Does procreation offer proof;

[Ziggurat]

Thermodynamically speaking, life processes speed up the equilibration of the universe.

Not necessarily. But that doesn't matter. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says nothing about how fast or how much entropy must increases, only that it will increase. There's no requirement that the increase be the maximum possible.

 

[Bishadi]

Be precise.

Which of the laws of thermodynamics would be broken and how?

You caused you own retention of heat, specifically.

 

[Bishadi]

Once again, that made zero sense. I feel like I'm conversing with someone who has Wernicke's aphasia. Spell it out for us non-geniuses: what law is it breaking, and how? Because I can't think of a way that would break any laws of thermodynamics without first giving myself a lobotomy.

i would rather get a lobotomy than accept a belief over experience.

ie... do you intend to equilibrate?

 

[Bishadi]

Nope.



Earth is not in thermal equilibrium. It is situated between something very hot and very cold. As long as that very hot thing (more commonly known as "the sun") stays hot, and that very cold thing (more commonly known as "deep space") stays cold, the earth will continue to exist out of equilibrium.

that is funny.

All that cold per se empty space but for some reason there are collectives of mass, in little balls making the sky look black will lil'white dots.


billlions of years and still not much equilibration going on.

If life evolves in itself provides evidence but few apply the laws to life.

Why is that?

Nothing about that statement suggests any violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

sure..... the first requires that no energy just vanishes, it must be conserved.


So the method of comprehending that is that the energy converts into various different states based on the surrounding mass.


for example; to tap the surface of the ocean, you will see the wave on the surface covering distance in time and the wave appears to get smaller but to be causal, the energy is just entangling a greater amount of mass, but it is still there collectively. It does not just go away when causally identified and retained in value.

ie... the 2nd is for the steam engine era with hot water for mechanical conversion, it does not apply to quantum level energy (em). And the proof is self evidenced in the bohr analogy of the electron spinning in an orbit (per se) around the proton.

The second is made moot by simply requiring the causal definition of 'why' the hot goes cold.

it's stupid easy to a 'critical thinker' but like a religious adherant few will go against genesis too.





Same with life: it's not an equilibrium condition, but that doesn't matter, because it only exists in an environment that is not in equilibrium.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mashuna]

i would rather get a lobotomy than accept a belief over experience.

No, that's just too easy a target.

 

[dafydd]

So with all the rules and education to be had may i assume, each of you are losers to your environment?


Are you alive?

ie.... do we identify you as a reduction to any system?

Are you capable of putting on a coat when you are cold?

I was interested to know what is the life of your mass? Are you of the intent of just being a waste of time?


To any physicist, perhaps try identifying the life of the mass as the subject within the environment and let me know how it comes out?

The good ones will know what this thread means!

Can you find someone to help you with your English?

 

[dafydd]

that is funny.

All that cold per se empty space but for some reason there are collectives of mass, in little balls making the sky look black will lil'white dots.


billlions of years and still not much equilibration going on.

If life evolves in itself provides evidence but few apply the laws to life.

Why is that?



sure..... the first requires that no energy just vanishes, it must be conserved.


So the method of comprehending that is that the energy converts into various different states based on the surrounding mass.


for example; to tap the surface of the ocean, you will see the wave on the surface covering distance in time and the wave appears to get smaller but to be causal, the energy is just entangling a greater amount of mass, but it is still there collectively. It does not just go away when causally identified and retained in value.

ie... the 2nd is for the steam engine era with hot water for mechanical conversion, it does not apply to quantum level energy (em). And the proof is self evidenced in the bohr analogy of the electron spinning in an orbit (per se) around the proton.

The second is made moot by simply requiring the causal definition of 'why' the hot goes cold.

it's stupid easy to a 'critical thinker' but like a religious adherant few will go against genesis too.





Same with life: it's not an equilibrium condition, but that doesn't matter, because it only exists in an environment that is not in equilibrium.

[/QUOTE]

Keep trying and you may actually write something that makes sense.

 

[Mojo]

You caused you own retention of heat, specifically.

Which of the laws of thermodynamics would that break, and how?

 

[Ziggurat]

that is funny.

All that cold per se empty space but for some reason there are collectives of mass, in little balls making the sky look black will lil'white dots.


billlions of years and still not much equilibration going on.

