|
Post by JRowe on Mar 24, 2016 18:45:54 GMT
Does free expansion occur? Yes or no. If no, you're denying science. If yes, then please share why the masses have a predictable net direction if they're instead governed by random motion?
Your water glass example features movement in the direction of gravity. In a different situation, of course different rules will apply: my wave example, aside from exclusively being meant to demonstrate the bounce-back principle (a fact you love to ignore and overapply the analogy despite repeated correction) features primarily horizontal motion. Yes, it's diagonal, because I'm not proposing gravity completely stops acting, but the fact is it gains horizontal motion towards the low concentration, resulting from a purely vertical force. The U-tube example is exactly the same as my container example. It will move faster the less resistance there is, and there'll be sloshing (albeit less because it has to act in opposition to gravity) until the ideal state is reached: equal amounts in each tube.
So, gas molecules have energy, but somehow the combination of molecules to form a ball bearing does not. Do you really not see the absurdity inherent in your argument?
Once again, my analogies rely on a container simply due to scale. Trying to substantially alter a universal concentration (functionally infinite) with a finite amount is a ridiculous ask. This is likely why you insist on those analogies despite the fact they are the precise opposite set-up to what's going on in my model. The container simply allows for the variation in concentration to be measurable. You have been told this multiple times.
I am tired of needing to repeat myself. If you can explain free expansion, the default state of matter, with your clumping law, that would be a great start.
So, your question was why water doesn't go up, and you have now conceded that it does in fact go up and ultimately evenly fill the container (once it has acquired the heat energy to evaporate and move more freely). You do realize you have literally just agreed with everything I've been saying, right?
Stop wasting time. You have been corrected countless times on that straw man: at no point have I ever said gravity and surface tension are the exact same. This does not change the fact that when gravity acts, the net force exerted by surface tension drastically lessens, and so water behaves more naturally, subject only to the predictable downwards force.
Mountains don't flow because there is a force holding them in place: the same applies to gas. The same laws are relevant. The laws of physics don't change. The second law of thermodynamics applies to energy, not mass, as I explicitly said.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 25, 2016 3:44:28 GMT
"Does free expansion occur? Yes or no.” - do you need stronger glasses How many times have I said that it does in gases? "then please share why the masses have a predictable net direction if they're instead governed by random motion?” - There are walls. When one wall of the container is removed molecules don’t rush towards the exit. They continue bouncing randomly until they find the opening and fly out. "exclusively being meant to demonstrate the bounce-back principle” - which exclusively works only in containers... "it gains horizontal motion towards the low concentration, resulting from a purely vertical force.” - and that vertical force is purely gravity, isn’t it? "The U-tube example is exactly the same as my container example. It will move faster the less resistance there is” - wrong, it won’t move one bit. Water will stay on one side and air on the other. This is the same principle why when you make a hole on a bottle of water only a trickle will flow out or nothing at all (depending on how much air is in the bottle) "So, gas molecules have energy, but somehow the combination of molecules to form a ball bearing does not.” - gas molecules have KINETIC energy, ball bearings don’t. Individual molecules in ball bearings vibrate in random direction and overall kinetic energy can be zero. Is it still absurd? "Once again, my analogies rely on a container simply due to scale. Trying to substantially alter a universal concentration (functionally infinite) with a finite amount is a ridiculous ask.” - is universe finite or infinite? Could you give me play by play of the gas escaping a container in vacuum? Let’s start with a million molecules in the container then one of the walls drops. At time t1 there are 100K molecules outside the container and 900k in. Could you continue with t2, t3, t4... and tell me how do you envision this unfolding. Will there be a point at with there will be more molecules outside than inside? "If you can explain free expansion, the default state of matter, with your clumping law” - first it’s not a default state of matter. Free expansion only happens in gases and only with small amounts. When we get enough gas my clumping law will take over and collapse the gas cloud. Your water example is a clear application of the clumping law. The water tries to clump as close as possible to the ground, the densest object around. That’s why the hour glass is no contradiction here. I also gave you numerous other examples. I’ll add to those crystallization where molecules create ever denser structures from less dense solutions. "So, your question was why water doesn't go up, and you have now conceded that it does in fact go up and ultimately evenly fill the container” - yup, sometimes it goes up sometimes it doesn’t - in the same conditions, with the same forces (gravity has nothing to do with it, it would behave the same in zero gravity) . Clearly you noticed that that makes your law not universal, right? “at no point have I ever said gravity and surface tension are the exact same. “ - how am I to understand this: "every single one of my analogies features forces needed to cancel other forces”,"Masses require force to move, but you rely on non-balanced forces, and movement in the same direction as the external, non-cancelled force. “ This to me means that you think that in your examples there are no non-balanced forces. Are you saying that there are? What are those forces? "subject only to the predictable downwards force. “ - so the horizontal movement is due to this downward force, and we call this force gravity, right? "The second law of thermodynamics applies to energy, not mass, as I explicitly said.” - what did you mean by this: "Energy obeys the second law of thermodynamics: it tends towards equilibrium. This is the same principle, and accepted as a law. MASS and energy, EVERYTHING we know to exist, obeys this law.” (my emphasis)
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 26, 2016 18:03:23 GMT
So, tell me, what would happen if there was a box filled with vacuum put into a room filled with air, and a wall was removed. Seems to me like yet another instance of high to low. Observing something in every situation: there comes a point it's just childish to act as though there's no cause.
The bounce-back idea is easier to demonstrate in containers because in limited spaces it's easier to show how concentration will vary measurably. You have been told this multiple times. You have also been reminded that the situations you're referring to are the precise opposite of the ones in my model: you had a high concentration in a limited space, compared with a surrounding low concentration. It has also been pointed out to you, and you have acknowledged, that if, say, a vacuum appeared in the middle of an air-filled room (for whatever reason: it's a hypothetical) a breeze would result: the low concentration wouldn't be simply instantly filled in perfectly with no subsequent motion. You also agreed with that. Why are you backtracking so transparently?
"and that vertical force is purely gravity, isn’t it?" Why are you still complaining about the fact masses require energy to move? While you're on that topic, how about you explain how a purely vertical force causes horizontal motion if nothing else is at play: note that you completely ignore this every time it's brought up.
" wrong, it won’t move one bit. Water will stay on one side and air on the other. This is the same principle why when you make a hole on a bottle of water only a trickle will flow out or nothing at all (depending on how much air is in the bottle)" Apologies, I misread the situation you proposed: I was covering the situation of an unsealed tube. (I thought that note was only made to prevent water escaping). If you're yet again relying on applying another external force, I fail to see why you expect it to be remotely relevant.
