Moriarty-Thims debate (part three)

In debates, the Moriarty-Thims debate (part three), of three parts in total (see also: part one and part two), is shown below:

Debate: part three
The following is thread-to-page conversion re-paste of the debate, which took place in the general discussion forum of the eoht wiki from September 02-19, and is broken up into three approximately 20-page sections, the third part of which is shown below:

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #164
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 11:04 AM EDT
#101: AaronAgassi: “Will Sadi-Carnot propose proper experiments with conditions of falsifiability, in order to discover the range of similar applicability of thermodynamics? Or will he simply wait for the bold denizens of his fabulous future to buckle down on the due diligence?”

All good questions. To give you a synopsis of my overall plan. Back in 2001/2002, this was all just a lose puzzle solving sort of hobby for me (which it still is), but when in the Nov/Dec of 2001 I began to see a bit of clarity on the issue on how the application could be made, I decided to make an attempt at writing up a short 50-article on the presentation (human thermodynamics), for the sake of future generations.

Five-manuscripts, one-book, and one-textbook later, I still have not yet been able to give the rigorous presentation I envisage, being that the topic only becomes more involved the more one gets into it. Chapter 18, entitled Human Thermodynamics (pgs. 653-702), a simple overview chapter, is the only actual published product on human thermodynamics that I have made.

The human chemistry (2007) and human molecule (2008) books were precipitates of the overall effort to write a book or textbook on human thermodynamics, which I have not yet done. The human chemistry textbook, as I came to find, were needed precursor or preliminary foundation, prior to any writing on human thermodynamics could be attempted. In short, prior to these works, there had been no type of presentation of the view that people are human molecules (or chemical species, chemical entities, or whatever name you choose) and that processes such as when two people form a relationship are a purely chemical reactions, no different than when two hydrogen atoms from the dihydrogen molecule. With the EoHT wiki, I am in the process of collecting the numerous references on past work done on human thermodynamics. That is where I am at at the moment.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #165
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 11:06 AM EDT
"I think what we have here is an issue similar to not seeing the forest through the trees, in that Phil cannot see the observable phenomenon through the equations with which he is acquainted with from statistical mechanics.

Entropy is entropy. It is a formulaic way of quantifying heat flow. Heated bodies expand, cooled bodies contract. This called Boerhaave’s law (1720). One expansion, followed by a contraction is called a heat cycle. During this process, the entropy of the body will increase, due to the mathematical result that some of the net heat inputs and outputs will be converted irreversibly into internal system work. These processes and law hold for every system or body in the universe. To argue against this is to argue against natural phenomena.

"...sigh... First, you are also stating that Muschik (comment #99) and Schmitz (#170) cannot "see the forest through the trees".

Second, let's focus on your "observable phenomenon" statement, given that you don't have the grasp of basic physics/mathematics needed to appreciate the arguments.

*What* observable phenomenon?

Has anyone *ever* done an experiment to measure a thermodynamic entropy change caused by cycling a group of people between two arrangements? Or has anyone ever measured the thermodynamic work done by cycling a group of people through a "heat cycle" as you suggest?

Yet again, your argument is: Humans are made of atoms. Therefore they are big molecules. Therefore they behave like any molecule. Therefore all "natural phenomena" (to use your term) that are applicable to small molecules are applicable to big "human molecules". Nonsense.

Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #166
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 11:16 AM EDT
"I don’t see how your attempts to derogate this formulation (which you have never read) can be at all worth anything?
"
I don't need to read beyond the material posted at your Wiki to realise that you have not got the slightest understanding of quantum mechanics and that your "human bonding" "model" is as ludicrous as my satirical micro-bagel model in Comment #112.

Let me quote: "In this direction, human chemical bonds can be studied and modeled from a number of perspectives, such as an "orbital perspective", i.e. tracking the spatial movements of attached people over time on the surface of the earth, an "exchange force" perspective, in which an exchange of particles, which accompanies the interaction and transmits the force, operates, from a "quantum mechanical" perspective, in which quantum inputs or outputs of energy cause jumps in hierarchy location,..."

