A place where IDers and Darwinists can post without the chance of arbitrary deletion, (obscenity and spam excepted).
Self-moderation is requested, no other moderation will be applied.
GCT from After the Bar Closes proposes this subject.
6/22/2006 05:41:00 am
Is not the force of gravity et al the "stiffest" force in the universe? I heard that somewhere recently. And while the general agreement is that graviy is a weak force, on the cosmic scale (god's balance) it still does no explain the halucinations that contributed to the scribes who took down the dictated "word" of trees and goats or was that ghosts? Perhaps Carol can help me out with the original 11 flavors of Hebrew here.
In the beginning, according to the big bang theory, gravity was the ONLY force in the universe. The other three forces separated out from it as the universe expanded and cooled. In certain regimes (neutron stars, black holes) gravity continues to overwhelm the other 3 forces even today. And of course gravity is responsible for the overall structure and movement of matter in the universe. None of the other three forces determine the motions of planets, stars, and galaxies.Calling gravity the weakest force only has meaning in certain regimes. In some circumstances it is the strongest.There's really nothing more to say beyond that. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.
It's hard to compare the four interactions, since their respective constants all have different units, and the strong and weak interactions don't exhibit inverse-square behavior. But I've seen them compared numerically, and in every case, gravity is shown as the weakest. See, for instance here and here. We can question the validity and meaning of these comparisons, but the fact is that gravity is virtually always described as the weakest interaction.
Dave You seem to be doing a semantic quickstep, here. Gravity acts on matter. The strong. weak and electromagnetic forces are involved in producing the properties of matter. Thus your claim that gravity is responsible for the overall structure of matter is not really correct.Also, according to the GTR, gravity is not a force at all, but a local distortion of space-time by massive objects.
Alan,I think you are going to find that "semantic quicksteps" of this type are endemic to any discourse with ID apologists or other supernaturalists.Not that I feel I am pointing out anything new to you, but notice that if proven wrong technically, they will always back-pedal to a crucial point in the argument--one that prevoiusly yielded no confusion--and then attempt to semantically reframe a key concept so as to redirect any conclusion relying on that concept.By doing so, they give the mistaken appearance that they are never wrong. At worst, only misunderstood.Your blog may yield interesting interactions that I hope may clarify the taxonomy of this kind of semantic reframing.
DaveScot:In the beginning, according to the big bang theory, gravity was the ONLY force in the universe....And of course gravity is responsible for the overall structure and movement of matter in the universe. None of the other three forces determine the motions of planets, stars, and galaxies.This strikes me as not a true statement, but those who are physicists will have to help me out. Does this statement even take into consideration things like inflationary expansion--the stretching of the fabric of spacetime?Also, DaveScot, why do insist in using the term "regime"?More DaveScot:In certain regimes (neutron stars, black holes) gravity continues to overwhelm the other 3 forces even today.from the OED-American Edition:regime: a system of government, a particular government, rule, administration, or leadership.Is this an example of your college level vocabulary?Or, are you "The Shakespeare of Design Theory"?
It's hilarious to see DaveScot backpedaling and quote-mining in a desperate attempt to justify his gravity statement.Over on UD he likes to send people to the Web, asking condescendingly "Why do I have to tell you this when the information is freely available on the Internet?" Well, Dave, why don't you try Googling "gravity weakest force" and "gravity strongest force" and report back to us on what you find?
Hi Dave. First of all, welcome, I guess. I hope you contribute here regularly."Those are the facts and they are not in dispute." - I don't think that'll fly. BTW, you're using "regimes" wrong.
