|
Post by Nikki on Mar 17, 2016 15:18:53 GMT
"In the balloon example, a small opening means the flow of pressure is smaller" - I thought we established already that you can make the balloon and the opening any size you want. Obviously the air will flow out of a balloon through an opening because of pent up energy. That's not the issue. What I'm interested in is at what scales will the air start flowing back.
"Gravity is not equal to surface tension, but it acts against the force." - would you go as far as to say that gravity is a much greater force and is solely responsible for the flow of water or not yet?
"I could provide counter examples to Newton's first law" - please do.
"Every single counter example you have supplied relies on a force that damps motion." - you say surface tension damps motion, I showed you how it actually creates motion when it forces two volumes to join. The other example I provided was where there was no motion to begin with. There is nothing dampening it, is there?
"free expansion is not a law: it is the application of one." - what's the law?
"it is physically impossible for a molecule to have no energy." - ok, then let's give the molecules in my scenario some energy. Let's suppose they move one micrometer per billion years towards each other. How does free expansion work in this case. please elaborate. "Further, masses exert a force when they accelerate" - well, it's the other way around, you need a force to accelerate a mass. However I'm not sure what force or acceleration you're talking about. My case scenario is free of them.
There are many sources of forces around us mostly gravity or heat that help things to equilibrium. Without them they would not.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 17, 2016 15:45:55 GMT
Objects flow from high concentrations to low. As with every other law in existence, it may be prevented when another force is at play. For example, magnets: opposite poles attract, but if you exert a force on the objects, they will not move closer together. This is very basic. As such, if a force like surface tension, or nuclear forces is at play, this behavior could be prevented. If a force acts in opposition to those forces, however, they may be neglected: this is also basic knowledge. if two forces cancel each other out, an object may be modelled such that those forces do not exist. 'Level' in zero gravity would be free expansion. With no surface tension, we'd have a gas.
As was demonstrated explicitly by the water example and by numerous others, more than is required to fill a low concentration will flow in, resulting in another variation in concentrations. You have already conceded this. The same law applies again. High to low.
If other forces are at play, this law will not necessarily be noticeable. You have already been told this countless times It is the same situation as literally every other law. Stop relying on clearly irrelevant situations.
"I thought we established already that you can make the balloon and the opening any size you want." Which would be why I gave the answer on a case-by-case basis, explicitly addressing the other situation. Do you take pleasure in outright ignoring me?
"What I'm interested in is at what scales will the air start flowing back." Any scale where the outwards flow overcomes the friction of the gas. You have already admitted that more air than is required would leave the balloon: meaning more air would flow back in. However, this is typically so small as to be negligible. If you're in a situation where the balloon's in a box, then you'd clearly see recoil as the air bounces back. As it stands, trying to substantially alter the concentration of a typical room with what's contained in a balloon is ridiculous. Why are you obsessed with this balloon analogy anyway? As has been pointed out multiple times, it's pretty much irrelevant to the flow of aether. Indeed, it's the precise opposite situation.
""I could provide counter examples to Newton's first law" - please do." Once again, please read my posts rather than completely ignoring them: "I could provide counter examples to Newton's first law, by your logic, as acceleration clearly exists." You rely on external forces, and then claim this is an exception to the law.
"you say surface tension damps motion, I showed you how it actually creates motion when it forces two volumes to join." Yes, in a completely different situation. Why was that even the slightest bit relevant?
"what's the law?" The universal tendency for things to flow from high concentrations to low. Do you seriously not know what we're talking about?
"ok, then let's give the molecules in my scenario some energy. Let's suppose they move one micrometer per billion years towards each other. How does free expansion work in this case. please elaborate." Slowly. Why do you suppose two molecules are a magical exception to free expansion?
"well, it's the other way around, you need a force to accelerate a mass. However I'm not sure what force or acceleration you're talking about. My case scenario is free of them." You repeatedly complain about the fact forces are at play in my examples. We're talking about accelerating masses, what is it that you expect?!
Are you aware that forces may exist in conjunction with one another? There are many things that make any law true. Take the second law of thermodynamics (ie: a law that states all things tend to thermodynamic equilibrium): that's only true thanks to countless conservation laws, plus thought experiments like Maxwell's Demon demonstrate how physical requirements are relied upon for it to hold. This is how laws work. You cannot simply note that things universally (barring those irrelevant situations reliant upon outside interference, which you're so fond of) tend from high concentrations to low, tend to equilibrium, and then decide that universal tendency must be caused by countless independent and unrelated bits and pieces.
