrease as long as the entropy of the entire universe, or some other system of which those things are part, doesn't.

 

[Hellbound]

Posted this in the condensation thread, thought maybe I should post it here to.

Looking at his comments, I wonder if Bishadi somehow thinks that the second law implies that all systems must be closed?

If that's his (mis)understanding, then his contention that condensation and life breaks it makes sense.

OF course, it is a massive misunderstanding of the second law, but such an error might explain why he seems to be having an entirely different discussion than everyone else.

Of course, he could just be a nutcase, as well.

THe second law, basically, can't be used alone because, as Bishadi correctly stated, no system in the iniverse is completely isolated.

HOWEVER

That being said, what the application of the second law states is that if you take a system (consisting of whatever objects of interest there are), and account for all energy inputs to and energy outputs from that system, then you'll never get more energy oputput than input. And, since no system can be completely isolated, a good portion of your energy input is "lost" to waste heat, or other non-useful energy transfer (it heats up the surroundings).

Basically, the best you can hope for, ideally, is to break even; in the real world, everything will eventually run down. THe only way to prevent this is to keep winding it back up (adding energy to the system) to counteract the energy lost as waste.

 

[majamin]

compare endothermic and exothermic reactions..... You will have your evidence directly!

No. The burden (and the work) of proof is upon you. You need to show us, by using data and calculations, a biological process that is temporarily isolated and undergoes a process of entropy decrease. I don't have one, but you claim that you do. Please present it with the analysis.

 

[Bishadi]

No. The burden (and the work) of proof is upon you. You need to show us, by using data and calculations, a biological process that is temporarily isolated and undergoes a process of entropy decrease. I don't have one, but you claim that you do. Please present it with the analysis.

nope.


as that material information within chemistry already exists.

if you dont comprehend it, then label yourself.......

 

[majamin]

HOWEVER

That being said, what the application of the second law states is that if you take a system (consisting of whatever objects of interest there are), and account for all energy inputs to and energy outputs from that system, then you'll never get more energy oputput than input. And, since no system can be completely isolated, a good portion of your energy input is "lost" to waste heat, or other non-useful energy transfer (it heats up the surroundings).

Basically, the best you can hope for, ideally, is to break even; in the real world, everything will eventually run down. THe only way to prevent this is to keep winding it back up (adding energy to the system) to counteract the energy lost as waste.

The requirement of the 2nd law would stipulate that no energy transfer occurs at all, across the "boundary" of the isolated system. I like to use to idea of multiplicity to explain entropy: the number of microstates (multiplicity) that result in the same macrostate in any isolated system will tend to increase.

I think you are right, and Bishadi does not realized that his argument falls apart at the outset: a complete misapplication of the law. In fact, measuring the entropy of any biological process (or of any system) is a very difficult thing to do.

 

[majamin]

nope.


as that material information within chemistry already exists.

if you dont comprehend it, then label yourself.......

So, you want me to do the work for you? Are you lazy or just incapable? Your words can only take you so far, Bishadi, you have to make the grand gesture and show us the money.

 

[Ririon]

Is that you, Igor?

Get off the Internet and get back to work on my rabbit powered perpetual motion machine!

 

[Mojo]

nope.


as that material information within chemistry already exists.

if you dont comprehend it, then label yourself.......

The usual claim that there is evidence but you can't be bothered to post it, followed by an insult. Not terribly convincing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Wouldn't it be a tragedy if Bishadi had made a genuine breakthrough in understanding entropy, but the idea was lost because he was incapable of explaining it to anyone, except in a mixture of oblique hints, gibberish and ad-homs?

 

[Hellbound]

The requirement of the 2nd law would stipulate that no energy transfer occurs at all, across the "boundary" of the isolated system.

Yeah, I didn't state my meaning clearly there. I meant that because no systems in the real world can be completely isolated, the only way to accoutn for the actions of the second law (the other parts of it) is to track all inputs and outputs. If you can fully account for all incoming and outgoing energy in a non-isolated systems (at least to a decent degree of confidence), then you can treat that system, with the input/output additions, as isolated to determine entropy and such.

That sound better?

 

[bruto]

Wouldn't it be a tragedy if Bishadi had made a genuine breakthrough in understanding entropy, but the idea was lost because he was incapable of explaining it to anyone, except in a mixture of oblique hints, gibberish and ad-homs?

Indeed, I've tried to impress that on him, but I think he is as convinced of the superiority of his expression as he is of his other ideas, and in a perverse sense it's probably true, as he gives us no good reason to doubt that his ideas and his English are of comparable quality.

 

[C_Felix]

Man: You sit here, dear.
Wife: All right.
Man: Morning!
Waitress: Morning!
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam...
Waitress: ...spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam...
Vikings: Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!
Waitress: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.
Wife: Have you got anything without spam?
Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wife: I don't want ANY spam!
Man: Why can't she have egg bacon spam and sausage?
Wife: THAT'S got spam in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much spam in it as spam egg sausage and spam, has it?
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam... (Crescendo through next few lines...)
Wife: Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?
Waitress: Urgghh!
Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like spam!
Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Waitress: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Waitress: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam.
Wife: I don't like spam!
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your spam. I love it. I'm having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam!
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Waitress: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.
Man: Well could I have her spam instead of the baked beans then?
Waitress: You mean spam spam spam spam spam spam... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)
Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) Spam spam spam spam. Lovely spam! Wonderful spam! Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam. Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Spam spam spam spam!