|
Post by JRowe on Apr 5, 2016 17:44:07 GMT
"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." So what matters is its initial direction: which should be random. The direction of a molecule wouldn't change without input of energy, as you've said.
"so which direction is your building moving or it's not moving since it's fixed. You're contradicting yourself." Not at all. It's moving, just on an incredibly small scale. Its movement could likely be modelled as vibrations: that's still movement.
"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." Negligible on a larger scale: with no other forces acting however, even the smallest is relevant. The movement of the molecules simply cannot sum to zero: even with varying motion, the chances of every sum of every ball's motion to end up with exactly zero velocity remains absurd. It simply won't happen. You'd get free expansion, just on an incredibly huge timescale.
"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." I know the explanation, I'm simply waiting for you to say it so it's set in stone and you can't backtrack. If you're evading answering a question, I can only assume you know it defeats your argument. As for where you said there would be no horizontal motion (on Earth as you reference gravity):
" 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.
"you picked that case scenario. Are you saying it's not relevant?" I gave a situation exclusively dependent on the concentrations of matter, you decided to start moving around the reference frame and applying a brand new force for no reason whatsoever, beyond making it irrelevant. How many times do you need to be called out for applying an external force for you to pay any attention whatsoever?
"The box has 0 concentration. outside of the box has non zero concentration therefore things should be flowing into the box." No. Repeating yourself won't make you right, you simply ignore every word I say. if you cannot respond, concede.
"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." Except in water hydrogen and oxygen have already reacted so there is no external force acting on the water: whereas you require one chemical to react with another, a plainly external event. This is transparently a ridiculous comparison.
"I expected that you were talking about an actual law. If your law doesn't actually exist then I think we reached a conclusion." You've already conceded it holds for objects with no external forces (free expansion of a gas) and energy. You're just quibbling over analogies. We were talking about analogies because they are literally the only grounds left to you to mount any kind of objection.
"'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." External can only be defined on a case by case basis: it depends what it is we're examining. If we're concerned with the behaviour of a gas, then it's the gas alone we examine: if that system is affected by anything beyond it, that's an external force. We're concerned with the entity that you claim, to contradict me, moves from low concentrations to high. Anything beyond that entity is plainly external.
"please correct me one more time. Obviously there are 'external' forces involved, right? What is it this time?" Well the Sun, for starters. Stop wasting time.
"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." No, but you do if you expect to remember the exact level, down to the millimeter, it was at ten years ago.
" 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." I've said multiple times the evaporation examples are completely irrelevant to my law, you're the one who persists in complaining about it.
" this shows that you don't understand the 2nd law of TD. The energy doesn't flow in one direction." No, that's exactly what I was saying.
"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." No, you haven't demonstrated that, you've simply demonstrated that it's a slow process, especially when depth is involved.
"not to me. Where did you get that?" It's literally what you said; you're connecting the top and bottom chambers of an hourglass with a horizontal pipe.
"You used the word negligible. What did you mean by that?" Use a dictionary.
" when the lower chamber fills up there is hardly an absence of water." And when it fills up all the way water won't move down there. The fact is, it has to flow through an absence of water.
"yes, chemical reactions or mechanical forces. That's what you call 'external' forces don't you?" You realize we're talking about the second law of thermodynamics at this line? It's entirely about energy: in a closed system, nothing involved is external.
"we all know that surface tension is cancelled by gravity like you said." Well that's just pathetic. This is the case only in certain situations, clearly, otherwise surface tension would be a nonsensical concept. Surface tension would need to be acting in the same direction as gravity: it isn't in your example (nor in your hour glass example). Consider putting the slightest bit of thought into your posts.
"I quote all your replies." And then lie about then, or completely ignore context.
"you conceded that the free expansion of gas is due to the kinetic energy," No, I said that all along. Please stop lying, how many times must I correct you on that exact point?
"The only thing you have left is saying that whenever your law is shown not to work that the example is irrelevant. " No, you simply only want to talk about irrelevant examples.
"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?" Because pressure can resist movement.