So, to recap: Things flow from high concentrations to low, so long as there is nothing to prevent this motion. Necessary consequence: if a low concentration is left in the wake of this flow, a high concentration will, in turn, fill this in. What is so complicated about that?
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 17, 2016 17:23:24 GMT
"As with every other law in existence, it may be prevented when another force is at play." - in your case the same force, gravity for example, either makes the law possible or prevents it from happening. "if two forces cancel each other out, an object may be modelled such that those forces do not exist." - so are you saying now that gravity and surface tension cancel each other out? I asked about it specifically and you said no. Ball bearings have no surface tension and minimal friction. Would a clump of ball bearings spread in zero gravity? "You have already admitted that more air than is required would leave the balloon: meaning more air would flow back in." - air constantly flows in and out of any open container regardless if it was under pressure or not. Not sure how this applies to this situation. I'm not sure what 'more than necessary' even means. In the presence of heat things get random and are never precise. And at the molecular level volumes start loosing their meaning. "As was demonstrated explicitly by the water example and by numerous others, more than is required to fill a low concentration will flow in, resulting in another variation in concentrations. You have already conceded this." - I never denied that this happens in presence of gravity that acts on liquids that have mass and momentum and are in a container. I said that in my first post. The question is does the law apply in the absence of gravity, mass, energy, container. You are yet to provide an example (except for the ether, which is just an assumption). I provided numerous examples where the process does not take place in the absence of the forces I mentioned. "you say surface tension damps motion, I showed you how it actually creates motion when it forces two volumes to join." Yes, in a completely different situation. - how is the situation completely different. We are talking about zero gravity in both cases and I'm showing that surface tension attracts two volumes creating an equalizing motion. "Slowly. Why do you suppose two molecules are a magical exception to free expansion?" - the molecules move TOWARDS each other. At what point will they start expanding? "You repeatedly complain about the fact forces are at play in my examples." - I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out forces at play that are responsible for the behavior we observe. It's different forces in different examples you give. Do you assert that there are additional forces to the ones that I point out that make your law possible? You might have missed one of my posts. I wouldn't accuse you of ignoring my points Do you have an answer to my sealed glass container and air flowing into denser objects like water?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 17, 2016 18:32:43 GMT
Please stop ignoring everything I say. Gravity (or indeed any such force) is exclusively needed to counter the presence of another force, such as surface tension. In any other situation it is not required, as free expansion of gases demonstrate. Gravity does not need to be equal to surface tension to act against it, that's trivially obvious. Ball bearings would spread, though far, far slower: it's the same principle as free expansion, but they take more energy to move.
For there to be zero resulting movement from a flow from high to low, only the exact amount necessary to even out the concentration must move. This is absurd, as you yourself has said. it's rather obvious that a low concentration would be left in the wake of the high, which will itself be filled in by whatever high concentrations are available. In the balloon case, the air in the rest of the room will provide this: in the water/box/divider case, there are no such alternatives and so we see waves.
The only examples you have provided rely on situations with forces acting in opposition to motion. Please stop ignoring this, I am sick of having to repeat it. Whereas I have given multiple instances (second law of thermodynamics, pressure flow on Earth which is tied to heat, water, gas in vacuum...) all under multiple situations. Some with gravity, some without: some with a container, some without. Energy is required to move mass: and there are no possible examples that aren't connected to mass that you won't reject out of hand (aether). All you've done is overanalyze one analogy despite my repeated statements that it was only meant to illustrate one aspect, and completely ignore the fact that the discussion you're having in parallel refutes your own points. If gravity is required, why does gas expand in vacuum?
Again, your derailment of blobs of water combining still has nothing to do with the principles under discussion. Lots of things happen in zero gravity, who cares? They have nothing to do with what we're talking about. I have no idea how you could claim there's an equalizing motion in that situation.
Molecules would move towards each other in any size gas, and yet free expansion still occurs. Same answer.
Forces are required to move masses, I have said this multiple times, I'm baffled as to why you think repeating it is some kind of victory. Yes, masses need forces to move: that's not some great revelation. The fact is, utterly disconnected forces in all areas of science create the same net effect, with zero exceptions (save your straw men that rely on forces to prevent motion). Sounds like a law to me.