I tried posting this earlier, and it wouldn't work. It looks like it might go through this time, though.DaveScot tries to shore up his faulty remarks, only adding to the fact that his grasp of physics is poor at best:In the beginning, according to the big bang theory, gravity was the ONLY force in the universe. The other three forces separated out from it as the universe expanded and cooled. In certain regimes (neutron stars, black holes) gravity continues to overwhelm the other 3 forces even today. And of course gravity is responsible for the overall structure and movement of matter in the universe. None of the other three forces determine the motions of planets, stars, and galaxies.Dave’s trying to shore up his earlier faulty commments using further incorrect claims. Gravity was never the “only force”, it was simply the first to separate out from the others. Another force existed, at times called the strongelectroweak force, which was made up of what would become the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force.The other forces did not separate out from gravity, rather they separated from the strongelectroweak force.It’s just more disinformation (though probably owing to ignorance instead of desire to misinform) from the one who wants to tell us about physics and evolution.Besides that, DaveScot seems not to understand why gravity is termed “the weakest of the four fundamental forces.” It is called that because such a statement informs people about gravity’s strength relative to the other forces.To call it “the weakest force” is not to suggest that gravity cannot add up to considerable strength. Likewise, when we call the strong nuclear force the “strongest of the fundamental forces” this does not imply that electromagnetism (or gravity) cannot overwhelm the strong nuclear force under certain situations, instead it points to, for instance, the greater strength of the proton’s SNF than its EMF.It’s like someone said, “Neodymium magnets are stronger than ferrite magnets”, and DaveScot comes along and points out that a big ferrite magnet can be stronger than a small neodymium magnet (which are capable of the highest gauss for permanent magnets), and thus states that ferrite magnets are stronger than are neodymium magnets.A question: If we were able to make a “neutron star” entirely out of protons, would gravity hold it together? Of course not. It wouldn’t because gravity is a much weaker force than is the additive strength of a huge number of protons in one place (when not neutralized by negative particles).We don’t encounter very dense and massive clusters of protons for various reasons, one being that no force exists that can bring these together (the nuclear forces act at too short distance, while gravity is far too weak). Neutralization via electrons and other particles is a practical reason as well, but presumably we could shoot the electrons off at relativistic velocities, leaving almost only protons in a region of space (we could confine protons magnetically). But only electromagnetism is available to try to force them together (gravity being far too weak), and a magnet able to force protons to the density and mass of a neutron star would probably be so large as to collapse to a black hole. I suppose that theoretically we could shoot a solar mass (or so) of protons fast enough to all converge on a neutron star volume of space, but the repulsion would cause a massive rebound even if negligible kinetic energy remained in the protons.I should point out once more that Dave’s erstwhile comments were in response to this:Gravity is a weak force, which is why most of the observations must occur outside of the laboratory. Neutron stars, massive galaxies, and galaxy clusters are the objects through which many of the relativistic effects of gravity may be observed. Such masses do not fit conveniently into the laboratory.This is to say, I had already alluded to the cumulative effect of gravity by bringing up neutron stars and other massive “objects” as places where relativistic effects of gravity may often be observed. So that Dave added nothing, except for his confusion over what the term “strongest force” means.Glen Dhttp://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
GlenI can spoonfeed this stuff to you if you'd stop making faces and spitting it out.General relativity predicts that the big bang began as a gravitational singularity. Not an electroweak singularity, or a unified force singularity, but a gravitational singularity. Thus, in the beginning, gravity was the only force. All the other forces emerged from it. And they emerged from it in order of strength as each weaker force was progressively unfettered by lower temperature and density. Of course my assertion is only as good as the theory of general relativity but I'm given to understand it's at least as solid as the theory of evolution. Thanks again for playing.
DaveScot says:"General relativity predicts that the big bang began as a gravitational singularity. Not an electroweak singularity, or a unified force singularity, but a gravitational singularity."However, this university course synopsis of the Big Bang says:"Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period."And later:"In the era around one Planck time, 10-43 seconds, it is projected by present modeling of the fundamental forces that the gravity force begins to differentiate from the other three forces. This is the first of the spontaneous symmetry breaks which lead to the four observed types of interactions in the present universe."Thank you for playing with yourself, Dave.
And from Wikipedia:"The Planck epoch: 10-43 secondsIf supersymmetry is correct, then at this time the four fundamental forces – electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity – all have the same strength, and are unified into one fundamental force."
Hey, Dave, I thought you said you know how to use Google ...
alanYou better step out altogether. Your assertion that gravity acts on matter while the other three produce properties of matter is nonsensicial. As far as GTR predicing that gravity is a bending of the space-time continuum you had probably better ask all the theoretical physicists out there looking for gravitons that they're on a snipe hunt because GTR casts gravity not as a transmitted force but rather a warping of space-time.Here's the thing, Alan. GTR is incomplete. It's lacking an explanation of quantum gravity. And guess what the best quantum gravity theory candidates like string theory predict? That's right, a particle that transmits the force of gravity just like photons transmit the electromagnetic force, gluons transmit the strong nuclear force, and bosons the weak nuclear force.You just can't quantize those darn warps in space-time. Space-time warpage is however a convenient way of looking at it until we get a Grand Unified Theory.
doghousePerhaps you should write to the powers that be and tell them they need to rename gravitational singularities to unified force singularities. Good luck with that.
