$10,000 at 20:1
glird
>> On Nov 20, 8:08 pm, glird wrote:
>>> >< You'll have to give me an example of >experimental evidence that proves what we >believe is in fact false. I'll make a small >wager that in most cases, it is actually an >example of you misunderstanding what science >actually says.>
>
>> You name the odds and I'll name the amount.
>
> 20:1
>
> ><We've already covered your >misunderstanding of the absorption of >quanta. What other statements do you think >are countered by experimental evidence? >
>
> The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
> OK, where is your evidence?
To be clear as to what we are arguing about, please give me your
definition of the 2nd law of td.
> Wanna bet? :-)
>
> Sure.
Good!! After we agree on what the 2ndlaw says, I will deposit
$10,000 in a bank account and you put 20 times that amount in the same
account. You name the bank and the account. You can be the judge of
who wins the bet.
glird
glird
PD
> On Nov 23, 9:57 am, PD wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 20, 8:08 pm, glird wrote:
> >>> >< You'll have to give me an example of >experimental evidence that proves what we >believe is in fact false. I'll make a small >wager that in most cases, it is actually an >example of you misunderstanding what science >actually says.>
>
> >> You name the odds and I'll name the amount.
>
> > 20:1
>
> > ><We've already covered your >misunderstanding of the absorption of >quanta. What other statements do you think >are countered by experimental evidence? >
>
> > The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
> > OK, where is your evidence?
>
> To be clear as to what we are arguing about, please give me your
> definition of the 2nd law of td.
There are several completely equivalent statements of the 2nd law.
How about this one:
It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic
process.
>
> > Wanna bet? :-)
>
> > Sure.
>
> Good!! After we agree on what the 2ndlaw says, I will deposit
> $10,000 in a bank account and you put 20 times that amount in the same
> account. You name the bank and the account. You can be the judge of
> who wins the bet.
>
> glird
Wells Fargo Bank.
I'll provide the account information by private email when you provide
verifiable information about the liquidity of the funds you are to put
in. You can send that through my email, to take it offline.
PD
> On Nov 23, 9:30 am, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 9:57 am, PD wrote:
>
> > >> On Nov 20, 8:08 pm, glird wrote:
> > >>> >< You'll have to give me an example of >experimental evidence that proves what we >believe is in fact false. I'll make a small >wager that in most cases, it is actually an >example of you misunderstanding what science >actually says.>
>
> > >> You name the odds and I'll name the amount.
>
> > > 20:1
>
> > > ><We've already covered your >misunderstanding of the absorption of >quanta. What other statements do you think >are countered by experimental evidence? >
>
> > > The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
> > > OK, where is your evidence?
>
> > To be clear as to what we are arguing about, please give me your
> > definition of the 2nd law of td.
>
> There are several completely equivalent statements of the 2nd law.
> How about this one:
> It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic
> process.
Well?
glird
> On Nov 23, 9:30 am, glird wrote:
>
>> To be clear as to what we are arguing
>> about, please give me your definition of
>> the 2nd law of td.
>
> convert heat completely into work in a
> cyclic process.
Taking that definition as too vague, I looked up the 2nd law on
yahoo and found this:
From Wikipedia:
The formulation of the second law that refers to entropy directly is
as follows:
Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy [see next
sentence], a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has
decreasing entropy. In a system, a process that occurs will tend to
increase the total entropy of the universe.
Taken together, this means that overall, heat will flow from a hot
to a colder body.
Science holds that heat represents the bottom of the ladder of forms
of energy. Taking heat as the lowest form of energy and stipulating
that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that energy generally flows
from a higher to a lower form, Physics concluded that this will
eventually end in “the heat death” of the universe, in which all forms
of energy would have converted into heat and from then on the universe
will endlessly expand and the heat level will steadily decrease.
Question for PD: Do you agree with Physics about this, and do you
therefore agree that the 2nd law can be expressed thus:
As time passes in the universe, energy will flow from a higher to a
lower form, in which gravity is the highest form of energy and heat
the lowest?
glird
PD
> On Nov 23, 2:17 pm, PD wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 9:30 am, glird wrote:
>
> >> To be clear as to what we are arguing
> >> about, please give me your definition of
> >> the 2nd law of td.
>
> > How about this one: It is impossible to
> > convert heat completely into work in a
> > cyclic process.
>
> Taking that definition as too vague, I looked up the 2nd law on
> yahoo and found this:
>
> From Wikipedia:
> The formulation of the second law that refers to entropy directly is
> as follows:
> Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy [see next
> sentence], a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has
> decreasing entropy. In a system, a process that occurs will tend to
> increase the total entropy of the universe.
> Taken together, this means that overall, heat will flow from a hot
> to a colder body.
OK to here.
>
> Science holds that heat represents the bottom of the ladder of forms
> of energy.
No.
> Taking heat as the lowest form of energy and stipulating
> that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that energy generally flows
> from a higher to a lower form,
But it doesn't say that.