I don't ignore your points, you simply consistently ignore the answers, like you did with the balloon example earlier, and as you've done again here. Consider actually thinking about what I write rather than arguing for the sake of it. I run this site to discuss, not to waste time. Given that I have done nothing except repeat myself, I think it's fairly clear what your aims are. Situations which rely on the application of a separate force cannot be classed as representative. We observe, universally, that the default state of objects is to move from high concentrations to low: the second law of thermodynamics, free expansion of a gas, water when something counters surface tension (note: if the strictly downwards force of gravity was all that was relevant, we wouldn't observe horizontal waves)... Yes forces are needed, to move gases, but they rely on no external stimuli (save in the water case: which is only one illustration that was a) only meant to demonstrate the waves, and b) also has a force to prevent motion countered by gravity). In free expansion, the molecules use their own kinetic energy. In thermodynamics, we're concerned with heat alone. You, however, rely on surface tension to limit the movement of water, or a force that pushes objects together: these are hardly situations representative of an object's typical behavior.
Please don't argue simply for the sake of it. Don't assume I'm wrong on principle, read what I've written, consider it honestly, concede the points you can't argue against without flat denial/ignoring it. Consider all of what I've said, rather than responding piecemeal. This is a site for discussion, not argument: you don't need to 'win,' it's a place to teach and learn. Repeating the same exact points without addressing the responses benefits no one.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 17, 2016 21:12:28 GMT
"Gravity does not need to be equal to surface tension to act against it, that's trivially obvious. " - it needs to be equal and opposite to balance it. Which you said it does.
"Ball bearings would spread, though far, far slower" - in real life they don't. Again, what forces are we talking about here would cause them to spread?
"For there to be zero resulting movement from a flow from high to low, only the exact amount necessary to even out the concentration must move. This is absurd" - it is not. The exact amount does move given a few million molecules here and there which is negligible on large scales.
"it's rather obvious that a low concentration would be left in the wake of the high, which will itself be filled in by whatever high concentrations are available." - if there are any low concentrations left they can be filled in from any direction not just from the newly filled in void.
"If gravity is required, why does gas expand in vacuum?" - gravity is required for water to flow. Gravity can also make gasses flow but gasses can also be moved by heating them up.
"Molecules would move towards each other in any size gas, and yet free expansion still occurs. Same answer. " - same no answer. Why are you avoiding giving any details? If all particles move towards each other how does that result in expansion?
"Yes, masses need forces to move: that's not some great revelation." - does your law require a new force besides the gravity and heat that I mentioned in the first post?
""I could provide counter examples to Newton's first law, by your logic, as acceleration clearly exists." - acceleration is not a counter example to the Newton's first law since it specifically says that acceleration will result if a force will be applied.
"I don't ignore your points, you simply consistently ignore the answers" - what's your answer to my glass container then. I must have missed it.
"We observe, universally, that the default state of objects is to move from high concentrations to low" - I propose the law of clumping! It's the tendency for all matter to go from low concentrations to high as is evidenced everywhere around us. We can see objects always seeking denser ones when they fall to a dense ground. Water vapor will condense to form denser water. Gas clouds condense to form stars. Elementary particles clump into atoms, atoms clump into molecules and molecules combine into ever larger structures. The only way to counteract the clumping law if to apply energy, sometimes lots of it is needed. This is clearly a universal law. Therefore I predict that ether will clump up.
I think most people would find my 'law' much more convincing than yours.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 17, 2016 22:19:27 GMT
Gravity doesn't need to perfectly balance something in order to remove its effect. Please focus on more than word choice. Where is your justification for the claim that ball bearings, in vacuum, given incredible spans of time, wouldn't ultimately expand outwards?
Further, "The exact amount, give or take some extra," is not the exact amount. Remove friction, and forces that would limit said movement, and what do you expect would happen? You've reached the point where you're arguing for the sake of it. You have conceded everything of importance, and yet you're still denying it for no discernible reason. For example, your next line: you concede gravity is not in fact require for things to flow from high concentration to low. Instead, a simple force is: understandable, for masses. However, the fact this happens universally, with completely different forces on completely different objects (and with heat) it's pretty clear it's a law. As a non-mass does not require a force to move, aether would not require a force to follow said law.
