HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shaw@s119.es.llnl.gov (Henry Shaw 510 423-4645)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:26:05 GMT
Organization: Earth_Sciences_Dept.,_LLNL

In article <712260541@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
|> > From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
|> > Message-ID: <henley.920723165933@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu>
|> > THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS:
|> >     "The entropy S, an extensive* equilibrium property, must always increase
|> >      or remain constant for an isolated system**.  [1, p.187]
|> > [...]
|> > * The units of extensive entropy are energy divided by temperature. The units
|> >   of the intensive property would be energy divided by temperature and mass,
|> >   or divided by temperature and moles.
|> > [...]
|> > **An isolated system is one in which there is no mass or energy transfer
|> >   across system boundaries.
|> 
|> Thanks to James for refining the terminology of "closed system" vs
|> "isolated system".  After reading James' FAQ, we can now definitively
|> say that the second law of thermodynamics only fully applies to isolated
|> systems, and therefore the usual creationist use of the second law is
|> incorrect, since there is manifestly significant energy transfer across
|> the system boundaries of the earth. 
|> 
|> > Heat transfer out is the only means of decreasing system entropy of a
|> > closed system.  For an open system, entropy can be transferred out with
|> > energy transfer out, and with mass transfer out. 
|> 
|> Quite right.  Heat is transfered into the closed system of the earth
|> via (about) 6000 degree blackbody radiation, and out of the system
|> of the earth via "room temperature" blackbody radiation.  That is,
|> the earth as a whole has a 6000 degree heat source, and a room
|> temperature heat sink, thus allowing useful work to be done on the
|> closed system as long as this situation persists.  It is easy to see
|> how to continuously extract work from such a system, or to increase
|> its entropy measure.
|> 

James' definitions are the ones I've seen used in most rigorous thermodynamics texts, but the statement of the 
second law that he uses (The entropy...must always increase or remain constant for an isolated system.) is
more restrictive than it need be.  It would be better to say that "the entropy, an extensive state 
function, must always increase or remain constant for any spontaneous process in an ADIABATIC system.

An adiabatic system is one in which there can be no transfer of mass to/from the system to the rest of the
universe.  Energy, however, *can* be transferred to/from the system, but only in the form of work.  That is, 
there can be no transfer of heat across an adiabatic "wall".

Isolated implies adiabatic, but the converse is not true.

As you point out, the earth is neither an adiabatic nor an isolated system.


-- 
Henry Shaw, Earth Sciences Dept., LLNL |    All opinions are my own.
Internet: shaw4@llnl.gov               |  
CIS: 76347,2523                        |
Fidonet: Henry Shaw at 1:161/55        |
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Origin of Petroleum (was Re: animals predated plants, James)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:39:11 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


  lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	Thomas Gold has proposed that petroleum is produced from the
>remains of bacteria deep within the Earth that feed on methane seeping
>from the Earth's interior. Not surprisingly, he also believes that
>natural gas is not biogenic.
>
>	Any comments about Thomas Gold's theory?


It's my understanding that
results of experiments (drilling) designed by Gold to test
his theory have so far proved indeterminate.

---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 14:08:30 GMT

In <1992Jul24.153605@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:



>  I don't know if that is completely correct.  I know photons have mass, and I
>think neutrinos do too (do they?).  The only non-mass transfer ways of moving
>energy would be through rotation, and gravity.  If the gravitron exists it will
>probably end up having mass too (or would it have negative mass?), and there are
>no gears on the Earth.

Photons have no mass.  You can define an "effective mass" for a photon
by m = E/c^2, but that's pretty pointless.  When a physicist says
"mass" nowadays, he means exclusively rest mass, that mass that a
particle would have in it's rest frame (if any).  (For the more
techinically minded, the rest mass is m^2 = \pm {\bf p}^2, the square
of the four-momemtum, sign depending on which signature you use for
the metric.  Relativists and high energy theorists use opposite
conventions for the sign.)  For a photon, the mass is zero.  Results
of the solar neutrino experiments suggest that the neutrino has a
non-zero mass, but it's very small.  (In the standard Weinberg-Salam
model, the mass of a neutrino is zero.)  The graviton, if the concept
is even useful in quantum gravity, will have zero mass (why?  because
gravity, like the Couloumb force, has infinite range).


