Does procreation offer proof;

[dafydd]

to observe the fire itself, is it breaking the law as it is in process consuming.

ie... if the environment remains the same, in motion (consistant) it will live forever


that is the 'life' of the process, the specimen (change the observational point of view)

life; abuses entropy

it's stupid easy as soon as you forget the laws as absolute and use your head and all that science we ever could and will know changes in which the causal description can be ascertained for any phenomenon there is.

Try it as the focal change is to observe the energy of mass as em (light).

Life abuses entropy and as of yet still not an answer to say otherwise except 'the law'.

Can we have that again in English?

 

[Ziggurat]

as it is already of evidence, the majority of 'out there' is empty space while the lil'white dots are far and in between. Nothing equlibrating out there!

Uh, no. It will take a very long time to reach equilibrium, but that's exactly what's happening. When stars shine, they dump heat from a high-temperature source into a low-temperature sink. That's the process of equilibration: heat moves from high temperature to low temperature.

ie... if a tap on the pond is at the middle point and you believe it equlibrates, then if a big bang was at the same middle point, then how can any mass/energy combine? See what i mean?

No, I don't. Your English is nonsense.

That is 'why'? Again, an ignorant claim!

No, Bishadi. That is what. You need to understand the what before you can figure out the why, and you keep denying the what. You think life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it doesn't.

we maintain entropy, because we give off heat..............?

By giving off heat, we increase the entropy of our environment. This allows us to maintain or even decrease our own entropy, because it is TOTAL entropy that must increase. The entropy of an open system can decrease WITHOUT violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics as long as it increases the entropy of its surroundings enough. This is basic thermodynamics. And yet, you are apparently completely unaware of it.

How about let's talk about and embryo, consuming to grow from a single cell?

How about it? The embryo decreases its own entropy as it grows. It also gives off heat, increasing the entropy of its environment. Total entropy thus increases.

Nano technology shares the crystals are 'growing'.

So? Crystal growth is likewise an exothermic reaction.

most everyone knows about heisenberg field

Really? I tried looking up "Heisenberg field" in Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics", and it wasn't there. I guess he never heard about it. But that's an undergraduate texbook, maybe it's in the graduate textbooks. So I tried Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics". Nope, not there either.

I have no idea what you mean by "heisenberg field", but it's a term you invented. Nobody else uses that term. So don't expect anyone else to understand you when you invent your own terms and don't define them.

and uncertainties within the field and then if you comprehended that 'the' field (space/time) is maintaining that energy (state) and that is the unit (remember the rhr?) then the detector is identifying with its combination of (state) within the field sharing the uncertainty can be focused to a point at the point of interection between nodes within its resonance. (ie.... look for the golden ratio at the intersections between the combining energy)

Complete gibberish. And judging by your reference to the golden ratio, probably delusional gibberish.

Now, if life did in fact begin as a single celled critter a gazillion years back, and has procreated (the life (the fire)) for all them extinctions and as of now, is still rockin this taco stand, does life abuse entropy?

No. You have already been told this. Why do you persist in asking a question when you already have the answer?

 

[majamin]

that be a kind of oxymoron.

Ok, just for an experiment, I'm going to see if I can get through to Bishadi with his own language. I've been studying it for a little while, maybe I'll get somewhere with it. (and, also pretend that I'm speaking in 'evangelical priest', that makes it more convincing)

the heat (causes motion) and increases the disorder but the law says it will equilibrate (return to rest).

[Bishadi Language] the law say it cause fire motion, but disorder is the cause and then return to rest in the law [/Bishadi Language]

SO look at the system; 'x' is cold, you add em, the 'x' will go back to cold by law. So where is the em? it is still there or you are not maintaining a closed system.