"Second, we are still talking about a dense medium moving into a much less dense one." into an opposing force. You're just completely ignoring forces when it's convenient for you. My law does not contradict or take the place of any force. Do you not understand what a scientific law is?
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 7, 2016 19:31:25 GMT
"So what matters is its initial direction: which should be random. The direction of a molecule wouldn't change without input of energy, as you've said." - it is random. It means that it either points towards the exit or a wall. If it points towards a wall it will bounce off but not in a random direction. There are laws governing collisions I urge you to read about them too. The point is that after a few bounces every molecule will find the exit and no additional energy is needed. And agin no answer to this: And you didn't answer my question, what happens to the direction of a molecule when the box is opened. "Not at all. It's moving, just on an incredibly small scale. Its movement could likely be modelled as vibrations: that's still movement. " - finally, vibrations! Yes, things do vibrate but vibrations can't cause any expansion because the center of gravity on average stays in the same place. "The movement of the molecules simply cannot sum to zero: even with varying motion, the chances of every sum of every ball's motion to end up with exactly zero velocity remains absurd. It simply won't happen. You'd get free expansion, just on an incredibly huge timescale." - how do vibrations cause balls to expand - move from one place to another? "" 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." - so which situation are you talking about 0g or >0g? In 0g molecules move randomly that includes horizontally. I thought that was clear. Random movement however doesn't create breezes, in any direction. ""you picked that case scenario. Are you saying it's not relevant?" I gave a situation exclusively dependent on the concentrations of matter, you decided to start moving around the reference frame and applying a brand new force for no reason whatsoever, beyond making it irrelevant." - huh? I said that the room needs to be stationary. You are saying that it can't be. So who is moving the reference point and making the picture more complicated? "The box has 0 concentration. outside of the box has non zero concentration therefore things should be flowing into the box." No. Repeating yourself won't make you right, you simply ignore every word I say. if you cannot respond, concede. - you said that the outside of the box has 'negligible' concentration. How much is negligible, is it 0? "You've already conceded it holds for objects with no external forces (free expansion of a gas) and energy." - I wouldn't use the word concede since I never denied it. " You're just quibbling over analogies. We were talking about analogies because they are literally the only grounds left to you to mount any kind of objection. " - so your water example IS NOT a demonstration of your law in action, it's just an analogy? If that's the case we can stop talking about it. However another aspect that I'm 'quibbling' about is the bounce back effect that is part of your law. Or is that some sort of 'analogy' as well? "Except in water hydrogen and oxygen have already reacted so there is no external force acting on the water: whereas you require one chemical to react with another, a plainly external event. This is transparently a ridiculous comparison. " - what? Seriously, which grade are you in? What do you think surface tension is? It's water molecules attracting each other, you call it chemical reaction. Those molecules will attract stronger as the temp drops and will form ice crystals. Chemicals in salt reacted the same as in water. The difference is that it has a much higher melting temp so it forms 'ice' at room temps. To conclude molecules in solids and liquids attract each other. You need a lot of 'external' energy to break them apart - heat or gravity or some mechanical or chemical force. ""please correct me one more time. Obviously there are 'external' forces involved, right? What is it this time?" Well the Sun, for starters. Stop wasting time. " - the Sun? Could you come up with a bigger source of external energy Are you saying that your law only works if there is an input of energy into the system that makes matter to disperse. If that's so then I totally agree and we can end it right here. "No, but you do if you expect to remember the exact level, down to the millimeter, it was at ten years ago. " - how is that relevant to the water clearly not mixing completely with the air. "I've said multiple times the evaporation examples are completely irrelevant to my law, you're the one who persists in complaining about it. " - really? I don't remember. You keep bringing it up like in the U/V tube where you say that that's how the higher density will mix with lower, through evaporation. You even said this: "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?" So now since it increasingly looks like the evaporation contradicts your law instead of supporting it becomes irrelevant, got it "" this shows that you don't understand the 2nd law of TD. The energy doesn't