As I've said before, **anyone** can postulate junk like this. See Comment #112. Note, in particular, the issue of *evidence* raised in that comment.

If you're so convinced you're correct, here's a challenge: submit your work to Nature, Science, Physical Review Letters, Journal of the American Society or any one of the very many peer-reviewed journals that exist etc... and make it open for criticism by your peers. *Anyone* can do as you have done and publish a book of nonsense via a vanity-publishing organisation.

Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #167
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 11:17 AM EDT
#77. Moriarty: “We can of course define an entropy for a distribution function (as a function of probabilities extracted from the distribution function) [and] we can *in principle* write down a **statistical measure** of entropy for a distribution of people but this is not the same as the thermodynamic entropy. To define S, we need to have thermodynamically **accessible** microstates (Boltzmann); [but for students] the microstates aren't thermodynamically accessible.”

And on this logic, you conclude, as stated in your video, that: “you cannot say that a particular arrangement of students has a thermodynamic entropy.”

I guess that this is where we are not seeing eye-to-eye? When I see the above statement (you cannot say that a particular arrangement of students has a thermodynamic entropy), I assume it to be a standalone statement, as though you could put it on the back of T-shirt and it would be correct. In this sense (out the statistical mechanics scheme), your statement becomes incorrect, in that from a thermochemistry point of view, i.e. measures of heats of reactions, heat capacities, temperature, pressure, volume measurements, etc., one can calculate an entropy for any atomic arrangement. A configuration of students in a field, by definition, is an arrangement of students. This is where I think our difficulty on agreement is? Correct me if I am wrong.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #168
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 11:18 AM EDT
"#127: JingChen: “I certainly agree with you that entropy can be used to describe human populations. There are many useful applications.”

Thanks for commenting. Morality seems to have little knowledge how prevalent the use of entropy is in economics (publications coming out at a monthly rate).
"
**Thermodynamic** entropy or **information theory** entropy?

Philip Moriarty
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #169
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 11:19 AM EDT
"Five-manuscripts, one-book, and one-textbook later, "
None of which peer-reviewed.

Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #170
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 11:32 AM EDT
#69: Moriarty: “My argument with you is not that basic thermodynamics is flawed! What's flawed is your remarkable assertion that these principles can be applied to ‘human molecules’.”

As to this comment, I don’t see exactly you are objecting to. If you are objecting to the term “human molecule” being applied to you then that is one thing. Petrologist has commented, for example, in his “why I am not a molecule” thread that he is not a molecule because he has a soul that is under the direction of god? I’m not saying that you have this same view, but objects to the human molecule view tend to be like this.

In 1952, physicist C.G. Darwin, the person who defined “human thermodynamics” as the statistical mechanics study of systems of human molecules’, stated that he is a human molecule, but not a true molecule in that he has a free will owing to the unpredictability of human nature. Specifically: “When I compare human beings to molecules, the reader may feel that this is a bad analogy, because unlike a molecule, a man has free will, which makes his actions unpredictable.”

Hence, again, it is not my “remarkable assertion these principles can be applied to ‘human molecules’.” Correctly, although I stand behind my statements 100%, most of these “remarkable assertions” have been made by others before me. I am simply representing, clarifying and continuing the work in an updated fashion. Thus if you call me a crackpot promoting pseudoscientific drivel, then you are also calling the great English physicist C.G. Darwin, grandson of the great Charles Darwin, a crackpot promoting the same drivel.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #171
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 11:38 AM EDT
#63: Thims: “if you think the second law doesn’t apply to a system of students, then you are floating on a pet theory.”
Moriarty: “when did I ever suggest that I had any difficulty with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?”

I don’t know what to say about this response? It seems we are running in circles. When I press you with the simple question: does the second law govern society?, you will no-doubt give me a run-around answer, e.g. by saying that it is not a simple question, and that you can’t answer it, because it’s too complicated, etc. Right! If this is true, why don’t you quickly thrill be with you acumen as to how (or how not) the second law applies to society?

