It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Grock
I must apologise StellerX if it appeared that I was talking about/to you. I wasnt. However, I do not respond to personal attacks.
If you cannot get your point across without attacking/belittling/looking down upon others then you obviously arent mature enough for an adult conversation.
I do not fight with children or unarmed oppononts. Unless of coarse you throwing rocks at me means that you like me
Originally posted by Glyph_D
hook me up with that whopper of hidden science:/
again....you are confusing entropy with good old fashioned ingenuity. why do you say this?
let me get this straight> if i take an apple, and cut it in two. use one half for apple cider and the other half for apple slices.
that in of its self proves entropy does not exist? or even that 100% efficiency has been obtained?
thats total BS, you are not listening to what entropy means or even where it is applied.
regardless of what you do with your apples they are going to rot. this rotting is entropy.
its BREAKDOWN; its happens all the time in all corners of the known universe.
atomic deterioration is very much relevant to this discussion, the deterioration is synonymous with entropy(they are the same concept). its this concept you obviously are failing to grasp.
i wont deny my hate, but know its ignorance like yours that sets me off
simply wrong, ill define what chaosVSorder truly is imagine a ball; half is chaos, the other half is order.
now spin that ball end over end as fast as your mind can permit.
now take a good look at your ball; "when" can you see a clear moment of chaos or even order?
if you followed my instructions you wont be able to define when one starts and the other ends, the realization you should come to is both chaos and order are happening in the same moment and in the same space.
then you should ascend to the perspective that arguing chaosVSoder is futile. because its clearly perspective.
but even if you give that fight up, youll still have entropy everywhere.
in the context it does have to do with negative forces. since entropy is the path of discussion, then its ultimate finality is the positive outcome. any variable that counters that outcome is a negative force.
the hordes of fools who stand behind this notion of "negative entropy" believe its a positive outcome, it is the (hypothetical)violation of entropy.
negentropic events are not as prevalent as entropic events.
id dare to say for every 1 negentropic event there are 1million entropic(and im being extremely modest).
tom and i addressed this earlier- ill quote>
you see we get your point but we are smart enough to realize that its so statistically improbable its not worth wasting our time with.
what????? we do not build atoms, we take atoms from our surroundings. the reason we have carbon in our bodies is because carbon was there to be used. one day that carbon will not be here to be used, and either we(life) make the appropriate changes or die off.
we use fusion and fision to make alternate atoms from already present atoms.
we do not make the atoms from scratch.
sir atoms do dissipate.
Originally posted by StellarX
Lets see if you can come even that close to admitting to being wrong.
Well you have to say that to defend the notion that that there exists no negentropic processes. Entropy MIGHT be true on a galactic scale but it's effects are negated on all the local scales we are aware of.
I don't know what that proves but it's clearly not related to the present discussion...
regardless of what you do with your apples they are going to rot. this rotting is entropy.
But your somehow forgetting to mention that the apples GREW in the first place!
Well since you seem to know what no one does you should go ahead and prove that the universe is a closed system where entropy must eventually lead to a heat death.
Entropy has absolutely nothing to do with atomic 'decay' whatever you mean by that.
NO! Negentrophy ( and you could have looked it up) is basically a increase in order where entropy is a 'decrease' leading to equilibrium.
Stellar and galactic formation is a clear violation of the notion of a second law
No you do not get my point as you are still disregarding all evidence to the contrary. The large scale structures of the universe simply does not prove that entropy is the prevailing force and we know that our solar system is a local violation of the second law.
What i made expressly clear is that we can transmute atoms of one element in atoms of another; this is another clear violation of the second law yet all living things do it.
we use fusion and fision to make alternate atoms from already present atoms.
we do not make the atoms from scratch.
That's what i believe but it's not what you said earlier. Please make your posts internally consistent.
seriously* do you believe it is possible for humans to create new atoms from scratch?
We already do in low energy nuclear reactios and biological entities have been doing since life got going.
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Nope. It will be so much easier if you go back and follow your own argument, if not, I can repost each and every comment along this line. Starting just before the point where you make the non-sequitur that "gravity can't be dissipated".
The heat is re-emitted as light, so in a sense yes.
Dissipation is dissipation. The energy of infall is eventually radiated away.
When I say "waste heat" I'm not making a value judgement - it's a thermodynamics term. If you have enough infall, the star may ignite, then you have a lot more waste heat.
But if it doesn't, all you have is the energy of infall, and eventually a cold wad of hydrogen, trace gases and dust.
And as I'm sure I've already stated in this thread - it powers local reversals of entropy, but the energy required to do it is more than that tied up in the entropic reversal. See also: Carnot limit.