flow in one direction." No, that's exactly what I was saying." - No, this is what you actually said: "Unless that jar's been stored at absolute zero, it's been taking in energy. What exactly do you imagine it does with that?' - you meant that the jar will be taking in the energy and make the water evaporate. The real answer is it will radiate it back to where it came from. "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." No, you haven't demonstrated that, you've simply demonstrated that it's a slow process, especially when depth is involved. - No I haven't demonstrated it. Science did however hundreds of years ago, please keep up. What depth are you talking about? " It's literally what you said; you're connecting the top and bottom chambers of an hourglass with a horizontal pipe. " - yes, but where is the vertical part? the exit of the top chamber is on the bottom and the entrance of the other is on top so a pipe connecting the two can be perfectly horizontal. ""You used the word negligible. What did you mean by that?" Use a dictionary." - you indicated that in my examples gravity is not negligible. Did you mean in your examples it is? "" when the lower chamber fills up there is hardly an absence of water." And when it fills up all the way water won't move down there. The fact is, it has to flow through an absence of water. " - nope, it doesn't. Provide another exit on top of the bottom chamber and the water will keep flowing even when the bottom chamber is completely full. In fact I can come up with arrangements of containers to make water flow or not flow in any direction - down, up, sideways. Gravity provides the energy to move the water. Containers provide the direction. "You realize we're talking about the second law of thermodynamics at this line? It's entirely about energy: in a closed system, nothing involved is external. " - so your silly 'external' force definitions don't apply to 2nd law of TD? That's good to know. But I think the law you mean is the preservation of mass and energy. "we all know that surface tension is cancelled by gravity like you said." Well that's just pathetic. This is the case only in certain situations - can you be clear which situations these are? "Surface tension would need to be acting in the same direction as gravity" - surface tension acts in EVERY direction. It's caused by attractive force between molecules of liquid. Did you think about that? So are you saying that it's the surface tension is responsible for water not moving, are you sure ""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?" Because pressure can resist movement. " - do densities even matter in this case then? so is your law of higher densities moving into lower or higher pressures moving into lower, because that would make much more sense. ""Second, we are still talking about a dense medium moving into a much less dense one." into an opposing force. - what's that opposing force, pressure? It's atmospheric pressure in which water generally has no issues moving through. Tell you what, you can uncork the tube with the air in it. I will not ask you what will happen to save time. I'll tell you that the water will still not move (technically it could move depending on how long the water tube is and some other setup details)
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Apr 10, 2016 18:22:43 GMT
"The point is that after a few bounces every molecule will find the exit and no additional energy is needed." Which is exactly what I'm saying. Laws don't mean they have to contradict behaviour: they govern it. "Yes, things do vibrate but vibrations can't cause any expansion because the center of gravity on average stays in the same place." And the fact you need to append 'on average' demonstrates that this clearly wouldn't be the case for objects under no external forces. A house, however, clearly is, thanks to the ground. "so which situation are you talking about 0g or >0g? In 0g molecules move randomly that includes horizontally. I thought that was clear. Random movement however doesn't create breezes, in any direction." We're clearly talking about on Earth, which would be why I specific 'on Earth'. You explicitly said there would be no horizontal motion: there's no leeway, no mention of random motion. Admit you made a mistake and move on: this seems to be a common flaw in your posts. there is no issue with making a small error, there is an issue with refusing to admit it and building lies to cover it up. " I said that the room needs to be stationary. You are saying that it can't be." No, I'm saying I don't give a damn about moving a room, stop making excuses and focus on the actual analogy rather than deciding to throw in extra forces for no reason whatsoever, especially given the flaws in relying on external forces have been pointed out multiple times to you. "you said that the outside of the box has 'negligible' concentration. How much is negligible, is it 0?" Functionally zero. This is the definition of negligible. I explained how it was functionally zero. Not once have you even tried to acknowledge that. "I wouldn't use the word concede since I never denied it." False, but never mind: concede is a valid word because you began by claiming my law didn't hold, and