> Physics concluded that this will
> eventually end in “the heat death” of the universe, in which all forms
> of energy would have converted into heat and from then on the universe
> will endlessly expand and the heat level will steadily decrease.
Yes, but not for the reason you said.
>
> Question for PD: Do you agree with Physics about this,
Yes.
> and do you
> therefore agree that the 2nd law can be expressed thus:
No.
> As time passes in the universe, energy will flow from a higher to a
> lower form, in which gravity is the highest form of energy and heat
> the lowest?
No.
>
> glird
Autymn D. C.
worth.
PD is wriht in thas there are many 2xt-law formulations, but he has
yet to prove they are all equivalent. I'd already posted links at
Maxwells_Demon@eGroups where the law was dispelled. He has yet to
answer the rebuttals by Loschmidt, the Gravity Wheel, and my
ambivectoral temperature and path-function argument.
-Aut
glird
> On Nov 24, 3:39 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2:17 pm, PD wrote:
> > > On Nov 23, 9:30 am, glird wrote:
> > >> To be clear as to what we are arguing
> > >> about, please give me your definition > > >> of the 2nd law of td.
>
> > > How about this one: It is impossible to
> > > convert heat completely into work in a
> > > cyclic process.
>
> > Taking that definition as too vague, I
> > looked up the 2nd law on yahoo and found
> > The formulation of the second law that
> > refers to entropy directly is as follows:
> > Note that from the mathematical
> > definition of entropy [see next
> > sentence], a process in which heat flows
> > from cold to hot has decreasing entropy.
> > In a system, a process that occurs will
> > tend to increase the total entropy of the
> > universe.
> > Taken together, this means that overall,
> > heat will flow from a hot to a colder
> > body.
>
> OK to here.
>
> > Science holds that heat represents the
> > bottom of the ladder of forms of energy.
>
> No.
When did they change that? And WHY?
> > Taking heat as the lowest form of energy
> > and stipulating that the 2nd law of
> > thermodynamics says that energy generally
> > flows from a higher to a lower form,
>
> But it doesn't say that.
"Taken together, this means that overall, heat will flow from a hot
to a colder body" "OK to here."
"the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that energy generally flows from
a higher to a lower form" "But it doesn't say that."
That IS what it used to say! When and why and how did who change it?
> > Physics concluded that this will
> > eventually end in “the heat death” of the
> > universe, in which all forms of energy
> > would have converted into heat and from
> > then on the universe will endlessly
> > expand and the heat level will steadily
> > decrease.
>
> Yes, but not for the reason you said.
What do you think is the reason?
> > Question for PD: Do you agree with
> > Physics about this,
>
> Yes.
>
> > and do you therefore agree that the 2nd
> > law can be expressed thus:
> > As time passes in the universe, energy
> > will flow from a higher to a lower form,
> > in which gravity is the highest form of
> > energy and heat the lowest?
>
> No.
Ok, PD; in order to avoid ambiguity as to what we are betting about,
lets refine the terms. Independently of the 2nd law of td I bet you at
least $10,000 at 20;1 that the following conclusion of Physics is
false:
"Physics concluded that this will
eventually end in 'the heat death' of the
universe, in which all forms of energy
would have converted into heat and from
then on the universe will endlessly
expand and the heat level will steadily
decrease."
In the prior sentence, the word "this" refers to and means "that
overall, heat will flow from a hot to a colder body".
glird
PD
Lower temperature is not a "lower form" of energy. It is the *same*
form of energy (thermal) at a lower temperature.
Is this difficult?
> "But it doesn't say that."
>
> That IS what it used to say!
Where? When?
You are betting $10k that the universe will not end in a heat death?
When will the bet be decided?
> In the prior sentence, the word "this" refers to and means "that
> overall, heat will flow from a hot to a colder body".
Wait, are you saying that the 2nd law says that heat will not flow
from a cold body to a hot body? It doesn't say that. That's what a
kitchen refrigerator does. Perhaps you don't understand the 2nd law.
PD
>
> glird
glird
> <<<<< To be clear as to what we are arguing about, please give me your definition of the 2nd law of td. >>
> <<<< How about this one: It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process. >>
> <<< Taking that definition as too vague, I looked up the 2nd law on yahoo and found this, from Wikipedia:
entropy of the universe."
Taken together, this means that overall, heat will flow from a hot
to a colder body.
><<< No. >
><< When did they change that? And WHY? >
><<<< Taking heat as the lowest form of energy and stipulating that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that energy generally flows from a higher to a lower form, >
> <<< But it doesn't say that. >
>
>< A lower temperature is not a "lower form" of energy. It is the *same* form of energy (thermal) at a lower temperature.
Is this difficult? >
Evidently it is, to you. Let's try again.
I wrote, "Taking heat as the lowest form of energy .. the 2nd law of
thermodynamics says that energy generally flows from a higher to a
lower form". You objected, "A lower temperature is not a "lower form"
of energy."
Though true, it missed the point, which - though you denied it - was
that heat (thermal energy) is taken as the lowest form of energy and
gravity the highest; and the 2nd law says that _*ENERGY*_ "generally
flows from a higher to a lower form."
