HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:15:34 GMT

In article <schinder.712601661@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov> schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>Uhh, I thought plants produced O2 from C02, more than they use in
>respiration (that's why the atmosphere of the earth is polluted with
>O2 and out of equilibrium).  *Eventually* the plant will eat up the
>carbon supply, and I suppose it'll die then.  So?

The point is, that without a cyclical heat supply, you can't drive the cyclical
processes necessary.
>
>>Oh, You can put anything inside the container you want,  plants, animals,
>>microbes, or any device of any kind that you chose.  But that device can
>>not receive any external source of energy except the artificial sunlight.
>>You can even put mirrors to shield part of the system, or to selectively
>>reflect sunlight.  If that system can survive, you will have proven
>>that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to biological systems.
>>(what would that mean?)
>
>You mean that it can vent radiation to the universe?  We're talking
>about a something like a source of (approximately solar) light, and
>the container is permitted to radiate to the night sky, such that the
>radiation balance keeps an approximately earth like temperature inside
>the container (we don't want to kill the plant and animals)?  The
>earth itself is one such system, and things have been living on it for
>about 3 billion years.  I believe that people actually *have*
>constructed such small closed systems trying to learn how to build
>self contained micro ecosystems for spaceflight, although I don't know
>offhand how many years they can survive.
>
>How do you suppose the space shuttle gets rid of its excess heat?  Do
>you know *why* they open the cargo bay doors as soon as possible?

I thought the sun only shone on one side of the shuttle.  The other side
has a heat sink.  Just like the earth.  Unlike my proposed system.

>>The system that I just described is known as a perpetual motion machine
>>of the second kind.  One of the statements of the second law is:
>>"A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is impossible"
>
>Yes, but you can run an engine so long as there's an energy supply.

Not a PMM2 you can't.  People tried for years and years, but they finally
decided that it was impossible.  A PMM2 *DOES* have a heat source, it
just doesn't have a heat sink.

That's why my proposed system will fry - no heat sink.  By the second law
of thermodynamics you cannot convert heat into work without a heat sink.
It is impossible for a plant to continuously convert sunlight into
chemical energy without a heat sink.
As you said - no differential.  It takes a differential to get an energy
flow.  In my system there is no external differential - it is uniform.


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept
Auburn University
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Bob and DNA
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:33:20 GMT

bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:

>Bruce apparetly missed the context of the discussion. I did not denigrate
>emperical science, nor did I insis that evolution be a priori.  The context was
>whether or not evolution makes a priori predictions which make it a better
>theory than creation.  I was discussing whether ther are or are not a priori
>predictions in evolution.  I said nothing at all against emperical science.

	But of course we cannot decide if evolution makes better a priori
predictions than creation in the absence of an emperical body of information.

	Bob, you have also not defined 'a priori' in this context, as far
as I know. Someone has suggested that the sense of this is that phyletic
relations inferred on the basis of anatomy should be found to agree with
sequencing classification. The first principle, the tool of the a priori
process, is similarity. As comparative work is used from first principles
of evolution, which idea you have attempted to debunk with your "gaps"
argument in the past, you can provide only a different logic and no
decisive data for an alternative creationist model. We cannot tell the
difference between the two, by your past arguments, which insist that
because the record of change is not continuous, we cannot know whether
the gaps are real or due to the basic process. The gaps are not part
of the process being due to a myrid of other causes not necessarily part
of the process.

	Lets suppose the whole issue is moot, undecidable, then why do
you lean toward creation? I can guess!

Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:11:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.190130.11647@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu) writes:
>In article <henley.920728071653@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>>W : Work - Energy transfer due to a force acting against an opposing force*.
>>           In the most general sense, work can be described as change.
>>
>>    The opposing force may be such things as friction, electric potential,
>>    gravity, inertia, pressure, etc.
               ^^^^^^^
>>
>>* I have amended my previous definition because "resistance" is too ambiguous.
>
>No.  Work is just the integral of an applied force over distance.  You don't
>need an "opposing" force acting against the first force.  If you accelerate
>a rocket in space free of any other forces over a certain distance, you've
>done work.