Ummm ... methinks Dave's making clear the fact that he doesn't quite understand.
rich huges & othersI'm certainly NOT using "regime" wrong. You aren't familiar with the term as it used in physics is the problem. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=physics+regime&btnG=Search This is an edited comment that appeared earlier with a link that wasn't hot. I forgot you have to use an href on blogger to make a URL clickable.
doghouseIt's certainly been made clear that someone here doesn't understand.Which part of "gravitational singularity" don't you understand?
AlanCheck out this sunset.Taken from my houseboat at its regular dock on Lake Travis.
I think i read about this in the Bible under the Genesis chapter.
jujuquispI see you finally figured out Davison is a whackjob.Thanks so much for egging him on in his single minded pursuit of me. He really needed the encouragement. Asshole.
I expect admissions of error from everyone who thought I was using "regime" incorrectly.Let's see who's big enough to admit they were wrong.Doghouse ?Blipey ?Rich Hughes?Open mouth and insert foot, boys. You can recover by admitting you were wrong and I was right and then KISSING MY BIG WHITE ASS! HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shouldn't it be more like "BWAHAHAHAHA"???
re BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAThat implies nefariousness doesn't it? I don't mean to be wicked. Just pompous.
Alan Fox, Could you arrange a battle royale between John Davison, Carol Clouser, Larry Farfromaman, and DaveScot? I think your next thread should be an invitation to these blog clowns to exclusively duke it out while we eat popcorn from the sidelines and down some brewskis. What do you think about this idea?
Hey Dave,Did you get a chance to Google "gravity strongest force" and "gravity weakest force" yet?We're still awaiting your report.
DaveI have to admit it; your sunset is bigger than my sunset. Explain to me again how the stored water behind the Mansfield dam is a man-made lake but not a reservoir.BTW, aside from experiencing its effects on a daily basis, I am no expert on the current position on the attempt to develop a unified field theory. But I was unaware anyone is currently attempting to detect the as-yet hypothetical graviton. Perhaps you have a link.My comment about the relative strengths of the various forces was just that every object in the universe consists of stuff made up from sub-atomic particles all subect to the effects of those forces. This is what makes matter what it is. It makes not much sense to argue which is more important, when the universe would not exist as we know it without any one.
AlanI concede the point about a reservoir. Lake Travis fits the definition of a reservoir in every particular. In addition to being a 60 mile long body of water so clean it is drinkable without treatment most of the time that buffers the drinking and irrigation water supply to south central Texas, it also works as a flood control basin that prevents much of the Austin metropolitan area from being washed away, and additionally it is the most popular water recreation destination in the entire state. I really can't recall what I was thinking at the time if I said it was not a reservoir. It's a river with a big dam on it. Of course that forms a reservoir.There's at least one experiment I know of at the Large Hadron Collider looking for confirmation of gravitons.
keithsYour attempt to make an argument from authority is noted. It's really just not worth a response.In some ways gravity is the strongest force in nature.It's really all a matter of the regime in which you're doing the comparison. It's not my fault if even the use of the word "regime" in physics is over your pointy little head.
DaveI concede the point about a reservoir.Fine. I am flabbergasted but shall say no more:PFrom your (published 2000) cite, the paper appears to propose that gravitons should be capable of detection. Later success in this field, I would have thought, would have produced some publicity. My googling finds no references to actual detection of the graviton, or to any operational experiment intended for this purpose.
DaveTard:'It's certainly been made clear that someone here doesn't understand.Which part of "gravitational singularity" don't you understand?'Which part of "if supersymmetry is correct" do you not understand?And, silly boy, I never made a comment about your use of the word "regime" so I have nothing to admit being wrong to.And the article you link to is more properly entitled Gravity is the weakest force in nature, as anyone with eyes can see.
AlanMost of the experimental work detecting gravitons isn't in individual particles but rather as gravitational waves. Recall that electromagnetic radiation has wave/particle duality. Same thing with the hypothetical graviton. A photon is to an electromagnetic wave as the graviton is to the gravitational wave. The particle is the quantum representation and the wave is the classical representation of the same thing.Here is a large ongoing effort to detect gravity waves. There are several other efforts around the world. None have succeeded yet that I know of. They may be chasing something that doesn't exist.
