Post by aaaPost by Oko TilloPost by aaaPost by Oko TilloPost by Oko TilloPost by aaaPost by Oko TilloPost by aaaPost by Oko TilloPost by s***@gmail.com"Knowing without thinking and understanding without learning is in fact
a wonderful experience."
-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/GCHxz9PYxZE/emeLmgDoBAAJ
That would explain, well, pretty much everything.
And you do have to hand it to him: true to his credo, he resolutely neither thinks nor learns.
An unblemished record.
Selene
ooo
Post by aaaPost by Oko Tillo"I think I'm qualified to teach the second law by now. In fact, I can
teach you the full version of the second law that no one has taught you
before."
Oko
Thanks! :-)
Let's take that claim for a test drive.
ooo
Post by aaaPost by Oko TilloWe'll start out with a trivially elementary one: you have some gas -- say just air --
in a container.
You let that gas flow out into a larger container. No energy enters the system,
no energy leaves the system. Nothing other than the most simple possible WHOOSH.
Describe what happens to the entropy of the system -- does it increase, decrease,
or remain exactly the same?
And explain your answer.
Oko
ooo
Post by Oko TilloPost by aaaI believe the entropy of the gas will increase, and the temperature of
the gas will decrease as the result. This is because the increased
entropy has taken away the available energy of the gas that was
previously used to maintain its temperature.
Am I correct?
You guessed the right answer, but for the wrong reason.
My explanation is strictly based on my understanding of the second law..
The increased entropy is based on the additional used energy. The used
energy is called used energy because it is used to increase entropy.
There can be no entropy increase if there isn't energy available to be used.
ooo
Post by aaaPost by Oko Tillo"No energy enters the system, no energy leaves the system."
That was specified in the statement of the problem. The energy
of the system remains unchanged.
That's why there is the reduction of temperature to compensate the need
of energy for the increase of entropy.
ooo
Post by aaaPost by Oko TilloNo energy is required to increase the entropy. But flowing into a larger
volume the disorder of the system increases.
The increase of disorder is the same as the increase of entropy. You are
not explaining anything. The increase of entropy is a fact. We already
know that.
No we did not know: that was the question. I asked
whether entropy increased, decreased, or remained the same. The answer is
"increased", and the reason for the answer is that by flowing into a larger volume,
the disorder of the system increased. Which is -- by the concepts everyone uses in these
cases: Boltzmann's . (which reading ahead I see you did not even look at)
the amount of entropy is defined in terms of the level of disorder of the system.
Post by aaaYou need to explain what is causing the increase of entropy
from the thermodynamic point of view. You haven't done that.
Just did that. Boltzmann's definition: the most commonly used
on in thermodynamics. Too bad you blew it off when I brought
it up in the last post.
Post by aaaThat is nothing more nor less
Post by Oko Tillothan the increase in entropy described. A group of blocks in a box is more
ordered than the same group of blocks scattered all over the room. That is
an exact analogy to the system we are discussing, with the exception that the
gas molecules are already in constant motion, and thus require nothing to
flow into the larger container -- to "scatter them around the room".
That is obviously false. Gas in the vacuum space doesn't have to scatter
all over the space. It can only occupy relatively a small part of the
space. According to your theory, particles in space should automatically
occupy all space.
My Bast, it just keeps getting more and more unbelievable.
Tell us: you pop a balloon in space, what is to keep the gas from
expanding in all direction indefinitely?
Post by aaaPost by Oko TilloPost by aaaPost by Oko TilloPost by Oko TilloThe transition did not take away the "available energy" (whatever that is)
of the molecules. They're moving at the same speeds as they were before
being released into the larger volume. The amount of energy has not changed.
By moving over a larger distance, it needs additional energy.
Not at all. If a gas molecule is sailing east, and you take away
a barrier in its path -- allowing it to enter the larger container --
then it continues sailing merrily along. No additional energy
required.
No, we are not talking about a single molecule. We are talking about all
the molecules in the container.
Yep, we are. And they are all in constant motion. (would you like the equation for that?)
When a larger volume becomes available, their constant motion sends them flying
into the larger space, unless they hit another molecule or a wall. No additional
energy is required to let them keep sailing on at the same speed they were
moving at before.
False. Gas molecules do have mass. Therefore, they are naturally pulled
into each other by their gravity.
Oh.
My.
Fucking.
Bast.
Yes, they are gravitationally attracted to one another.
But you don't have the slightest intuition about how entirely negligible
that level of attraction is. It is utterly, invisibly, minutely trivial.
Here, I'll show you how to calculate it for yourself:
The force between two bodies is equal to the gravitational constant times
the mass of the two objects multiplied together, all that divided by
the square of the distance between them.
The gravitational constant: 6.67408 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 .
The mass of a nitrogen molecule: 0.028 / (6.238 * 10^23) kg.
The average distance between molecules at STP: 3 * 10^-10 m.
So, do the work, and see for yourself how minuscule the gravitational
attraction between the molecules is.
Hey, just KIDDING! You wouldn't actually try to do the relevant math
if the Second Coming depended on it. Too sciencey.
The answer is: two nitrogen molecules at STP attract one another with
an average force of one 0.1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a kg.
Utterly trivial. As close to nothing as makes no difference.
Meanwhile, those nitrogen molecules are flying apart at an average speed
of eleven hundred miles per hour. (Boltzmann again. that boy surely did
get around. Want to see that formula, so you can check it for yourself?)
The utterly small gravitational attraction between molecules is invisible
when molecules are flying apart at the speed of sound.