It will run out eventually whether you conserve it or not. That's the way entropy works.
Chaos will win.
Originally posted by StellarX
So i guess i will make it simpler; in respect to which body in the universe is gravity 'dissipated'?
And the coal, oil and everything else?
This is assumed; not proven.
We do not know if the universe is a isolated or open system thus making all assumptions of universal entropy entirely moot.
On all observable levels ( galactic clusters, galaxies, star clusters, solar systems, planets ) we observe entire regions where negentropy reigns...
Since your entire argument of entropy rests on that assumption you must excuse the fact i wont accept your doom and gloom proclamations.
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Stellar: I am curious as to where you're getting this "living things make atoms" idea - they most certainly do not.
The only proponent for that I've seen on ATS is esecallum - I hesitate to associate the two of you on an intellectual level.
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It isn't - you don't dissipate gravity, and that was my point. Gravity is a condition of mass. Unless the mass is going away, gravity just IS. What is dissipated is gravitational potential energy, which was my reply to your non-sequitur.
Was produced from fusion energy radiated away from the Sun in the form of sunlight. It took more energy input to make the coal than the coal/oil/everything stored.
And in the end, the chemical energy in those materials will be dissipated as well.
Really, no, I invite you to find me a system that can exceed Carnot's limit.
I await your demonstration of where energy is being input to the universe from outside it.
Only as a smaller system powered by a larger entropy.
Unless Bearden tells you to, I really don't expect you to accept anything I say.
I'm speaking more to the other ATS'ers who might have read your interestingly inaccurate post(s).
Originally posted by StellarX
Well i claimed that living things can transmute elements; not make them. I guess Glyph needed a straw man or two.
do you believe it is possible... to create... atoms... ?
We already do...
Lying to the ATS community is not exactly a service you should expect to be thanked for...
Originally posted by StellarX
I think it was quite obvious that i intended to argue the fact that gravitational potential in respect to all other masses in the universe or solar system is not dissipated; the matter/energy that is radiated or part of the sun still has gravitational potential energy.
Assuming the sun 'works' as you think it does. I still do not understand why you think entropic processes in or on the Sun PROVES universal entropy?
And in the end, the chemical energy in those materials will be dissipated as well.
I have in the past given you at least a dozen examples but since this guy is powering state buildings, and you can go check it out, maybe this will be enough.
There mere fact that we can observe the energy that is diverged into a circuit flowing in ALL directions from the battery/ generator terminals should tell you a whole damn lot.
I accept what makes sense and what you are attempting to tell me contradicts my observations; Tom Bearden is not involved...
Lying to the ATS community is not exactly a service you should expect to be thanked for...
Originally posted by Glyph_D
if thats what your going to claim, then you sir are still wrong. biological entities dont transmute elements, we dont have the capability to start fusion/fission reactions with atoms.
that is of'course without the assistance of reactors and what not.
and you did say we make them either i cant read or your a liar:/
Tom is not lying and i thank him for his position.
good day sir
Originally posted by StellarX
cold fusion?
Originally posted by Glyph_D
well the theoretical reality of cold fusion i can "imagine", however im speaking of actual working systems. to date i have not gotten wind of it being achieved (altho i have been out of that loop for sometime now).
admittingly i did not read all of your links, but the first few were "what if" articles.
regardless of "if" it can be done or not it will still adhere to laws of entropy.
the point of my comment on the creation of atoms is as follows> if you cannot create new atoms;
then you cannot replace the atoms that deplete completely.
as time progresses less matter will be present in this "verse". aka all will be lost(entropy)
your transmutations are neither here nor there. tho i could be wrong, but im certain fusion/fission do not increase an atoms shelf life;
meaning it does not escape entropy. its decay "stays the course"
Originally posted by StellarX
So you have been out of the loop since 1987? Why stop reading before you get to what could do nothing other than prove it?
regardless of "if" it can be done or not it will still adhere to laws of entropy.
Circular reasoning if every saw some. Why do you believe the laws of entropy plays any part in a process you claim you do not understand?
... if one takes transmutation to mean the creation of new atoms ( instead of just atoms being changed) then we do not require additional proof.
Which atoms deplete completely and where does that happen?
NO! The conservation of energy law tells us that energy/matter is CONSERVED; the universe can not lose mass unless it's open in which case arguments for entropy becomes even more speculative.
Did i not point out that only some atoms are decaying and then just to more stable forms?
What i can't figure out is why you are so desperately trying to see entropy everywhere.