If you accelerate a rocket, the only way to do it free of an opposing force
is if the rocket is massless, and thus devoid of *inertia*.  Inertia *is*
the opposing force in this case.  Think about it.  Also, the thrust of the
rocket engines is converted to kinetic energy of the rocket.  Energy
conversion.  To stop the rocket, you will have to do work.  If it lands
nose down on the moon, then that work will be the displacement of lunar
soil, and the deformation of the rocket.  The two forces opposing
the kinetic energy are friction and tensile strength of the rocket.  
Think about it.  *AND* if the rocket and some other object have a perfectly
elastic collision, then no kinetic energy will be lost, ie. no energy 
conversion.  However, the rocket will still have done work in accelerating
the object with which it collides.  If it is a *totally* immovable object,
then the rocket will retain 100% of it's kinetic energy (in a perfectly
elastic collision)
Take some physics.

>
>--
>*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Biogenesis - quick thoughts
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:26:32 GMT

In <9207241746.AA02257@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@NEPTUNE.GSFC.NASA.GOV (James G. Acker) writes:


>	Re:  the biogenesis issue recently raised.  I find biogenesis a
>fascinating topic, and I for one won't be convinced that it hasn't been
>demonstrated experimentally until we let the experiment run for half
>a billion years or so (try and get THAT funded by NSF).

Hmm, maybe NASA would :-)

[stuff deleted]

>	Point two:  Start the argument on first principles.  You have
>already demonstrated that you believe fervently that intelligence
>was required to create life.  Thus, to prove your point, attempt to 
>prove the counter-hypothesis that intelligence was NOT required to create
>life.  When you reach the point that the hypothesis breaks down, i.e. a 
>process which can *only proceed* with interaction with an intelligent
>force, you will disprove your hypothesis and strengthen the case that
>intelligence was required.  Don't be surprised if someone then attempts
>to refute the requirement of intelligent interaction in said process.

This trips on the question is an intellegent being alive (or to put it
more bluntly, is God alive)?  Then how did the first one get started
(i.e. who created God)?

>	Starting point:  I support the idea that life began at undersea
>"warm springs", which had 1) raw materials (trace elements, minerals, etc.);
>2) an input energy source (heat) and the "Goldilocks" environment, not too
>hot and not too cold;  3) protection from sterilizing UV radiation.  
>A "warm spring" would be a good reaction vessel, allowing chemical reactions
>to proceed at increased kinetic rates.

>	First problem:  an abiotic source of carbon.  Where did it come
>from?  Deep mantle source?

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (tons of it there, apparently, now
mostly locked up in rocks).

>	What was the initial chemical form (diamond?  They're hard to
>dissolve.)

CO2 isn't.

>	Take it, guys and gals.

>	Jim Acker
>	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:47:02 GMT

In article <35958@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.172154@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren
Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >
> >  The argument is about the word "exactly" in proposition A.
> 
> "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of
> every sort into the ark."
> 
> I interpret this phrase to mean EXACTLY two.  It is your right to
> argue with this fact, but I must say you would lose the debate
> (unless we had a creationist moderator).

  I will not argue with the fact that you interpret this phrase to mean exactly
two.

  Henly pointed out in a letter to me (is this a breach of netiquette?) that the
the orders may have been to gather two of every animal, then later to gather
seven clean ones and birds.  While this interpretation again ignores your
"exactly" it agrees with the text better than mine.

  While I hate to switch tracks, do you see anything wrong with this line of
reasoning?

> You bring up "clean" vs. "unclean" and call them "inherent" in the
> interpretation.  Maybe there is an inherent "unless you don't like
> the person, of course" in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill."  Or
> maybe there is an inherent "unless you are attracted to her" in the
> commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Each person could
> assume different things are inherent, making the Bible totally
> meaningless.

  You are confusing allegorical with instructional.  There is an inherint in
those by the way.  Is a lie a violation of the ten commandments?  Gee, I wasn't
sworn in in a court of law, so I wasn't bearing false witness, right?

  Throughout the Bible it is necessary to put some form of interpretation on
what is being said.  If you take every word literally your back in the boat
(chuckle) with the creationists.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:24:10 GMT

In the preparation of my FAQ on Thermodynamics and Evolutionary Biology, I
have found some striking parallels to solution thermodynamics.  Before I
complete the FAQ, let me throw out a few idea about analogies.  These
particular analogies are not for the purpose of debunking any evolutionary
theories, but rather an attempt to understand mechanisms such as Genetic
Drift, Narrow Sense Heriditability, Sexual Selection, and Random Mutations
from a microscopic and macroscopic thermodynamics point of view.