<>>> But it doesn't say that. >
><< That IS what it used to say! >
>
>< Where? When? >
On page 6 of "Heat-power Engineering" by Barnard, Ellenwood and
Hirshfeld, 1926, the following definition of the 2nd law is given:
"No machine, actual or ideal, can both completely and continuously
transfer heat into mechanical energy."
On page 320 of "The Elements of Physics" by A. W Smith, 1938, this is
written: "It [the 2nd law of td] merely states that heat of itself can
only flow from higher to lower temperatures and no exceptions to this
rule are known."
On page 263 of "Physics Principles and Insights" by I. M. Freeman,
1973, it says, "An independent proposition, supplementing the first
law, has been formulated to show what processes can be expected to
take place. It is called the *second law of thermodynamics*. This law
is subtle, and there are several equivalent ways of stating it."
After providing several such ways of stating the 2nd law, Freeman
says on page 269, "the second law of thermodynamics asserts that
natural processes always operate in the direction of greater disorder
as time passes -- that is, of two states of an isolated system, the
more disorderly state is the later one. The conversion of other energy
forms into heat always results in an increase in disorder -- an
increase in entropy -- and the fate of all kinds of energy is their
ultimate conversion into heat."
><<<< Physics concluded that this will eventually end in “the heat death” of the universe, in which all forms of energy would have converted into heat and from then on the universe will endlessly expand and the heat level will steadily decrease. >
> <<< Yes, but not for the reason you said. >
><< What do you think is the reason? >
Since PD hasn't answered this question, I will rephrase it after
giving the rest of Freeman's above-quoted passage.
"There is no reason to doubt that the universe as a whole is tending
toward a final state in which all matter will be at the same
temperature and all forms of energy ... will have been converted into
heat. The German chemist Walther Nernst called this state of maximum
entropy, marked by an end to all natural processes, the 'thermal
death' of the universe."
Ignoring for the moment the definitions in which heat per se flows
from a higher to a lower temperature; and concentrating on the
portions saying that the fate "of all kinds of energy" is their
ultimate conversion into heat; why do you deny that the reason WHY
Physics thinks that ALL forms of energy will convert into heat is
because heat is considered to be the lowest form of energy on the
ladder?
><<<< Question for PD: Do you agree with Physics about this, >
><<< Yes. >
> <<<< and do you therefore agree that the 2nd law can be expressed thus:
As time passes in the universe, energy will flow from a higher to a
lower form, in which gravity is the highest form of energy and heat
the lowest? >
> <<< No. >
> << Ok, PD; in order to avoid ambiguity as to what we are betting about, lets refine the terms. Independently of the 2nd law of td I bet you at least $10,000 at 20:1 that the following conclusion of Physics is false:
"Physics concluded that this will eventually end in 'the heat death'
of the universe, in which all forms of energy would have converted
into heat and from then on the universe will endlessly expand and the
heat level will steadily decrease." >
>< You are betting $10k that the universe will not end in a heat death? When will the bet be decided?
No, PD; I am betting that I can prove TO YOU that the cited
"conclusion of Physics is false". The bet will be decided by you
within a few months, at most.
><< In the prior sentence, the word "this" refers to and means "that
overall, heat will flow from a hot to a colder body".
>< Wait, are you saying that the 2nd law says that heat will not flow from a cold body to a hot body? It doesn't say that. That's what a kitchen refrigerator does. Perhaps you don't understand the 2nd law. >
Siiiggghhh... The word "overall" is equivalent to "of itself" in
Smith's sentence, "heat of itself can only flow from higher to lower
temperatures".
I am not trying to equivocate in order to avoid betting, PD. Are
you?
glird
glird
>
>< Wait, are you saying that the 2nd law says that heat will not flow from a cold body to a hot body? It doesn't say that. That's what a
kitchen refrigerator does. Perhaps you don't understand the 2nd law. >
In order to avoid ambiguity as to what we are betting about, I will
restate it thus:
Given the following premise: "Gravity is the highest form of energy
and heat the lowest" (1), I bet you at least $10,000 (2) at 20:1 that
the following conclusion is false:
"Given that gravity is the highest form of energy and heat the
lowest, this will eventually end in 'the heat death' of the universe,
in which all forms of energy will have converted into heat and from
then on the universe will endlessly expand and the heat level will
steadily decrease."
I bet that I can prove TO YOU that the conclusion is false. The
winner of the bet will be decided by you within a few months, at
most.
There is a new aspect Id like to add: The loser of the bet has the
option of activating the next bet in the following list and the next
loser has the same option wrt bet #3, etc, until we get to the final
bet on the list. The WINNER of the penultimate bet has the option of
choosing whether or not to activate the final bet. Each new bet will
double the amount of my prior bet and triple the odds. (3)
I will construct the list if you agree to the terms. You may reject
any item on the list, before accepting the rest.
(1) A premise isn't automatically or necessarily true; it is a
statement that is to be accepted as valid without proof.