"is universe finite or infinite?" Functionally infinite. I'm not talking literally. The amount of air in the atmosphere is functionally infinite when compared to the amount in a balloon. How is that relevant?
"Could you give me play by play of the gas escaping a container in vacuum? Let’s start with a million molecules in the container then one of the walls drops. At time t1 there are 100K molecules outside the container and 900k in. Could you continue with t2, t3, t4... and tell me how do you envision this unfolding. Will there be a point at with there will be more molecules outside than inside?" I'm not interested in wasting time. I can give you a gist, and you've been given it multiple times. The molecules escape: as the vacuum is large, they continue escaping, the concentration outside can never be meaningfully more simply down to the size of a vacuum. If you include it in a container, and so make it possible for the outside concentration to measurably increase, you'd get the situation already described.
"Free expansion only happens in gases and only with small amounts." Free expansion happens in the lack of external forces. Gases are free from, for example, surface tension: that is the definition of a default state.
"I also gave you numerous other examples." Universally reliant on an external force, demonstrating your law is not universal. If you are reliant on special cases and situations an unbalanced forces, you're just wasting time.
"yup, sometimes it goes up sometimes it doesn’t - in the same conditions, with the same forces (gravity has nothing to do with it, it would behave the same in zero gravity) . Clearly you noticed that that makes your law not universal, right?" When wouldn't it? Equivalent conditions, any amount of water would gain energy and evaporate.
"This to me means that you think that in your examples there are no non-balanced forces. Are you saying that there are? What are those forces?" The forces at play are different in each example. All they do is prevent the behaviour of another: for example, gravity vs surface tension. And then when the motion is not in the same direction as gravity, we can see that something else must be at play. How many times do I need to repeat a point for the slightest acknowledgement from you?
"so the horizontal movement is due to this downward force, and we call this force gravity, right?" Would you ever care to explain how horizontal movement can be caused by a force in a perpendicular direction, or are you just going to keep on ignoring that?
"what did you mean by this: "Energy obeys the second law of thermodynamics: it tends towards equilibrium. This is the same principle, and accepted as a law. MASS and energy, EVERYTHING we know to exist, obeys this law.” (my emphasis)" I meant that mass and energy obey the law. I gave an example of how mass obeyed it the line before, I then gave an example of how energy obeyed it. Are you seriously just going to ignore the majority of my posts and act as though the only evidence I've ever given was that one line? I note that you continue to ignore the fact energy undeniably obeys this law.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 26, 2016 22:58:55 GMT
"So, tell me, what would happen if there was a box filled with vacuum put into a room filled with air, and a wall was removed.” - wait, so is the other example totally settled then, since now you’re changing the subject? As to this example it depends if the room is here on earth or in 0 gravity. In 0 gravity pretty much the same thing would happen as before. Molecules around the box would be bouncing randomly until they would find their way into the box. "Observing something in every situation: there comes a point it's just childish to act as though there's no cause.” - don’t understand what you mean. "The bounce-back idea is easier to demonstrate in containers” - EASIER? You haven’t demonstrated it ONCE without a container. Would you care to do it now? "You have been told this multiple times. “ - you said many silly things multiple times. I wish you stopped "a breeze would result: the low concentration wouldn't be simply instantly filled in perfectly with no subsequent motion. You also agreed with that. Why are you backtracking so transparently?” - a breeze would result from friction. What about it? Nothing ever happens instantly. Not sure how that means that I’m backtracking. "If you're yet again relying on applying another external force, I fail to see why you expect it to be remotely relevant. “ - what’s the extreme force? I expect it to be relevant because in this example there are dense and low density regions right next to each other separated by nothing yet they don’t mix. "The molecules escape: as the vacuum is large, they continue escaping, the concentration outside can never be meaningfully more simply down to the size of a vacuum.” - would there ever be a time when the box would be totally empty? ""I also gave you numerous other examples." Universally reliant on an external force, demonstrating your law is not universal. If you are reliant on special cases and situations an unbalanced forces” - you give water flowing as an example and that too has unbalanced forces. So why are unbalanced forces a problem in my examples. What unbalanced forces act in crystallization process? "When wouldn't it? Equivalent conditions, any amount of water would gain energy and evaporate. “ - I gave you the example in the beginning. Fill the glass container half with water and it will not evaporate. You agreed with it yourself. Did you change your mind? "And then when the motion is not in the same direction as gravity, we can see that something else must be at play. How many times do I need to repeat a point for the slightest acknowledgement from you?” - sure there is also friction at play. That doesn’t change the fact that gravity overcomes all these forces and ultimately is responsible for the motion. "Would you ever care to explain how horizontal movement can be caused by a force in a perpendicular direction, or are you just going to keep on ignoring that?” - I thought you were agreeing with that. I didn’t think it needed explanation. OK, back to my car rolling downhill example. First, you do know that it’s gravity that’s responsible for it’s movement, right? You didn’t object so I assume you do. The way it happens is that gravity acts straight down, the ground reacts to this force with equal force perpendicular to the surface. Since the car is on an incline the gravity and the reaction vector angles are not opposite of each other so when you add them up they result in a force that pulls the car downhill. I recommend reviewing your elementary school physics books to get a clearer picture. "I meant that mass and energy obey the law.” - am I talking to the same person? You just said this: "The second law of thermodynamics applies to energy, not mass, as I explicitly said.” "I note that you continue to ignore the fact energy undeniably obeys this law.” - never denied that energy obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 29, 2016 15:04:19 GMT
"wait, so is the other example totally settled then, since now you’re changing the subject?" I'm tired of repeating myself. I am simply illustrating, multiple times, how this precise principle holds, and how you offer nothing except denying there's a reason.
"EASIER? You haven’t demonstrated it ONCE without a container. Would you care to do it now?" I did in the very next sentence (by repeating myself yet again). You acknowledge as much, and then ignore it. Please stop wasting time, this is tiresome.
"what’s the extreme force? I expect it to be relevant because in this example there are dense and low density regions right next to each other separated by nothing yet they don’t mix." External force, not extreme. Your set-up actively prevents motion.
"would there ever be a time when the box would be totally empty?" Possibly. However, this wouldn't inherently mean the concentration was lower so long as the overall distribution of the air molecules was the same; that is, equilibrium was reached. This is the issue with trying to work with a huge vacuum, rather than the opposite situation, which you have been informed countless times is in fact more accurate and relevant to the DE model.