Obviously, in your opinion, state functions don’t apply. Noting you like for Prigogine, at the very least you could spew out some weak statement to the effect that humans obey the second law in the form of far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures. I know you want to jump on that bandwagon.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #172
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 11:44 AM EDT
" This is where I think our difficulty on agreement is? Correct me if I am wrong.
"
Response to Comment # 186:

Now, at last, you're starting to think instead of throwing links to Wiki pages at me. Good. Let's spend some time working through this. First, my statement "You cannot say that a particular arrangement of students has a thermodynamic entropy" must be taken in context as you say. Yes, students are made of atoms and molecules. Therefore, as bonds break and form as part of different biochemical processes in the body, there are various different reactions, with associated enthalpies and entropies, occuring. One can certainly write down a free energy associated with each of those reactions (and the arrangements of atoms and molecules involved in those reactions). (This is the point that Schmitz makes in Comment #170).

BUT... you can't then simply "scale up" these concepts to think of a human just as a large molecule interacting with other large molecules (i.e. other humans). Simply changing the arrangement of a group of people in a field *does not change the thermodynamic entropy associated with that group of people*. If I take 10 students in a line, move them around so that they are at random positions, and then move them back again in a line, the change in thermodynamic entropy is zero. However, rearranging the molecules within a student's body would certainly not lead to a zero change in thermodynamic entropy.

You can, however, construct a distribution function and, as noted in Comment #11, write down an "information theory" or "statistical" entropy based on that distribution. But that is not the same as a thermodynamic entropy. So, no, it's not correct to say "entropy is entropy" (as you do in a preceding comment). There are very different interpretations of entropy out there. We are focussing on thermodynamic entropy.

Philip Moriarty
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #173
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 11:45 AM EDT
"#63: Thims: “if you think the second law doesn’t apply to a system of students, then you are floating on a pet theory.”
Moriarty: “when did I ever suggest that I had any difficulty with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?”

I don’t know what to say about this response? It seems we are running in circles. When I press you with the simple question: does the second law govern society?, you will no-doubt give me a run-around answer, e.g. by saying that it is not a simple question, and that you can’t answer it, because it’s too complicated, etc. Right! If this is true, why don’t you quickly thrill be with you acumen as to how (or how not) the second law applies to society?

Obviously, in your opinion, state functions don’t apply. Noting you like for Prigogine, at the very least you could spew out some weak statement to the effect that humans obey the second law in the form of far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures. I know you want to jump on that bandwagon.
"
In response to this, see Comment #191.

I have no particular "like" for Prigogine. I'm just aware of his work.

Philip Moriarty
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #174
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 11:47 AM EDT
#38: The problem with Libb's question (second law applies to system of students, yes or no?), as he no doubt knows well, is that it is worded very vaguely. It is ill-advised to answer this type of question with a yes/no response, without taking into account the context. Applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics to life immediately raises important and complex points related to the question of open vs closed systems and equilibrium/non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

Again, similar to my stance in the last post, you seem to be overjoyed with calling any and all applications of thermodynamics to human society by every derogatory term you can think of, but when pressed with the issue yourself, you fumble around with a big: “I Don’t Know?”.

I have more than aptly collected the views available:

http://www.eoht.info/page/HT+pioneers

Such as:

Open system thermodynamic theories (Bertalanffy)
Closed system thermodynamic theories (C.G. Darwin, Kenoun, etc.)
Equilibrium (Gladyshev)
Non-equilibrium (Prigogine)

Why don’t you just pick one, since you can’t seem to be able to think for yourself on this question.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #175
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 12:08 PM EDT
"Again, similar to my stance in the last post, you seem to be overjoyed with calling any and all applications of thermodynamics to human society by every derogatory term you can think of, but when pressed with the issue yourself, you fumble around with a big: “I Don’t Know?”.

I have more than aptly collected the views available:

http://www.eoht.info/page/HT+pioneers

Such as:

Open system thermodynamic theories (Bertalanffy)
Closed system thermodynamic theories (C.G. Darwin, Kenoun, etc.)
Equilibrium (Gladyshev)
Non-equilibrium (Prigogine)

Why don’t you just pick one, since you can’t seem to be able to think for yourself on this question.
"
Again, see Comment #191.

