Reduce Spending and Raise Taxes?

[PearlWatson]

I've heard some great scientists wonder about the things we don't understand, listing the anti-entropic force/power that "wound up" the cosmos in the first place. The heat capacity of water vapor, even at 32 degrees, compared to the heat content of the same water vapor atoms arranged in a form of ice called a snowflake, is greater. When that vapor solidifies into ice, the air around is warmed by the quantity of heat called the heat of sublimation. It takes energy to melt and vaporize that same flake, the same amount of energy.

Most natural processes involve a release of heat to the environment, or other dispersals of energy. Unless someone knows how to use energy from elsewhere to create something that represents and "ordered" store of energy of some kind, like say an atom.

Folks who believe it's unecessary to invoke the god concept in dealing with the cosmos still do essentially the same thing when they invoke the Big Bang or some other theory of creation/origin.

I'm seconding Sapa here, in case anyone can't follow my little rant.

I thought his word usage was interesting.

"Creating order requires energy"

 

[franklin]

The concept I was going for is still valid. The moment something is built (intelligently designed) the minute it starts breaking down (becoming less ordered/concentrated).
Humans grow to a peak (about 21 years) and then start breaking down. Plants grow to their potential (design) and then deteriorate. The force that pushes for life is intelligence (mother nature if you will). It doesn't stem from random mutations or accidents like the Darwiniac dogma states.

I've heard some great scientists wonder about the things we don't understand, listing the anti-entropic force/power that "wound up" the cosmos in the first place.

Most natural processes involve a release of heat to the environment, or other dispersals of energy. Unless someone knows how to use energy from elsewhere to create something that represents and "ordered" store of energy of some kind, like say an atom.

Folks who believe it's unecessary to invoke the god concept in dealing with the cosmos still do essentially the same thing when they invoke the Big Bang or some other theory of creation/origin.

Hence the big, banging question of the day (along with a TOE), but we got there the fun way, dumbed down as we preferred. Maybe the big braniacs have solved this as well, but I don't remember seeing anything about The Spark. Also, as the atheist Stephen Hawking explained (in A Brief History of Time, I believe), why is the universe expanding at an exactly perfect rate to balance gravity from either collapsing or failing to hold the universe together? Infinite possibilities, yet The Spark picked the one in a trillion trillion trillion expansion rates. What a coincidence without a God! OK, here comes the smart people to tell me why this is now incorrect.

 

[One Brow]

The confusion about disorder and entropy comes from an 1898 statement by a brilliant theoretical physicist whose mathematical contributions to thermodynamics and entropy are still totally valid. However, his attempt to interpret entropy in simple language was incorrect.

As yourse continues to be.

Entropy: The natural direction of energy flow is from concentrated to dispersed.

Again, physically incorrect. The natural direction of energy flow around a black hole (and to a lesser degree, any object of mass) is from dispersion to concentration. I don't mind that you continue to embarrass yourself, but I again offer to explain your position to you, if you so desire. It will still be wrong, but that way you could at least be correctly stating the principle before misapplying it.

Energy is required to make a snowflake from water, so your example to dismiss order---> disorder was a fail.

Going to a snowflake from water entails a loss of energy in the water. No external energy source is required. So, even though my example was a naturally occuring phenomenon of order from disorder rebutted your original claim, and even though you decided tomove the goal posts to energy flow because you couldn't support your original contention, you still got it wrong.

The concept I was going for is still valid.

YOu don't understand the concept you are going for.

The moment something is built (intelligently designed) the minute it starts breaking down (becoming less ordered/concentrated).

Software viruses do not break down.

Humans grow to a peak (about 21 years) and then start breaking down. Plants grow to their potential (design) and then deteriorate.

We have plants that are thousands of years old, with no sign of slowing down.

The force that pushes for life is intelligence (mother nature if you will). It doesn't stem from random mutations or accidents like the Darwiniac dogma states.

If anyone thinks that life is solely the result of random mutations and accidents, then they know less about science than you have shown so far. At least, now I know what you mean by the mythical group of "Darwiniacs".

 

[babe]

As yourse continues to be.