(2) You may raise the $10 k of the first bet if you wish.
(3) The first bet is NOT conditional on your accepting this new
aspect.
glird
PD
> > > > > On Nov 23, 9:30 am, glird wrote:
> > <<<<< To be clear as to what we are arguing about, please give me your definition of the 2nd law of td. >>
> > <<<< How about this one: It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process. >>
> > <<< Taking that definition as too vague, I looked up the 2nd law on yahoo and found this, from Wikipedia:
>
> "In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total
> entropy of the universe."
> Taken together, this means that overall, heat will flow from a hot
> to a colder body.><<<< Science holds that heat represents the bottom of the ladder of forms of energy. >
> ><<< No. >
> ><< When did they change that? And WHY? >
> ><<<< Taking heat as the lowest form of energy and stipulating that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that energy generally flows from a higher to a lower form, >
> > <<< But it doesn't say that. >
> > << "the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that energy generally flows from a higher to a lower form" .
>
> >< A lower temperature is not a "lower form" of energy. It is the *same* form of energy (thermal) at a lower temperature.
>
> Is this difficult? >
>
> Evidently it is, to you. Let's try again.
> I wrote, "Taking heat as the lowest form of energy .. the 2nd law of
> thermodynamics says that energy generally flows from a higher to a
> lower form". You objected, "A lower temperature is not a "lower form"
> of energy."
> Though true, it missed the point, which - though you denied it - was
> that heat (thermal energy) is taken as the lowest form of energy and
> gravity the highest;
That's right, I'm denying that. Physics does not hold gravity to be
the "highest" form of energy and heat the "lowest". Period.
That's a classification all your own.
> and the 2nd law says that _*ENERGY*_ "generally
> flows from a higher to a lower form."
That's not what physics says, or for that matter, the 2nd law.
>
> <>>> But it doesn't say that. >
>
> ><< That IS what it used to say! >
>
> >< Where? When? >
>
> On page 6 of "Heat-power Engineering" by Barnard, Ellenwood and
> Hirshfeld, 1926, the following definition of the 2nd law is given:
> "No machine, actual or ideal, can both completely and continuously
> transfer heat into mechanical energy."
Where is there mention of "higher" and "lower" forms of energy? You
said this terminology used to be used.
>
> On page 320 of "The Elements of Physics" by A. W Smith, 1938, this is
> written: "It [the 2nd law of td] merely states that heat of itself can
> only flow from higher to lower temperatures and no exceptions to this
> rule are known."
Where is there mention of "higher" and "lower" forms of energy? You
said this terminology used to be used.
Also, this statement by Smith is pretty bad, because it makes kitchen
refrigerators look impossible.
>
> On page 263 of "Physics Principles and Insights" by I. M. Freeman,
> 1973, it says, "An independent proposition, supplementing the first
> law, has been formulated to show what processes can be expected to
> take place. It is called the *second law of thermodynamics*. This law
> is subtle, and there are several equivalent ways of stating it."
Yes.
> After providing several such ways of stating the 2nd law, Freeman
> says on page 269, "the second law of thermodynamics asserts that
> natural processes always operate in the direction of greater disorder
> as time passes -- that is, of two states of an isolated system, the
> more disorderly state is the later one. The conversion of other energy
> forms into heat always results in an increase in disorder -- an
> increase in entropy -- and the fate of all kinds of energy is their
> ultimate conversion into heat."
OK, and again I ask, where is there mention of "higher" and "lower"
forms of energy?
>
> ><<<< Physics concluded that this will eventually end in “the heat death” of the universe, in which all forms of energy would have converted into heat and from then on the universe will endlessly expand and the heat level will steadily decrease. >
> > <<< Yes, but not for the reason you said. >
> ><< What do you think is the reason? >
>
> Since PD hasn't answered this question, I will rephrase it after
> giving the rest of Freeman's above-quoted passage.
> "There is no reason to doubt that the universe as a whole is tending
> toward a final state in which all matter will be at the same
> temperature and all forms of energy ... will have been converted into
> heat. The German chemist Walther Nernst called this state of maximum
> entropy, marked by an end to all natural processes, the 'thermal
> death' of the universe."
OK.
> Ignoring for the moment the definitions in which heat per se flows
> from a higher to a lower temperature; and concentrating on the
> portions saying that the fate "of all kinds of energy" is their
> ultimate conversion into heat; why do you deny that the reason WHY
> Physics thinks that ALL forms of energy will convert into heat is
> because heat is considered to be the lowest form of energy on the
> ladder?
Because that's not what heat is. Thermal energy is just the energy
associated with random, stochastic motion. It is not a lower form of
energy. There are no "higher" and "lower" forms of energy.
