Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Frumious Bandersnatch: I am beginning to wonder if you even know what a Carnot cycle is
Frumious Bandersnatch: Here are some pages illustrating the use of the Carnot cycle to explain entropy.
DNAunion: Thanks but no thanks. I already have college physics books that tell me all I need to know about it. You got any?
Frumious Bandersnatch: Of course it isn't. Who said it was?
DNAunion: Uhm, the author of the physical science text I quoted from. Don't you pay attention?
3) We both agree that the "Best" classification scheme is the trichotomous one.
5) We both agree that a closed system can exchange energy, but not matter, with its surroundings.
The only disagreement seems to be that Frumious Bandersnatch mistakenly believes that I used "(isolated)" as a regular adjective, as in "an isolated closed system...", which I did not. I used it as a means of providing clarification - elimination of ambiguity - while repeating the statement the original poster made.
One of the hardest concepts to accept is that the Universe is everything that is. Not only the matter and energy but all the dimensions as well. There is no `outside' to the Universe and it has no `edge', at least not in the usual sense that we think of these concepts.
When we think of the Big Bang we instinctively think of the small Universe expanding like a sphere into an empty void. Unfortunately this is incorrect. The dimensions that we commonly use, three spatial and one time, are all mixed up when the early Universe is concerned and our normal concepts of space and time are not valid. The only way that it can be partly understood is to consider the two-dimensional analogue of the surface of a balloon which is being inflated. The surface is everywhere continuous, has no edge and yet is expanding. The three-dimensional analogue (whose understanding defeats the writer!) will represent the Universe.
There no centre of the universe because there is no edge of the universe. In a finite universe, space is curved so that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line you would eventually finish back where you started. It is also possible that our universe is infinite. In both examples, groups of galaxies completely fill the universe and are moving apart at all points making the universe expand (see question 2).
There no centre of the universe because there is no edge of the universe. In a finite universe, space is curved so that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line you would eventually finish back where you started. It is also possible that our universe is infinite. In both examples, groups of galaxies completely fill the universe and are moving apart at all points making the universe expand (see question 2).
Today at 02:14 PM webboffin said this in Post #87
So what is the universe expanding into?
Or maybe there is nothing it is expanding into?
Perhaps nothing is really real?
Maybe reality is just a figment of dimentional imagination.
Confused
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/cosmo.htmlUsually we consider the big bang to be the beginning of time and space, and so it is meaningless to ask what existed before or what lies beyond the expanding universe. Because space itself is intimately connected with matter in the universe, as matter was created in the big bang, so was space. There is no 'empty space' that the universe is expanding into.
What about a finite universe? This phrase sounds like a contradiction because if the universe ends somewhere then we would naturally want to know what was beyond it, and since the universe includes everything, whatever is beyond that edge should still be called part of the universe. The resolution of this paradox is that even if the universe is finite, it still doesn't have an edge. If I head off in one direction and resolve to keep going until I find the end of the universe, I eventually find myself righ t back where I started. A finite universe is periodic, meaning that if you go far enough in any direction you come back to where you started. Trying to picture a closed (finite) universe is in some ways even harder than trying to picture an open (infinite) universe because it is easy to mislead yourself. For example, people often compare a two-dimensional closed universe to the surface of a bal loon. This analogy is helpful because such a surface has the property of being periodic in all directions, and it is easy to picture the expansion of such a universe by imagining the balloon being blown up. In fact, this analogy is like the rubber sheet a nalogy I used before, except now the sheet has been wrapped up to form a sphere. The problem is that this picture immediately leads to the question of what is inside the balloon. This question comes from taking the analogy too literally. Nothing in general relativity says that a two-dimensional closed universe would have to exist as a sphere inside a three-dimensional space; the theory only says that such a universe would have ce rtain properties (e.g. periodicity) in common with such a sphere. For this reason I think it is useful to keep the balloon in mind as a convenient analogy but it is ultimately best to think of the closed universe as a three-dimensional space with the strange property that things which go off to the right eventually come back again from the left.
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."Alice in Wonderland
The different branches of Arithmetic -- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision. Alice in Wonderland
Today at 09:14 AM webboffin said this in Post #87
So what is the universe expanding into?
Or maybe there is nothing it is expanding into?
Perhaps nothing is really real?
Maybe reality is just a figment of dimentional imagination.
Confused
27th March 2003 at 10:42 PM DNAunion said this in Post #82
DNAunion: Thanks but no thanks. I already have college physics books that tell me all I need to know about it. You got any?
Today at 10:01 AM Lanakila said this in Post #89
Pages and pages of arguing definitons in this thread. Its no wonder we have so much debate in this forum. When you get into terms like Kinds from the Bible the same thing happens.
Lucaspa: If your college physics books are teaching thermodynamics, they should be discussing the Carnot cycle, since it was the Carnot cycle that led to the definition and equations on entropy.
Entropy (disorder) always increases or remains constant in a closed system.
...
The Law of Entropy, that is, disorder, is a dagger aimed at the heart of Darwinian fundamentalism.
Lucaspa: Conspiracies are impossible in science.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?