yet you have agreed it does in the purest cases. "However another aspect that I'm 'quibbling' about is the bounce back effect that is part of your law. Or is that some sort of 'analogy' as well?" It's a consequence, yes, I have explained how it's a consequence. Illustrations, however, are by necessity analogies because, as is always the case, there are other forces that act. I tried previously to engage with you, multiple times, on the underlying theory behind the bounce-back effect. Look back to the start of the conversation: you refused, choosing instead (despite the flaws being pointed out to you multiple times) to focus on analogies which, by definition, could never be a perfect depiction. They're good enough, but you insist on focusing on irrelevant details or bringing in absurdities. "To conclude molecules in solids and liquids attract each other. You need a lot of 'external' energy to break them apart - heat or gravity or some mechanical or chemical force." Yes, but for it to begin you still need both forces (nuclear) and the introduction of an external chemical. "how is that relevant to the water clearly not mixing completely with the air." You claimed it wasn't evaporating, you provided no evidence, it's that simple. "Could you come up with a bigger source of external energy Are you saying that your law only works if there is an input of energy into the system that makes matter to disperse. If that's so then I totally agree and we can end it right here." I'm saying the precise opposite. Could you possibly come up with a more obvious lie? "So now since it increasingly looks like the evaporation contradicts your law instead of supporting it becomes irrelevant, got it " I have said before this was irrelevant, you're the one who chose to keep on about it (see: Mar 30, 2016 at 7:08pm). "No I haven't demonstrated it. Science did however hundreds of years ago, please keep up." Fine, science demonstrated it. It did not demonstrate, however, what you're claiming. Slow evaporation is not the same as zero evaporation. How is that a difficult concept? "Provide another exit on top of the bottom chamber and the water will keep flowing even when the bottom chamber is completely full." Where will it flow to? You're claiming it will flow when there is physically no room to flow. "so your silly 'external' force definitions don't apply to 2nd law of TD?" Clearly, external forces matter only when dealing with masses. This is incredibly obvious. Change the entity under consideration, it's just silly to expect the exact same thing to hold. The Second Law however does require a lack of external energy. "can you be clear which situations these are?" When surface tension acted in opposition to gravity. How is it you imagine forces work?! "surface tension acts in EVERY direction. It's caused by attractive force between molecules of liquid. Did you think about that?" It acts along the surface: what matters is the orientation of said surface. "do densities even matter in this case then? so is your law of higher densities moving into lower or higher pressures moving into lower, because that would make much more sense." High concentration to low. That's high pressure to low as has been pointed out to you before. It's also high density to low, in the case of free expansion, though forces more often interfere when dealing with masses, which I suspect is why you're so obsessed with providing analogies based around them.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 11, 2016 18:28:14 GMT
"The point is that after a few bounces every molecule will find the exit and no additional energy is needed." Which is exactly what I'm saying. Laws don't mean they have to contradict behaviour: they govern it. - and in this case it's the law of randomness. Did I demonstrated to your satisfaction that heat and random velocity are solely responsible for the gas expansion in 0g? Why do you keep avoiding answering this, what's going on : And agin no answer to this: And you didn't answer my question, what happens to the direction of a molecule when the box is opened. "And the fact you need to append 'on average' demonstrates that this clearly wouldn't be the case for objects under no external forces. A house, however, clearly is, thanks to the ground." - initially you claimed that every object that is not at absolute 0 will have a velocity that will lead to an expansion. At least now you admit that object can be practically at rest. BTW, the ground is not much help to you here since it's not at absolute 0 and is moving too so it's can't be stoping anything else from moving. Just the opposite, it will cause their movement. The ball bearings don't touch the ground or each other. Can you explain how their vibrations lead to expansion? "Functionally zero. This is the definition of negligible. I explained how it was functionally zero. Not once have you even tried to acknowledge that. " - why need for 'functionally' or 'negligible', why can't you just say 'it's 0' period. I guess your explanations were not very clear. Can you tell me how concentration of 0 particles inside the box and billions of particles just outside the box is both equal to 0? "False, but never mind: concede is a valid word because you began by claiming