 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / August 2005concerning good and evil (a particular example)
suppose that God is a divine ice cube. if i drop the divine ice cube in a cup of hot water, the hot water cools down, but the divine ice cube does not melt (it does not change at all). a negative entropy change is a change in the state of a system towards organization and order (a change towards life), and a positive entropy change is a change in the state of a system towards disorganization, disorder, and randomness (towards death). the change of the hot water is a negative entropy change, but there is no entropy change in the state of the divine ice cube. if sw = the negative entropy change of the hot water and c = the constant (yet dynamic) state of the divine ice cube, then sw + c < 0. in other words, the total entropy change of the process during the passage of time is negative. this means that the direction of time of the things of this world under the influence of God is towards life. this direction of time towards life is good. if, on the other hand, i drop an ordinary ice cube in a cup of hot water, the hot water cools down and the ice cube melts simultaneously until the temperature of the water and the temperature of melted ice cube are the same. the final product of this process is a body of lukewarm water. the change of the hot water in this process is a negative entropy change, and the change of the ice cube is a positive entropy change. if sw = the negative entropy change of the hot water and si = the positive entropy change of the ice cube, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, sw + si > 0. in other words, the total entropy change of the process during the passage of time is positive. this means that the direction of time of the things in this world under the influence of the second law of thermodynamics is towards death (the opposite direction of the time of the things in this world under the influence of God). this direction of time towards death is evil. > suppose that God is a divine ice cube. Ummm, Frank? Concerning good and evil is a topic for philosophers while you have - inadvertently, I'm sure - posted a philosophical opinion in this ng which is a science ng. Or have you been run off the philosophy groups? >> suppose that God is a divine ice cube. >> > Ummm, Frank? Concerning good and evil is a topic for philosophers > while you have - inadvertently, I'm sure - posted a philosophical > opinion in this ng which is a science ng. Or have you been run off the > philosophy groups? And who are you? The Usenet cop? > > suppose that God is a divine ice cube. > > > Ummm, Frank? Concerning good and evil is a topic for philosophers > while you have - inadvertently, I'm sure - posted a philosophical > opinion in this ng which is a science ng. Or have you been run off the > philosophy groups? Weren't Newton and Einstein also philosophers? Aren't physics journals filled with philosophical opinions? Granted, good vs. evil is not on topic for sci.physicsl.relativiy, but at least he mentioned thermodynamics. Cheers - shevek Shevek, everyone is a philosopher, but some, like AllYou! think they're physicists too. They are run off from their ngs and for some reason or other they find their way here and throw physics terms around as if they have philosophical meanings, like thermodynamics, e.g. Most, esp. AllYou! claim to have higher intellects and that shows you why they were run off from their ngs. Einstein's and Newton's claims to fame are as theoretical physicists, at least here on science ngs. I doubt they are discussed much in philosophy ngs. Anyway, physics and philosophy are not at equal levels because the latter is closer to theoretical physics while physics is closer related to empirical research. > Shevek, everyone is a philosopher, but some, like AllYou! think they're > physicists too. How so? You're the one who thinks the concept of reality has a place in science. I simply said that time isn't physical, and you mistook that as saying that time isn't real. Do you see the difference, or do you need it explained to you once again? > Most, esp. AllYou! claim to have higher intellects and that shows you > why they were run off from their ngs. Just higher than yours. How else can we explain how you don't get the difference between physical and real. BTW, you never did give me an example of what it real, and how you know it is. Care to now? Bilge: I wrote that I considered gravity as being an anti entropy force. You offered that I did not understand entropy. Would you be so kind as to explain what you meant and tell us your understanding of entropy. Daniel Weston: >Bilge: I wrote that I considered gravity as being an anti entropy >force. You offered that I did not understand entropy. Would you be so >kind as to explain what you meant and tell us your understanding of >entropy. You'll have to narrow the scope of your question. I'm not going to write a book. If you want a quick definition, entropy is just a count of the number of possible states of a system. If you have N objects, and each object can take on one of two possible states, so that n objects have one value and N - n have the other value, then the entropy is the natural log of N!/n!(N-n)!. After that, things become more complex, especially since that counting argument is classical and gives the wrong result. Since you have some philosophical issue with quantum mechanics, you might as well just accept the fact that entropy is a measure of unknown information about a system, which accounts for all of the possible configurations of the system. Explaining to you how to count the states is not likely to get very far before you make some silly objection and start digrssing on philosophical bullshit. Bilge: Would you please explain why you think that gravity is not an anti entropy force or effect? Thanks. Dear Daniel Weston: > Bilge: Would you please explain why you think that > gravity is not an anti entropy force or effect? Thanks. I'm not Bilge, however... Entropy is defined as the reduction of available work (among other things). Once something falls into a gravity well, this work is lost, or used, until it remains at its lowest energy state. Gravity is the parchament on which the 2nd law is written. David A. Smith David: What do you mean by "falls into a gravity well"? Without clarifying that phrase in the context of your answer, I can't get anything from it. When gravity causes a dust cloud to form a star and planets like earth with humans, is that "falling into a gravity well"? Dear Daniel Weston: > David: What do you mean by "falls into a gravity well"? > Without [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a > gravity well"? Sun and planets, yes. There was more available work before coalescence occured, and much energy was radiated as heat into the depths of space. David A. Smith Daniel Weston: >David: What do you mean by "falls into a gravity well"? Without Learn to include the context relevant to your question. It's rude to expect others to go back through the thread to figure out what you are talking about. If you expect a private conversation, use email. >clarifying that phrase in the context of your answer, I can't get >anything from it. When gravity causes a dust cloud to form a star and >planets like earth with humans, is that "falling into a gravity well"? Use the virial theorem. For a 1/r potential like gravity, the virial theorem says that <U> = -2<KE>, where <U> is the average potential energy (-GMm/r) and KE is the average kinetic energy, i.e., (1/2)mv^2. Since the potential is zero at infinity and becomes increasingly more negative as r decreases (i.e., the potential well in question), the kinetic energy of a gas increases as the separation between the molecules decreases. Since the temperature is related to the kinetic energy by KE = (3/2)kT, the gas must obviously get hotter as the gravi- tational attraction pulls the molecules together. If you have some philosophical issue with the potential function in newtonian theory, then general relativity eliminates that problem and uses the laws of thermodynamics explicitly instead. The simplest result obtained from general relativity is the oppenheimer-volkov equation, used to decribe spherical (or slowly rotating) stars. Since it does a pretty good job for your generic star (i.e., nothing extreme like a neutron star rotating at a relativistic rate), your issue with the entropy is null and void. If one has to include quantum mechanical effects and/or rapid rotation rates, then one still uses thermodynamic constraints, so your issue with entropy is still null and void. If you want the details, look up oppenheimer-volkov equation and whatever background material you need. Daniel Weston: >Bilge: Would you please explain why you think that gravity is not an >anti entropy force or effect? Thanks. Sure, just as soon as you explain why you think gravity violates the second law of thermodynamics. I've never encountered anything that would suggest gravity violates the second law, so I have no idea what lead you to believe that it does. > suppose that God is a divine ice cube. if i drop the divine ice cube in a > cup of hot water, the hot water cools down, but the divine ice cube does not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that the direction of time of the things of this world under the influence > of God is towards life. this direction of time towards life is good. You say the hot water cools down, but the ice cube does not change at all. This doesn't make sense, energy is not conserved. Maybe this is your point. However, you could conceive of a divine ice cube that stays crystaline at any temperature. It could absorb the heat and stay as ice, perhaps via some divine force between the molecules. Or, you could conceive of a divine ice cube that did not absorb any heat, i.e. some kind of thermodynamic barrier exists around the cube so that it cannot be heated or cooled by it's surroundings. The water would stay hot around it. Which of these three hypothetical cubes did you have in mind? And what about these monstrosities do you consider to be "towards life" or "good"? All we know that is good in this world has none of those properties! > if, on the other hand, i drop an ordinary ice cube in a cup of hot water, > the hot water cools down and the ice cube melts simultaneously until the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > things in this world under the influence of God). this direction of time > towards death is evil. It seems you have unhealthy and confused fear of death. The direction of time "towards death" is good. It is also known as life. I would say the march of increasing entropy is equally well described as "towards life" or "towards death". It is only with increasing entropy that life is created. Your argument that Gods violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics is one that I would expect to hear from an atheist. Thanks for your thoughts - shevek I am not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me that the greatest anti entropy force in the universe is gravity. It takes a cold amorphous cloud of dust and atoms and molecules in total disarray, and ultimately forms the cloud into a sun with a planet we call earth. From the dust cloud comes eventually Beethoven's 5th, trips to the moon, and theatre popcorn. When we have gravity, who needs a divine ice cube? |I am not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me that the | greatest anti entropy force in the universe is gravity. It takes a cold [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | When we have gravity, who needs a divine ice cube? The divine ice cube came out of the same mould. Man created god in his own image, an ideal to aspire to. As for Beethoven's 5th, if they play music like Brahm's 4th in heaven I'll consider the pitfalls of pretending to be a christian when I get to the pearly gates. Androcles. Androcles: If you like Brahm's 4th, you are a scholar and a gentleman with impeccable tastes. True upper class. If we could only extend that to your use of the King's English, it would be a most magnificent achievement to behold. | Androcles: If you like Brahm's 4th, you are a scholar and a gentleman | with impeccable tastes. True upper class. If we could only extend that | to your use of the King's English, it would be a most magnificent | achievement to behold. We *are* amused. :-) Pyotr Tchaikovsky - Pathetique, you may keep the Nutcracker, and follow the score of the fourth of the fourth. http://www.anthea2.freeuk.com/carminaburana/, but get the Red Army Choir to sing it. Johannes Brahms: The locomotive rumbling through the 1st Symphony (dubbed by some as Beethoven's 10th) blasting it's whistle as it charges; the three note opening motif 'V' of the 2nd, the startling crescendo of the 3rd, I hear it all in my head as I write, but naught can surpass the gentle second movement of the glorious 4th. Ludwig van Beethoven: Egmont, Leonora III, the 4th movement of the 9th with its repeat of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd movements, the maestro feigning uncertainty as to where he is going, building and building until he bursts forth with FREUDE! Freude schone gottefunken, daughter of