>***********************************************************************
>* 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                             *
>***********************************************************************
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:26:40 GMT

In article <henley.920728101600@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu>,
henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:

|>There is no only written history of the first dynasty.  The only written
|>history of the second dynasty is on the back of a turtle shell and was
|>written during the third dynasty. 

|>There are two histories of China, one is the official history, and the
|>other is called the scholar's history.  It is believed that the scholar's
|>history is more accurate.

OK perhaps I should have said History written since by written history
you all seem to insist on stuff written down actualy at the time in
something that is clearly distinguishable as a language.

However just because no contemperaneous written evidence has yet been
found does not mean that the first two dynasties were ficticious nor
does it explain how such a civilisation could have existed without some
form of bookeeping. To draw a biblical analogy it is akin to saying that
because there is no evidence that Joseph existed, that he definitely did
not exist. This is however different from saying that the flood, an
event which would certainly have left evidence did not happen because in
that case the lack of evidence is decisive.

Basicaly the question comes down to two conflicting oral traditions, one
of which is arbitrarily dismissed as ficticious merely because it
conflicts with the other which sets a date for the creation after the
first began. In this context the date 3500 BC starts to look more than
suspiciously concocted to concur with the 4000BC bishop Berkeley date.
Once the mindset is created in which civilisation is claimed to have
risen in the fertile cresent in line with the idea that the biblical
lands are the focus of human development and the rest are barbarians,
the mindset sticks. I see no real reason to doubt the Chineese claim,
who would invent a history which consists mainly of the squabling and
intrigues of concubines? The history if invented just does not make
sense, it's too boring, the urge to pep it up with lots of battles and a
few miracles would surely be overwhelming.

Hopefuly we may soon get a chance to find out. China has not been an
easy country for foreign archeologists to get into at any time this
century. The cultural revolution has set back their own archeology.
Fortunately there is good reason to hope that there are many sites that
have not been destroyed by the amateurism that ruined the early Egyptian
finds. It would be good to start from an acceptance that it is entirely
likely that Chineese history is as old as it claims. If not there are
awkward questions about the likelyhood of man living in caves for a few
tens of thousands of years then suddenly developing two civilisations at
more or less the same time separated by an awfuly long distance.


Phill Hallam-Baker
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah (was: Re: Blah Blah)
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:22:40 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

[stuff about driving forces and thermodynamics in responce to a post about
natural selection deleted]

What the heck does thermo and such concepts as _useful_ work have to do with
natural selection and evolution?!  I don't see how you can make the
connection since they are based on completely different fundamentals.

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             complement."  -Voltaire        |
From: jgacker@NEPTUNE.GSFC.NASA.GOV (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Biogenesis in the warm seafloor spring -- Why?
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:57:34 GMT



	Cuz I might write a book about it.

	And:  the initial statement was that "any fool can see that
life requires a designing (intelligent) force."  (paraphrased)  My
counter-proposal was to state the hypothesis that the creation of
life does NOT require the "touch" of an intelligent force ("intelligent
interaction"), and then seek to prove it.  It should be irrevocably,
peer-reviewably, unmistakably proven that intelligence is required in 
the process.  There is no "threshold" in science  -- though the 
community does experience "paradigm shifts" at times, in which a radical
hypothesis suddenly becomes the accepted hypothesis.

	And regarding biogenesis in the seafloor warm spring, I gave
people a chance to jump ahead.  My mistake.  Here's the steps I have so
far:

	1.  Primordial hot earth.  Atmosphere is reducing, allows transmission
of sterilizing ultraviolet radiation.  Atmosphere also has high levels of 
electrical discharge (similar to Jupiter).