I've demonstrated my point of view perfectly fine. You're pressing for irrelevancies. I don't claim to know the exact path of molecules. If all particles move towards each other, how does that result in expansion? Given that you have already conceded that it does: free expansion holds. I don't see any reason to waste my time on such pointless questions. This is another instance of you conceding everything of importance, and inexplicably still debating it.
"acceleration is not a counter example to the Newton's first law since it specifically says that acceleration will result if a force will be applied." Precisely: this is what I've been saying all along. Newton's first law states an object will remain with constant velocity: unless a force acts on it. The caveat is as much part of the law, as is the case all throughout science. Outside influences mean other things are at play beyond just that one law: this is also the response to your glass container analogy, and indeed pretty much everything you've brought up.
Your so-called law is absurd. It defies everything we know about physics. Energy is needed to move mass in every situation, even yours: I don't understand your fixation with that fact. It's yet another universally relevant fact: to move mass requires a force. However, the default state of objects is to fill in low concentrations: the free expansion of a gas you so consistently evade is perhaps the most elegant illustration of this. Gas in a vacuum, molecules exerting no meaningful forces on one another, with nothing acting on them, will flee outwards. Free expansion is scientific fact. Further, as far as dropping objects goes, you can drop lead onto sponge. You ignore the second law of thermodynamics, and the free expansion of a gas: both established scientific facts, and you ignore them simply to reject one relatively minor aspect of a model. that's not science. I ask you again to please consider what I'm actually saying. Conceding this law exists does not contradict your model. Indeed, it's even part of your model, as the above examples illustrate. You simply have no grounds on which to reject it. I don't understand why you would resort to such contradictory arguments and scientific illiteracy out of blind rejection of something that's no threat. Please, don't do as I've seen REers often do and conclude that a FEer must be wrong simply by merit of being an FEer. Discussion can't be conducted that way.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 18, 2016 0:30:01 GMT
"Gravity doesn't need to perfectly balance something in order to remove its effect.” - balance means exactly. If it’s not exact then it’s overpowering or counteracting but not balance. In this case it’s overpowering and that’s what’s causing the water to flow. I said that a few posts ago.
"Where is your justification for the claim that ball bearings, in vacuum, given incredible spans of time, wouldn't ultimately expand outwards?” - good question. First law of motion. Things in rest stay in rest unless a force acts upon them. What is your justification that they would start moving?
"The exact amount, give or take some extra," is not the exact amount. - the extra in this case is negligible and can be more or less. Nothing is exact.
"you concede gravity is not in fact require for things to flow from high concentration to low” - sometimes it is sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes things flow from concentrations high to low sometimes the other way. May different things happen all the time because of different forces. What’s your point?
" I don't claim to know the exact path of molecules. If all particles move towards each other, how does that result in expansion?” you don’t even attempt to give a plausible explanation. You just assert that in happens in this case because it happens in other cases. Is it pointless because you don’t have an answer?
"The caveat is as much part of the law” - it’s not the caveat, it’s the law.
"Your so-called law is absurd. It defies everything we know about physics.” - then it’s true and universal, isn’t it? I would think it would make it the opposite of absurd.
"However, the default state of objects is to fill in low concentrations” - then why is my clumping law so true and universal?
" the free expansion of a gas you so consistently evade” - how do I evade it. It was me who gave you the balloon scenario a clear example of free expansion.
"Gas in a vacuum, molecules exerting no meaningful forces on one another, with nothing acting on them, will flee outwards.” - molecules have to have velocity to begin with to do any fleeing. They will simply continue going on the path tha the force that gave them that initial velocity put them on.
"Free expansion is scientific fact” - yes, not a law, and only for gases that have energy. Granted most gases have energy but it’s that energy that is causing the expansion.
Still I don’t see a response to my glass container question. Are you sure you read my post where I summarized your law? I didn’t see a response to it.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 18, 2016 0:35:17 GMT
OK, let’s start from the beginning. I think you said already that the kinetic energy of gas molecules is responsible for free expansion. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Is there anything besides that, in case of gases, that’s responsible for it?
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 21, 2016 12:55:32 GMT
Crickets... I assume this means that you don’t have any reasonable arguments or answers left.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 21, 2016 18:35:52 GMT
It means I've had a busy few days. You can see if I've been online in the past 24 hours: if I haven't, it's a fair bet I haven't been able to see your post. The kinetic energy of gases is required for free expansion, yes: masses require energy to move. I am tired of repeating that. However, while it is a necessary condition, it's clearly not sufficient: it also requires the absence of external forces. Then we observe the default behaviour of the object: free expansion. This is an application of the law.