"you give water flowing as an example and that too has unbalanced forces. So why are unbalanced forces a problem in my examples." Acceleration will always required unbalanced forces, are you yet again insisting I'm somehow saying masses can move without force? I explicitly said external forces: forces from sources irrelevant to what's being examined.
"What unbalanced forces act in crystallization process?" Typically chemical forces. Which specific instance of crystallization are you referring to? It should also be acknowledged that this is hardly default behaviour: it requires very specific situations to occur. Regardless, there are a whole host of chemical reactions and situations that result in crystallization. The former clearly rely on an external source of energy.
"I gave you the example in the beginning. Fill the glass container half with water and it will not evaporate. You agreed with it yourself. Did you change your mind?" What on earth are you talking about?
" I thought you were agreeing with that. I didn’t think it needed explanation." I agree with it just fine: but it completely contradicts everything you're saying. Gravity can't be the sole cause if the motion is in a different direction. Note that each example relies on matter not moving into a higher concentration of matter, but rather moving away: redirecting the force of gravity.
"am I talking to the same person? You just said this: "The second law of thermodynamics applies to energy, not mass, as I explicitly said.” " Yes, I did say that. Please stop completely ignoring me, this is just childish. Both mass and energy obey the law. I have demonstrated on multiple occasions that mass obeys the law, and the second law of thermodynamics shows that energy also obeys the law. At no point have I ever said anything remotely close to "the second law of thermodynamics implies mass obeys the law." Can you please stop outright lying, even right after correction? You utterly ignored my response.
"never denied that energy obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics." Never said you did. Yet another straw man. You simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that energy tends towards equilibrium, providing further justification for the law.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 29, 2016 17:26:15 GMT
"I am simply illustrating, multiple times, how this precise principle holds, and how you offer nothing except denying there's a reason. " - OK. then gas expansion in 0g is covered. It expands solely due to the kinetic energy of the molecules. You also seem to be satisfied that ball bearings won't spontaneously start expanding. Are we final on that?
""EASIER? You haven’t demonstrated it ONCE without a container. Would you care to do it now?" I did in the very next sentence (by repeating myself yet again). " - is this your example: "a vacuum appeared in the middle of an air-filled room" - sorry that I didn't understand that that's what you meant but by my definition a room is still a container. I also assume you mean a room here on earth so we are dealing with a big amount of external atmospheric pressure. I know how much you are set against external forces so I didn't really think you were serious with that example. The same room in 0g with no external pressure would experience no winds or bounce back.
"External force, not extreme. Your set-up actively prevents motion." - sorry, I misread it. OK, what's the external force, what's preventing the motion?
""would there ever be a time when the box would be totally empty?" Possibly." - if the box is empty then it doesn't matter what the concentration is outside the box. It's still higher than what's in the box so according to you the gas would reverse and start flowing back. Is that right?
"This is the issue with trying to work with a huge vacuum, rather than the opposite situation, which you have been informed countless times is in fact more accurate and relevant to the DE model." - but we are talking about a UNIVERSAL law. Are you saying that it doesn't work in huge vacuums either? BTW, you never answered if the universe is finite or infinite.
" are you yet again insisting I'm somehow saying masses can move without force? I explicitly said external forces: forces from sources irrelevant to what's being examined." - OK, to sum up: in your water example we are dealing with unbalanced forces which is gravity, right? Some of my examples relied on unbalanced force of gravity for clumping to occur. Are you saying that gravity is relevant in your examples but irrelevant in mine?
"there are a whole host of chemical reactions and situations that result in crystallization. The former clearly rely on an external source of energy. " - are you saying chemical reactions are an external force? How, where from? To me they are a property of matter.
"What on earth are you talking about?" - let's set two sealed glass containers next to each other one half filled with water the other 10%. In one water will mix (which you said it shouldn't due to external force of gravity) in the other it won't. The exact same forces and temps apply to both containers yet your law doesn't seem to be working the same. That means it's not universal, it depends on very specific conditions.
"it completely contradicts everything you're saying. Gravity can't be the sole cause if the motion is in a different direction. Note that each example relies on matter not moving into a higher concentration of matter, but rather moving away: redirecting the force of gravity. " - yes, there are multiple interacting objects but without gravity there wouldn't be any motion at all so we can say that gravity is the sole source of the movement. And the matter is moving towards the higher concentration namely the center of the earth. Sometimes it has to move slightly sideways to get closer to the center.
"Both mass and energy obey the law." - I think the misunderstanding here stems from you referring to 'the law'. I thought you meant the 2nd law of thermodynamics since that's what you were talking about. Please refer to it as 'my law' to avoid confusion.
"I have demonstrated on multiple occasions that mass obeys the law" - you showed gas expands because of kinetic energy and water flows because of gravity. Are these your multiple examples? I showed you many many more where your law doesn't work or just the opposite happens.
"You simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that energy tends towards equilibrium, providing further justification for the law." - that provides justification for the 2nd law of thermodynamics not your law unless your law is the same as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 30, 2016 18:08:52 GMT
" OK. then gas expansion in 0g is covered. It expands solely due to the kinetic energy of the molecules. You also seem to be satisfied that ball bearings won't spontaneously start expanding. Are we final on that?" You have yet to demonstrate that kinetic energy is sufficient. It's certainly necessary, masses require force to move, but clearly any old kinetic energy wouldn't cause expansion. Ball bearings are not completely free of kinetic energy. That's ludicrous. You've been called out on that before.
"I also assume you mean a room here on earth so we are dealing with a big amount of external atmospheric pressure. I know how much you are set against external forces so I didn't really think you were serious with that example." So, you believe the vacuum would only be filled by the air above, and there would be no horizontal motion whatsoever, really?
"if the box is empty then it doesn't matter what the concentration is outside the box. It's still higher than what's in the box so according to you the gas would reverse and start flowing back. Is that right?" No, because we are talking overall concentration, not net amount. Consider reading the next sentence rather than yet again completely ignoring my response. If the box vanished suddenly, and the concentration of its surroundings remain uniform in concentration before anything could move to fill in, then plainly there's no need for motion.
"but we are talking about a UNIVERSAL law. Are you saying that it doesn't work in huge vacuums either?" Yes, we're talking about a universal law, but you're constantly questioning the idea of a bounce-back which is nearly impossible to visualize in the situation you're talking about. The bounce-back is not synonymous with the law, it's a consequence in certain situations.
