Jump to content

cypress

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    812
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-23

About cypress

  • Rank
    Meson

Profile Information

  • Location
    Louisiana
  • Interests
    Muscle Cars, Biology
  • College Major/Degree
    ChE
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Chemistry, Biology
  • Biography
    Not much to say
  • Occupation
    Engr Mgr - technology
  1. My understanding is that microwave background measurements are not homogeneous rather there is a small degree of variation, please confirm the measurements are completely free of anomalies. What degree of variation unequivocally are inconsistent with other expansion models? References please.
  2. Rather than beating a dead horse, on a point you can't win, perhaps we can return to the primary issue which was asked of you pages ago and has still not been answered. If you would answer this question: "If abiogenesis and evolutionary processes as accounting for all observed diversity mimics the refrigerator example as you cliam it does, what is the source of the required information and molecular entropy flux?"
  3. Were military power the primary consideration, there would have been nothing to prevent the powerful nations from colonize these areas after WWII. These nations did and do not have military power when oil was discovered. The primary and overriding factor for poverty is lack of productivity not lack of military might.
  4. Terrorism is defined by the motive. It is the use of terror and violence to coerce society especially for political and religous reasons. In the case of Mohammed_Bouyeri the motive appears to be quite clearly terrorism. Perhaps the motives of shooter in Arizona will become clear in his trial also.
  5. What is wrong is that you have redefined the problem statement yet again. You have once again moved the goal post. Instead of system A and system B, you are calculating the entropy change of only a part of each of the systems you previously described. You implicitly answered the question I asked of you when I said this two posts ago: "False, system A includes the heat flux leaving A unless you now wish to ignore inputs and outputs. You have redefined the system several times, is this what you would now like to do?" Your calculations are of only the mass of System A but not the heat flux crossing the boundary System A and only the mass of system B but not the heat flux. The purpose for pointing out this distinction between describing only the entropy associated with the mass of material contained within the sealed refrigerator and contained by the boundary of system A and B as you have now redefined and the original definition where inputs and outputs were properly treated is the it is failure to identify and include the the information and molecular entropy associated with the fluxes that is the failure in the theories of abiogenesis and evolution as a process that accounts for observed biodiversity. Both of these theories as currently framed do not identify the source of this flux. In your latest redefinition where only changes in the mass of System A and B are considered, you choose to not include the fluxes in your calculation and thus, on a system basis, the system entropy changes are incorrect. In your explanation you acknowledged existence of these fluxes and explained your decision to not include them in the calculations. Failure to include them provides you with an opportunity to dodge the actual fundamental issue with the theories of abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for observed diversity. But just as you had to acknowledge the existence of this flux (despite your refusal to include them in the calculation) in your redefined problem, there must be a source and thus an entropy flux associated with these two processed being discussed. If abiogenesis and evolutionary processes as accounting for all observed diversity mimics the refrigerator example as you claim it does, what is the source of the required information and molecular entropy flux?
  6. Yes, but surely you recognize that each of those distances that were crossed were finite and every non zero distances moved were finite. In the real world thus far everything seems to be finite. It is clear that if you move your hand each real distance traversed is finite. What is not clear is whether or not any physical distance is infinitely small or if there exist an infinite number of these distances in actuality. How could you demonstrate that there are? If there are an infinite number of distances between one centimeter and another then there are a larger number of infinite distances in two centimeters. How do you reconcile this?
  7. If it is not too late, perhaps I can help. Let me know. Perhaps post a couple that are causing you difficulty.
  8. I voted other now. The reason is as I explained above. Thanks for adding that. Mathematical constructs like your examples above are not physical actualities. Math models reality but it is but a model. In the physical world one cannot divide the distance an infinite number of times due to numerous limitations that come into play. do you see the distinction I am making?
  9. I didn't vote for either of the three. While it may be possible that time past or time future can be eternal (never ending) I don't think it is correct to describe it as infinite. As far as I know, there are no examples of any actualized infinite physical anythings and until evidence surfaces that there are real physical infinite entities one should resist such speculation.
  10. You will very likely get both silver and copper platting out. The ratio will depend on the time, current and voltage.
  11. Surely you are not attempting to claim that net entropy change for A is approximately twice the magnitude one would obtain from entropy tables, that is one quantity for the temperature drop of the mass and a second for the heat flux across the boundary. In the real world the two are offsetting as I have described all along and because the process is not reversible net entropy is slightly positive.
  12. Yes, I would find it odd for someone to claim that the unknown is known and yet this is exactly what many atheists and theists do.
  13. Can this be demonstrated with the certainty equal to the certainty of your response? If so, please do. since nope is unambiguous, please provide unequivocal evidence that cannot be any other way. You have made a bold claim, back it up with equally bold evidence.
  14. Equivocating cause and effect through citation to behaviors at the quantum level that are far from understood is another way that many atheists don't fight fair. I find it to be odd and unsupported to claim that random outcomes don't have causes, typical of attempts to overextend an argument.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.