Let's focus on the question of whether changing the arrangement of students in a field gives rise to a change in thermodynamic entropy first. If I haven't lost the will to live by the time we close that particular discussion, then we can get on to questions related to the non-equilibrium thermodynamics of life.

And how is stating that the physics of life "raises important and complex points related to the question of open vs closed systems and equilibrium/non-equilibrium thermodynamics", "[fumbling] around with a big "I don't know"?", as you put it? There is a big, big difference between your "human thermodynamics/human chemistry" nonsense and the field of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

Moreover, believe me, I'm not "overjoyed" about anything related to our argument. Just as was the case for your attempts to ruin a series of Wikipedia articles (see comments above), your Wiki site is full of groundless pseudoscience which will only confuse and mislead those who take your arguments at face-value.

Philip Moriarty
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #176
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 12:11 PM EDT
"Also regarding the human chemical bond, no one before me has even attempted this gargantuan topic, "
Oh, the modesty!

"...no one before me has even attempted this gargantuan topic..."

There could be a very good reason for that....

Philip Moriarty
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #177
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 12:19 PM EDT
" The thermodynamics professor, who invited me to lecture, has my textbook, and in response to Moriarty’s repetitive pleas to terminate the invitation, comments: “I am very glad Libb has accepted my invitation to give a talk in my BioEngineering Thermodynamics course.”

There was no plea to terminate the invitation. Please stop lying. (c.f. Discussion in previous comments of your unsubstantiated claims regarding your pursuit of an MS in Physics,PhD in biochem, and MD in neuroscience).

Philip Moriarty
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #178
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 12:26 PM EDT
"#174 (cont): Phil seems to have a one-track statistical mechanics (the subject of attempts to explain the laws of thermodynamics on mechanical principles) mindset. When one attempts to measure the entropy of a system using statistical mechanics methods, in terms of logarithms of estimations of microstates and distributions, it assumes that the Boltzmann chaos assumption holds (particles have non-correlated velocities). Humans, of course, have correlated velocities, meaning that statistical mechanic methods are of no use here. In this case, one turns to thermochemistry methods to measure entropy, as is the case with all chemical reactions. Sixty-six percent of people believe that love is a purely chemical reaction. All chemical reactions (e.g. rearrangements of bondings of students in their distributions) release or absorb heat. Hence there will be an entropy change for changes in the positions of students and it can be measured."
So I went back and read the comment reproduced above (#176) again.

It's hard to believe that so much nonsense can be encapsulated in so few lines. That Sadi-Carnot would include the line "Sixty-six percent of people believe that love is a purely chemical reaction" as part of his "counter-argument" would be depressing if it weren't so funny.

This is meant to be a scientific debate/discussion/argument and you use a result of a survey to back up your position?

No, enough. I'm not wasting any more time on this nonsense.

Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #179
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 12:29 PM EDT
184: Philip: “Has anyone *ever* done an experiment to measure a thermodynamic entropy change caused by cycling a group of people between two arrangements? Or has anyone ever measured the thermodynamic work done by cycling a group of people through a "heat cycle" as you suggest?”

Thims
in his 16 Apr 2013 lecture: “Human Chemical Thermodynamics: Goethe's Elective Affinities to Human Free Energies”
(see: lectures), at segment 48:30-50:39 (see: videoExternal link icon (c)), at Northern Illinois University College of Engineering, doing the famous 18th century Leiden University volume expansion "ball and ring experiment" to explain "social expansion" (day) and "social contraction" (night), in Carnot cycle terms, in respect to hot body (sun) / cold body (night sky) alternating daily contact of earth-bound social systems (working body), Boerhaave's law, entropy (transformation content) increase, and irreversible changes in Gibbs free energy states of human existence and experience; the human molecule view lecture notes page in the background; illuminated rotating globe to the right.

Occasionally through your many attempts at putdown (e.g. given that you don't have the grasp of basic physics/mathematics needed to appreciate the arguments), you make sensible statements, such as above.

