Does procreation offer proof;

RussDill said:

umm...no, the industrial revolution and the foundation of thermodynamics go hand in hand.

Click to expand...

and what is dmaging the world more?

The motivation behind thermodynamics may have been the carnot cycle,

Click to expand...

and why i laugh as it is the retentiion of the 'heat' as a foundation to energy conversion that is funny. ie... nuclear power used for heating h2o into steam but a microwave uses ONE wavelength (via magnetron) to heat water at a fraction of the joules.

How many times do people on this forum and others have to point out to you that the right hand rule is not a law, it is a convention. That's why there is a Fleming's left hand rule and a Fleming's right hand rule.

Click to expand...

from the x,y,z of space to the curl of physics but the idiots do not comprehend the application to energy and magnetism and that relation is far more important than the descriptions.

Faraday opened up the scope while observing the magnetic field of electrical current passing thru a conductor. ie... any charge in motion follows the 'law' of a magnetic field reveals itself in perpendicular planes.

that whole of electromagnetism is based on the EVIDENCE of this PROPERTY of nature.

But you apparently do not have the depth to comprehend that.

Either the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds, or it don't. Pick one. If you say it doesn't hold, then you have to give me examples.

Click to expand...

you gave yourself one below. And i quote Yes, the universe is a closed system, and yes it contains life

but your pride doesn't enable you to face facts.

ie.... if there is even ONE example of 2LoT of being broken, then the law must be wrong. Deal with it!

I feel like a honest person walking into a synagogue and telling religious wingnuts that man did not come from magic; the adherants just will not open their eyes.

In this example, the overall entropy of the system has increased. Each cell in each kid is metabolizing and also generating waste heat. The efficiency of the children really isn't that great and a good portion of the energy they use to line up gets wasted.

Click to expand...

Not it doesn't as it is as stupid as claiming the universe is so big but that it is primarily empty space because stars assemble, then galaxies and then the galaxies associate.

Answered the "Give me a closed system with life in it." without the "Show me how said life would increase the order of that closed system." isn't any good.

Click to expand...

common sense doesn't work for adherants. It is a common psychosis.

Yes, the universe is a closed system, and yes it contains life, but the entropy of the universe increases with time.

Click to expand...

another ignorant claim.

ie... how the hell would you claim it is increasing if you blatantly could not know. Because the math says so (as i doubt you can add let alone require causality before even posting).

Do you not see that when an organism and gathers food, they are part of the same system? The organism lowers their own entropy by gathering the food, but that doesn't decrease the entropy of the system since the food is part of the system.

Click to expand...

so from the food being all over and the life is gathering that food, you dont see an order from disorder?

again, nothing but blatant retention of ignorance is putting them words to your post

The universe is a perfectly closed system.

Click to expand...

and life within.

ie... mankind is/has created words (fractals) within existence and you do not comprehend the progression


you asked me to provide evidence, you see and know the evidence but simply because of adherance you continue to rant, deny, sidetrack and even when i shared how the progression of the bohr analogy to chemistry, planck and how entropy is bound to physics, you choose to be adherant.


People like you are why science should not be your field. You are a incapable of maintaining the precept of science; the pursuit of truth.

Bishadi, the biggest problem I have with what you've written is that it's really hard to understand exactly what you are trying to say. Is there another language you would be more comfortable writing in? Might an automatic translator help? (Quite seriously - I'm not trying to be a smartass)

Bishadi said:

and what is dmaging the world more?

Click to expand...

What is the relevance of this, please?

and why i laugh as it is the retentiion of the 'heat' as a foundation to energy conversion that is funny. ie... nuclear power used for heating h2o into steam but a microwave uses ONE wavelength (via magnetron) to heat water at a fraction of the joules.

Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, you laugh at the fools who use a nuclear reactor to boil water to turn a generator in order to make electricity, because it would be more efficient to use electricity to make microwaves to boil water to turn a generator to make electricity. Wow. I wonder why they just don't do that.

from the x,y,z of space to the curl of physics but the idiots do not comprehend the application to energy and magnetism and that relation is far more important than the descriptions.

Faraday opened up the scope while observing the magnetic field of electrical current passing thru a conductor. ie... any charge in motion follows the 'law' of a magnetic field reveals itself in perpendicular planes.

that whole of electromagnetism is based on the EVIDENCE of this PROPERTY of nature.

But you apparently do not have the depth to comprehend that.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't. The individual words appear simple enough, but combined like that <shrug> I simply do not comprehend your meaning.

Jack by the hedge said:

There's no need to overcomplicate this by invoking Bohr, Maxwell, Schroedinger etc etc. Bishadi's claim is encapsulated here - his declaration that putting on a coat to warm yourself violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I can't help but agree there is some aspect of this which appears to defy explanation, though perhaps he and I aren't thinking of the same part.