"balance means exactly. If it’s not exact then it’s overpowering or counteracting but not balance." Once again, I ask you to focus on more than word choice. The idea of balancing forces is understood, I was appealing to that principle. Would 'cancel' make you happier?
"good question. First law of motion. Things in rest stay in rest unless a force acts upon them. What is your justification that they would start moving?" Except, if that were a valid application of the first law, it would also apply to gases. Are you again going to pretend that free expansion doesn't exist?
"the extra in this case is negligible and can be more or less. Nothing is exact." So you claim: and it may well be negligible in many cases, especially when friction is involved. The fact is, the claim is is universally negligible is demonstrably not true, as the water analogy illustrates.
"sometimes it is sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes things flow from concentrations high to low sometimes the other way. May different things happen all the time because of different forces. What’s your point?" My point is that, universally, an extra, external force is required to limit movement from high to low, and cause the opposite: whereas, in multiple situations all throughout the world, masses subject to completely different forces to one another, and indeed energy, follow the rule of high to low. That is an absurd thing to claim as a coincidence.
"it’s not the caveat, it’s the law." Exactly what I said.
"then why is my clumping law so true and universal?" It is not, as was explained to you. Can you for once stop ignoring my responses?
"how do I evade it. It was me who gave you the balloon scenario a clear example of free expansion." And yet you keep pretending it isn't the case in vacuum. You somehow suppose matter without energy may exist (it cannot, this has been pointed out to you several times before), rather than accept the simple fact all matter has energy, absolute zero cannot be reached, and so all gases in vacuum will be subject to free expansion. Sounds like a law to me. Yes, masses require energy to move, I have called you out for this fixation before and I am sick of doing so. Pointing this out doesn't achieve anything. I am not claiming Newton is wrong, masses require energy to move, end of. Why are you so obsessed with repeating that? Obeying one law doesn't mean breaking another. Everything moves from high concentrations to low: and masses require energy in order to do so because they're masses.
"Still I don’t see a response to my glass container question." So now you are outright lying, considering I directly mentioned your glass container straw man.
All you have done is repeat things you know to be falsehoods.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 21, 2016 19:59:49 GMT
"The kinetic energy of gases is required for free expansion" - great, this is exactly what I've been saying since the beginning. Gases can be explained in terms of kinetic energy of individual molecules. No expansion laws are necessary and they don't bring in anything to make the explanation better. I think we can put the gases to bed "Would 'cancel' make you happier?" - no it wouldn't. The whole point of getting the words right is to establish what forces remain. 'Cancel' doesn't make it clear. What remains is the force of gravity which completely overwhelmed the surface tension. Do you agree? "if that were a valid application of the first law, it would also apply to gases." - of course it does. The molecules keep going with constant velocity in a random direction just like the first law predicts. On macro scale we see it as expansion. "the claim is is universally negligible is demonstrably not true, as the water analogy illustrates." - in your water analogy nothing extra flows. The waves are created from the water bouncing off the sides of the container. Take the container away the waves and the bounce back goes away too. "in multiple situations all throughout the world, masses subject to completely different forces to one another, and indeed energy, follow the rule of high to low." - I showed you even more examples when that does not happen or goes in the opposite direction. ""then why is my clumping law so true and universal?" It is not, as was explained to you. - you explained nothing. My clumping law clearly has many more applications than your expansion law, how does that not make it more universal. "And yet you keep pretending it isn't the case in vacuum." - where did I say that? "You somehow suppose matter without energy may exist" - it can hypothetically. It was to make a point that the kinetic energy is solely responsible for the expansion. I never denied that it happens when gas has energy. I think we are good on that one. "Obeying one law doesn't mean breaking another." - in your case it does. "So now you are outright lying, considering I directly mentioned your glass container straw man. " - could you repeat it please. I don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 22, 2016 18:33:10 GMT
Masses require energy to move. At no point have I ever denied this. You seem to inexplicably be claiming that I've said masses can move without energy. This isn't true. I have no idea why you feel it is relevant to constantly repeat that fact. This does not change the fact that free expansion exists: nor does it change the fact that this behavior is universal. Such as with water. When surface tension is not a factor, and there is no net force acting to keep an object together, we observe it flowing from high concentrations to low.