Every single one day of rotation of the earth constitutes one Carnot cycle. Expansion stroke: Heat is added (daytime) to the system (surface of the earth), the particles (human molecules) become active and expand outward, doing work in the process (occupation); contraction stroke: heat is removed (nighttime) from the system (surface of the earth), the particles (human molecules) begin to deactivate expanding inward (towards their bed), doing a reverse work in the process. This is all basic thermodynamics.

The two questions you ask above are at the core of the science of human thermodynamics. These two questions are huge puzzles. French physicist Gustav Hirn, to whose work the term “human thermodynamics” was first used, did the first prototype experiments (measure the mechanical equivalent of heat of humans in action) in the 1860s. The modern experiment measurement of the mechanical work or entropy changes in heat cycles of systems of humans is where the true search is. This is where my theoretical interest is.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #180
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 12:30 PM EDT
#184 (cont): You can go on calling attempts to formulate human activity chemically or thermodynamics as crackpot, pseudoscience, or a “childish” nonsense, and so on, but the astute observer will not that people were saying the same thing to Goethe in 1810 when he was making formulations of affinity (or free energy) applied to human relationships and society, commenting that his “use of the chemical theory is nonsense and childish fooling around" (said by Goethe's fellow author and neighbor Christoph Wieland). Whereas, in retrospect, we now know that Goethe with one of the five highest IQs every assigned to someone was two centuries ahead of his fellowman. Hence, two hundred years from now, when people look back at our conversation, you will be seen in the same light as Goethe’s uneducated neighbor.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #181
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 12:37 PM EDT

"Every single one day of rotation of the earth constitutes one Carnot cycle. Expansion stroke: Heat is added (daytime) to the system (surface of the earth), the particles (human molecules) become active and expand outward, doing work in the process (occupation); contraction stroke: heat is removed (nighttime) from the system (surface of the earth), the particles (human molecules) begin to deactivate expanding inward (towards their bed), doing a reverse work in the process. This is all basic thermodynamics."

Oh, Libb

I'm about to leave the office and, as noted above, I'm walking away from this argument in any case but I couldn't go without saying thank you for the quote above. It'll keep me smiling all the way home. I particularly like the "expanding inward (towards their bed)" line. Brilliant. Douglas Adams would be proud. The logic is on a par with the quote at the foot of this comment (which I'll leave you with).

Goodbye.
Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)

"It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the product of a deranged imagination"
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #182
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 12:44 PM EDT
Regarding #188: Moriarty: “none of which peer-reviewed”.

I have corrected your assertion as to my work having no peer-review (Human Chemistry (textbook))

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #183
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 12:52 PM EDT
"188: Moriarty: “none of which peer-reviewed”.

"I have corrected your assertion as to my work having no peer-review (Human Chemistry (textbook))"

...and who selected the reviewers?

Philip
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #184
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 1:04 PM EDT
It seems that Phil is ready to call it quits, as am I. We will certainly give him credit for resiliency at lasting this long and for having thick skin. The one good comment we got out of Phil is:

“Has anyone *ever* done an experiment to measure a thermodynamic entropy change caused by cycling a group of people between two arrangements? Or has anyone ever measured the thermodynamic work done by cycling a group of people through a "heat cycle" as you suggest?”

It seems that Phil is leaving with the view that everything ever published, by all 230 HT pioneers, on the application of thermodynamics to the understanding of human activity, including the logic that people are molecules, is pure pseudo science. But, on the other hand, Phil seems incapable of explaining to us idiots how thermodynamics should be applied to the study of human activity?

I guess you would call this entire discussion a stalemate?

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #185
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 1:53 PM EDT
Dr Moriarty,

You are the victim of, what we in the US call a 'bald-face lie'.

SC in post #189 that 'Petrologist has commented, for example, in his “why I am not a molecule” thread that he is not a molecule because he has a soul that is under the direction of god? I’m not saying that you have this same view, but objects to the human molecule view tend to be like this.'