>
> ><<<< Question for PD: Do you agree with Physics about this, >
> ><<< Yes. >
> > <<<< and do you therefore agree that the 2nd law can be expressed thus:
>
> As time passes in the universe, energy will flow from a higher to a
> lower form, in which gravity is the highest form of energy and heat
> the lowest? >> <<< No. >
> > << Ok, PD; in order to avoid ambiguity as to what we are betting about, lets refine the terms. Independently of the 2nd law of td I bet you at least $10,000 at 20:1 that the following conclusion of Physics is false:
>
> "Physics concluded that this will eventually end in 'the heat death'
> of the universe, in which all forms of energy would have converted
> into heat and from then on the universe will endlessly expand and the
> heat level will steadily decrease." >
>
> >< You are betting $10k that the universe will not end in a heat death? When will the bet be decided?
>
> No, PD; I am betting that I can prove TO YOU that the cited
> "conclusion of Physics is false". The bet will be decided by you
> within a few months, at most.
How do you intend to prove to me that the universe will not eventually
end in heat death?
>
> ><< In the prior sentence, the word "this" refers to and means "that
> overall, heat will flow from a hot to a colder body".
>
> >< Wait, are you saying that the 2nd law says that heat will not flow from a cold body to a hot body? It doesn't say that. That's what a kitchen refrigerator does. Perhaps you don't understand the 2nd law. >
>
> Siiiggghhh... The word "overall" is equivalent to "of itself" in
> Smith's sentence, "heat of itself can only flow from higher to lower
> temperatures".
Please state the exact statement you believe is wrong, and then make
the statement you believe is correct.
Then we'll worry about how to find out which statement is right.
PD
> On Nov 25, 1:57 pm, PD wrote:
>
> >< Wait, are you saying that the 2nd law says that heat will not flow from a cold body to a hot body? It doesn't say that. That's what a
>
> kitchen refrigerator does. Perhaps you don't understand the 2nd law. >
>
> In order to avoid ambiguity as to what we are betting about, I will
> restate it thus:
> Given the following premise: "Gravity is the highest form of energy
> and heat the lowest"
But that is an incorrect premise. Physics does not say that.
> (1), I bet you at least $10,000 (2) at 20:1 that
> the following conclusion is false:
> "Given that gravity is the highest form of energy and heat the
> lowest, this will eventually end in 'the heat death' of the universe,
> in which all forms of energy will have converted into heat and from
> then on the universe will endlessly expand and the heat level will
> steadily decrease."
> I bet that I can prove TO YOU that the conclusion is false. The
> winner of the bet will be decided by you within a few months, at
> most.
You intend to prove that the universe will NOT end in "heat death"?
How do you intend to prove that prior to the end of the universe?
glird
> On Nov 26, 12:50 pm, glird wrote:
>
> > In order to avoid ambiguity as to what we are betting about, I will
> > restate it thus:
> > Given the following premise: "Gravity is the highest form of energy
> > and heat the lowest"
>
> But that is an incorrect premise. Physics >does not say that.
A premise isn't automatically or necessarily true; it is a statement
that is to be accepted as valid without proof.
> > I bet you at least $10,000 (2) at 20:1 that the following conclusion is false:
"Given that gravity is the highest form of energy and heat the
lowest, this will eventually end in 'the heat death' of the universe,
in which all forms of energy will have converted into heat and from
then on the universe will endlessly expand and the heat level will
steadily decrease."
I bet that I can prove TO YOU that the conclusion is false. The
winner of the bet will be decided by you within a few months, at most.
>>
> You intend to prove that the universe will NOT end in "heat death"?
How do you intend to prove that prior to the end of the universe? >
By experimental evidence and logic. note that I stipulate in advance
that "YOU be the judge"!
>
> ><< There is a new aspect Id like to add: The loser of the bet has the option of activating the next bet in the following list [I will construct the list if you agree to the terms] and the next loser has the same option wrt bet #3, etc, until we get to the final bet on the list. The WINNER of the penultimate bet has the option of choosing whether or not to activate the final bet. Each new bet will double the amount of my prior bet and triple the odds.
You may reject any item on the list, before accepting the rest. >>
glird
PD
> On Nov 27, 12:53 pm, PD wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 12:50 pm, glird wrote:
>
> > > In order to avoid ambiguity as to what we are betting about, I will
> > > restate it thus:
> > > Given the following premise: "Gravity is the highest form of energy
> > > and heat the lowest"
>
> > But that is an incorrect premise. Physics >does not say that.
>
> A premise isn't automatically or necessarily true; it is a statement
> that is to be accepted as valid without proof.
I'm only interested in discussing the validity of what PHYSICS says
here.
The admixture of an odd and misleading statement does nothing to
further that purpose.
>
> > > I bet you at least $10,000 (2) at 20:1 that the following conclusion is false:
>
> "Given that gravity is the highest form of energy and heat the
> lowest, this will eventually end in 'the heat death' of the universe,
> in which all forms of energy will have converted into heat and from
> then on the universe will endlessly expand and the heat level will
> steadily decrease."
> I bet that I can prove TO YOU that the conclusion is false. The
> winner of the bet will be decided by you within a few months, at most.
>
>
>
> > You intend to prove that the universe will NOT end in "heat death"?