Originally posted by Glyph_D
why must cold fusion be proven??? it doesnt matter. cold fusion wont escape entropy,
why you may ask? becuase the material the device is made of will decay and break, regardless if output > input is obtained.
why are you trying to derail this topic with zero point energy?
i did not claim i dont understand cold fusion, what i said was it hasnt been proven YET.
why would i purposely use the term transmutation inaccurately?
i will not start to redefine terms just to fit my "agenda"; as to make things that dont fit appear to fit.
EDIT: i forgot to mention that whether you transmute or not those particles are/will decay at a given rate. transmute all you want, but they will decay till you cant transmute no more.
all atoms, everywhere.
wrong again... that law deals with "energy" not mass.
you have just tried to pull a fast one and got busted. to write "energy/matter" is just wrong, the two are not grouped together as such. learn more physics plz.
im not sure if you did or not? where did you point that out? either way your still wrong. "only" all atoms decay, those that are stable and those that are not.
If a nucleus has too few or too many neutrons it may be unstable, and will decay after some period of time. For example, nitrogen-16 atoms (7 protons, 9 neutrons) beta decay to oxygen-16 atoms (8 protons, 8 neutrons) within a few seconds of being created. In this decay a neutron in the nitrogen nucleus is turned into a proton and an electron by the weak nuclear force. The element of the atom changes because while it previously had seven protons (which makes it nitrogen) it now has eight (which makes it oxygen). Many elements have multiple isotopes which are stable for weeks, years, or even billions of years.
en.wikipedia.org...
im not desperately trying to "see" anything. its just there, like day and night.
Originally posted by StellarX
And that is a bald faced lie at worse and ignorance of reality at best. We KNOW plants do it and we know it's been validated in many hundreds of experiments all over the world; it's real but you wont accept it because you do nothing but slavishly follow whatever is said to be the norm.
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Where are you getting this from?
I'm sincerely asking - other than some Russian guy saying chickens made calcium through nuclear reactions I'm not sure I've ever heard this plant transmutation thing except from you in this thread.
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Where are you getting this from?
Reading and generally doing what you should be doing? Observing reality in general?
Originally posted by StellarX
Unless it's maintained by the intelligent application of energy; something humans are quite capable of. You are assuming NO negentropic effects anywhere when this is a obvious lie.
Fact is atoms are changed by fusion of either the 'hot or 'cold' kind and that is transmutation by another name. Until you can start accepting the realities that contradicts yours there is not much hope for a settlement in this discussion.
What decay? Please provide me with the scientific reasoning you are employing here as i am unaware of this 'decay'. Once again you are employing reasoning of a very circular nature by saying what you must to arrive at the conclusion that entropy must be true; somehow.
... that law deals with "energy" not mass.
It's the same thing and i am becoming very disappointed with your ignorance on such fundamentals of physics...Energy and matter is in fact interchangeable...
I have repeatedly shown you that you are looking ONLY at one set of facts and that there is a large volume of information that shows the exact opposite.
Originally posted by Glyph_D
i dont understand your point here. i do not deny the possibility of negative entropy, i only state that the probability is in the positives' favor.
define "intelligent application of energy" please.
look i think cold fusion is/would be great, its presence would solve alot of energy problems. what i dont get is> why on earth this has anything to do with entropy?
cold fusion is not a negentropic event, no matter how much you want it to be. its an alternative to hot fusion; fusion of particles that enforce patterns of entropy.
if am repeating myself it becuase you are refusing to see what im saying.
the entropy i speak of is the ramifications of the ejecta(decay) that is emitted from atoms(and there particles). if the content of the atoms is dissipated into the environment, that variable is depleted. when its(particle) depletion is completed the particle is no more.
what happens when you split an atom?
that force is released naturally over a vary large span of time.
i understand the scientific community doesnt use "decay" as i do. however using the scientific usage, entropy is realized as well. when radioactive decay takes place the atoms drops to a lower state(moveing from a higher state).
this natural transmutation is apparently random(from our perspective), being influenced by temperature, and can be accelerated by gamma bombardment.
what you assume is "stability" is infinite.
if your understanding of energy is restricted to atoms then yes.
in the realm of physics the two are not the same. matter is a substance, and many forms of energy are NOT considered matter, ie waves.
indeed...if they were the same thing there would be no need to have separate forms of text. the terms are here because they are used in different ways. which means they are not interchangeable(within the realm of physics).
my point was> your improper use of a law that is not applicable to this discussion. and you had to insert(deviously) the term mass/matter to make it(the law) relevant.
really?? the exact opposite??
you havent shown me why i should abandon entropy. everything in my life and even your life proves entropy is very relevant to the human experience.
if your going to say its not i say show me the alternative, show me the alternative understanding to aging, exhaustion/fatigue, arthritis, loss of vision, death, ect...