""if that were a valid application of the first law, it would also apply to gases." - of course it does. The molecules keep going with constant velocity in a random direction just like the first law predicts. On macro scale we see it as expansion." You explicitly claimed the objects would not move. You don't get to backtrack and claim they're now moving.
"in your water analogy nothing extra flows. The waves are created from the water bouncing off the sides of the container. Take the container away the waves and the bounce back goes away too." Take the container away and there's constantly a low concentration to travel to in the same direction. It's no longer a clear analogy for what I'm talking about: it's the same principle, but you don't have any reason to see the bounce-back.
As for the rest, you seem to have returned to completely ignoring my posts. You insist examples shown to be reliant on an external force are somehow relevant despite repeated correction, you persist in completely ignoring my rebuttal to your 'clumping' law, you apparently still believe it's possible for matter to reach absolute zero, you don't appear willing to reread my posts or even use ctrl f, and then you utter a complete straw man.
""Obeying one law doesn't mean breaking another." - in your case it does." No, it doesn't, at all. Would you care to explain how this is meant to be the case? On multiple occasions you've been acting as though masses could move without energy, and I have called you out on that each and every time. What law is it you claim I am breaking, or are you simply lying?
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 22, 2016 19:26:05 GMT
"Masses require energy to move. At no point have I ever denied this." - slight correction. Masses need energy to START moving or change direction. Once they move they don't need any additional energy to keep going. The whole discussion was to establish what energy is responsible for movement, the heat or some expansion energy. We finally established that it's the heat alone. Case closed?
"You seem to inexplicably be claiming that I've said masses can move without energy. " - you keep saying that masses can change direction from flowing out to flowing in. That requires energy (double the initial energy). Where does that energy come from?
"nor does it change the fact that this behavior is universal. " - for gases?
"When surface tension is not a factor, and there is no net force acting to keep an object together, we observe it flowing from high concentrations to low." - OK, so you admit that the net force is gravity, finally! But take an example of water hour glass. When we set it water flows from high concentration to low for half the time. But after that it starts flowing from low to high. How is that for your expansion law?
"of course it does. The molecules keep going with constant velocity in a random direction just like the first law predicts. On macro scale we see it as expansion." You explicitly claimed the objects would not move." - first we were talking on how expanding gases don't violate the 1st law of motion. So we established they don't, great. If by objects you mean ball bearings then I still claim that. It would be a violation of the law. Can you explain how would the ball bearings start moving without violating the law?
"Take the container away and there's constantly a low concentration to travel to in the same direction." - Take your gas in a container in vacuum example. Take one of the container walls away so that the gas can expand into the vacuum. The vacuum is no longer vacuum since it has the gas in it now. Are you saying that eventually there will be vacuum in the container and the gas will flow back ?
"As for the rest, you seem to have returned to completely ignoring my posts." - what did I ignore?
"You insist examples shown to be reliant on an external force are somehow relevant " - your examples rely on external forces so why can't my examples?
"Energy is needed to move mass in every situation, even yours" - is this the rebuttal of my clumping law? Yes, energy makes matter clump together. I never said it didn't. I don't see how this rebates anything.
"Outside influences mean other things are at play beyond just that one law: this is also the response to your glass container analogy" - how does that even begin to explain anything. What influences are you taking specifically? I think you understand why I don't accept it as a serious response.
"No, it doesn't, at all. Would you care to explain how this is meant to be the case?" - you said that stationary ball bearings would start moving on their own. That cannot happen unless there is energy introduced into the system. You never explained where that energy would come from. Then you claim that once things are expanding they will change direction. That requires even more energy. Where would that energy come from? If you can't point to the source of energy then what you're saying is breaking the 1st law of motion.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 23, 2016 18:27:32 GMT
Heat alone isn't enough. Heat alone gives movement, it does not give ultimate direction. You have established heat is necessary, you have only asserted that it is sufficient. You are either denying the existence of free expansion or doing exactly what it is you've dishonestly accused me of and saying masses can move without energy. Which is it?
With a water hour glass, aside from the fact it is ruled by the external force of gravity, water always flows to a lack of water. Simply because there's more water beyond that doesn't change the fact it needs to go through a low concentration to get there.
So, how is it expanding gases do not violate the first law, and ball bearings do? Are you ever going to justify this contradiction? I'm not wasting my time on this point until you actually answer this question.