Click to expand...

Maybe it violates the spirit of the law.

Bishadi said:

People like you are why science should not be your field. You are a incapable of maintaining the precept of science; the pursuit of truth.

Click to expand...

"True scientists/skeptics believe me when I make **** up."

This arguing tactic should have a name, in the manner of Godwin and Poe.

(I'd suggest calling it the "Golden Stick" based loosely on these two early posts of mine, followed up later in the same thread by this claim and my restatement of it in the phrasing used above -- but the origin might be too obscure. On the other hand, around here, the usage would become familiar pretty quickly.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad said:

"True scientists/skeptics believe me when I make **** up."

This arguing tactic should have a name, in the manner of Godwin and Poe.

(I'd suggest calling it the "Golden Stick" based loosely on these two early posts of mine, followed up later in the same thread by this claim and my restatement of it in the phrasing used above -- but the origin might be too obscure. On the other hand, around here, the usage would become familiar pretty quickly.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Click to expand...

but if it is validated by their own cause, then perhaps use the philosophical applicability to your own awareness. (ie... remember the world was thought to be flat for thousands of years)


The thread presents an inquiry, that you yourself can see as applicable but do you have the integrity to stands up when truth slaps you in the face?


It aint my arrogance but your own choice, that is enabling you to make derogatory comments when you shouldnt be. (rude with selfish pride over the pursuit of reality)

The thread presents an inquiry, that you yourself can see as applicable but do you have the integrity to stands up when truth slaps you in the face?

Click to expand...

This thread was started under false pretenses. You had no interest in listening to our responses, merely in preaching your ideas. The inquiry is demonstrably a sham.

Jack by the hedge said:

Bishadi, the biggest problem I have with what you've written is that it's really hard to understand exactly what you are trying to say. Is there another language you would be more comfortable writing in? Might an automatic translator help? (Quite seriously - I'm not trying to be a smartass)

Click to expand...

When i cannot understand a set of material i look up the definitions of each word, then reread the material.

Try it!

What is the relevance of this, please?

Click to expand...

science divided from belief, for the quest of understanding.

when science became the underlying of business advancements the invisible hand (business as an entity) took over the proprietary of advancements, the divides within the disciplines began and many tangents created the 'revolution'. Medical science proved that many pursued the use for the good of life and the population explosion of the last 300 years provides the evidence.

But as of now, business runs the show and it is products that govern the pursuits versus the knowledge itself.

The religions used to be the embodiment of understanding in which that innert quest of mankind to understand itself and especially life has a hold on mankind. Each life ever born at one time or another has wanted to comprehend itself (what are we? What is life?). Science offered the comprehension of cause being based within nature versus belief. Mankind kind of returned to seeking the understanding of life but again, that was stymied by tangents.

The graphene nobel just offered a method of rendering and providing evidence of the shared energy between molecular bonds that exceeds the covelant bonds. The concept of aromasticity in itself will offer the comprehension of how the phospholipid bilayers assemble and retain their combined associations rigidity. It is based on the resonance combining between the structures.


my point, the scope of science has diverted from the needs of mankinds understanding.

If I understand correctly, you laugh at the fools who use a nuclear reactor to boil water to turn a generator in order to make electricity, because it would be more efficient to use electricity to make microwaves to boil water to turn a generator to make electricity. Wow. I wonder why they just don't do that.

Click to expand...

that is a circle jerk of words

but you said (Quite seriously - I'm not trying to be a smartass)



Yes you were/are and continue to be!

but to make an idiot out of you;

How many calories in a joule?

How many joules are captured from the sun in one second, of one meter of earths surface?

Converting to heat is moronic!

Dinwar said:

This thread was started under false pretenses. You had no interest in listening to our responses, merely in preaching your ideas. The inquiry is demonstrably a sham.

Click to expand...

and the one who will Di n war ......

you are the biggest troll on the thread as you dont EVER address the questions with any integrity.


the thread was about as pure to objective science as it gets;

a).... the inquiry offered any the ability to offer an answer just in case me (the OP guy) has not observed the material.

b) ..... the OP offered any with any integrity to see for themselves, why it is so purely grounded. (procreation is natural)

c) ..... and within the thread, everything from bohr to chemistry, planck to biology has been addressd and included


The problem with you is, you have no desire or interest in nothing but to discount me.

Bishadi said:

but if it is validated by their own cause, then perhaps use the philosophical applicability to your own awareness. (ie... remember the world was thought to be flat for thousands of years)

Click to expand...

Because the world was thought to be flat for thousands of years, I should believe you when you make **** up?

The thread presents an inquiry, that you yourself can see as applicable but do you have the integrity to stands up when truth slaps you in the face?

Click to expand...

I lack integrity if I do not believe you when you make **** up?