Actual statement:

' "Molecule" now brings to the mind a discrete substance (floating about) made of the same number & kinds of atoms, bonded in the same manner. They differ only in the physical properties "isotopic mass' and 'handedness". Geologists use instead "substance", a much more flexible term. Substances react, and classical thermodynamics studies them. Chemical formulae above represent chemical compositions of the human substance.

' My chemical composition changes from minute to minute, and bonds are continuously being broken to create, by reaction or flux, many relatively un-bonded, little objects that we traditionally call "molecules". My teeth, of course, are not made of molecules, but they are crystalline substances. '

Let me make myself crystal clear, again. People know absolutely nothing of any trace of religious belief I might have. I don't have to be religious to defend the separation of church & state, as guaranteed by the American Constitution. Were I religious, I should not have to believe in a 'soul'. Were I to believe in a 'soul', it would (in no major religion) be 'an indestructible corporeal essence'.

P: Do I have a soul? If a soul is something that only God can examine, then that's not a question science is qualified to address. No scientist I know can prod or scratch a soul. (Assuming one exists.) It is not a scientific object or a theory.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #186
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 1:57 PM EDT
Any profile you find is not mine. I deleted mine so it can not again be edited in my absence to state my career began in 1964 with an NSF grant to study 'Human Thermodynamics'.

Unfortunately, the biochemist Linus Pauling is dead; so he will have to remain a chemical engineer who studied fish hooks or something.

Bruce Bathurst, PhD

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #187
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 3:28 PM EDT
"I guess you would call this entire discussion a stalemate?"

Oh, yeah, a "stalemate"! That's the word I was searching for...

Let's ignore all the pseudoscientific nonsense on your website; let's ignore all the comments and unanswered questions above - your complete lack of understanding of thermodynamics is given by a single sentence in Comment #198:

"Every single [one] day of rotation of the Earth constitutes one Carnot cycle...." [Comments #198 and 200].

Leaving aside the rest of the nonsense in that paragraph, a Carnot cycle is an **idealisation** (as I was at pains to explain to my 1st year undergraduate students each year). A Carnot cycle can never exist in the real world. Try reading a 1st year Physics or 1st year Physical Chemistry textbook to find out why.

Yep, a stalemate indeed...

Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)

P.S Oh, and yes, I took the bait...
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #188
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Wednesday, 4:10 PM EDT
"Dr Moriarty,

You are the victim of, what we in the US call a 'bald-face lie'."

Petrologist,

I'm truly shocked. You mean that Sadi-Carnot may not ...always...be...honest?! ...gasp... That Sadi-Carnot might sometimes tell the odd "porkie pie"* or two? Surely not. Who woulda thunk it...? :-)

All the very best,

Philip

* Check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A649 for a translation.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #189
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 6:36 PM EDT
Yes, that stretched Msr Carnot's rubber band of good faith until it snapped. It now lies on my desk, its Carnot cycle spent.

However, I'll offer some more good faith.

Carnot was very well educated in mathematics, though he wrote his only work as simply as possible. He continued the work of his father and hoped to help the new France as he had in the Army Engineers.

Carnot abstracted the steam engine until the steam was no longer needed; in fact, his engine used air. What is hypothetical is not the substance used, which can be anything, but the engine itself--the cycles of processes; isothermal heating, adiabatic expansion, isothermal cooling, adiabatic compression. Substances don't naturally take these exact paths. If one did, no engine could be more efficient than it.

So, the sun rises, the radiation heats the air (its temperature rises), alarms clocks sound, people scatter, doing work. As the sun sets, the air cools by radiation to space (its temperature drops), factory alarms sound, people crawl into bed together as the pressure of work was too much.

No other but this cycle can cause people to work more efficiently. (Sounds more like Fritz Lang's Metropolis to me.) Where, exactly, does Carnot fit in?