my law didn't hold, and yet you have agreed it does in the purest cases. " - your law is not a law, I don't deny that "It's a consequence, yes, I have explained how it's a consequence. Illustrations, however, are by necessity analogies because, as is always the case, there are other forces that act." - then why do you keep using analogies? Show me how your law works directly. By now I'm confused what's an analogy and what's not. At one point you claim that water flow is just an analogy at another that it's a perfect illustration of your law at work. "To conclude molecules in solids and liquids attract each other. You need a lot of 'external' energy to break them apart - heat or gravity or some mechanical or chemical force." Yes, but for it to begin you still need both forces (nuclear) and the introduction of an external chemical. - OK, so you finally concede that matter naturally attracts/clumps. What do you mean by 'begin'? The nuclear forces are always there. And we are talking about expansion of multiple molecules. In your gas example there is interaction between multiple 'chemicals' that causes the expansion. How are interactions in the medium 'external' yet outside gravity and containers are not? "please correct me one more time. Obviously there are 'external' forces involved, right? What is it this time?" Well the Sun, for starters. - the sun is responsible for evaporation. If that were the water cycle we would have no oceans. Obviously you're missing something. ""how is that relevant to the water clearly not mixing completely with the air." You claimed it wasn't evaporating, you provided no evidence, it's that simple." - what evidence do you need? I would put water in a jar for you since you are too lazy to do it yourself. Is a paragraph form a schoolbook evidence for you? ""So now since it increasingly looks like the evaporation contradicts your law instead of supporting it becomes irrelevant, got it " I have said before this was irrelevant, you're the one who chose to keep on about it" - oh, but first you said it was relevant and that I was proving your point Is this what you mean: "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." - but we are not adding any external heat. I told you, you can insulate the containers. So this is different from the example you deem irrelevant. And the water will evaporate completely in one container and almost not at all in the other. Why is this example of mixing low and high densities irrelevant to your law? ""No I haven't demonstrated it. Science did however hundreds of years ago, please keep up." Fine, science demonstrated it. It did not demonstrate, however, what you're claiming. Slow evaporation is not the same as zero evaporation. How is that a difficult concept?" - wait, what, science demonstrated it but not demonstrated it? Yes, science demonstrated a long time ago that no evaporation will occur in a saturated environment. Read a book for once, this would go so much faster. ""Provide another exit on top of the bottom chamber and the water will keep flowing even when the bottom chamber is completely full." Where will it flow to? You're claiming it will flow when there is physically no room to flow. " - use your imagination. Smaller density in the upper chamber will flow to the larger density in the lower which will flow outside of the container. "so your silly 'external' force definitions don't apply to 2nd law of TD?" Clearly, external forces matter only when dealing with masses. - oh please, you lump 'external' energy and forces all the time to explain why your law stops working. 2nd law of TD specifically prohibits bounce backs like you describe. The entropy always increases or stays the same. In your example starting with high density on one side and low on the other the entropy starts increasing once energy starts flowing. At some point it's going to reach its maximum when the two sides have equal entropy. But then it's going to start falling again when one side becomes denser than the other. CLEAR VIOLATION. So stop saying that your law is the same as the 2nd law of TD. "can you be clear which situations these are?" When surface tension acted in opposition to gravity. How is it you imagine forces work?!" - well then, so now we find out that your water flow example doesn't have anything to do with surface tension after all. See how important it is to get the details right? Gravity acts down towards the ground. In your example, just like in mine, when you open the divider surface tension acts sideways. Why did you say that the surface tension was balanced out by gravity in your example but in my example it's the very force that stops the water from flowing even though the forces are exactly the same? "It acts along the surface: what matters is the orientation of said surface. " - yes, liquids have surface all around, obviously. The orientation of the 'exposed' surface in my example is exactly the same as in yours. "High concentration to low. That's high pressure to low as has been pointed out to you before." - you do realize that these are completely different concepts, right? What happens when you have low concentration under high pressure that is low density? Will it flow to high density low pressure environment?