Again, physically incorrect. The natural direction of energy flow around a black hole (and to a lesser degree, any object of mass) is from dispersion to concentration. I don't mind that you continue to embarrass yourself, but I again offer to explain your position to you, if you so desire. It will still be wrong, but that way you could at least be correctly stating the principle before misapplying it.



Going to a snowflake from water entails a loss of energy in the water. No external energy source is required. So, even though my example was a naturally occuring phenomenon of order from disorder rebutted your original claim, and even though you decided tomove the goal posts to energy flow because you couldn't support your original contention, you still got it wrong.



YOu don't understand the concept you are going for.



Software viruses do not break down.



We have plants that are thousands of years old, with no sign of slowing down.



If anyone thinks that life is solely the result of random mutations and accidents, then they know less about science than you have shown so far. At least, now I know what you mean by the mythical group of "Darwiniacs".

Rather than respond to every assertion here, I will deal just with the one bolded as I think it is adequate to show the error in the rest. I wonder, OneBrow, if you use any of the computer products that have been developed to create some kind of systemic "back up" in case somehow it "crashes". My wife hired somebody to come here and set up an automatic daily "save" to a remote computer which is itself multiply "backed up".

Problem is, our computer memories have a natural rate of defects occuring in accord with the principles of the Second Law of thermodynamics, and even computer viruses have a "mutation rate" which, over millions of years, might generate entirely new and bizarre "viruses" just like in real life. But, fortunately, 99% of these "new" viruses just wouldn't work.

In regard to the plants that are geologic ages "old", we also have their seeds in the geologic rock, which when washed into some surface with the right conditions, can still sometimes grow. But I'm sure there are some non-lethal changes in some of the seeds that have been kept in the solidified sediments over those ages. The seeds that sustain "lethal" changes we just don't see growing.

I have heard of the various explanations of why nature would conserve and replicate advantageous "evolutionary windfalls" and thus create a system that doesn't purely rely on random change, and could(and does) progress along the evolutionary path in an accelerated fashion, but few of the proponents of these have an answer about why "nature" wants to do this.

I on the other hand, do this when I weed my garden. . . . and when I select a fruit tree with a particularly desireable fruit and gather its seeds for a future orchard.

Of course, the answering argument that denies that nature "wants" anything is obvious on first glance. But fails on a really seriously thought-through study. The fact of "Life" itself is a statement that there is more to the ultimate design of the universe than a dedicated atheist is willing to see. The fact that the atheist doesn't "want" to see it is just his own choice.

The Bible, on the other hand, stated the case quite well a few thousand years ago: The whole world is evidence there is a god. Every pretty little flower, every butterfly, every little critter under our feet, and the very existence of cognitive intelligence within our skulls. It is all proof of God rationally undeniable and only irrationally believed to be the purposeless result of non-intelligence.

 

[PearlWatson]

As yourse continues to be.

Again, physically incorrect. The natural direction of energy flow around a black hole (and to a lesser degree, any object of mass) is from dispersion to concentration. I don't mind that you continue to embarrass yourself, but I again offer to explain your position to you, if you so desire. It will still be wrong, but that way you could at least be correctly stating the principle before misapplying it.

The same scientist who told me the disorder simplification was wrong offered the simplified version I presented to you.
I guess if you think you are more "scientifically correct" than him give it a go, if only to amuse me.

Black holes? There are opposing forces in the universe. On Earth we obey the law of gravity, and we get dispersed energy from the concentrated sun until its energy is spent.

Going to a snowflake from water entails a loss of energy in the water. No external energy source is required. So, even though my example was a naturally occuring phenomenon of order from disorder rebutted your original claim, and even though you decided tomove the goal posts to energy flow because you couldn't support your original contention, you still got it wrong.

A storm front that produces snow is not an external energy source?

Software viruses do not break down.

Destructive entities like cancer cells and liberals seem to grow so much more easily than constructive/beneficial entities.

We have plants that are thousands of years old, with no sign of slowing down.

I said plants grow to their potential. I guess we would have to acknowledge the eternal potential of life in this case.

If anyone thinks that life is solely the result of random mutations and accidents, then they know less about science than you have shown so far. At least, now I know what you mean by the mythical group of "Darwiniacs".