"BTW, you never answered if the universe is finite or infinite." Yes, I did, as far as was meaningful to the concentration. ctrl-f is your friend, please stop lying and ignoring me.
"OK, to sum up: in your water example we are dealing with unbalanced forces which is gravity, right? Some of my examples relied on unbalanced force of gravity for clumping to occur. Are you saying that gravity is relevant in your examples but irrelevant in mine?" External forces are the issue. Are you seriously just going to completely ignore that again? This is tiresome.
"are you saying chemical reactions are an external force? How, where from? To me they are a property of matter." The introduction of another chemical is certainly an external force. The beginning of the reaction plainly relies on more energy than either has alone.
"let's set two sealed glass containers next to each other one half filled with water the other 10%. In one water will mix (which you said it shouldn't due to external force of gravity) in the other it won't. The exact same forces and temps apply to both containers yet your law doesn't seem to be working the same. That means it's not universal, it depends on very specific conditions." No. The only way either could mix is through evaporation: ie, introduction of heat from an external source, so this is irrelevant in any case, and it would occur in both containers anyway. Another waste of time.
"yes, there are multiple interacting objects but without gravity there wouldn't be any motion at all so we can say that gravity is the sole source of the movement. And the matter is moving towards the higher concentration namely the center of the earth. Sometimes it has to move slightly sideways to get closer to the center." Mass requires a force to move, your constant insistence that that's somehow a response is just tedious at this stage. Gravity supplies this force: but it is still clearly an external force. Regardless, what I said stands: matter moves away from the higher concentration immediately beneath it, to move sideways. Gravity cannot exclusively be to blame, as you've acknowledged: gravity provides the force, but the objects and laws and properties governing them provide the direction.
"you showed gas expands because of kinetic energy and water flows because of gravity. Are these your multiple examples? I showed you many many more where your law doesn't work or just the opposite happens." I've showed that all objects move from high concentrations to low, in the absence of an external force (a caveat relevant to all laws). All you've done is point out objects require forces to move, or given examples repeatedly demonstrated to rely on interference. That's not a contradiction in any way.
"that provides justification for the 2nd law of thermodynamics not your law unless your law is the same as the 2nd law of thermodynamics." It is the same, when applied to energy.
When applied to mass, well, strip away external forces. the purest case would be gas in a vacuum, and free expansion holds, and no matter how much you try to evade and distract with straw men you simply have to know are irrelevant by now, that doesn't change.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 30, 2016 20:13:46 GMT
"You have yet to demonstrate that kinetic energy is sufficient." - I already did. They have velocity in a random direction and that's where they move. What else do you believe is acting on them? "but clearly any old kinetic energy wouldn't cause expansion" - how is that clear? Do you have examples in 0g in vacuum? Go to the wikipedia page on free expansion. That's exactly what it says is responsible for the expansion. "Ball bearings are not completely free of kinetic energy. That's ludicrous. You've been called out on that before." - and did you miss my explanation? First, you say that kinetic energy can't be responsible for expansion. But in case of ball bearings it can? Please try to be consistent. BTW, the 1st law of motion says that when objects are at rest of in motion. I guess Newton was ludicrous because you say objects can never be at rest. "So, you believe the vacuum would only be filled by the air above, and there would be no horizontal motion whatsoever, really? " - please refer to your elementary physics text book to see how atmospheric pressure works. I really don't want to be explaining the most basic things to you like with gravity. "No, because we are talking overall concentration, not net amount." - empty box concentration = 0, outside of the box concentration > 0. Do you get it now? ""BTW, you never answered if the universe is finite or infinite." Yes, I did" - sorry I missed that - no reason to get testy "OK, to sum up: in your water example we are dealing with unbalanced forces which is gravity, right? Some of my examples relied on unbalanced force of gravity for clumping to occur. Are you saying that gravity is relevant in your examples but irrelevant in mine?" External forces are the issue. - what external forces? Be specific. Is gravity not an external force? "The introduction of another chemical is certainly an external force. The beginning of the reaction plainly relies on more energy than either has alone. " - what other chemical? Crystallization does not need additional energy. It happens to minimize the energy - 2nd law of TD. "No. The only way either could mix is through evaporation: ie, introduction of heat from an external source, so this is irrelevant in any case, and it would occur in both containers anyway." - gas in your examples has heat and somehow that does not count as an external force. You can insulate the containers so the heat from the outside doesn't flow. And you are wrong about water evaporating in the half full container and you know it because initially you said that it wouldn't mix because of gravity. You can do the experiment yourself. The water won't evaporate EVEN if you do heat up the container. "Gravity supplies this force: but it is still clearly an external force." - how come you are fine with this external force in your examples. "but the objects and laws and properties governing them provide the direction. " - so your water example relies on objects being arranged in a specific way for your law to work. The opening has to be made on the side. If you make the opening on the bottom (assuming there is empty space underneath) it's my water hour glass example and things start flowing from low concentration to high after a while. If you make an opening on top clearly nothing is going to flow. ""that provides justification for the 2nd law of thermodynamics not your law unless your law is the same as the 2nd law of thermodynamics." It is the same, when applied to energy. " - it's not. the 2nd law explicitly forbids things like your bounce backs of energy. "When applied to mass, well, strip away external forces. the purest case would be gas in a vacuum, and free expansion holds" - that's your ONLY example where it holds and I never denied that it holds for gases. You never explained what 'external' forces prevent water from moving in my U tube example.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Apr 1, 2016 17:36:29 GMT
"I already did. They have velocity in a random direction and that's where they move. What else do you believe is acting on them?" No other force is acting on them: the fact remains, randomness would not always give predictable results. How is it you believe laws work? They're not mystical hands that reach out of the sky to make things move: they're repeatable, universal behaviour.
" and did you miss my explanation? First, you say that kinetic energy can't be responsible for expansion. But in case of ball bearings it can? Please try to be consistent." Please stop lying, this is tedious. I have repeatedly said kinetic energy is required for expansion: you simply have not demonstrated that it is sufficient. Your sole claim has been that the ball bearings will have net kinetic energy zero: this is unlikely to the point of absurdity.
"BTW, the 1st law of motion says that when objects are at rest of in motion. I guess Newton was ludicrous because you say objects can never be at rest." Newton described a simplification. Ask anyone who works with his laws. Even beyond questions of relativity and quantum mechanics, the fact is to apply Newton's laws realistically you have to assume certain simplifications hold. Ideal objects, particles...