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Apr 15, 2016 18:52:25 GMT
"Did I demonstrated to your satisfaction that heat and random velocity are solely responsible for the gas expansion in 0g?" Have I demonstrated to your satisfaction that the gas obeys this law in 0g? "Why do you keep avoiding answering this, what's going on : And agin no answer to this: And you didn't answer my question, what happens to the direction of a molecule when the box is opened." Stop wasting my time. I've answered that before anyway. Nothing, I've never claimed it does. This is not relevant, stop trying to obscure the relevant facts. "initially you claimed that every object that is not at absolute 0 will have a velocity that will lead to an expansion." No, I claimed that every object not at absolute zero has velocity, and that in the absence of external forces (such as friction) this would lead to expansion. Can you please stop blatantly misrepresenting me, this is getting tiresome. As the ball bearings do not have zero velocity, and there is nothing preventing their motion, what is it that would prevent expansion occurring (albeit on tremendous timescales)? "why need for 'functionally' or 'negligible', why can't you just say 'it's 0' period." Because true vacuum does not exist and the concentration is never meaningfully zero. "I guess your explanations were not very clear. Can you tell me how concentration of 0 particles inside the box and billions of particles just outside the box is both equal to 0?" It's perfectly clear, you're just wasting time because you've lost the discussion. Concentration is spread out over area. Billions of particles spread out over a sufficiently large area will have whole swathes the same size as, or larger than, the box that are completely devoid of particles. How, then, does the concentration vary when the behaviour within the box is what we could expect outside it? if the box is removed, there would be no change. that is what we expect with uniform concentration. "then why do you keep using analogies? Show me how your law works directly. By now I'm confused what's an analogy and what's not. At one point you claim that water flow is just an analogy at another that it's a perfect illustration of your law at work." An illustration is an analogy, are you seriously trying to make that claim? I'm tired of repeating myself. I've explained how the law works directly, you ignored it, insisted we waste time on analogies, and now you're complaining about the topics you insisted on. What part would you like explained directly? "OK, so you finally concede that matter naturally attracts/clumps." When subject to external forces. "In your gas example there is interaction between multiple 'chemicals' that causes the expansion." Even if you removed interaction you'd observe expansion, that's trivially simple. "How are interactions in the medium 'external' yet outside gravity and containers are not?" That fundamentally makes no sense. "If that were the water cycle we would have no oceans. Obviously you're missing something." Well, yes, at no point did I claim that was a complete description. Did you miss the 'for starters?' "I would put water in a jar for you since you are too lazy to do it yourself. Is a paragraph form a schoolbook evidence for you?" So now you are just ignoring me. That demonstrated nothing except evaporation occurs slowly over a large amount of water with no particular heat. Please share, as I have asked you multiple times, how evaporation fails to occur in the jar but does occur in, say, puddles? "oh, but first you said it was relevant and that I was proving your point " I never said it was relevant, I just pointed out your hypocrisy. " but we are not adding any external heat. I told you, you can insulate the containers." Then you'd get heat transferred from the matter already in the container, which might cause some evaporation, but it'd still be reliant on heat external to the water. Of course it'd happen at different rates, there'd be different amounts of heat external to the water available. You seem to have a fundamentally absurd understanding of evaporation. And again, how many times must I tell you that this is irrelevant?! "Yes, science demonstrated a long time ago that no evaporation will occur in a saturated environment." So, now you're throwing in pressure as yet another external force. this is just tedious. I apologize for assuming you were relying on remotely relevant examples. "use your imagination. Smaller density in the upper chamber will flow to the larger density in the lower which will flow outside of the container." Try to stay consistent, there is no possible route to the outside of the container in the analogy you've described. You can't just completely alter your set-up when it's convenient for you: besides, that only happens when the application of force pushes water into a low concentration, leaving a low concentration in its wake, even if we alter the set-up to what's required. "oh please, you lump 'external' energy and forces all the time to explain why your law stops working." yes, my law holds only in a closed system, precisely the same as the second law of thermodynamics. The absence of an external influence. these influences are forces in the case of mass (as forces influence mass), and energy