Post by aaaFor gas molecules to occupy the space
in a container, they need energy to neutralize the effect of their
gravity. When they are released into a larger container, they would need
more energy to counter the effect of gravity in order to occupy the
larger space available to them.
Nope. See above. Or to riff on the question above, do you think
if you open a container of gas in outer space, the gas will just
sit there in a blob due to your supposed gravitational attraction?
That would be nice: you wouldn't need a space suit.
Post by aaaSo their increase of entropy isn't just
a man-made condition by providing them with a larger container. The
entropy increase has everything to do with the distribution of energy
within the gas molecules.
Post by Oko TilloMaybe I'm assuming you know things that you don't. You do know that atoms
or molecules of a gas are in constant motion, right? And you do know
that anything in motion will remain in motion, at that same speed, unless something interferes
with it, yes?
What does that have to do with thermodynamics? Are we going to talk
about thermodynamics or not? How about we stay on topic instead?
Are you serious? You have to understand the physics of a system
if you want to apply thermodynamics to that system. And it just
now occurred to me that you do not know the absolute minimum, basic,
high school level physics. The sort of utterly fundamental concepts
that even my friends who never took high school science understand.
You can't describe the system, you can't apply the thermodynamics.
Post by aaaPost by Oko TilloPost by aaaIt takes less energy for the molecules
to occupy a smaller container than a larger container.
No. Absolutely not. Why in the world would you think that?
That is just common sense. Why in the world would you deny such common
understanding? Just try to blow a balloon and see whether it takes more
energy to blow it bigger. According to you, the air in your lung should
automatically filling up the balloon without you doing anything. Is that
right?
When you strain to blow up a balloon, the force you exert is you
stretching the rubber. That's why it gets easier as the balloon
inflates and the rubber is stretched thinner and thinner. It has
nothing to do with providing energy to push the air into a greater
volume.
Don't believe me? Then try it with a can with no air in it.
Just vacuum. I promise that the air will whoosh out of your lungs and into
the can without the slightest effort on your part.
Incidentally, do not do this. You'll destroy your lungs. You'd learn
you're wrong, but you wouldn't live to relish your newfound knowledge.
Post by aaaPost by Oko TilloPost by aaaThat is what I
meant, and that is why additional energy is required when the gas is
released to a larger container.
Post by Oko TilloWhen there
is no energy coming from the environment, the temperature of the gas
will have to drop in order to provide the energy used by entropy.
The temperature does indeed drop, but the total energy remains the
same. Temperature and energy are two different things. Energy
is the velocity of the molecules, temperature is the energy divided by the volume.
If you want to know the total energy, you need to know both the temperature
and the volume it occupies.
The correct answer would have been that the entropy of the system increased
because the degree of disorder of the system increased. Molecules confined
to a small volume can be arranged only so many ways; the same number of
molecules in a larger volume can be arranged in many more different ways. Which
is exactly the same as saying the degree of disorder of the system has increased,
thus the entropy of the system has increased.
Excuse me, I believe your correct answer has overlooked the reason of
temperature drop.
I have explained the reason for the temperature drop: temperature is a function
of energy and the volume that energy occupies.
This is just a repeat of your text book formula. You are not explaining
anything thermodynamically speaking. How about explaining your text book
formula from the view of thermodynamics?
I just did. That was nothing other than thermodynamics. That you
couldn't recognize it tells us everything about your comprehension
of the subject.
Post by aaaAs I said, total energy divided by
Post by Oko Tillovolume. The gas molecules retain their original energy, but now occupy a larger
volume, thus temperature -- a bulk quantity -- falls.
To take an extreme example, if you were suddenly exposed to the environment
a hundred miles above the earth, you'd be being bombarded by extremely
fast moving molecules of oxygen and nitrogen. The velocities of these
molecules are so high that if you were in a room full of them you'd burst into flame.
But in those near-vacuum conditions you do not burst into flame; you freeze to death.
That's because while their individual temperature -- i.e: their velocities -- are
extremely high, there are so few of them hitting you that almost no totally energy
gets transmitted to you, and you freeze.
Temperature in energy divided by volume. Increase the volume, the temperature
falls, but the total energy remains the same.
That is not thermodynamics. I need a thermodynamic explanation. Do you
have any?
Just did. Sorry your made-up home brew version of thermodynamics does not
intersect actual thermodynamics, as actual scientists understand it.
Post by aaaPost by Oko TilloPost by aaaPost by Oko Tillohttps://bit.ly/2lixU4j
It exactly describes the system we are discussing, and defines why
the entropy increases.
And did you look?
Why bother? I would rather stay on topic.
It was the most condensed possible explanation of the topic. That
one equation says it all. If you understand it, you understand this
entire thread.
Which you clearly do not.
But let's move on to another point -- from the above, it is beyond
question that you know nothing -- nada, zero, zilch, null set --
about the physics we are arguing about. Not the most basic ideas.
Not high school level. Not general knowledge level. Not at the
level of even my barely sciencey friends.
But your total and subsuming ignorance in no way is an impediment to
your making up your own version from scratch ... and you are
utterly impervious to learning anything, anything at all, from people
who do understand the physics, and understand it quite well.
Just as with the second law, just as with the Bible, just as with
any other discussions of science that have come up, just as
with your own private definitions of words that no one else
in the world shares -- you are utterly smug in your ignorance,
and constitutionally incapable of learning from people who
actually do know what they're talking about.
Then why do I bother?
Good question. Excellent question. One I shall answer by
choosing no longer to bother. I've tried my best. You are
utterly unteachable in your arrogance.
Have a nice life.
Oko
Post by aaa--
Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.