Are you denying that random mutation is part of the Darwiniacs' speculated mechanism that leads from one species becoming another?

 

[One Brow]

Rather than respond to every assertion here, I will deal just with the one bolded as I think it is adequate to show the error in the rest.

Do you apply this standard to your own posts, or just those of others? I'm curious how an error on software viruses, if that is indeed what it was, affects the accuracy of a statement that plants are thousands of years old or that gravity acts to concentrate matter.

I wonder, OneBrow, if you use any of the computer products that have been developed to create some kind of systemic "back up" in case somehow it "crashes".

Hardware failures occur all the time, sure. Is a computer virus a hardware component?

Problem is, our computer memories have a natural rate of defects occuring in accord with the principles of the Second Law of thermodynamics,

By "in accord with", you must mean "with only the slightest degree of significance to". I could equally well say that computer memories have a natural rate of defects in accord with Boyle's Law for Ideal Gases. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not influence the defect rate.

and even computer viruses have a "mutation rate" which, over millions of years, might generate entirely new and bizarre "viruses" just like in real life. But, fortunately, 99% of these "new" viruses just wouldn't work.

There, you are correct. Copies of viruses do decay from the original.

In regard to the plants that are geologic ages "old",

Geologic ages tend to be millions of years, not thousands. I only refers o the plants as they show no sigh they are dying, or have a inherently limited lifespan.

I have heard of the various explanations of why nature would conserve and replicate advantageous "evolutionary windfalls" and thus create a system that doesn't purely rely on random change,

There are some 20 widely-accepted evolutionary mechanisms of change, of which 3-5 are random in nature.

and could(and does) progress along the evolutionary path in an accelerated fashion, but few of the proponents of these have an answer about why "nature" wants to do this.

Why does nature need to "want" anything?

The fact that the atheist doesn't "want" to see it is just his own choice.

If thinking that brings you comfort, why should I dispute it?

 

[One Brow]

The same scientist who told me the disorder simplification was wrong offered the simplified version I presented to you.
I guess if you think you are more "scientifically correct" than him give it a go, if only to amuse me.

The Second law of Thermodynamics states that in any closed system, entropy increases and usable energy decreases.

Black holes? There are opposing forces in the universe. On Earth we obey the law of gravity, and we get dispersed energy from the concentrated sun until its energy is spent.

Which disputes the notion that gravity tends to concentrate matter, how?

A storm front that produces snow is not an external energy source?

I'm sure it can power something, but there is no power needed to convert water to snow or ice.

I said plants grow to their potential. I guess we would have to acknowledge the eternal potential of life in this case.

"Plants grow to their potential (design) and then deteriorate." So, you didn't really mean it. OK.

Are you denying that random mutation is part of the Darwiniacs' speculated mechanism that leads from one species becoming another?

If you had originally said "part of", I would not have bothered to respond to that point at all, expect to ask you to define a "Darwiniac".

 

[babe]

Do you apply this standard to your own posts, or just those of others? I'm curious how an error on software viruses, if that is indeed what it was, affects the accuracy of a statement that plants are thousands of years old or that gravity acts to concentrate matter.



Hardware failures occur all the time, sure. Is a computer virus a hardware component?



By "in accord with", you must mean "with only the slightest degree of significance to". I could equally well say that computer memories have a natural rate of defects in accord with Boyle's Law for Ideal Gases. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not influence the defect rate.



There, you are correct. Copies of viruses do decay from the original.



Geologic ages tend to be millions of years, not thousands. I only refers o the plants as they show no sigh they are dying, or have a inherently limited lifespan.



There are some 20 widely-accepted evolutionary mechanisms of change, of which 3-5 are random in nature.



Why does nature need to "want" anything?



If thinking that brings you comfort, why should I dispute it?

I recognize that my "brilliance" is suffering the effects of the Second Law day by day. It does require a great deal of effort to overcome that trend.