in the case of energy. Can you please try to put the slightest thought into your complaints? "The entropy always increases or stays the same." Only ever over an entire closed system. In an open system (such as an individual point of the closed system) it may decrease. This has been explained before. "So stop saying that your law is the same as the 2nd law of TD." The bounce-back does not occur with energy, so what? At no point have I claimed the bounce-back is synonymous with the law. As energy may reach equal amounts due to its utter lack of a frictional analogue, the bounce-back would not occur, precisely as predicted by my law. I've lost track of how many times I have explained this to you: the bounce-back only applies when 'too much' of the high concentration flows to fill the low, leaving a low in its wake which must be filled in. " well then, so now we find out that your water flow example doesn't have anything to do with surface tension after all. See how important it is to get the details right? Gravity acts down towards the ground. In your example, just like in mine, when you open the divider surface tension acts sideways. Why did you say that the surface tension was balanced out by gravity in your example but in my example it's the very force that stops the water from flowing even though the forces are exactly the same?" because the key wall of water in my example is vertical: acting in the same direction as gravity. Without that surface holding the wave in place, the water molecules move. Yes, water moves sideways (towards the lack of water: the low concentration) but that's because the surface, with tension acting in the vertical direction, is removed. And again, this was only ever meant to demonstrate the bounce-back idea: this was the very first thing I said in this discussion and you are still completely ignoring it. "The orientation of the 'exposed' surface in my example is exactly the same as in yours." Which example is this again? It's plainly not the hourglass, I've lost track. "you do realize that these are completely different concepts, right? What happens when you have low concentration under high pressure that is low density? Will it flow to high density low pressure environment?" Yes, they're completely different concepts, you're the one who seems to think they're not. A high concentration of pressure has no meaning to a low one of density, or vice versa. So what? Whole hosts of fundamental laws act over various entities. Eg, the law of uniqueness: one pressure is not the same as another, one temperature is not the same as another, one element is not the same as another... Still a universal law.
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on Apr 15, 2016 21:07:44 GMT
"Did I demonstrated to your satisfaction that heat and random velocity are solely responsible for the gas expansion in 0g?" Have I demonstrated to your satisfaction that the gas obeys this law in 0g? - so it looks like this is finally settled that heat and randomness are solely responsible for free expansion. Nobody else calls this any sort of law though. And you didn't answer my question, what happens to the direction of a molecule when the box is opened." Stop wasting my time. I've answered that before anyway. Nothing, I've never claimed it does. - I'm only asking a clarifying question. Before you said that random movement can't explain how molecules find the exit, indicating that your law somehow does explain that. That's why I'm asking. I thought you had something to add how your law directs particles toward the exit. I see you've got nothing... "No, I claimed that every object not at absolute zero has velocity, and that in the absence of external forces (such as friction) this would lead to expansion." - you're confusing me again. So with friction things stop moving and don't expand any more? I thought you said such a thing was impossible and technically you were correct. "As the ball bearings do not have zero velocity, and there is nothing preventing their motion, what is it that would prevent expansion occurring" - ball bearings vibrate by minuscule amounts. That means they move back and forth, that means they don't gain any distance over time, that means there is no way for them to expand. "why need for 'functionally' or 'negligible', why can't you just say 'it's 0' period." Because true vacuum does not exist and the concentration is never meaningfully zero. - so the container can have 0 molecules and outside of it there is "concentration is never meaningfully zero", right? I'm not sure what you mean that true vacuum doesn't exist. Do you mean virtual particles? "In your gas example there is interaction between multiple 'chemicals' that causes the expansion." Even if you removed interaction you'd observe expansion, that's trivially simple. - how do you remove interaction between chemicals since we are talking reality here. You know, the walls of the container with which the gas interacts are also made of 'chemicals'. "OK, so you finally concede that matter naturally attracts/clumps." When subject to external forces. - by your definition everything is an 'external' force. "How are interactions in the medium 'external' yet outside gravity and containers are not?" That fundamentally makes no sense. - so we both agree Do you care to make more