Bruce Bathurst
Tired & Retired
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #190
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 7:48 PM EDT
Re: Moriarty’s question: whoever said that state functions (U, S, G) apply to systems of human molecules, the answer seems to have been English-born American chemical engineer William Fairburn in 1914. Fairburn, in addition to stating that human chemical elements could be classified by their relative affinities (or Gibbs free energy, modern sense), seems to be the first to have stated that an interactive system of humans, e.g. a group of factory workers, is system of reactive chemical entities (humans), and on this basis speculates on how one would go about classifying reactive humans modeled as elements or chemicals. He reasons:

“A classification based on their relative electricity or relative energy or enthusiasm would not of itself help us much, for misapplied energy and wasteful application of human forces are common. The classification of entropy, referring to temperature changes which can be likened to coolness, passion, explosiveness and frigidity, are all interesting but of themselves prove little.”

In 1894, Polish political scientist Leon Winiarski, a student of French-Italian engineer Vilfredo Pareto, one of the first to conceive of people as "human molecules", was also one of the first to defined human social systems explicitly in terms of “energy” and “entropy”:

Prior to this, certainly Goethe, in 1809 (Goethe's human chemistry) was the first to state that humans were reactive chemical entities and that people’s movements or reactions to each other were governed by elective affinities, which equates to enthalpy and entropy governance, H – TS, in a modern 1882 formulation sense. Goethe’s entire presentation is simply genius.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #191
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 8:01 PM EDT
To represent telosx, i.e. thermodynamic economist Peter Pogany, I just received his 2006 thermodynamics-based economics book Rethinking the World, wherein he defines society via energy and entropy determinants, on Monday. One of his excellent opening quotes is:

“Accumulated knowledge suggests that humans are billions of highly evolved, overgrown super-molecules (or ‘intensely conscious mice’?) that swarm in ever larger numbers on a piece of rock that wobbles, spins, revolves, and soars into nothingness at break-neck speed with an agitated, burning furnace in its interior.”

Here we see that Pogany is an intelligent person as compared to hypocrites such as Moriarty, who deny that the science they teach applies to them.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #192
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 8:20 PM EDT
“Accumulated knowledge suggests that humans are billions of highly evolved, overgrown super-molecules (or ‘intensely conscious mice’?) that swarm in ever larger numbers on a piece of rock that wobbles, spins, revolves, and soars into nothingness at break-neck speed with an agitated, burning furnace in its interior.”

'Moderately conscious mice, I think. Unfortunately, this also proves there is no external reality, on which Immanuel Kant could place his feet.

Well, I'm not a hypocrite, and the most important theorem in my doctoral dissertation was proved using only determinant theory. It was even declared wrong by the USGS (much to M. Kruskal's roaring laughter.)

Objects as determinants usually arise from using old-fashioned determinant theory to symbolically solve an underdetermined, homogeneous system of linear equations. In my case, it was the easiest way. I'd be pleased to help interpret them for people.

What about the Fritz cycle?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #193
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 8:27 PM EDT
As to the origin or inspiration behind Pogany’s excellent quote, and his bracketed mention of mice, the quote seems to come from American physical chemist Martin Goldstein and his 1993 section “The Entropy of a Mouse” from his book The Refrigerator and the Universe (listed in Pogany’s bibliography), in which Goldstein explains how to calculate the entropy of a mouse. Goldstein’s basic premise is that to determine the entropy of larger living entities, such as people or mice, one must “be able to determine the energies and entropies of everything present initially and of everything present in the final state”, i.e. of each “before” and “after” reaction step starting with simple chemical substances, through evolution, upward to the formation of larger organisms. He states that approximations will be needed to estimate the energies and entropies of the states in the “assembly of these larger molecules”, but that this should not deter attempts at estimation.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #194
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 8:28 PM EDT
The basic methodology, according to Goldstein, as established in physical chemistry, is to determine the entropies of structures relative to a reference state (92 naturally occurring elements, at STP), and to measure the heat released or absorbed, at a measured temperature, in approximately reversible reactions steps, where by the change in entropy ΔS for the process is simply the heat absorbed (or released) divided by the absolute temperature at which the process is carried out: ΔS = Q/T, which equates to Sfinal – Sinitial of the two reaction states.