Hi Dave. I'll accept regime in that context, even though I’ve not seen it defined as such I’ll even apologize if that’s how you get your jollies - good for you. I’m inspired by your sweeping apology for the email hoax you published about those baldy photo shopped marines praying. Didn’t use the old explanatory filter on that day, eh? (or any day..)
"Didn’t use the old explanatory filter on that day, eh? (or any day..)"The fact that the explanatory filter is only capable of returning false positives doesn't reduce it's usefulness ...
RichI'm afraid I can't accept your apology as you failed to KMWA.I'll offer you an apology. I'm sorry you haven't read enough in the hard sciences to know that regime is a common word to refer to sets of conditions under which observations or experiments are made. It isn't just physics. You can take almost any word that refers to a science and the word regime, crank it through a scholar.google.com search and find it used. Try chemistry regime or telescope regime or genetic regime for example.Basically what you and doghouse and blipey did was expose yourself as uninformed pikers when it comes to science. But we already knew that, you and I, didn't we?Come back to me when you really do know your ass from your elbow in science. I could even live long enough for that to happen if you start right now and devote your life to the task.
DaveTard sez:"Come back to me when you really do know your ass from your elbow in science."Since you've managed to convince us all that gravity is the strongest force in nature ...perhaps you could explain to us how you violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics everytime you write a sentence?I was never entirely convinced by your statement to that effect on uncommonly dense, and am eagerly awaiting the opportunity to learn more physics at the foot of the master.Assuming you have a moment or two to spare from your time consuming intelligent design research efforts, of course.
DaveScot wrote:Your attempt to make an argument from authority is noted. It's really just not worth a response.I see. So when you refer someone to the Internet, it's common sense. When I do so, it's an argument from authority. Consistency isn't your strong suit, is it, Dave?In some ways gravity is the strongest force in nature.The first sentence of the article you linked to in support of the above statement:Gravity is the weakest force in the universe.LOL. Perhaps you should look for a source which actually backs up, rather than undermines, your assertion.Disagreements aside, I want to congratulate you on conceding the reservoir point to Alan. That wasn't so bad, was it?
keithsCramer shortly thereafter qualifies his statement about gravity being the weakest force by sayingGravity is the weakest force in the universe. Because of this weakness gravity waves, [See my column in the January-1988 issue of Analog.], the traveling waves made by disturbances in gravity, are below the present threshold of detectability and have never been directly observed. But in the year 2000 this should change. Curiously, in some ways gravity is also the strongest force in the universe.What part of the subsequent qualification don't you understand? doghouse2LOT applies to information as well as heat. Heat and information aren't strictly interchangeable. The statement to which you object was made in the context of information not heat. In general the chance worshippers try to argue that 2LOT isn't violated by increasing information in the genome because the earth isnt' a closed system and the sun supplies energy to the earth. The problem is that treats heat and information as identical quanties - add heat and you get the ability to increase information. Heat and information aren't equivalent. If you refuse to accept that they aren't equivalent then there's nothing further to discuss.
Now, now, Dave. Be nice to your fellow ID proponents. I’ve never used an SAT test to measure my IQ [ http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x;jsessionid=bdTT-VUgImCcypxlmW?journalCode=psciPF ] but I’m sure I’m neither as smart nor modest as you. With regard to kissing your white ass – I assume you’re not refereeing to an albino donkey-horse hybrid. Let’s save your bottom for Mann Coulter, eh? I think all three of us would prefer that – you me and him.Random mutation gave Mann ankles for wrists and an Adams apple – perhaps you should extend an offer for natural selection. You’d make a great couple – I hope they don’t rule against same sex marriage.I’m not as prominent as you in ID, but I’m doing my bit. Check out my improved explanatory filter:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/05/ef20.gifWhilst no one uses Dembski’s filter (although we can all spot ‘perfect applications’ for it) mine is used on Uncommon Descent EVERY SINGLE DAY.As for Gravity being the strongest force – we’ve seen your bad, bad quote-mining. What’d the first sentence of that article again? I forget. Anyhoo, Gravity is nowhere near as strong as infinite -wavelength zero-energy designer force. Or Baby Jesus energy, either.Thanks Dave,You remain, as always, my personal hero.Rich.