For a container of gas in vacuum, you would need a very smaller container of vacuum because otherwise the gas would be so dispersed the concentration may as well be negligible. In a small vacuum, you clearly would have gas bouncing back into the container. It really is telling how all your attempts to object to the law governing aether require almost the exact opposite set up.
You've done nothing but ignore my response to your absurd 'clumping' law, you construct incredibly clear straw men about external forces you've been constantly called out on, and you apparently think water can defy gravity. Your glass container analogy is ridiculous, your entire argument was "Why doesn't water go up?"
Please note: every single one of my analogies features forces needed to cancel other forces. The default state of gas is free expansion, using its own energy in order to ultimately expand from high to low concentrations. Water moves horizontally (demonstrating gravity cannot be solely responsible as it is a vertical force: a fact you ignore) to fill in a low concentration once surface tension is cancelled. Whereas not one of your examples meets this criteria. Masses require force to move, but you rely on non-balanced forces, and movement in the same direction as the external, non-cancelled force.
Let's break this down. All of your straw men aside, take matter free of any outside force. Gas (free of surface tension) in vacuum, with no energy acting on it beyond its own. Its default state, and so the default state of all matter (as these molecules compose everything) is to freely expand. High to low. You have accepted 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. That is the definition of a universal law. Which of those two facts do you take issue with? Free expansion or thermodynamics? If neither, you have no ground on which to stand, and you're simply evading.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Mar 23, 2016 20:43:45 GMT
Heat alone gives movement, it does not give ultimate direction. - heat at micro scale is represented by velocity of individual molecules. Velocity has the speed component and direction. The molecule move in the direction of their initial velocity. I'm not sure how that means that they can move without energy? "With a water hour glass, aside from the fact it is ruled by the external force of gravity" - here you go. Your slushing water in a container example works just fine with gravity (and only because of gravity) but my examples are ruled out by gravity. Do you even try to be logical? My water hour glass is equivalent to your example, exactly the same forces apply so nothing is ruled out and it demonstrates that low concentrations can flow to high. Take another example. Imagine a glass 'U' tube with a divider in the middle. Fill one part with water, and leave the other empty. Now seal both ends of the tube on top. Remove the divider. How fast is water going to flow into the low concentration tube? "So, how is it expanding gases do not violate the first law? - how many times do I need to repeat myself do I need to copy and paste it for you? The molecules have heat - a random velocity "The molecules keep going with constant velocity in a random direction just like the first law predicts." Ball bearings do not have a velocity and they will not gain one unless a force acts on them just like the first law predicts. Got it or do you still maintain that ball bearings would start to move? If so then what force would be moving them? "For a container of gas in vacuum, you would need a very smaller container of vacuum" - so you admit that your example only works in a container. Finally! Are we putting this one to bed as well? "You've done nothing but ignore my response to your absurd 'clumping' law" - please repeat any points you made that make sense and I'll respond to them. "your entire argument was "Why doesn't water go up?" - yes it is. Take the same same sealed container but now instead of half fill it 1/10 with water. After some time the water WILL mix with the air and go up despite gravity! "Water moves horizontally (demonstrating gravity cannot be solely responsible as it is a vertical force: a fact you ignore)" - first, it does not move horizontally but diagonally. Are you saying that when a car is rolling down a hill horizontally/diagonally it doesn't do it because of gravity because in your mind it should be going straight down? Or maybe it's moving horizontally because there is a lower concentration of cars on the bottom of the hill "Whereas not one of your examples meets this criteria. Masses require force to move, but you rely on non-balanced forces, and movement in the same direction as the external, non-cancelled force." - (I think you're finally slowly getting it we spent a lot of time trying to get the language precise, see, this is why. I asked you several times on this and I thought we established that gravity and surface tension are NOT BALANCED. Gravity is much stronger than surface tension and in the end is "non-cancelled force". Do you disagree? "Its default state, and so the default state of all matter" - and again you make a ridiculous jump that whatever applies to gas applies to every other matter because they are both made of molecules. There is a reason why gas flows and mountains don't even though they are both made of molecules. All matter is not equivalent, all molecules are not equivalent. Different laws apply to different states of matter. "second law of thermodynamics: it tends towards equilibrium. This is the same principle" - not the same principle at all. Matter doesn't have to move to achieve an equilibrium. A sealed hot container of water will cool down to room temp and not a single molecule would move outside the glass.
|
|