"please refer to your elementary physics text book to see how atmospheric pressure works. I really don't want to be explaining the most basic things to you like with gravity." Stop wasting time. I'm asking this again: do you believe, that if a bubble of vacuum appeared out of nowhere, that there would be no horizontal motion or breeze resulting from that whatsoever? Yes or no? Free expansion implies no.
"empty box concentration = 0, outside of the box concentration > 0. Do you get it now?" Are you even going to try to read my posts?
"sorry I missed that - no reason to get testy" If it was an isolated incident, I woudln't. the fact is you have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to engage in honest discussion, instead evading and even outright lying: you literally just did that exact point, completely ignoring my explanation to repeat yourself.
" what external forces? Be specific. Is gravity not an external force?" Are you seriously going to make me repeat myself yet again? This is just pathetic. The net movement of the molecules in my examples is not in the direction of gravity, so gravity physically cannot be all that is required. Gravity is exclusively used to nullify the action of another external force. Please, for once, pay attention and stop constantly demanding i repeat this incredibly basic fact.
"what other chemical?" Chemical reactions require more than one chemical. Seriously?!
"gas in your examples has heat and somehow that does not count as an external force." Because the heat belongs to the molecules. For evaporation to occur, heat has to be added from an external source.
"You can insulate the containers so the heat from the outside doesn't flow." In which case the only mixing that would occur would be the heat from molecules passing to one another, causing evaporation on a smaller scale. So, my law's preferred.
"And you are wrong about water evaporating in the half full container and you know it because initially you said that it wouldn't mix because of gravity. You can do the experiment yourself. The water won't evaporate EVEN if you do heat up the container." I initially said it wouldn't occur purely because I was expecting you to be talking about an isolated situation focus on kinetic energy rather than heat. if you include heat moving, it certainly would occur.
" so your water example relies on objects being arranged in a specific way for your law to work. The opening has to be made on the side. If you make the opening on the bottom (assuming there is empty space underneath) it's my water hour glass example and things start flowing from low concentration to high after a while. If you make an opening on top clearly nothing is going to flow." Yet again, relying on an external force and plainly wasting time. Are you ever going to pay attention? Stop. Wasting. Time.
" it's not. the 2nd law explicitly forbids things like your bounce backs of energy." Not at all. The second law allows for entropy to decrease in one part of a closed system, so long as it increases in another. We observe this all the time. It's simply harder to observe energy in this way.
"that's your ONLY example where it holds and I never denied that it holds for gases." If it holds in the purest example, that's pretty telling. It holds approximately in every other situation (in liquids when the effect of surface tension is reduced, in grain-solids able to flow), the same as Newton's laws: the absence of external forces (or at least minimized/cancelled external forces). you've simply decided that you're right and I'm wrong and you're ignoring everything that says different, and repeatedly ignoring basic facts like the absence of influences being required for literally every law, and the fact masses require energy to move.
"You never explained what 'external' forces prevent water from moving in my U tube example." No, as per usual, you simply ignored it.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 1, 2016 18:43:55 GMT
"No other force is acting on them: the fact remains, randomness would not always give predictable results. " - do you have examples? What results would randomness produce? Do you disagree with the wikipedia page?
"Your sole claim has been that the ball bearings will have net kinetic energy zero: this is unlikely to the point of absurdity." - it doesn't take much for you to reach absurdity. Yes, big objects can have 0 net kinetic energy. Even if individual atoms of the object have kinetic energy it's random so it cancels each other. In your container in space with gas inside the assumption was that the container was stationary and only the gas molecules had kinetic energy. So rooms full of gas can be stationary but ballbearings somehow can't.
" I'm asking this again: do you believe, that if a bubble of vacuum appeared out of nowhere, that there would be no horizontal motion or breeze resulting from that whatsoever? Yes or no?" - OK, again in 0g no here on earth yes.
"empty box concentration = 0, outside of the box concentration > 0. Do you get it now?" Are you even going to try to read my posts? - I read them. Can you state clearly what you think the concentration outside the box is, where all the gas went.
"The net movement of the molecules in my examples is not in the direction of gravity" - because there is another object there, namely the ground. Remove the ground and it will be in the direction of gravity. "so gravity physically cannot be all that is required" - you are correct. for your law to work like you describe you need containers and the forces they introduce. So the external force of gravity and the external forces of the containers are all good here, but only here, right?
"Chemical reactions require more than one chemical. Seriously?!" - so when a molecule of salt joins another molecule of salt you count that as two chemicals? Seriously?! Anyway, when they join it reduces their total energy not increases.
" I initially said it wouldn't occur purely because I was expecting you to be talking about an isolated situation focus on kinetic energy rather than heat. if you include heat moving, it certainly would occur. " - so you would rather stand by your ridiculous statement rather that look around and see that there is plenty of water that is not evaporated and you can wait a 100 years and that water still will be there.
"Yet again, relying on an external force and plainly wasting time." - to get this straight - gravity only counts as an external force when it moves thing in a way that don't appear to be following your law. Is that it?
"The second law allows for entropy to decrease in one part of a closed system, so long as it increases in another." - are you for real? What are the examples?
""You never explained what 'external' forces prevent water from moving in my U tube example." No, as per usual, you simply ignored it." - is this your explanation: "External force, not extreme. Your set-up actively prevents motion." - as per usual it explains nothing. Can you try again with more detail like what forces and what prevents motion.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Apr 2, 2016 18:27:21 GMT
"do you have examples? What results would randomness produce? Do you disagree with the wikipedia page?" It's the definition of randomness: it cannot be predictable.
"Even if individual atoms of the object have kinetic energy it's random so it cancels each other." Again, unlikely to the point of absurdity. The average, yes, will be close to zero, but the chance of it being exactly zero and not a hair's breadth either side is quite frankly ridiculous.
"So rooms full of gas can be stationary but ballbearings somehow can't." Why would you think a room full of gas was perfectly stationary? Nothing ever is.
"OK, again in 0g no here on earth yes." Well you're simply wrong. Do you think molecules wouldn't move horizontally: it's the same principle as free expansion, again. I note you ignored that.
"Can you state clearly what you think the concentration outside the box is, where all the gas went." What on earth are you talking about? The total concentration is negligible: remove the box, and there'd be no areas of unusual concentration. Hence, it's evened out. Stop ignoring every word I say.