DaveTard ... you haven't answered my question. How does your typing your post violate SLOT. Quit the handwaving and give us an answer, oh Nobel-laureate-to-be.
richWell I see you've given up and now have nothing left but ad hominem. Of course we both know that's all you ever had.doghouse1)"Doghouse is a piker."2)"Iliajusa uy r tilla."Both these took the same amount of energy to compose and transmit. One contains subjective information and the other does not. Natural processes can do the latter but not the former while expending an equal amount of energy. That's because intelligence can violate 2LOT in the information regime.I'm certain this is way beyond your ability to comprehend so don't expect me to be violating 2LOT again for the impossible task of increasing the information content in your pointy little head.
Here's another example of intelligence and 2LOT.The Darweenies claim that the earth isn't a closed system and life acquires the energy to create information from the sun.Fine. Let's go with that. The amount of energy input to the earth is the same whether or not there is any intelligent agency on the planet. This raises the following question:Would there be the increase in order and information represented by roads and cities and factories and computer networks without intelligent agency?If you answer no, and I cannot see how an answer of yes can be justified, then we have a case where intelligent agency created order and information with no additional expenditure of energy. This is in direct violation of 2LOT. Intelligence can violate 2LOT.In fact I just did it again by writing this comment! I could have chosen to expend the energy scratching my nuts and that would have generated no additional order in the universe.Of course this is dependent on the existence of free will. You see, if intelligent agents possess free will, then they can choose to expend energy to increas order, increase disorder, or do nothing. Natural processes don't get a choice. Natural processes are governed by fixed laws. Thus natural processes are little bitches that must obey 2LOT while intelligent agency can bitchslap 2LOT at (free) will.Thanks for your attention. I hope there's an intelligence out there somewhere reading this advanced enough to understand it.
Dave, if you're honest you'll admit that my filter is used and Dembski's isn't.Given your ACLU / Marines thread - I think you may have honesty issues, though.Perhaps we could start a group:"Agnostics for Marine prayers but who dislike the ACLU but like email hoaxes". Put me down as treasurer.If you're going to ask for people to kiss your ass, then you might as well have someone *you* find attractive do it. By the way - did you see PZ Meyer's (he who you'd like to hit, for some reason) Couter challenge? I would have thought a keen mind like yours would be all over it, Dave.Thanks Dave,You remain, as always, my personal hero.RichPS - I recon Coulter could give an awesome handjob with his 'ET wrists'. The distance between the fulcrum and his fingers is greater so he probably uses less energy per stroke and so is less likely to fatigue.
DaveIt seems like you are saying the 2LOT is not true? That human free will overcomes it. Is that what you meant?
It seems like you are saying the 2LOT is not true? That human free will overcomes it. Is that what you meant?Yes, he's saying something davetardish like that.The "information slot is not the thermo slot" is a canard invented some time ago by creationists bent on obsfucating the fact that the "second law proves evolution impossible" claim is bullshit.
If you answer no, and I cannot see how an answer of yes can be justified, then we have a case where intelligent agency created order and information with no additional expenditure of energy. This is in direct violation of 2LOT. Intelligence can violate 2LOT.The brain works biochemically. The body must consume food for the brain to live. No violation of SLOT here.
"Iliajusa uy r tilla."Both these took the same amount of energy to compose and transmit. One contains subjective information and the other does not.Unless you can iterate every possible cipher scheme and prove that applying them to your sequence of letters never reveals a message, your example is shit.
...intelligent agency created order and information with no additional expenditure of energy. This is in direct violation of 2LOT. Intelligence can violate 2LOT.Define the aditional amount of energy the 2LOT predicts is required to type a meaningful (to the extent that anything you write can be considered meaningful) sentence as opposed to gibberish. Likewise, prove that the additional brain activity needed (especially for you) to communicate a sensible message does not require additional conversion of chemical energy to heat (with accompanying increase in entropy). Prove that the 2LOT requires that the incremental entropy difference between two alternate scenarios which independently satisfy the 2LOT must be greater than zero. (Hint: it doesn't).Would there be the increase in order and information represented by roads and cities and factories and computer networks without intelligent agency?No. So what? Absolutely staggering amounts of energy have been expended in these pursuits (with concomitant increases in entropy). You're just another deluded and ignorant creationist clown.