[Bishadi Language] Now the law looks back at you you can not know how you add em law says still warm in em;;;;; it is still em in there (fire of course)
[/Bishadi Language]

i agree

[Bishadi Language] i law [/Bishadi Language]

as upon this earth, there is no where, anywhere, between points of mass that is a complete void (perfect vacuum)

[Bishadi Language] but the fire is a vacuum when teh cold is gone;;; the law breaks the life fire and motion goes down
[/Bishadi Language]

I am not trying to create a bench point except that in the procreation of life, that within the environment, the life is kicking the pants out of the law.

breaking the law, breaking the law..........dd..aaaa

[Bishadi Language] the law breaks the law ;;; life is the law daaaaaa laaaaaaaw, it breaks the law daaaaaaaaaaaa laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw
[/Bishadi Language]

i know

you know

we all know

[Bishadi Language] teh life law knows, so fire is in the motion and vacuum [/Bishadi Language]

but some are holding a law as if it is the gospel

[Bishadi Language] praise teh law! [/Bishadi Language]

Now you tell me who is ignorant? People that break the law and dont know it or them that know the law and break it anyway?

Now, we just sit back and watch the light bulb turn on. I think.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now, we just sit back and watch the light bulb turn on. I think.

I don't know. Maybe you've inspired him. Like when the hero tries to kill the monster by electrocuting it, but ends up making it stronger.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does procreation offer proof that; "life abuses entropy"?


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?


IS the life of that mass (the energy) furthering?

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'?

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.

And the evidence could be that life as a whole upon this earth has proved itself resilliant and surviving beyond the 'extinctions'.

Does this make sense?

And if not, please explain.

Life can only exist with an outside energy source.

No "abuse" of entropy--whatever you mean by that.

 

[nescafe]

that be a kind of oxymoron.

the heat (causes motion) and increases the disorder but the law says it will equilibrate (return to rest).

Returning to rest? We stopped listening to Aristotle centuries ago. What makes you think that the parts of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium are at rest?

SO look at the system; 'x' is cold, you add em, the 'x' will go back to cold by law.

Nope. Assuming an otherwise closed system, it equalize to whatever temperature/radiation balance is most favored for the environment.

The universe itself will not go cold (because there is no where for the energy to go as it is associated to everything else.

The Universe is expanding. It will get colder.

now for any who like the 4pir2, then guesimate the size of the universe.

Somewhere around 3.262 × 10^32 cubic light-years, if you assume the Universe is spherical and has a radius of 47 billion light years. It is more complicated than that though, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe for details.

 

[Bishadi]

So if we all can observe the same math and the only thing different is the language, then it appears there is an articulation problem;

a)...... have no idea what the math is and what it means

b) ..... cannot use logic to overide the belief


I feel like i am having conversations with religious wingnut as both apply:

1)...... evidence cannot override the belief

2) ..... no integrity to actually do the work, experiments and even question that perhaps what you believe is wrong.



ie..... if life has lived beyond all them extinctions and exist NOW and during all periods of mankinds existence, and you can personally put on a coat, no matter the law;

life; abuses entropy

the problem is not me it is the religious flavor of complacent believers


i have no reason to lie nor have i said anything except that life is far more capable than the beliefs and until honesty and integrity is maintained within, then look into the mirror and realize why you have no clue as to what life is.


not my fault as the evidence has existed for yours and now with the internet if that is not your pursuit (to understand) and the 'job' is your need/desire

then you are wasting your own life, living the beliefs and accepted paradigm

 

[Sledge]

You really should try and find someone who speaks English to help you with your posts.

 

[Bishadi]

You really should try and find someone who speaks English to help you with your posts.

if you dont comprehend you are writing your own posts by choice, then how the hell will you ever comprehend responsibility for your actions?

 

[Twiler]

if you dont comprehend you are writing your own posts by choice, then how the hell will you ever comprehend responsibility for your actions?

When deciding which posts you'll respond to, is your primary requirement that they should give you scope for a cheap retort?

 

[Bishadi]

When deciding which posts you'll respond to, is your primary requirement that they should give you scope for a cheap retort?

i retort to the resort i choose

Name one of the trollls that actually addresses the OP without just holding onto a belief?


ie.... when can someone show that life does not have an intent (see instinct)?