"because there is another object there, namely the ground. Remove the ground and it will be in the direction of gravity." But, would you look at that, the presence of a high concentration of matter has an effect.
"for your law to work like you describe you need containers and the forces they introduce. So the external force of gravity and the external forces of the containers are all good here, but only here, right?" When they're compensating for flaws in the analogy, yes. Are you really this intent on wasting time?
" so when a molecule of salt joins another molecule of salt you count that as two chemicals? Seriously?! Anyway, when they join it reduces their total energy not increases." I count the second grain of salt as external to the first, yes. Don't you? Besides, salt is already a crystal structure: you'd need to combine, say, sodium and chlorine. that's certainly two different chemicals. Energy is used up: but something external is required to start it up.
"so you would rather stand by your ridiculous statement rather that look around and see that there is plenty of water that is not evaporated and you can wait a 100 years and that water still will be there." ...please tell me you're not denying the water cycle now. If you're not, then please share what this water is you believe has not evaporated.
"to get this straight - gravity only counts as an external force when it moves thing in a way that don't appear to be following your law. Is that it?" It's an external force when it's external to the object in question, and isn't acting to remove the influence of another force. If it is the sole cause of movement (observable when, for example, an object moves in the direction it points) then it is plainly not negligible.
"are you for real? What are the examples?" Look up the law. It's just energy shifting. It's also why the law required a closed system, and isn't automatically valid in an open system: because an open system means there is something external adding energy, and so plainly preventing the natural path to equilibrium. (Now this is familiar). That is, entropy can decrease in an open system: and as we can simply expand our scale to view the open system as contained in a closed (say, the universe) we have entropy decreasing at a point within a closed system.
"Can you try again with more detail like what forces and what prevents motion." If it's the example I'm thinking of, the water is external to the air (and vice versa): there's simply no way for one to pass through the other immediately. In the long term, you'd get evaporation etc so it would even out, but the water and air exert forces on one another. The water may well shift slightly into the lower concentration immediately, depending on how compressed the air is, but not by much. It takes the addition of heat energy to counteract the forces already at play.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 3, 2016 4:08:08 GMT
" It's the definition of randomness: it cannot be predictable.” - sure it can. Toss a fair coin a 100 times and I predict that roughly half will be heads. The entires quantum mechanics is based on predictability of randomness. Please tell me what happens to a particle of gas that randomly travels away from the wall when that wall is dropped and opens the room to vacuum. "Again, unlikely to the point of absurdity. The average, yes, will be close to zero, but the chance of it being exactly zero and not a hair's breadth either side is quite frankly ridiculous.” - you do realize that we are talking about relative speeds, right? So do you truly believe that the building you are in is not stationary, how fast is it moving and in which direction? Put the ball bearings in a tight box, will they move and in which direction? "Why would you think a room full of gas was perfectly stationary? Nothing ever is.” - that could very well affect what will happen to the gas inside. Depending how the room moves it’s possible that no gas will escape when the room is opened. The assumption needs to be that it’s stationary. "Do you think molecules wouldn't move horizontally: it's the same principle as free expansion, again. I note you ignored that. “ - why wouldn’t they move horizontally. Are you going back to your silly notion that pressure is only vertical? Do you believe that the huge force of pressure has no impact on how molecules move? "The total concentration is negligible: remove the box, and there'd be no areas of unusual concentration. Hence, it's evened out.” - negligible means greater than 0. BTW, why would it be negligible no unusual concentration. Are you saying that the gas would spread across the universe in the few minutes it took to escape from the box? We don’t see that happening in practice at all. When gases leave pressurized containers they leave in a cloud that usually takes a long time to dissipate. "I count the second grain of salt as external to the first, yes.” - first, I’m not talking about grains of salt but molecules. Second, how does it make sense for a single molecule to expand? Your own examples deal with trillions of such molecules. "you'd need to combine, say, sodium and chlorine. that's certainly two different chemicals. “ - to get water you need to combine oxygen and hydrogen. Does your law hold on such chemicals? "Energy is used up: but something external is required to start it up.” - start up? no, energy is simply allowed to leave. "But, would you look at that, the presence of a high concentration of matter has an effect. “ - do you mean the ground and the container? Yes it certainly has an effect - from the outside acting on the water. Why do you ignore this clearly outside force? BTW, is this high concentration expanding into low concentration? "When they're compensating for flaws in the analogy, yes.” - so your law is not a real law, it’s just an analogy then? " ...please tell me you're not denying the water cycle now. “ - according to your law there should be no water cycle. Things are supposed to expand not condense, remember? "please share what this water is you believe has not evaporated. “- I personally have a jar of water that’s over a decade old and the jar is not even air tight. Instead of making more stupid statements why don’t you put some water in a jar, close it and write me back when you see it all evaporate. If that happens maybe you should also publish a paper because that would certainly be a new behavior that we didn’t observe previously. "It's an external force when it's external to the object in question, and isn't acting to remove the influence of another force.” - OK, then in my water hour glass gravity is not external. "If it is the sole cause of movement (observable when, for example, an object moves in the direction it points) then it is plainly not negligible. + - do you mean to say that in your example the force of gravity is negligible? How come since it is the key force that gets anything moving. To comply with your ridiculous definition of ‘external force’ I will modify my hour glass and join the two chambers with a horizontal pipe. Now, water flows horizontally from the top chamber to the bottom so clearly gravity has nothing to do with it and is negligible, right? And it still shows how low concentration flows into high. How about the force of the containers, can you describe how that fits into your external force definition. "Look up the law. It's just energy shifting.” - what’s causing the energy to shift? "there's simply no way for one to pass through the other immediately.” - why not. We have low concentration right next to high concentration the perfect conditions for them to pass. "depending on how compressed the air is” - why would the air compression matter. It’s still less dense no matter how compressed it is. "In the long term, you'd get evaporation etc so it would even out” - I assure you it would not. BTW, thank you for a detailed explanation. Can we make it a rule
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Apr 4, 2016 13:36:19 GMT
"sure it can. Toss a fair coin a 100 times and I predict that roughly half will be heads. The entires quantum mechanics is based on predictability of randomness. Please tell me what happens to a particle of gas that randomly travels away from the wall when that wall is dropped and opens the room to vacuum." In practise, yes: randomness doesn't exist. What matters is the theoretical basis for what happens in practise: strictly speaking, total randomness would net an even amount going in and out. this plainly isn't the case.