Dave:I'll give you the use of "regime"--congrats. Hope you like the cigarette.Also, I'd like to give you another freebie--a paper you can write:"The quantum effects of Ultra-Powerful Gravity (UPL) on Grammatical SLOT violation as seen in a modulated ID-Programmatics Regime"Perhaps you could be the very first ID research paper!Might require another cigarette.
This is in direct violation of 2LOT.Two simple questions for Dave:1) How much of an entropy decrease occurs when humans engage in the activities you mentioned?2) How much of an entropy decrease does the 2nd Law allow to occur on the earth?
I think you people need to do a little better job of explaining the order and information created by intelligent agency in the closed sun-earth system. The energy in the system is the same with or without intelligent agency yet where intelligent agency operates huge amounts of order and information were generated. Vast pools of stored energy from the sun were tapped and their energy used build roads and cities and factories and dams and orbiting communication satellites and globe spanning computer networks and congressional libraries and etc. etc. etc. Absent intelligence 2LOT would have just homogenized it all. Intelligent agency can violate 2LOT through free will. Either that or free will doesn't exist and 2LOT is not violated. Takes your choice. And if free will doesn't exist, how can you think any reply you make has any meaning when you're a puppet with no control over what you write?
In other words, Dave, you can't answer two simple questions. If you had any experience in thermo, you would know that those questions have to be answered in order to show a 2nd Law violation.You're disagreeing with the entire scientific community on a subject in which you're uneducated and inexperienced. That's the very definition of delusional narcissism.
Free will is the difference between:1) a nuclear power plant where the energy in uranium is generating electricity used to manufacture things - increasing order and information2) a nuclear weapon where the energy in uranium is used to destroy manufactured things - decreasing order and information3) nothing at all where the energy in the uranium just heats the ground and is radiated away into space neither increasing nor decreasing order and informationCapice? This isn't really rocket science here, boys and girls. But I will remind you that without intelligent agency rocket science wouldn't exist.
Capice? This isn't really rocket science here, boys and girls.No, it isn't. Which is why it's pathetic that someone who claims to be an engineer gets it so tragically wrong.
I think you people need to do a little better job of explaining the order and information created by intelligent agency in the closed sun-earth system.The Sun-Earth system is not thermodynamically closed, you retard.
Dave, you keep talking about order, information, and the 2nd Law as if you understand the concepts. You don't. For heaven's sakes, now that you're retired, go to school and take some classes in thermo, information theory, and computing theory. Then come back here and reread your posts from an educated perspective. You're in for quite a shock.
secondclassI wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy. Maxwell's demon notwithstanding. The demon has never been proven to require more energy than it can sequester into a form able to accomplish work.Would you call your response more ad populum or more an appeal to authority?I'd call it just ignorant because physics makes no claim about entropy and intelligent agency so it's a botched appeal to authority. And you have no idea how much I do or don't know, all claims to the contrary are empty hand waving. What a lamer.
Dave: I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy.That's because you don't understand thermo. Classical physics most certainly does have a position on that. No human activity, not even typing sentences, violates the 2nd Law. Dave:And you have no idea how much I do or don't know, all claims to the contrary are empty hand waving.You'd be surprised how obvious your lack of understanding is.You claim to be educated in EM. If I pose an EM problem and a thermo problem, would you be willing to solve them to show us that you understand those subjects?
biogeer & secondclassI'm sorry. Did Maxwell's Demon go whoosh right over the tops of your pointy little heads?Maybe that handle should be secondgrade instead of secondclass.
Dave, let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you claiming that Maxwell's Demon disproves the 2nd Law?Are you willing to solve an EM problem and a thermo problem?
You need to answer my questions before I answer any more of yours.I want to see your proof that Maxwell's Demon doesn't violate 2LOT.Good luck.
So you don't think the 2nd Law is valid, and unless I prove that it is, you won't answer my questions.The 2nd Law can be mathematically derived from the 1st Law. Do you believe in the 1st Law, Dave?
I want to see your proof that Maxwell's Demon doesn't violate 2LOT.What do you care about our proof when physics provides a variety of proofs going all the way back to Leo Szilard?
Transparently ignorant dilettantes of Springer's calibre are a rare treat.
