cypress

Your welcome. Good luck!

Whole-universe inflation in the early universe is supported by cosmic microwave background measurements, which would show anomalies from inhomogeneities in inflation.

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.

Show me how you calculate it, and maybe I can help you see where you're wrong.

 

In the meantime, I invite you to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Consequences_and_applications

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?"

Of course the price of oil used to be low because of military power. The reason why it used to be cheap was that the oil of the Third World was owned by the First World colonial powers, whose control was ultimately based on military power. Insofar as the First World did not own the Third World's oil supplies, it invaded those countries and stole them, as Britain and the Soviet Union did in their joint invasion of Iran in 1941. The present-day oil producing areas that were not colonized at the time, such as Saudi Arabia, were also not yet oil produces, since the oil reserves there were only exploited after the Second World War.

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.

I realize that later in the thread, you (sort of) finished and concluded this already... However, I thought it might be interesting to add this:

 

There is a case of prior art... although not in the USA.

 

In the Netherlands, a man, acting alone, killed someone. The motive was clear (hatred against the victim), although the victim in the Dutch case was a film director, not a politician. The victim and the murderer had never met before, and had no personal relation. The murderer was connected to others who shared his opinions and who said to have similar plans (although it was just words, certainly up to the moment of the murder). The murder took place in a public place, in daylight. Contrary to the case of Giffords, there were no other victims.

 

As you can see in this link (wikipedia), the Dutch case is linked strongly to terrorism...

 

The main difference, apart from the ones I mentioned above, is that the murderer in the Dutch case was a fundamentalist Muslim... and in the American case it was a white college student.

 

I have to concluce that I definitely think that ydoaPs has a point - unfortunately.

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.

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?

While I agree that there are limitations, the distances of 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16... are still crossed regardless of whether we can measure them in practice.

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.

If I move my hand a specific distance, I still cross every infinite fraction even though I couldn't get out a ruler and measure it.

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?

If it is not too late, perhaps I can help. Let me know. Perhaps post a couple that are causing you difficulty.

There are no examples of actual infinities? Divide the distance between one centimeter to another centimeter over and over again. Wouldn't you be able to do this for infinity?

 

 

If you have another option that you think I should add let me know.

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?

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.

You will very likely get both silver and copper platting out. The ratio will depend on the time, current and voltage.

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.

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.

nope.

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.

Can we say that the law of cause and effect applies to the real world right now? My understanding is that to the best of our knowledge it does not. Although for macroscopic objects we can say with huge statistical certainty that effects have causes, at the quantum level it seems that effects have no cause, and that there is true randomness.

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.

Yes, but the heat flux goes to system B.

I made that point in my response here.

Including a positive heat flux in your calculations means you are merging system B with system A, same as you have been doing before and just as intellectually dishonest.

False, as described before A and its flux is one system and B and its flux is another system.

Unless you want to violate the first law of thermodynamics instead, the Q of system A must decrease when heat is transferred to system B.

As I previously described, the Q of A does decrease, the results I describe are correct and accurate.

The change of Q is negative for system A and temperature is positive, so necessarily the entropy of system A decreases. Don't you understand the basics of thermodynamics?

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?

You're the one claiming that everything needs cause and/or beginning, and trying to apply it to the same period.

Cause and effect is a logical construct is it not? Can we say that the law of cause and effect breaks down at one plank time? If not, then I remain on firm ground, If so, then I sometimes don't fight fair either.

Thanks Cypress However I have a little trouble understanding this. When you say human organism is one set of diploid chromomes, doesn't that mean 46 chromosomes. There are 46 chromosomes in a diploid cell right. Also isn't human a sexually reproducing organism?

Yes, correct on all points. When the genome is sequenced the length, content and counts are based on only one of the diploid pairs.

Also when there is a great deal of variation in G-C bonds, what does this mean, I can not picture it?

The DNA sequence would be completely homogeneous if it contained only C-G base pairs. It would be nearly homogeneous if it alternated C-G and A-T, as the sequence becomes increasingly irregular and as the C-G density increasingly varies throughout the sequence that is said to be increasingly heterogeneous.

Also if it is 23 chromosomes as you said, are there 2 different genoms for female and male?

Strictly, yes there are.

I think ydoaPs was pointing out the discrimination carried out by others, rather than trying to discriminate himself.

If so, it was done poorly and impertinently. It was an excellent illustration of the behavior the OP was concerned about.

Sure it can be supported. It's a logical consequence of thermodynamics unless you can provide a mechanism for breaking it.

You are citing a physical law that is only known to apply back to one plank period after the singularity and therefore cannot necessarily be extended any further back. Attempting to extend physical laws beyond their realm is yet another way you don't fight fair.

Yes, the two strands have reverse polarity of the 5' Methyl and 3' Hydroxyl groups in that they proceed in the opposite direction on each strand.

 

Cypress, since Kalam obviously isn't the scientific argument for theism that you claimed theists use, care to provide the one you claimed exists?

Theists make many arguments. Some overextend what can be demonstrated by evidence and reason and these theists are not fighting fair when they make such claims. Likewise many atheists offer explanations that overextend what they can demonstrate by evidence. Arguing or even implying that material and energy has always existed is an example of an argument many atheists make that cannot be supported and thus is an example of the context of this thread. Supported arguments seem to be off topic according to the moderator as was pointed out several posts back. I believe that site rules prevent me from responding to your apparently off topic question unless the moderation remark is withdrawn and a moderator provides clarification of this point.

The genome sequence of sexually reproducing organisms is generally considered to be one set of autosome and one of each sex chromosome, however the genome of an individual human organism is one set of the diploid chromosomes, thus 23 chromosomes for a human.

When a genome is considered heterogeneous, it generally means that that there is a great deal of variation in percentage of guanine-cytosine content of the base pairs as one traverses the DNA sequence.

And your point? Such stereotyping doesn't exist? That if he had been Muslim, nobody would have decried this as terrorism?

My point was that YodaPs made an impertinent remark. That those like him who often decry the tactics of others, seem to engage in them when it fits their purpose just as he has done. His comments seem to confirm the concerns expressed in this thread.