Elysium...sigh. Wagner outdoes Beethoven's 5th with his Walkyries.... I could go on. I use froggish for the troglodytes, trolls and goblins that inhabit this newgroup, it's all they understand and that is my extension of the vulgar English. Cymru am byth! http://www.geocities.com/mogrig/img_0009a7c0.jpg The hill, centre? Sugarloaf, oft in cloud, 1800ft. I stood at the peak and gazed out in wonder when I was a 7-year-old, walked up alone along the Rholben. http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=330000&Y=220000&width=500 &height=300&gride=&gridn=&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanc ed=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=200000&multimap.x= 202&multimap.y=176 This was the birthplace of my soul. Androcles. >I am not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me that the > greatest anti entropy force in the universe is gravity. It takes a cold [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > When we have gravity, who needs a divine ice cube? that's very interesting. heat is transfer only from a higher to a lesser temperature gradient. let A = the body with the higher temperature, and let B = the body with the lesser temperature. let A and B come in contact with one another in a close system. heat will flow then from A to B until the temperature of A and B are the same. in the process, the entropy of A decreases and the entropy of B increases, and the total entropy change of A + B is positive. yet there is gravity, which when strong enough, the total entropy change is negative. thanks Daniel Weston: >I am not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me that the >greatest anti entropy force in the universe is gravity. It takes a cold >amorphous cloud of dust and atoms and molecules in total disarray, and >ultimately forms the cloud into a sun with a planet we call earth. From >the dust cloud comes eventually Beethoven's 5th, trips to the moon, and >theatre popcorn. And the problem is what (apart from you not understanding the concept of entropy)? > You say the hot water cools down, but the ice cube does not change at > all. This doesn't make sense, energy is not conserved. Maybe this is > your point. i agree with you. it does not make sense. energy is not conserved. but that is my point. > However, you could conceive of a divine ice cube that stays crystaline > at any temperature. It could absorb the heat and stay as ice, perhaps > via some divine force between the molecules. yes, it would have to be a divine ice cube of this nature, capable of absorbing the heat of the hot water and yet no chnage in its state taking place. And what > about these monstrosities do you consider to be "towards life" or > "good"? All we know that is good in this world has none of those > properties!....... The direction > of time "towards death" is good. It is also known as life. I would > say the march of increasing entropy is equally well described as > "towards life" or "towards death". It is only with increasing entropy > that life is created. with the ordinary ice cube, a decrease in the entropy of the hot water takes place. generally a decrease in the entropy of a system is good because it is a direction of time towards life, but if you observe the entropy of the hot water to decrease, you can bet that (in a close system) there is a change in the entropy of the ice large enough to make the total entropy change positive. this is not good because eventually (although in the process life is forming) everything will die. with the divine ice cube, however, if you observe the entropy of the hot water to decrease, you can bet that (in a close system) there is no entropy change in its environment (the divine ice cube). thus, the total entropy change is negative. this is good because the entropy of systems decrease at no cost to its environment (pure mercy for every body). God is good. God is goodness. i believe in such a divine ice somewhere or everywhere in the universe. an atheist wouldn't. thank you Law violations have nothing to do with God, because there are no laws in the first place: They are ideal, subjective, and arbitrary. You can do the violations with the right new maths. -Aut i think you are right; it is an ideal, something like the ideal gas or the ideal efficiency of an engine or the ideal society. these things do not exist in nature, but we use and study them in order to improve our understanding and live more efficiently. > Law violations have nothing to do with God, because there are no laws > in the first place: They are ideal, subjective, and arbitrary. You can > do the violations with the right new maths. > > -Aut > > However, you could conceive of a divine ice cube that stays crystaline > > at any temperature. It could absorb the heat and stay as ice, perhaps [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > absorbing the heat of the hot water and yet no chnage in its state taking > place. Hi Francisco. Wouldn't you call an increase in the heat energy of a solid a change of state? > And what > > about these monstrosities do you consider to be "towards life" or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > place. generally a decrease in the entropy of a system is good because it is > a direction of time towards life, Sorry, I don't follow you at all. If you are put in a freezer the entropy of the interior is decreasing, but it's not so good for your life. > but if you observe the entropy of the hot > water to decrease, you can bet that (in a close system) there is a change in > the entropy of the ice large enough to make the total entropy change > positive. this is not good because eventually (although in the process life > is forming) everything will die. And how is that not good? > with the divine ice cube, however, if you observe the entropy of the hot > water to decrease, you can bet that (in a close system) there is no entropy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > God is good. God is goodness. i believe in such a divine ice somewhere or > everywhere in the universe. an atheist wouldn't. The ice you describe sounds more like a demon to me. Maxwell's demon, to be more precise - has the abilities you seek. However let me suggest that you not be tempted by the dark side. A small mistake, and all the heat energy in the solar system will be absorbed by this ice - leaving you with a nice region of perfect order and low entropy - a single cube in a void. Not much mercy there. God is good, God is goodness. Or maybe the Gods are some nightmarish exotic materials, and not the real processes that create us? Thanks- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.