sense? "If that were the water cycle we would have no oceans. Obviously you're missing something." Well, yes, at no point did I claim that was a complete description. Did you miss the 'for starters?' - do you care to finish it? You claim that there are external forces involved in clumping. So far you showed that there are external forces involved in expansion. "Yes, science demonstrated a long time ago that no evaporation will occur in a saturated environment." So, now you're throwing in pressure as yet another external force. this is just tedious. - pressure? Pressure has nothing to do with this case. This would be much less tedious if you had some basic science literacy. Do you still claim that evaporation will happen in a saturated environment or did you finally read your schoolbook about it? "besides, that only happens when the application of force pushes water into a low concentration, leaving a low concentration in its wake" - no, the 'concentration' in the lower chamber is always greater than in the top chamber and there would be air left in the wake for the water to flow into. "yes, my law holds only in a closed system, precisely the same as the second law of thermodynamics" - how can an infinite universe be closed? "The absence of an external influence. these influences are forces in the case of mass (as forces influence mass), and energy in the case of energy." - the 2nd law of TD deals with efficiency of engines. It deals with gravity, heat, chemical reactions - all the things that your law has problems with. ""The entropy always increases or stays the same." Only ever over an entire closed system. In an open system (such as an individual point of the closed system) it may decrease. This has been explained before. " - points are not entities in the 2nd law of TD, systems are processes are. Entropy of a point is meaningless same as expansion of 1 molecule gas. "At no point have I claimed the bounce-back is synonymous with the law. As energy may reach equal amounts due to its utter lack of a frictional analogue, the bounce-back would not occur, precisely as predicted by my law. " - yes you did. You even claimed that entropy can decrease if it increases in another part of the system - like it's supposed to be preserved or something. " the bounce-back only applies when 'too much' of the high concentration flows to fill the low, leaving a low in its wake which must be filled in. " - which the 2nd law of TD says would never happen. However you can decrease entropy by putting in barriers like in your water flow example. "because the key wall of water in my example is vertical: acting in the same direction as gravity." - it's vertical in my example as well, but that means that the surface tension is going to be horizontal(it's vertical to the surface), not at all in the direction of gravity. "And again, this was only ever meant to demonstrate the bounce-back idea: this was the very first thing I said in this discussion and you are still completely ignoring it. " - can we get it clear once and for all - is your water example an application of your law, yes or no? "The orientation of the 'exposed' surface in my example is exactly the same as in yours." Which example is this again? It's plainly not the hourglass, I've lost track. - it's the U/V tube example. ""you do realize that these are completely different concepts, right? What happens when you have low concentration under high pressure that is low density? Will it flow to high density low pressure environment?" Yes, they're completely different concepts, you're the one who seems to think they're not. - you do realize that you just quoted me saying that they are different, right? "A high concentration of pressure has no meaning to a low one of density, or vice versa. " - you are correct, that is gibberish. But a high concentration of substance or high density substance can be under low pressure and vice versa. "So what? Whole hosts of fundamental laws act over various entities." - this is not about various entities. This is about simultaneously contradicting phenomena. What takes precedence in your law - high concentration or high pressure? Because like I said you can have high concentration medium under low pressure next to low concentration medium under high pressure. Which medium will move where and why? What in the world is the "law of uniqueness"? Is that another made up law of yours?
|
|
|
Post by Nikki on May 3, 2016 16:27:03 GMT
You've been quiet for a long time. I hope it's because you're still waiting for that water in a jar to evaporate...
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Aug 5, 2016 13:56:42 GMT
I am tired of repeating myself. This has gone on long enough and you have contradicted yourself multiple times. Focusing on what's relevant rather than the constant attempts at derailing, you have acknowledged the Second Law of Thermodynamics and basic laws of pressure and the like plainly indicate a tendency to move from high concentrations to low. You seem to believe it is a contradiction that we may vary what 'concentration,' applies to: it is clearly not. Laws of logic prove a perfect analogy, as each of them apply to countless different entities. In essence, you have conceded everything I ask. There is no point in this discussion as you would rather derail.
|
|