Usually when folks are discussing evolution and throw out an expression of "thousands of years" I sorta assume it could just as well be "millions of years". You are technically correct in regard to plants that are "thousands of years old" meaning as a continuous individual specimen. We have some trees that are maybe up to ten thousand years old, and some life forms such as fungi which might be considered older. Obviously, I was speaking of successive generations of plants where seeds are cast and grow later, in some cases perhaps millions of years later. So in the case of plants with well-packaged seeds, even extreme events like ice ages lasting almost a million years, once the ice is gone they will immediately begin growing again.

Unfortunately, lack of sufficient time and slow typing does affect my writing style and the quality of my work generally. And then there is the Second Law still out there that essentially means my efforts will ultimately deteriorate. . . . .just like our reservoirs will all one day be filled with sand instead of water, and all our ditches and fields will one day end up at the bottom of the ocean quite widely dispersed.

But I believe there will still be life even then, folks building reservoirs and making ditches and planting fields and gathering crops to sell or use during the winters. . . . and when our sun burns low and does the great red giant thing, I expect life will be going on somewhere near a new star.

Thanks for your contributions in here OneBrow. I'll be back looking for some more challenges to my thinking. It makes for a better day when I try to develop something I think could be worth considering.

 

[PearlWatson]

You have confused the notion of "useless" with "useless as a flagellum". The actual count is 20 parts, by the way. Just because the other 19 parts can['t make a flagellum doesn't mean those 19 parts have no use at all. In fact, in contemporary bacteria, 18 of those parts are already known to have uses that are not related to being a flagellum. Giving that mixing-and-matching parts almost randomly is a common activity in bacterial genomes, and billion years of history for just one of the other two parts to have possible been used, the creation of the flagellum is not any sort of mirabcle at all. Nick Matzke has gone into considerable detail on one particular pathway for it's creation, but it's hardly the only possibility.

So what if the parts have other uses. This is like saying the Mona Lisa is an accident of nature because paint has other functions. There still is the important step of assembling them all together, at one time, into the Mona Lisa. It doesn't matter if all the mutations happened at one time or over a billion years. All mutations would have to 1) occur randomly 2) be the "most fit" 3) survive long enough to exist at the same time and place, in order to (4) assemble themselves into a working flagellum.

You claim it isn't a miracle, because it is possible that the Mona Lisa could have "almost randomly" grabbed one or 2 paint colors at some point to assemble herself together. I guess that's possible, like it is possible for the galactic ruler Xenu to have brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago, piled them around volcanos, and blew them up with hydrogen bombs, sending their souls flying every which way until they landed on the bodies of living humans, where they still invisibly reside today--as Scientology's L. Ron Hubbard claimed. It's possible!

You aren't a Possibiliac are you? I've only met one so far.

 

[Scat]

The natural direction of energy flow around a black hole (and to a lesser degree, any object of mass) is from dispersion to concentration.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110519113152.htm

The findings offer new support for the favored theory of how dark energy works -- as a constant force, uniformly affecting the universe and propelling its runaway expansion. They contradict an alternate theory, where gravity, not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart. According to this alternate theory, with which the new survey results are not consistent, Albert Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong, and gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive when acting at great distances.

"The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia. Blake is lead author of two papers describing the results that appeared in recent issues of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. "The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed. If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."

Dark energy is thought to dominate our universe, making up about 74 percent of it. Dark matter, a slightly less mysterious substance, accounts for 22 percent. So-called normal matter, anything with atoms, or the stuff that makes up living creatures, planets and stars, is only approximately four percent of the cosmos.

This would seem to indicate that the natural state of the universe is geared towards disorder and everything as we know it is being driven apart, not brought together in an ordered fashion. Your example of a black hole is an anomaly.

 

[PearlWatson]

The Second law of Thermodynamics states that in any closed system, entropy increases and usable energy decreases.

Define entropy.

Which disputes the notion that gravity tends to concentrate matter, how?

Gravity concentrates matter but not in a more orderly state, like the grandma with saggy boobs.

I'm sure it can power something, but there is no power needed to convert water to snow or ice.

So I put ice trays in my freezer for nothing?

"Plants grow to their potential (design) and then deteriorate." So, you didn't really mean it. OK.

I didn't take into account their eternal potential like you did. Maybe you are right that the intelligence force can overcome the entropic or death force and continue life forever.