First analogy:

Miscibility is the ability of two liquids to form a solution.  There are
systems of complete miscibility - such as ethanol and water, which will remain
in one phase at all concentrations.  There are systems of partial miscibility
- such as butanol and water, that will remain in one phase at high 
concentrations of either butanol or water, but in certain concentrations will
form two separate phases.  Now miscibility seems to be analogous to sexual
selection.  Take dogs.  When you put two breeds of dogs together, the breeds
will interbreed, and you will end up with a composite breed - complete
miscibility.  As far as I know, interbred dogs don't tend to form distinct
breeds by natural sexual selection.  Does anyone have any information on
this?

Second analogy:

What about horses and donkeys?
    It is possible to interbreed the two, but I believe that if they
were allowed to mate by natural sexual selection, you would definitely see
distinct horse and donkey populations.  Most of the offspring of horses and
donkeys are sterile, but a few are not.  Does anyone know what happens when
you mate mules?  Do you get a homogeneous population, or do you see distinct
horse and donkey populations?  If the population is like a partially miscible
system, then you would see populations that were primarily donkey, but with
some horse traits, and a population that was primarily horse, with some
donkey traits.  If it was a completely miscible system, then the population
would be homogeneous.  If you changed the environmental conditions - analogous
to change the temperature and pressure of a solution, then the equilibrium
point should change.  Does anyone have any information on this?


James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Department
Auburn University
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: implies
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:04:56 GMT

In article <henley.920721101411@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
}In article <1992Jul20.192129.22403@javelin.sim.es.com> ronwill@sierra.sim.es.com (Ron Williams) writes:
}>In article <henley.920720115545@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu>, henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
}> 
}>> "But do not forget one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a
}>> thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day."
}>> 
}>> II Peter 3:8  _NIV_
}>> 
}>> James P. Henley Jr.
}>
}>Yea, well, ... so what.  What are you trying to say?  Are you saying that the earth
}>was created over a period of 6000 years?  Add that to the 6000 years of biblical 
}>history and that adds up to 12,000 years.  That still does nothing to explain the 
}>4,000,000,000+ years of the earth's natural history.
}
}Why do I have the feeling that I am going to need to spend the next month
}trying hopelessly to defend myself against all manner of charges about
}what I supposedly said, and what I meant to say, and what I implied, and
}what I insinuated?  Can't you take a simple statement as a simple statement
}without expanding it and twisting it beyond all recognition?
}
}What is the relevance of the verse that I quoted?  I think that it is very
}relevant, because that verse convinced me that the "days" in Genesis were
}not necessarily meant to be 24 hour periods, in other words, evidence that
}"day" could very well be referring to a period of time other than 24 hours.  
}It's that simple.
}
}If you can't accept that, then email me privately and we'll debate what
}my insinuations, interpretations, implications, hidden agendas, and
}motivations were for saying it.  Otherwise cease and desist this insane
}line of attack.

Interesting, but what you are now CLAIMING is your interpretation of what
you quoted, NOT what you said.  Do you always view questions as to what you 
mean as "insane" and a "attack"?  Does the term "paranoia" mean anything
to you?  Is your position so fragile that one question so bothers you?


--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:16:48 GMT

In article <henley.920730124402@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>Actually, the entropy will have increased.  What happened is that the work
>being done by the Sun was chemical.  That increased entropy is in the form
>of chemical entropy.  If the plant does not grow, or reaches a state in
>which it sheds leaves as fast as it grows new one, and there is sufficient
>microbial activity to cause the leaves to decay as fast as they are being
>shed, then you have reached steady state.  As long as you can complete the
>biological food cycle, the system can continue to live.
>
>Try the following experiment:
>
>Take the same sealed container, surround it with artificial sunlight 24 hours
>a day.  The second law of thermodynamics predicts that the plant will not
>be able to survive - you will reach equilibrium, and all internal processes
>will cease.  This should be easy enough to try. 