	2.  Water is present on Earth's surface.  Depth is enough to 
shield from UV radiation.
	Question:  I consider UV an important constraint.  Seawater in
oceanographic labs is rendered "organic-free" by exposure to strong UV.
Is this as important as I think it is?

	3.  Due to active tectonics, seafloor springs (similar to mid-
ocean ridge springs in present time) are active.  Some are superheated
and likely too hot for molecule-forming reactions.  Others are "warm" --
invoking Goldilocks rule of "not too hot, not too cold".  Elevated 
temperatures increase reaction kinetics.  Also provides trace metals
and mineral surfaces for catalysis.  Hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) 
present.

	4.  Available carbon sources are carbon dioxide (CO2) and 
methane (CH4).  CO2 is both atmospheric and dissolved in seawater.
CH4 is atmospheric (limited solubility in seawater, I believe).

	5.  (WHERE WE SHOULD BE NOW!!)  Formation of more complex
molecules.  Atmospheric electrical discharge allows formation of:
ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, urea?, other amino acids.  Also short-
chain alkanes (ethane, propane -- how many carbon atoms?)
	NEED HELP HERE!  What other precursors are formed in the
atmospheric process?
	And, what can be formed from available dissolved forms in
seawater in the warm spring?  More ammonia, more sulfur compounds?

	Note:  at some point we'll have to get into specific 
reaction mechanisms to form more complex molecules (I have my 
organic chem text handy).

	Amino acid generic form:  H2NCH-R-COOH
	"Simplest":  H2N-CHCOOH  (glycine)

	Seems to me that in order to form carboxylic and amino acids
from simpler precursors, we need oxygen from somewhere.  Where do 
we get it from?  I.e. was enough present in the primordial atmosphere
or did it come from somewhere else?

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:33:53 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Jul23.115606.202088@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:

> As a born-again Christian, I subscribe to the theory of a young earth
> (6000 to 10000 years old).
>
> Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
> (Stuff on dating methods, dynamic vs. atomic time, etc.)
> Please e-mail or post.

Are you seeking only evidence which might support your young-earth position,
or do you intend also to consider evidence which might point in the opposite
direction?

Or to put it another way, is this a scientific endeavour?

> Does anyone have scientific evidence to support this?
                   ^^^^^^^^^^
Are you attempting:

    (1) to reach conclusions based on all available evidence, or

    (2) to seek that subset of the available evidence which might
        support a prior conclusion?

One of these is science, and one isn't.

> Thanks in advance,
> Anthony Faull.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Elaphants CAN'T gallop, ddamn it!!!  Nor mammoths!!!
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:11:06 GMT

In article <2840@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <712176600.10135@zooid.guild.org*, gecko@zooid.guild.org (GECKO)
writes:
> I intend to put this image out shortly on t.o as a uuencoded .gif image.
> 
> Sue Bishop should understand the following.  If you return this image to
> me email, as an attempt at getting my sysadm pissed off, I will email you
> a copy of the entire King James bible, all 4.7 MB worth.  We'll see whose
> sysadm gets pissed off first.

  Ted, if you are worried about wasting bandwidth why not post it as a .jpg? 
Sure it's lossy, but not so much that the cave painting will suffer, and it
reduces picture size 50%-80% (depending on data and compression rate).

***********************************************************************
* 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                             *
***********************************************************************
From: mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:40:43 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <Bs26H3.GtE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:

>Molecular biologists might do more work in actually proving (i.e. via
>directed mutagenesis) that it is possible for molecules to evolve through
>genetic mistakes, occurring by pure chance.  Creationists hypothesize that
>this is not possible for the same reason my note won't change into an 
>pro-evolution diatribe by dancing my hands over the keys in subsequent
>editions and followups to the note.  

Actually, this has been done; it's easier to do with bacteria, because
(i) they have a very short generation time, and (ii) because you can
grow billions of them in the lab.

>Hypothesis:  a better understanding of gene regulation and developmental
>controls will make today's naive posturings of evolutionism sound like
>"the greatest deceit in the history of science."  [S. L0vtrup, 1987].