>
> How do you intend to prove that prior to the end of the universe? >
>
> By experimental evidence and logic. note that I stipulate in advance
> that "YOU be the judge"!
OK, I'm ready for you to attempt to prove that the universe cannot end
in heat death.
glird
> On Nov 28, 9:04 am, glird wrote:
> OK, I'm ready for you to attempt to prove >that the universe cannot end in heat death.
to "will not" and we have a get.
><< There is a new aspect Id like to add: The loser of the bet has the option of activating the next bet in the following list [I will construct the list if you agree to the terms] and the next loser has the same option wrt bet #3, etc, until we get to the final bet on the list. The WINNER of the penultimate bet has the option of choosing whether or not to activate the final bet. Each new bet will double the amount of my prior bet and triple the odds.
You may reject any item on the list, before accepting the rest. >>
how about it, PD; wanna bet?
glid
>
> > glird
>
>
PD
> On Nov 28, 10:20 am, PD wrote:> On Nov 28, 9:04 am, glird wrote:
> > OK, I'm ready for you to attempt to prove >that the universe cannot end in heat death.
>
> Since you seem to be so obsessed with the wording, change "cannot"
> to "will not" and we have a get.
The statement you are claiming is wrong is that it will. In order for
that to be PROVEN wrong, you have to show that it cannot happen.
If in fact you admit that it could POSSIBLY happen, but simply will
not, then you're going to have to explain to me how you can know in
advance that something that could possibly happen will not happen.
glird
> On Nov 28, 4:10 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>< The statement you are claiming is wrong is that it will. In order for that to be PROVEN wrong, you have to show that it cannot happen.
If in fact you admit that it could POSSIBLY happen, but simply will
not, then you're going to have to explain to me how you can know in
advance that something that could possibly happen will not happen. >
I could do tht, PD, but you, as a physicist, will always find a way
to verbalize things so as to make it sound like you are right even
though you aren't.
Here's something Aut wrote about you:
"I'd already posted links at
Maxwells_Demon@eGroups where the 2nd law was dispelled. He has yet to
answer the rebuttals by Loschmidt, the Gravity Wheel, and my
ambivectoral temperature and path-function argument."
I set YOU as sole judge of the winner of our bet. However, since it
is becoming evident that you will either ignore or reword logical
arguments that prove I am right, unless you accept the new aspect -
which you always omit from your replies - forget it.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> ><< There is a new aspect Id like to add: The loser of the bet has the option of activating the next bet in the following list [I will construct the list if you agree to the terms] and the next loser has the same option wrt bet #3, etc, until we get to the final bet on the list. The WINNER of the penultimate bet has the option of choosing whether or not to activate the final bet. Each new bet will double the amount of my prior bet and triple the odds.
You may reject any item on the list, before accepting the rest. >>
ps: If perchance I would have won the penultimate bet, I would have
set the terms of the final bet in a way that ensured that you would
have lost no money overall.
Having lost confidence in your ability to impartially judge the
validity of a logical argument, I am no longer interested in whether
or not you want to pursue this any further. The bet is hereby
canceled, PD.
GLIrD
PD
> On Nov 28, 8:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 28, 4:10 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Since you seem to be so obsessed with the wording, change "cannot" to "will not" and we have a bet.>
>
> >< The statement you are claiming is wrong is that it will. In order for that to be PROVEN wrong, you have to show that it cannot happen.
>
> If in fact you admit that it could POSSIBLY happen, but simply will
> not, then you're going to have to explain to me how you can know in
> advance that something that could possibly happen will not happen. >
>
> I could do tht, PD, but you, as a physicist, will always find a way
> to verbalize things so as to make it sound like you are right even
> though you aren't.
Either you can prove it or you can't.
>
> Here's something Aut wrote about you:
> "I'd already posted links at
> Maxwells_Demon@eGroups where the 2nd law was dispelled. He has yet to
> answer the rebuttals by Loschmidt, the Gravity Wheel, and my
> ambivectoral temperature and path-function argument."
>
> I set YOU as sole judge of the winner of our bet. However, since it
> is becoming evident that you will either ignore or reword logical
> arguments that prove I am right, unless you accept the new aspect -
> which you always omit from your replies - forget it.
:)
So you have suddenly developed a morbid fear of actually following
through?
glird
> On Nov 29, 10:34 am, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I set YOU as sole judge of the winner of our bet. However, since it is becoming evident that you will either ignore or reword logical arguments that prove I am right, unless you accept the new aspect - which you always omit from your replies - forget it. > >
>
> :)
> So you have suddenly developed a morbid fear of actually
> following through?
Your reply is an excellent example of why I was going to cancel the
bet: "it is becoming evident that you will either ignore or reword
logical arguments that prove I am right"
On second thought, though, rather than canceling the bet how about
changing the amount. If I send you $100 up front, will you bet you 2G
that i am wrong? You can state the bet however you want and you can
sill be sole judge of the winner.
(All I really wanted was for you to READ and UNDERSTAND my
arguments, even though i expect you to avoid admitting that they are
right. That's well worth 100 bucks to me; but not 10G.)
> > - Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > ><< There is a new aspect Id like to add: The loser of the bet has the option of activating the next bet in the following list [I will construct the list if you agree to the terms] and the next loser has the same option wrt bet #3, etc, until we get to the final bet on the list. The WINNER of the penultimate bet has the option of choosing whether or not to activate the final bet. Each new bet will double the amount of my prior bet and triple the odds.
You may reject any item on the list, before accepting the rest. >>
>
> > ps: If perchance I would have won the penultimate bet, I would have set the terms of the final bet in a way that ensured that you would have lost no money overall. > >
glird
PD
> On Nov 30, 2:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:34 am, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I set YOU as sole judge of the winner of our bet. However, since it is becoming evident that you will either ignore or reword logical arguments that prove I am right, unless you accept the new aspect - which you always omit from your replies - forget it. > >
>
> > :)
> > So you have suddenly developed a morbid fear of actually
> > following through?
>
> Your reply is an excellent example of why I was going to cancel the
> bet: "it is becoming evident that you will either ignore or reword
> logical arguments that prove I am right"
> On second thought, though, rather than canceling the bet how about
> changing the amount. If I send you $100 up front, will you bet you 2G
> that i am wrong? You can state the bet however you want and you can
> sill be sole judge of the winner.
> (All I really wanted was for you to READ and UNDERSTAND my
> arguments, even though i expect you to avoid admitting that they are
> right. That's well worth 100 bucks to me; but not 10G.)
>
Sure, if you want to send me $100 up front and a copy of what you want
me to read to see if I agree with it, fine.
glird
ok. Let's do it.
glird
PD
You have my email address. I'll give you shipping details via that
communication channel.
glird
> You have my email address. I'll give you shipping details > via that communication channel.
You have mine; so DO it.
PD
Done
Anti Vigilante
No that is what you imagined when you read the below.
> Ignoring for the moment the definitions in which heat per se flows
> from a higher to a lower temperature; and concentrating on the portions
> saying that the fate "of all kinds of energy" is their ultimate
> conversion into heat; why do you deny that the reason WHY Physics thinks
> that ALL forms of energy will convert into heat is because heat is
> considered to be the lowest form of energy on the ladder?
Because there are no forms! Those are pretty little shortcuts in
understanding. All chemical, mechanical, heat, etc. IS MOTION at a
subatomic, molecular, or material scale.
If you take heat and you add an unstable molecule, the molecule will not
convert into heat. UNLESS IT IS TRIGGERED.
>><<<< Question for PD: Do you agree with Physics about this, > <<< Yes.
>>>
>> <<<< and do you therefore agree that the 2nd law can be expressed thus:
> As time passes in the universe, energy will flow from a higher to a
> lower form, in which gravity is the highest form of energy and heat the
> lowest? >
There are no forms. Those are just labels. There are only higher or lower
AMOUNTS of energy. Energy conversion from one context (chemical) to
another (heat) always requires a trigger (coming in contact with its
neutralizing ions). There is no natural FORM CONVERSION without a
kickstart.
> No, PD; I am betting that I can prove TO YOU that the cited
> "conclusion of Physics is false". The bet will be decided by you within
> a few months, at most.
Gravity is a process not an energy. If you would like to say that
potential energy tends to kinetic energy then yeah. Except potential
energy is not a type of energy it is merely a calculation. In fact all
potential energy means is potential KINETIC energy that could be
achieved.
Say I have a planet in a very lonely area of space. Say then I have a
brick somewhere near that planet. If I drop the brick it will gain
kinetic energy. In the process it loses potential energy (relative to if
you dropped it from the new instantaneous position). Potential energy is
not actually converted. It's just forecast as there being less to achieve.
The proof of this is that potential energy does not exist in the brick.
All I have to do is move the planet and its potential energy increases.
>>< Wait, are you saying that the 2nd law says that heat will not flow
>>from a cold body to a hot body? It doesn't say that. That's what a
>>kitchen refrigerator does. Perhaps you don't understand the 2nd law. >
It requires energy input to do so.
> Siiiggghhh... The word "overall" is equivalent to "of itself" in
> Smith's sentence, "heat of itself can only flow from higher to lower
> temperatures".
>
> I am not trying to equivocate in order to avoid betting, PD. Are
> you?
>
> glird
Face it you two don't agree on the basic facts. This bet is invalid.
--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
john
>
> - Show quoted text -
"All you have to do is move the planet."
I like that part- that really shows where
our physics is at. (When they move the planet, I'll
believe them.)
john
Ed Prochak
On Dec 18, 3:37 pm, Anti Vigilante <antivigila...@pyrabang.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:50:25 -0800, glird wrote:
> >> > > > On Nov 23, 9:30 am, glird wrote:
> >> <<<<< To be clear as to what we are arguing about, please give me your
> >> definition of the 2nd law of td. >> <<<< How about this one: It is
> >> impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process. >>
> >> <<< Taking that definition as too vague, I looked up the 2nd law on
> >> yahoo and found this, from Wikipedia:
> > "In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total
> > entropy of the universe."