"you do realize that we are talking about relative speeds, right? So do you truly believe that the building you are in is not stationary, how fast is it moving and in which direction?" It's not stationary. nothing's stationary, the velocity's just negligible (and as for the building I'm in, very much restrained by being fixed into ground).
"Put the ball bearings in a tight box, will they move and in which direction?" We've already established they will move, they're not at absolute zero. The fact is, your claim only works if you believe the net sum of all the velocities of all the molecules will add up to exactly zero: that's simply not feasible. There's no margin for error.
"why wouldn’t they move horizontally. Are you going back to your silly notion that pressure is only vertical? Do you believe that the huge force of pressure has no impact on how molecules move?" You're the one who said they wouldn't move horizontally, I've been saying the exact opposite. And now you're backtracking and claiming gravity isn't the sole cause. So, please share what causes this horizontal pressure.
"that could very well affect what will happen to the gas inside. Depending how the room moves it’s possible that no gas will escape when the room is opened. The assumption needs to be that it’s stationary." So, you're just wasting time then. How is this remotely relevant?
"Are you saying that the gas would spread across the universe in the few minutes it took to escape from the box? We don’t see that happening in practice at all. When gases leave pressurized containers they leave in a cloud that usually takes a long time to dissipate." You know exactly what I'm saying and this evasion is just tedious. No, the gas isn't spread out evenly over the whole universe: hence free expansion, it's still expanding outwards. However, if there was no box, the vicinity of the box (which is all that matters for expansion to or from said area) would have no unusual concentration. Please stop wasting time by questioning childishly simple facts.
"first, I’m not talking about grains of salt but molecules." Then replace 'grains' by 'molecules' it still makes perfect sense.
" Second, how does it make sense for a single molecule to expand? Your own examples deal with trillions of such molecules." When have I ever claimed a single molecule expands? Technically they do if you get into quantum theory, quantum particles take every possible route, but all but the shortest are cancelled. That's a meaningless aside however, beyond that expansion simply isn't a defined concept, and nuclear forces hold sway.
"to get water you need to combine oxygen and hydrogen. Does your law hold on such chemicals?" What on earth are you talking about?
"start up? no, energy is simply allowed to leave." Something external is certainly required for a chemical reaction. Did you not even read my post?
"do you mean the ground and the container? Yes it certainly has an effect - from the outside acting on the water. Why do you ignore this clearly outside force? BTW, is this high concentration expanding into low concentration?" The ground is external to the container, I'm not using the force it exerts: I'm using the fact that if you expand the system to include the ground you note that matter does not keep moving towards the high concentration of matter there, even with a force acting directly to push it that way. You've simply decided everything I say must be wrong on principle and ignore every instance of the law.
"so your law is not a real law, it’s just an analogy then?" The analogies I give are certainly analogies. What do you expect?!
" according to your law there should be no water cycle. Things are supposed to expand not condense, remember?" No, that's just your straw man which you've been corrected on numerous times.
"I personally have a jar of water that’s over a decade old and the jar is not even air tight. Instead of making more stupid statements why don’t you put some water in a jar, close it and write me back when you see it all evaporate. If that happens maybe you should also publish a paper because that would certainly be a new behavior that we didn’t observe previously." So, what scientific measuring have you done to ensure that none if it has ever evaporated? You're just denying science at this stage. it's the same way puddle evaporate after rain: slowly, but surely. They take in energy. Unless that jar's been stored at absolute zero, it's been taking in energy. What exactly do you imagine it does with that? Even if it's just by 1mm, the water level will have decreased and some will have evaporated. this is simple scientific fact which you don't get to ignore just because you're too arrogant to admit a mistake. How, exactly, do you believe puddles evaporate and yet your water does not merely by virtue of a jar?
"OK, then in my water hour glass gravity is not external." please share how it meets the definition I gave then, rather than making plainly false statements.
"do you mean to say that in your example the force of gravity is negligible? How come since it is the key force that gets anything moving." Are you paying any attention whatsoever? I am responding to your questions, don't just completely ignore every word I say and assume there was no answer. This seems to be all you're capable of. We're nearly on page 5 and you're just repeating the same straw men despite multiple corrections.
"I will modify my hour glass and join the two chambers with a horizontal pipe." So you have a horizontal pipe travelling in a vertical direction. That makes perfect sense.
"And it still shows how low concentration flows into high." It's never done that. You've had water flowing into an absence of water.
"what’s causing the energy to shift?" Way too many things to list. Are you being serious? Literally every reaction causes energy to change from one form to another. Chemical to heat and sound and light, for example.
"why not. We have low concentration right next to high concentration the perfect conditions for them to pass." because surface tension exists? Matter just can't physically phase through other matter.
"why would the air compression matter. It’s still less dense no matter how compressed it is." Not what I was talking about: I was referring to the instant the divider was removed. there's simply no possible path for the air to take, but the force of the water's flow may still be enough to compress the air a very small amount.
"I assure you it would not." No, you simply have demonstrated you have no understanding of evaporation.