Hypothesis: a better understanding of the above will make the task
even easier for evolutionists, and today's naive argument re.:
alleged "impossibility through complexity" collapse.
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:58:53 GMT
Organization: City University, London

In article <14ldcoINNjci@agate.berkeley.edu> utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu
(David M.V. Utidjian) writes:
>Chuck, is the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." a moral absolute?

Can you tell me where this `commandment' is stated please?

>David Utidjian

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Was: Thermodynamics FAQ, Now: Pardon me while I rant.
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:14:21 GMT

Other authors that use "isolated system" as defined by Henley
(I didn't bother with the publishers):

  Alonso/Finn: Fundamental University Physics
    ("isolated system": only used, not defined; no "closed system")
  Haywood: Equilibrium Thermodynamics for Engineers and Scientists
    (no "closed system")
  Mark/Foster: Thermodynamics.  Principles and Applications
    (also "closed system" as defined by Henley)
  Burghardt: Engineering Thermodynamics with Applications ("isolated system"
    not defined, but "closed system" as defined by Henley)

No "closed systems" used in the meaning of "isolated system".
This is interesting.  It seems that the verbal tradition favors "closed
system", while the writers tend to use the other term.

I learned it as "abgeschlossen", which means "closed".  Never heard of any
"isoliertes System".

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Do you ask a Napoleon why it has to be Moscow, of all places?  Do you ask a
Mondrian why one has to paint only in the rectangularly framed primary colours
Red, Blue, and Yellow?  Ah, how all questions are ruined in view of a persuas-
ively recited system of madness! And is there a mortar keeping those systems
together firmer than real or supposed enemies?  -  Robert Gernhardt

Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
From: ajpierce@med.unc.edu (Andrew Pierce)
Subject: Re: Elements for Life was Re: stars & carbon
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:53:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.222842.11808@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>CHNO is it.

   You forgot P.
     -Andy
ajpierce@med.unc.edu
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: where's that darn theory?
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:08:13 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <henley.920728113314@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:

>*NOW* who is doing science?  You?  Or Me?

	Hmm, lets see. I have a theory to defend. It can be modified
or scrapped according to data collected in light of it. It also
generates predictions that can be tested. In addition to having a
clearly defined theory -- I have evidence for it, lots of evidence.
See Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" for starters.

	So, lets see here -- I have the following: a theory and
evidence for it. What do you have, James? 

>James P. Henley Jr.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Missing Ref (was Re: Some answers for Chuck (on e and m)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:52:35 GMT

Oops!  My source for the quote in the previous posting was:

[1] Grier, J. W., and T. Burk.  1992.  Biology of Animal Behavior.
    Mosby, St. Louis:  chap 12.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
From: S.Hill@newcastle.ac.uk (Stuart Hill)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Unified gravitation/electromagnetism (was: Re: Worlds in Collision/collusion/confusion)
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:28:39 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:

>In article <9207201922.AA04327@rod.mitre.org> jmeritt@ROD.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt) writes:
>>}...Worlds in Collision, which claims only the effects to be expected
>>}if a magnetic body like the earth should come very close to another magnetic
>>}body
>>} [page 297]
>>
>>You can't get a lot closer to the gas giants than the Voyager probes did
>>without entering their atmosphere.  Their motions were unaffected by
>>a mystical magnetic field.

>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.

>This is, in fact, what initiated the collaboration between Velikovsky and


What collaboration would this be? References to any joint papers would be
appreciated.


>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

>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.

>    Your comment on the satellite fails this test because the satellits is
>    way too small to have an appreciable field of either type.

>(2) Derive a physically consistent unified field theory and use it to refute
>    the claims made.

There is no need even to examine claims of this nature let alone refute them.
If there are no observations to support them, or a theory to predict them, then
they are mere speculation.
If there is such a theory then I think we need a few equations before we go any
further.

Stuart Hill


shill2ac.ncl.uk
Newcatle University
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
Tyne and Wear
England
Stuart Hill (S.Hill@newcastle.ac.uk),
University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
Newcastle,
England.
Newsgroups: talk.origins