I also want to see some kind of real explanation of how it is that entropy on the earth decreases where intelligent agency is operating and increases where it isn't. If you think the decrease in entropy caused by intelligent agency on earth is balanced by an increase in entropy elsewhere then I want to see some explanation of where and how that increase takes place.I have explained my position. You have not explained yours in any reasonable manner whatsoever but have resorted to nothing more empty rhetoric about my education and vague claims that I'm disputing some mysterious and unreferenced establishment of science.
And, much to Dave's dismay, he can't ban us for challenging him.Dave, give us a specific Maxwell's Demon scenario that you think violates the 2nd Law.
I'll come back tomorrow to see if any answers to my questions have been offered. I have no interest in a one sided inquisition from anonymous inquisitors.
Nice dodging, Dave.Dave: I also want to see some kind of real explanation of how it is that entropy on the earth decreases where intelligent agency is operating and increases where it isn't.Give us a specific example of an entropy decrease due to human activity. Then explain why a lake freezing in the winter is not a decrease in entropy.Dave: ...vague claims that I'm disputing some mysterious and unreferenced establishment of science.So the 2nd Law is a "mysterious and unreferenced establishment of science." Would you like some references on the 2nd Law, Dave? Do I need to go home and get my thermo text?
I also want to see some kind of real explanation of how it is that entropy on the earth decreases where intelligent agency is operating and increases where it isn't.What?!? Who the hell said that entropy decreases where intelligent agencies are operating? The only known intelligent agengies (humans, some more than others apparently) process tremendous amounts of energy just meeting basic biological needs. Drawing a blueprint, for instance, requires that at least one person think (brain activity is a major calorie sink) and physically commit the design to paper or computer. Chemical energy is converted to heat. Entropy increases.This is to say nothing of the even more tremendous amounts of energy (gravitational, chemical, nuclear, etc) converted in the actual execution of actions that "increase order", like building roads, computers or nuclear reactors. Humans are not magical noncorporeal entities that simply "poof" information into existence.Are you truly too stupid to comprehend this?
I'll come back tomorrow to see if any answers to my questions have been offered. I have no interest in a one sided inquisition from anonymous inquisitors. Boo hoo. Whatever will wittle Davey do when he can't just ban and delete to avoid questions he's not smart enough to answer? Oh yeah, cry like a toddler and run like a coward.
Hey Dave,How 'bout this one then. You don't have to provide new information--just clarify a previous statement. See, no answering involved!How is it that the "Sun-Earth" system is closed again? This doesn't have anything to do with Ghost's Chystaline Ether thingy, does it?
Humans are not magical noncorporeal entities that simply "poof" information into existence.Dave's point, of course, is that our soul/mind MUST be noncorporeal because we violate SLOT. He's wrong, but that's what he's saying.Dave also apparently believes that the growth of a seedling into a mature plant requires the ongoing administrations of an intelligent agent ... since we are unable to detect this agent, it is apparently supernatural. God, presumably.
Dave was once issued the following challenge:If you can give me a clear and precisely worded example of an `intelligent’ agency causing a violation of the second law, please do.His answer was:Me writing this sentence. -ds
Leave Dave alone you bullies. He has an IQ of 117, dontchaknow!
I think this may be another case of "street theatre" on the part of DaveScot. I think he is just trying to rile you guys up. He knows he doesn't really have a grasp of the contents at hand but continues to take a contrary position just to get a reaction out of you. Don't let him get to you, guys. He has nothing further to contribute to society and he is wasting the time of people who still have a lot to contribute. That's why I limit my interactions with people like John Davison and DaveScot. Don't let him get under your skin otherwise he thinks he's in control. Control is all he wants.
Don't let him get under your skin otherwise he thinks he's in control. Control is all he wants.Uh, I don't let DaveTard "get under my skin". Sounds vaguely perverted. I do laugh a lot at him, though, that's why I steered this thread towards a discussion of DaveTard's amazing ability to violate SLOT every time he types a sentence.