If you had originally said "part of", I would not have bothered to respond to that point at all, expect to ask you to define a "Darwiniac".

I thought I already defined a Darwiniac as one who refused to accept that Darwin's theory was disproved and turned it into a non-disprovable pseudoscience (Evolutionary biology) and their cult followers.

 

[Scat]

Which disputes the notion that gravity tends to concentrate matter, how?

Gravity concentrates matter.

Not necessarily.

They contradict an alternate theory, where gravity, not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart. According to this alternate theory, with which the new survey results are not consistent, Albert Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong, and gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive when acting at great distances.

 

[babe]

Not necessarily.

I did some research on this point some time ago. There is indeed a problem with the current theory of gravity, an anomaly at extreme distance. And several other anomalies where the predictions based on our present equation/theory seems not to prove to true.

 

[One Brow]

So what if the parts have other uses. This is like saying the Mona Lisa is an accident of nature because paint

Argument from analogy.

There still is the important step of assembling them all together, at one time,

Nick Matzke covered one potential pathway in the link.

1) occur randomly 2) be the "most fit" 3) survive long enough to exist at the same time and place, in order to (4) assemble themselves into a working flagellum.

You only have 2 correct out of 4, there.

Define entropy.

Energy that can't be directed.

Gravity concentrates matter but not in a more orderly state, like the grandma with saggy boobs.

Thank you for acknowledging your misstatement.

So I put ice trays in my freezer for nothing?

In the winter, you can put the ice trays outdoors, and they will freeze.

I didn't take into account their eternal potential like you did.

Thank you for acknowledging your error.

Maybe you are right that the intelligence force can overcome the entropic or death force and continue life forever.

The reason the intelligent force is not a scientific concept is that it is consistent with any possible knowledge. While I personally see no reason to think it exists, there is no proof that could be offered for its non-existence.

I thought I already defined a Darwiniac as one who refused to accept that Darwin's theory was disproved and turned it into a non-disprovable pseudoscience (Evolutionary biology) and their cult followers.

I must have missed that, or forgotten. It's a very curious definition. After all, much of Darwin's work has been repudiated. His thoughts on gemmules, for example. I don't know of any evolutionary biologist who holds to everything Darwin thought. So, I must say that by this definition, there are no Darwiniacs, it's a mythical group.

 

[One Brow]

This would seem to indicate that the natural state of the universe is geared towards disorder and everything as we know it is being driven apart, not brought together in an ordered fashion. Your example of a black hole is an anomaly.

That's a very interesting point, thank you. It would make a black hole a local effect as opposed to a global effect, although I don't know if that makes it an "anomaly". I'll remember that for the future.

 

[sirkickyass]

"You know what's cool about that Darwin guy? When Curious George gets in trouble he always lets him slide."

 

[LogGrad98]

According to the concept of Hawking Radiation, black holes actually radiate energy which conserves entropy.

 

[PearlWatson]

Nick Matzke covered one potential pathway in the link.

Hand waving
If it is possible pathway it hasn't been proven to be.

The reason the intelligent force is not a scientific concept is that it is consistent with any possible knowledge.

LOL! That sentence construction is interesting.

I don't know of any evolutionary biologist who holds to everything Darwin thought. So, I must say that by this definition, there are no Darwiniacs, it's a mythical group.

By that logic there are no Mormons since I don't know one of them who holds to everything Joe Smith thought.

 

[Scat]

Funny that sounds like Obama's plan https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-hikes-obama-budget-2011-2 which is what we need to do.

And Obama's budget plan is a big hit with the senate!! 0-97 Not a single vote for it. That's impressive!!

https://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0511/_7afd0b1d-fd69-4f0b-9fa9-c5e98b5cb77a.html

 

[One Brow]

According to the concept of Hawking Radiation, black holes actually radiate energy which conserves entropy.

I beleive the radiation is from the disk of accrued matter in close orbit, but not below the horizon, and not the black hole itself.

However, I don't think black holes decrease entropy. I was adressing a claim that matter tends to disperse as a consequence of entropy, when matter can actually concentrate while increasing entropy.