 

[Twiler]

i retort to the resort i choose

Name one of the trollls that actually addresses the OP without just holding onto a belief?


ie.... when can someone show that life does not have an intent (see instinct)?

Do you mean you retreat to the resort you choose?

Ziggurat and Foster Zygote have both responded. You know this. Is it not you who is holding onto the belief that you alone know best?

 

[Bishadi]

Do you mean you retreat to the resort you choose?

Ziggurat and Foster Zygote have both responded. You know this. Is it not you who is holding onto the belief that you alone know best?

they aint a god nor was newton or einstein; any can be wrong.


ie.... "we' within this generation have far more available than any of them to observe evidence and compare the paradigm with much of the globes works too. Meaning; our children will be far more capable of combining material information than all of them combined.

proof; knowledge evolves


dont judge me unless i am wrong, then prove it.

No one can tell darwin, "god' did not like evolution.

 

[Twiler]

they aint a god nor was newton or einstein; any can be wrong.


ie.... "we' within this generation have far more available than any of them to observe evidence and compare the paradigm with much of the globes works too. Meaning; our children will be far more capable of combining material information than all of them combined.

proof; knowledge evolves


dont judge me unless i am wrong, then prove it.

No one can tell darwin, "god' did not like evolution.

Look:

Dinkle spork banana.

Yes or no?

 

[PixyMisa]

If you don't feed it, life will die.

I expect he's been wondering for years where all his pets disappear to.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've asked this before and got no answer so I'll try again:

Ok, Mr/Miss/AI Bishad, you claim to be smart, so answer this question:

If you put something hot in a ThermosTM bottle (aka vacuum flask), it keeps it hot. If you put in something cold, it keeps it cold. How does it know which to do?

I await your answer.

 

[aleCcowaN]

And the program started a new loop in #93.

[

Let the dummy say everybody was wrong and insist in its first argument --->
if (number of counterarguments >= minNum) { //new loop here }
else {take an argument many showed disposition to debate and promote it as a spin off thread}


iterate
iterate
iterate
iterate
]

 

[Mojo]

as you try to create a closed environment, then note the 'cat' analogy claims that 'we' are involved just for creating the environment (experiment).

If we use the cat analogy, if it is still sealed in the "closed environment" it is only half dead.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don't know. Maybe you've inspired him. Like when the hero tries to kill the monster by electrocuting it, but ends up making it stronger.

Like a balloon... and something bad happens.

 

[majamin]

So if we all can observe the same math and the only thing different is the language, then it appears there is an articulation problem;

We all can observe the same math, but that doesn't mean we have. Especially does not mean that you have.

life; abuses entropy

Let's compare the situation to a classic thermodynamic example. Take the number of atoms in a human body. Also, consider a gas comprising of the same number of atoms in a thermally isolated chamber, with a fixed volume, and at a certain temperature. Suppose that the total kinetic energy of the container and the body is the same (adjust "certain temperature" so that energy is the same). If we compare the entropy of these two systems, it is safe to say that the entropy in a human body is lower, because of lower multiplicity (the majority of the atoms in my ear are stuck there ... present in molecules, and these molecules are bound by other molecules, proteins etc.). This does not mean that the entropy of the human body breaks the 2nd law.

The second law cares only about [latex] \Delta S [/latex] of an isolated system (the change, not the absolute measure of entropy). The human body is allowed energy exchange with its environment, through many different types of avenues, and the processes in the body constantly attempt to maintain a steady temperature (not necessarily entropy). The boundary of the human body (skin in majority), unlike the container mentioned above, is not an isolated system. The 2nd law does not apply (there is nothing in a live human body that is continuously, thermally isolated from its parts, nor its surroundings).

You must choose a law or process that is applicable to life, that it seemingly violates, and re-state your hypothesis in these terms. Perhaps add a bit of data, math?