The plant only needs a heat differential, light comes in at a high energy
(equivalent to 1000K or so), and is then reradiated by the plant into the
air at room tempature. Only if the plant was as hot as the light source
would there be a problem (and plants tend not to like 1000K) :-)

>It is the cycle of energy in at day and energy out at night that drives the
>growth cycle of the plant.  This is a closed system and must obey the 
>second law of thermodynamics for closed systems.

Try it you will be surprised :-)
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Unified gravitation/electromagnetism (was: Re: Worlds in Collision/collusion/confusion)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:25:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.225807.7363@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William
Hopkins) writes:
> As I have done a thourough study on the man's work, I can tell you exactly
> what this is supposed to mean.  He was referring to the existence of a
> heretofore unobserved gravitational-electromagnetic interation that occurs
> in the simultaneous presence of both a large gravitation field and
> electromagnetic field from two bodies.  It's a phenomenon that lies beyond
> the current limits of observation and something that would only be taken
> correctly into account by a UNIFIED theory of gravitation and
electromagnetism.

  Ah, offer a crackpot theory, find a hole in it, and then patch it up with an
even more crackpot theory.  Sounds about par for the course.

> This is, in fact, what initiated the collaboration between Velikovsky and
> Einstein, because towards the end of his life Einstein was so desperately
> seeking anything, any observation or theory, in order to unify these two
fields

  You mean to tell me that Einstein bought into this?!?!?  Who next, Linus
Pauling?

> There was 2 ways to falsify claims of this nature:
> (1) Bring two bodies with both large electromagnetic and gravitational fields
>     together and see if anything unanticipated happens.

  You mean like two pulsars?  Gee, and I thought we had observed that and ended
up with exactly what would have been expected.  Hmmm.
 
***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "It is easier to fight for one's principles than   *
* vonRoeschlaub *   to live up to them." - Alfred Adler               *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Bad predictions of Velikovsky
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:21:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.193144.27530@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:
>In <Worlds in Collision> Immanuel Velikovsky said:
...
>}"The night side of venus radiates heat because Venus is hot"
>} [page 371]
>
>No kidding!  Enough to melt lead on most of the surface.  How much
>do you think an entire world would cool overnight, if it started at
>molten lead temperatures, the atmosphere formed a blanket that
>retained the IR, and there are STRONG winds that redistribute the heat?

I read the source and know it well.  This is what he said in the section
on the temperature distribution of Venus:
------------------------------------------------------------
Current (1950) scholastic debate holds two positions regarding Venus.  First,
on account of the uniform distribution of heat that has been observed on
Venus, one camp holds that Venus must be rotating fast.  Second, on account
of more direct observations, the other holds that Venus is rotating so slowly
that it's probably even locked in sync with its orbit or its relative position
with the Earth.

I propose to reconcile these two observations, on the basis of the worldview
I've advanced, that: (1) Venus does indeed rotate slowly in the manner described
by the second camp, and (2) the uniform distribution of heat exists because
Venus is far hotter than currently believed, and in fact is even incandescent.
------------------------------------------------------------

There is no logical connection between the observation "Venus is hot" and the
rest of the Velikovskian worldview.  It is just an astute reconciliation of the
currently known observations, that just happened to be prompted by his
worldview.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The evolution of sexes
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:16:51 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Bs2E5n.6DC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
|
|I'm in the process of reading the original papers right now.
|
|In my opinion, this is a great theory.  The basic premise is that conflict
|between organelle genomes of different parents will lead to two, and only
|two, sexes in sexual organisms.  This is because zygotes which do not
|have two sets of "competing" organelle genomes will do better than those
|which do - therefore two types of individual will evolve - those which
|donate their organelles and those which do not.  This is a great start
|for anisogamy, and it will always lead to two sexes.

It is certainly true that more than two sexes is almost unknown.
It only occurs in a *few* species of ciliates (where only gene exchange
takes place, then *both* parental individuals reproduce by fission).

|I'm not sure if Hurst & Hamilton (the original authors) deal with those
|sexual eukaryotes which don't have organelles; it would be interesting
|to see what happens there.

I don't think there are any.  The only *eu*karyote I know of without
any organelles is Pelomyxa palustrus.  All others have at least one,
usually several, mitochondria, if not other organelles as well.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com