It aint my arrogance but your own choice, that is enabling you to make derogatory comments when you shouldnt be. (rude with selfish pride over the pursuit of reality)

Click to expand...

It's arrogant, rude, selfish, and prideful for me to not believe you when you make **** up?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Bishadi, understand the topic, you do not. Understand thermodynamics, you do not. Understand biology, cosmology, physics, electromagnetism, heat, light, these things all you do not.

Break the MA you will. Soon I foresee. Troll are you, troll is as troll does.

you are the biggest troll on the thread as you dont EVER address the questions with any integrity.

Click to expand...

I tried. Several times. The question was not asked in good faith, however, and therefore deserves no answer.

and the one who will Di n war

Click to expand...

Do you mean "Die in war"? I'm confused. Even your insults are nonsensical.

the thread was about as pure to objective science as it gets;

a).... the inquiry offered any the ability to offer an answer just in case me (the OP guy) has not observed the material.

b) ..... the OP offered any with any integrity to see for themselves, why it is so purely grounded. (procreation is natural)

c) ..... and within the thread, everything from bohr to chemistry, planck to biology has been addressd and included

Click to expand...

Almost forgot this bit of inanity. Objective scientists stay on topic, and do not insist that any who oppose them lack integrety. I've seen scientists go at each other quite viciously, but the mere fact that they disagree was never taken as a sign of a lack of integrety.

Oh, and they didn't start the conversation under false pretenses. If you're going to discuss integrety, you may want to start with your own.

Myriad said:

Because the world was thought to be flat for thousands of years, I should believe you when you make **** up?

Click to expand...

you made that line item post


and i made this


The graphene nobel just offered a method of rendering and providing evidence of the shared energy between molecular bonds that exceeds the covelant bonds. The concept of aromasticity in itself will offer the comprehension of how the phospholipid bilayers assemble and retain their combined associations rigidity. It is based on the resonance combining between the structures.




which is better for the good of mankind?

as a moderator, which is of the integrity of an 'educational forum'?

which can be proven?

It's arrogant, rude, selfish, and prideful for me to not believe you when you make **** up?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Click to expand...

Just when you cannot back it up?

IE>...... at this point anyone who has read the whole thread can see that procreation is a life, breaking the law. (that is unless, you can sustain an argument without making ********* comments in your posts)

Dinwar said:

I tried. Several times. The question was not asked in good faith, however, and therefore deserves no answer.

Do you mean "Die in war"? I'm confused. Even your insults are nonsensical.

Almost forgot this bit of inanity. Objective scientists stay on topic, and do not insist that any who oppose them lack integrety. I've seen scientists go at each other quite viciously, but the mere fact that they disagree was never taken as a sign of a lack of integrety.

Oh, and they didn't start the conversation under false pretenses. If you're going to discuss integrety, you may want to start with your own.

Click to expand...

just so the forum is aware, i granting this fool credance for admiting gravity and much of science is left unanswered. Ii offered a whole host of questions within that pat on the back, and not once has the troll addressed the questions.

i will not answer the fools inquiry, except when i chose to correct what i will.

.

Ah, I'll just leave it alone.

You really should re-read the thread every once in a while.

ok.

i will never contest that until you render what is not true. ie.. i can only witness what is between you and i

However, I have no clue what gravity is

Click to expand...

that is fair but then to say a black hole IS dis or is dat.......... is all speculation (even if mathematically predicted and accepted) and it dont mean it is real

--I have a vague notion that it's warped space-time (I've read Hawking's books, and a few others)

Click to expand...

and if heat is on a highway does it, can it, will it often redirect light (a mirage)?

just like star light going thru the corona of the sun?

have you ever read the evidence from the experiments themselves?

The reason? That integrity thing you mentioned. It's outside my area of expertise, and I therefore admit, to myself and to others, that I simply don't know.

Click to expand...

i bow to honesty. ie... i would love to be able to put my life on your words if you held such integrity.

That's why the whole "combining fields" or "crossing diciplines" or however you put it fails in many cases

Click to expand...

and that is well understood as it may appear quite diverse but even you must believe in your heart that all things have a causal explanation or science would never capture truth (the absolute).

then i must ask, if and i say if, a 'thing' was to be capable of combining knowledge with all the tough inquiry and skepticism of an honest soul, would it be a human being and then would the internet age offer far more capability than any other time in all history?

i mean, is it actually possible that knowledge could evolve to that point? Then is it possible, that you could do it, be fair to humility but literally capable to understand the 'priniciples' of how it worked?

Must they be equal to all of existence (underlying) for the scope to be true?

Could a mathematical theorem perhaps one day render such?