So? Stars are driven by fusion. It takes a very long time for a star to burn out - billions of years, in many cases.

If life evolves in itself provides evidence but few apply the laws to life.

Why is that?

Because you're clueless. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does apply to life. That's why life gives of heat. We've been over this before. You have learned nothing.

ie... the 2nd is for the steam engine era with hot water for mechanical conversion, it does not apply to quantum level energy (em).

O hell yes it applies to quantum mechanics. In fact, quantum mechanics is what allowed thermodynamics to become statistical mechanics. Under steam engine era thermodynamics, the 2nd law was merely an observed fact. It took quantum mechanics to really understand, and in fact prove, the 2nd law using statistical mechanics.

And the proof is self evidenced in the bohr analogy of the electron spinning in an orbit (per se) around the proton.

Utter nonsense.

The second is made moot by simply requiring the causal definition of 'why' the hot goes cold.

Nope. Completely and utterly wrong. But thanks for demonstrating that you don't have a clue about statistical mechanics.

 

[dafydd]

Which of the laws of thermodynamics would that break, and how?

Be fair,he can't answer that.The question assumes prior knowledge and understanding of the laws of thermodynamics,and Bishadi has no idea.

 

[Fiona]

Be fair,he can't aswer that.The question assumes prior knowledge and understanding of the laws of thermodynamics,and Bishadi has no idea.

How can you tell? Do you speak the same language as Bishadi or something?

 

[dafydd]

How can you tell? Do you speak the same language as Bishadi or something?

Good point,I don't speak Unadulterated Gibberish,but that is what I glean from his nonsensical posts.

 

[Mashuna]

I know the painted wagon is usually reserved for a different poster's threads, but is there any chance of it being pressed into service over here?

 

[nescafe]

the coat will keep you from getting cold and it aint no accident, when you put it on. (you would be 'breaking the law')

No it will not -- your metabolism is what keeps you from getting cold, not the coat. The coat just slows down the rate at which heat flows between you and your environment, mainly by blocking convective heat transfer. No second law violations in sight.

 

[nescafe]

I know the painted wagon is usually reserved for a different poster's threads, but is there any chance of it being pressed into service over here?

I don't think the wagon would work here -- unlike yrreg, bidashi is usually active in multiple threads at once. We need mass transit!

 

[Mashuna]

No it will not -- your metabolism is what keeps you from getting cold, not the coat. The coat just slows down the rate at which heat flows between you and your environment, mainly by blocking convective heat transfer. No second law violations in sight.

Quite. Conversely, if you're cold, wearing a thick coat and sitting by a fire, open the coat up to warm yourself faster.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You caused you own retention of heat, specifically.

No, you slowed the rate of heat loss by trapping a layer of insulating air around your body. Your body is generating heat because of your metabolism. As long as your body has fuel to sustain that metabolism you will generate heat which you will loose to your surroundings (provided that your surroundings are cooler than your body). If your surroundings are cold enough then the coat will still be inadequate to prevent you loosing too much heat and cooling to the point that the chemical reactions that sustain your life can no longer maintain a sufficient metabolic rate to keep you alive. Even the best cold weather clothes available won't prevent you from freezing to death in Antarctica at night.

 

[Fiona]

I know the painted wagon is usually reserved for a different poster's threads, but is there any chance of it being pressed into service over here?

We don't need a painted wagon for this, Mashuna: what we are going to do is be in several places at once: we can do this because we don't exist in any meaningful sense: we are some kind of process and we are all that process simultaneously: so we can be in several threads at the same time without any problem. That is the nature of "life itself": its position is indeterminate

At least I think that is how it works .

Can you organise a cue so we can be sure that we are all in many places at once? I think some creepy music is what is needed

 

[Foster Zygote]

i would rather get a lobotomy than accept a belief over experience.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me...

ie... do you intend to equilibrate?

What does intent have to do with it? One day we will all be dead and we will most certainly be entropy's bitch.

 

[Dani]

Bishadi: I find what you say quite unintelligible. It looks like your priorities are mixed up. Why don't you first work hard on improving your English and then come back with a proper argument in English, or at least an argument in proper English?

Dada-English can be fine in the category of aesthetics, but it's quite useless in the category of knowledge.