"Street theatre" is and was just trotted out by WAD as a post facto excuse for retinous behaviour. In this case, Springer is getting humiliated precisely because he doesn't have control: without the ability to ban, edit and delete at will, he cannot camouflage his staggering ingorance and stupidity.
retinous = cretinous
Dave, just for fun, I perused some of your earlier comments in this thread.Dave: 2LOT applies to information as well as heat.No, it does not apply to information in general. If you think it does, then please state mathematically the 2nd Law as applied to information.Dave: One contains subjective information and the other does not. Natural processes can do the latter but not the former while expending an equal amount of energy.Ah, so the 2nd Law applies only to subjective information. How does one objectively measure the subjective information content of something?Dave: If you answer no, and I cannot see how an answer of yes can be justified, then we have a case where intelligent agency created order and information with no additional expenditure of energy. This is in direct violation of 2LOT. Intelligence can violate 2LOT.In fact I just did it again by writing this comment! How much order did you add to the universe by writing that comment? Can you give us a rough estimate?Dave: Absent intelligence 2LOT would have just homogenized it all.Since the formation of stars, elements, etc. dehomogenized the universe, they must be intelligently designed, right?Dave: Free will is the difference between:1) a nuclear power plant where the energy in uranium is generating electricity used to manufacture things - increasing order and informationHow about a fusion reactor that facilitates all kinds of activity, both biological and non? Is our sun the product of free will?Dave: I hope there's an intelligence out there somewhere reading this advanced enough to understand it.My, aren't we arrogant. You've bragged about your IQ and your knowledge of physics, claiming a substantial education in EM and asserting an understanding of the Second Law. Here's an opportunity to put substance to those claims:Problem #1) An electron is travelling at 4*10^7 m/s when it encounters a perpendicular uniform magnetic field of .002 T. At 40 centimeters into the field, how much has the electron deflected from its original trajectory?Problem #2) If you adiabatically compress 10 kg of air at room temperature from .1 MPa to 1 MPa using a 90% efficient compressor, what is the resulting change in entropy?
He won't answer your questions. I guarantee it. You probably won't seem again on this tread because you have just scared him away.
While I agree with juju, I certainly hope I am wrong. I certainly think that Dave is a giant blowhard at best, and a complete jackass most of the time, but this is not based on a personal dislike (though he would probably argue that)--I don't even know him--it is based on his illogic and general attitude and ridiculousness in debate.Prove me wrong, Dave. Answer the questions; I'm counting on you.
secondclassI'm still waiting for an answer to my questions.You can begin learning about the relationship between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theoryThe relation between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy has become common currency in physics. Thus Stephen Hawking often speaks of the thermodynamic entropy of black holes in terms of their information content; and it is not surprising that computers must obey the same physical laws that steam engines do, even though they are radically different devices.I'll check back in a while to see if you've managed to learn anything about information entropy. It was 25 years ago when I took classes in EM theory. If your questions were relevant I might bother brushing up on the math but you're simply asking for calculations that few people ever need to use again after they pass their last exam in the subject. If you grow up and get a real job someday you'll discover that for yourself.
Blogger sucks. Here's the link it cut off in my last comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory
You can begin learning about the relationship between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy atPerhaps you should read it, and then demonstrate you understand the first thing about any of it. Prove your assertion that typing a message violates the second law. Until you do, all the handwaving and whining in the world will avail you nothing, you moronic coward.
We should also note here the classic creationist tactic of pointing to a reference which does not in any way support the claim being made.
Dave, what questions have you asked that haven't been answered?Do you even read the articles that you cite? You're notorious for citing articles that do not support your position, and sometimes directly contradict it. Your latest reference is no exception, as it shows that the physical limits of computation prevent any Maxwell's Demon scenario from breaking the 2nd Law.Obviously you're unable to state mathematically the 2nd Law as it applies to information. Can you at least state it in English? Does it say that information content must always increase? Or decrease? Or is that the 1st Law?In a UD thread, you said that the 2nd Law as applied to information was uncontroversial. Okay, then, tell us what it is. This is a very simple query, with no math involved.
See me post a link:google.comand run away...
it is not surprising that computers must obey the same physical laws that steam engines do, even though they are radically different devices.Add the word "biochemical" in front of the word "computers" and the reason why DaveTard's full of shit when he says his typing a sentence violates the second law should be clear to all.DaveTard scores an own goal!
Dave, I'd be most grateful for a quantifiable definition of "information". Please and thank you. I ask this because the definition you seem to use does not conform to definitions used by the rest of the scientific and engineering community.
Where, o' where, has my little dog gone?Where, o' where, could he be?
Looks like he ran away with his tail between his legs.
Yes, he has retreated to the safety of his own heavily censored blog, where he trashes Mark Frank's essay, revealing his inability to grasp Mark's argument.Dave, I know you're reading this. Unban me from UD and I'll explain why you're wrong about Mark's paper.
Post a Comment