These are what i believe is true and to me, a paradigm shift of comprehending enables mankind to know itself. (the priority)



i am all over the place, because choose to see the works from across the world. i have walked on more campuses during my life then any but mary jane (a bet i will stand on)

as i care for seeking reality over needing to prove myself. I like to be hammered as i check myself everyday.

i can sustain what i say and to the extent that if i dont know, then i ask and then finally seek to comprehend the phenomenon.

i dont give in to anything but "what is real"

Click to expand...

My response, in which I address your questions, is immediately below that post.

Bishadi said:

like what?

how about how energy combines mass. for example the phosphlipid bilayers.

do you know how to describe the basics of how that resonance (call it a phonon, exciton, polariton.... if you like) is combining mass within it field?


if not, then perhaps you are not capable of a biological discussion.

do you know why the nuclear pores of the nucleus retains the plug?

how about what 'folds' the rna chain; what force?

do you even comprehend a resonant energy transfer?

how about what glial are for in the mylean sheath?

do you know what the p680 is?

how about why they are just now recording the signatures (wavelengths) of the protiens within most all life?

LIfe is more of the game i love, than just picking on the idiots as they go bye, during their 'walking of the planck'.

Click to expand...

post 147?

as the thread is on biology and procreation?

If you do not comprehend a resonant energy transfer, then there is little to discuss with you on procreation and entropy (heat transfer).

You are trolling, just like i said.........

and if you comprehended the post you just clipped and used even a nano meter worth of integrity you should comprehend that if that math was truly understood to the level of the questions implications (just like the thread opener), you would sit back and do some real thought inquiry before opening your keyboard to insulting me as you reason for being here.


answer them questions, line by line and support them with material evidence

or clearly how will any within this universe, ever be able to shut a troll up, except themselves?


.

Bishadi said:

or clearly how will any within this universe, ever be able to shut a troll up, except themselves?

Click to expand...

Indeed...

how about how energy combines mass. for example the phosphlipid bilayers.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense.

do you know how to describe the basics of how that resonance (call it a phonon, exciton, polariton.... if you like) is combining mass within it field?

Click to expand...

How where strawberry blue mohawks?

do you know why the nuclear pores of the nucleus retains the plug?

Click to expand...

I'd guess it's hydrogen bonds. I've said before I'm not a biochemist.

how about what 'folds' the rna chain; what force?

Click to expand...

Those ARE hydrogen bonds.

do you even comprehend a resonant energy transfer?

Click to expand...

How is that a biological issue?

how about what glial are for in the mylean sheath?

Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

As the Greek name implies, glia are commonly known as the glue of the nervous system; however, this is not fully accurate. The four main functions of glial cells are to surround neurons and hold them in place, to supply nutrients and oxygen to neurons, to insulate one neuron from another, and to destroy pathogens and remove dead neurons. They also modulate neurotransmission.[2]

Click to expand...

You can see their references.

do you know what the p680 is?

Click to expand...

Someone else answered that question earlier.

how about why they are just now recording the signatures (wavelengths) of the protiens within most all life?

Click to expand...

Again, how is this a biology question? I mean, it may be an interesting physics question, and it may have applications at some point to biology, but right now (if I understand your question properly), it's not biology.

Bishadi said:

you made that line item post

and i made this

The graphene nobel just offered a method of rendering and providing evidence of the shared energy between molecular bonds that exceeds the covelant bonds. The concept of aromasticity in itself will offer the comprehension of how the phospholipid bilayers assemble and retain their combined associations rigidity. It is based on the resonance combining between the structures.


which is better for the good of mankind?

Click to expand...

I should believe you when you make **** up, for the good of mankind?

as a moderator, which is of the integrity of an 'educational forum'?

Click to expand...

I should believe you when you make **** up, for the integrity of an educational forum?

which can be proven?

Click to expand...

Neither, as mathematical conjectures subject to proof are not at issue here. However, that the laws of thermodynamics hold true despite the existence of life is as well established by observation as anything in science.

IE>...... at this point anyone who has read the whole thread can see that procreation is a life, breaking the law. (that is unless, you can sustain an argument without making ********* comments in your posts)

Click to expand...

That is the very **** you made up that I was talking about. I do not believe it. Interestingly, the reason I do not believe it is not because it is **** you made up (after all people can make up **** that happens to be true), but because it contradicts centuries of scientific observation of nature.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Bishadi said:

ie.... if there is even ONE example of 2LoT of being broken, then the law must be wrong. Deal with it!

Click to expand...

At some point, words will not get you anywhere. It seems that no words that we've presented have been capable of convincing you that your "life abusing entropy" is flawed.

Prove us wrong, Bishadi. Show us that you are a very good scientist, capable of not just repeated many words over and over, but capable of demonstrating, with some math and data perhaps, how the 2nd law is refuted. This is the only way to assert and show us (and yourself!) that your hypothesis is credible. The only way.