Should say a closed system, but OK.
> > Taken together, this means that overall, heat will flow from a hot
> > to a colder body.
A simplistic phrasing of the Second law. Not really very useful.
> >><<<< Science holds that heat represents the bottom of the ladder of
> >>forms of energy. > <<< No. >
> >><< When did they change that? And WHY? > <<<< Taking heat as the lowest
> >>form of energy and stipulating that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says
> >>that energy generally flows from a higher to a lower form, >
> >> <<< But it doesn't say that. >
> >> << "the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that energy generally flows from
> >> a higher to a lower form" .
>
> >>< A lower temperature is not a "lower form" of energy. It is the *same*
> >>form of energy (thermal) at a lower temperature.
> > Is this difficult? >
>
> > Evidently it is, to you. Let's try again. I wrote, "Taking heat as the
> > lowest form of energy .. the 2nd law of
> > thermodynamics says that energy generally flows from a higher to a lower
> > form". You objected, "A lower temperature is not a "lower form" of
> > energy."
> > Though true, it missed the point, which - though you denied it - was
> > that heat (thermal energy) is taken as the lowest form of energy and
> > gravity the highest; and the 2nd law says that _*ENERGY*_ "generally
> > flows from a higher to a lower form."
Anti is right. There is no hierarchy of forms of energy!
>
> > <>>> But it doesn't say that. >
> >><< That IS what it used to say! >
>
> No that is what you imagined when you read the below.
>
> > Ignoring for the moment the definitions in which heat per se flows
> > from a higher to a lower temperature; and concentrating on the portions
> > saying that the fate "of all kinds of energy" is their ultimate
> > conversion into heat;
Where did it say that? Even if/when the universe suffers "heat death"
there will still be matter, and therefore Gravitational energy,
nuclear energy, electrical energy. Just not enough to change the
thermodynamic state of the system.
> > .... why do you deny that the reason WHY Physics thinks
> > that ALL forms of energy will convert into heat is because heat is
> > considered to be the lowest form of energy on the ladder?
>
> Because there are no forms! Those are pretty little shortcuts in
> understanding. All chemical, mechanical, heat, etc. IS MOTION at a
> subatomic, molecular, or material scale.
Yes, heat energy is the energy of motion. And you are right there is
no Ladder/tree/hierarchy of energy.
>
> If you take heat and you add an unstable molecule, the molecule will not
> convert into heat. UNLESS IT IS TRIGGERED.
>
> >><<<< Question for PD: Do you agree with Physics about this, > <<< Yes.
>
> >> <<<< and do you therefore agree that the 2nd law can be expressed thus:
> > As time passes in the universe, energy will flow from a higher to a
> > lower form, in which gravity is the highest form of energy and heat the
> > lowest? >
WRONG. Entropy increases. That says nothing directly about energy
forms.
>
> There are no forms. Those are just labels. There are only higher or lower
> AMOUNTS of energy. Energy conversion from one context (chemical) to
> another (heat) always requires a trigger (coming in contact with its
> neutralizing ions). There is no natural FORM CONVERSION without a
> kickstart.
Be careful how you phrase that. Kickstart sounds like a catalyst or
similar is required.
>
> > No, PD; I am betting that I can prove TO YOU that the cited
> > "conclusion of Physics is false". The bet will be decided by you within
> > a few months, at most.
>
> Gravity is a process not an energy. If you would like to say that
> potential energy tends to kinetic energy then yeah. Except potential
> energy is not a type of energy it is merely a calculation. In fact all
> potential energy means is potential KINETIC energy that could be
> achieved.
This is a little nit picky, Anti. Though you do make clear elsewhere
these are labels. This part is almost an epistemological discussion.
>
> Say I have a planet in a very lonely area of space. Say then I have a
> brick somewhere near that planet. If I drop the brick it will gain
> kinetic energy. In the process it loses potential energy (relative to if
> you dropped it from the new instantaneous position). Potential energy is
> not actually converted. It's just forecast as there being less to achieve.
Whether the "form" of energy changed, the same amount of energy
existed before and after the brick started moving. It is convenient to
say potential energy was converted to kinetic energy.
>
> The proof of this is that potential energy does not exist in the brick.
> All I have to do is move the planet and its potential energy increases.
>
> >>< Wait, are you saying that the 2nd law says that heat will not flow
> >>from a cold body to a hot body? It doesn't say that. That's what a
> >>kitchen refrigerator does. Perhaps you don't understand the 2nd law. >
>
> It requires energy input to do so.
>
> > Siiiggghhh... The word "overall" is equivalent to "of itself" in
> > Smith's sentence, "heat of itself can only flow from higher to lower
> > temperatures".
>
> > I am not trying to equivocate in order to avoid betting, PD. Are
> > you?
>
> > glird
>
> Face it you two don't agree on the basic facts. This bet is invalid.
>
You definitely have THAT part right!