"Can we make it a rule" A far better rule would be for you to stop with your obvious straw men and lies. This is just tedious now, we've been talking for a long while and I am tired of having to repeat myself to someone who is clearly not even trying to listen. You have conceded absolutely everything required to demonstrate that my law holds, and you're instead obsessing over completely irrelevant analogies for no reason whatsoever, and then you're complaining that they're in fact analogies.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 4, 2016 20:44:45 GMT
"Please tell me what happens to a particle of gas that randomly travels away from the wall when that wall is dropped and opens the room to vacuum." In practise, yes: randomness doesn't exist. What matters is the theoretical basis for what happens in practise: strictly speaking, total randomness would net an even amount going in and out. this plainly isn't the case. " - of course that's not the case because that's not what random velocity means. For the molecules to go back into the container like you say would mean that they would have to reverse their random velocity. That can't happen without additional input of energy. What will happen in practice is that a molecule will travel with its random velocity in this case away from the box forever until something interrupts its path. And you didn't answer my question, what happens to the direction of a molecule when the box is opened. "nothing's stationary, the velocity's just negligible (and as for the building I'm in, very much restrained by being fixed into ground)." - so which direction is your building moving or it's not moving since it's fixed. You're contradicting yourself. " We've already established they will move, they're not at absolute zero." - how did we establish that. You didn't say where they would move. "believe the net sum of all the velocities of all the molecules will add up to exactly zero: that's simply not feasible." - you just said that the velocity can be negligible. What does that mean? BTW, the velocity doesn't have to add to 0. Since the molecules move randomly it can go back and forth. The net result is still the same: the balls won't move in any particular direction. "You're the one who said they wouldn't move horizontally, I've been saying the exact opposite. And now you're backtracking and claiming gravity isn't the sole cause. So, please share what causes this horizontal pressure. " - where did I say they wouldn't move horizontally? As far as the horizontal pressure I'm done wasting time explaining the basics to you. I told you please pick up a school book or look it up on the internet. "And now you're backtracking and claiming gravity isn't the sole cause. " - Gravity causes air pressure. "The assumption needs to be that it’s stationary." So, you're just wasting time then. How is this remotely relevant? " - you picked that case scenario. Are you saying it's not relevant? "You know exactly what I'm saying and this evasion is just tedious." - I honestly have no clue. Perhaps you're not explaining it right. "the vicinity of the box (which is all that matters for expansion to or from said area) would have no unusual concentration." - what does 'unusual' mean? The fact still remains. The box has 0 concentration. outside of the box has non zero concentration therefore things should be flowing into the box. ""first, I’m not talking about grains of salt but molecules." Then replace 'grains' by 'molecules' it still makes perfect sense. " - only to you unfortunately... ""to get water you need to combine oxygen and hydrogen. Does your law hold on such chemicals?" What on earth are you talking about?" - you are the one that said that my clumping example is invalid because there are multiple 'chemicals' involved. Your examples involve multiple chemicals as well. Fact remains. Molecules naturally attract each other when they are allowed to radiate out the energy after they clump. ""so your law is not a real law, it’s just an analogy then?" The analogies I give are certainly analogies. What do you expect?! " - I expected that you were talking about an actual law. If your law doesn't actually exist then I think we reached a conclusion ""start up? no, energy is simply allowed to leave." Something external is certainly required for a chemical reaction. Did you not even read my post?" - 'something external' explains nothing. What is it? Do you mean another molecule? Don't be absurd. If we're talking expansion obviously multiple objects/molecules need to be involved. "" according to your law there should be no water cycle. Things are supposed to expand not condense, remember?" No, that's just your straw man which you've been corrected on numerous times. " - please correct me one more time. Obviously there are 'external' forces involved, right? What is it this time? "So, what scientific measuring have you done to ensure that none if it has ever evaporated?" - never said that none of it evaporated. I said that clearly it didn't mix with the air because the jar is still full. I don't need any scientific measuring to see the water in the jar. " it's the same way puddle evaporate after rain: slowly, but surely." - for one who is on the lookout for 'external forces' you are awfully fond of using them in your examples. The puddle clearly receives plenty of energy from the sun and is in the open air not a closed container. But put that puddle in a box and even the sun won't be able to evaporate all of it. "They take in energy. Unless that jar's been stored at absolute zero, it's been taking in energy. What exactly do you imagine it does with that?" - this shows that you don't understand the 2nd law of TD. The energy doesn't flow in one direction. " Even if it's just by 1mm, the water level will have decreased and some will have evaporated." - sure, some, which i clearly illustrated with a container that has very little water. The point is that there is a very low limit of how much will evaporate. If your law was true the water would keep evaporating until the densities were equal. This clearly doesn't happen. "How, exactly, do you believe puddles evaporate and yet your water does not merely by virtue of a jar? " - are you just going to be talking what you think should happen or do an actual experiment for yourself. Put some water in a jar and then put the same amount in a dish next to it. See what happens instead of keep talking. ""OK, then in my water hour glass gravity is not external." please share how it meets the definition I gave then, rather than making plainly false statements." - did you even read what I said? The water in the hour glass flows because the gravity cancels out the surface tension. In this modified example the chambers are connected by a horizontal pipe so after the water leaves the upper chamber it travels horizontally to the bottom one. Horizontal flow clearly indicates that gravity is not involved (I could even modify the example for the water to go up with a slightly different setup). Therefore no external forces are involved. ""do you mean to say that in your example the force of gravity is negligible? How come since it is the key force that gets anything moving." Are you paying any attention whatsoever?" - maybe I'm paying too much attention. You used the word negligible. What did you mean by that? ""I will modify my hour glass and join the two chambers with a horizontal pipe." So you have a horizontal pipe travelling in a vertical direction. That makes perfect sense. " - not to me. Where did you get that? ""And it still shows how low concentration flows into high." It's never done that. You've had water flowing into an absence of water." - when the lower chamber fills up there is hardly an absence of water. "Chemical to heat and sound and light, for example. " - yes, chemical reactions or mechanical forces. That's what you call 'external' forces don't you? ""why not. We have low concentration right next to high concentration the perfect conditions for them to pass." because surface tension exists? Matter just can't physically phase through other matter. " - we all know that surface tension is canceled by gravity like you said. And matter passes through other matter all the time. There is much more room between atoms than there is space occupied by atoms. If high density matter can't pass through low density then your law doesn't work at all! " I was referring to the instant the divider was removed. there's simply no possible path for the air to take" - of course there is. Air flows thought water all the time and creates bubbles. Anyway, according to your law it's the dense water that should be doing the moving and it should have no problems moving into much less dense air. ""I assure you it would not." No, you simply have demonstrated you have no understanding of evaporation. " - do the experiment I mentioned above. "This is just tedious now, we've been talking for a long while and I am tired of having to repeat myself to someone who is clearly not even trying to listen." - I think I listen plenty. I quote all your replies. "You have conceded absolutely everything required to demonstrate that my law holds" - I don't see where I've done that. So far you conceded that the free expansion of gas is due to the kinetic energy, that water flows because of gravity, and your examples work because they involve containers. Al these things I mentioned in my first few posts and you denied them initially. The only thing you have left is saying that whenever your law is shown not to work that the example is irrelevant. BTW, do you have some science publication that could perhaps explain your law better than you do. What is it called again?
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 5, 2016 14:36:13 GMT
"the force of the water's flow may still be enough to compress the air a very small amount." - you said:"The water may well shift slightly into the lower concentration immediately, depending on how compressed the air is, but not by much" - I believe you meant that this could happen depending on the air pressure. It may not happen if the air pressure is too big. But why pressure should matter at all? First, the surface between the water and air in the tube is vertical so that would mean that the pressure would have to act horizontally which as I understand is impossible according to your physics. But lets change the U tube to a V tube. Now there is nothing vertical there so that eliminates any pressure influence confusion. Second, we are still talking about a dense medium moving into a much less dense one. Pressure doesn't change any of that.
|
|