Hence, given a hypothetical human reaction, such as a group of students released (initial state) into a playground for one hour (final state), it is simply a matter to measure the heat released or absorbed in the process of the reaction at the ambient temperature of the day. The heat of two kids fighting on the playground is one such heat. Anyone who denies this logic is an idiot. The measurement of these heats is the difficult part. Heat in a modern sense is quantified in terms of movements of the particles of the system, humans in this case, and their valence shell photon-electron interactions.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #195
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 8:54 PM EDT
In case anyone missed American chemical engineer Andrew Morrow’s thread: A proper dichotomy, he states that “as of 2006, I now engage my fellow human being as thus: You are a mosaic of atoms with a mind.” Here’s his Sept 06, 2009 video on his new molecular philosophy:

I’m glad to see that someone in this site has a sensible view and is confident enough to grasp and embrace the logic of modern science. I’m guessing that his ability to grasp the logic of molecular philosophy, is something that only, primarily, chemical engineers and physical chemists can see, being that both professions are well-schooled in chemical thermodynamics?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #196
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 9:03 PM EDT
To Lambert and Moriarty: if the two of you would spend less time doing background checks on my education and where I've been invited to give presentations (e.g. Russian Academy of Sciences, MIT, Harvard, Joint European Thermodynamics Conference, UIC, etc.) and more time thinking about the content of the discussion, you might actually learn something?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #197
Aaron Agassi 75AaronAgassi (Aaron AgassiExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 9:24 PM EDT
"#101: AaronAgassi: “Will Sadi-Carnot propose proper experiments with conditions of falsifiability, in order to discover the range of similar applicability of Thermodynamics? Or will he simply wait for the bold denizens of his fabulous future to buckle down on the due diligence?”

All good questions. To give you a synopsis of my overall plan. Back in 2001/2002, this was all just a lose puzzle solving sort of hobby for me (which it still is), but when in the Nov/Dec of 2001 I began to see a bit of clarity on the issue on how the application could be made, I decided to make an attempt at writing up a short 50-article on the presentation (human thermodynamics), for the sake of future generations.

Five-manuscripts, one-book, and one-textbook later, I still have not yet been able to give the rigorous presentation I envisage, being that the topic only becomes more involved the more one gets into it. Chapter 18, entitled Human Thermodynamics (pgs. 653-702), a simple overview chapter, is the only actual published product on human thermodynamics that I have made.

The human chemistry (2007) and human molecule (2008) books were precipitates of the overall effort to write a book or textbook on human thermodynamics, which I have not yet done. The human chemistry textbook, as I came to find, were needed precursor or preliminary foundation, prior to any writing on human thermodynamics could be attempted. In short, prior to these works, there had been no type of presentation of the view that people are human molecules (or chemical species, chemical entities, or whatever name you choose) and that processes such as when two people form a relationship are a purely chemical reactions, no different than when two hydrogen atoms from the dihydrogen molecule. With the EoHT wiki, I am in the process of collecting the numerous references on past work done on human thermodynamics. That is where I am at at the moment.
"
Where's the falsifiability?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #198
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 9:28 PM EDT
To Moriarty, regarding your wholesome savior Frank Lambert, what have you to say about Lambert’s 1968 article on the thermodynamic ontology of evil, wherein he argues that there are two thermodynamic aspects of evil: one involving an unwarranted disruption or disordering of an individual’s dynamic pattern of life and thought and the other involving a crystallizing or excessive ordering of life, which Lambert exemplifies by the Nazi organization and ordering of prisoners in death camps. Lambert, supposedly, thermodynamically views human activity as “a plateau of high free energy maintained between the two opposing tendencies of order and disorder” (section: 12-3: Entropy and Evil, pg. 327-28, of G. Tyler Miller’s 1971 Energetics, Kinetics, and Life).

So, it seems that your favorite entropy reference, Frank Lambert, also believes that state functions, such as free energy and entropy, apply to human society. Is he going to be spared the rod or is he now, in your view, a pseudoscientific drivel-pushing idiot like me?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #199
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 9:31 PM EDT
Sorry, the above post was by me. (I keep forgetting my registration was canceled.)

Though I thought I was a geologist, not an idiot, I'm having trouble with 'their valence shell photon-electron interactions'. I think 'valence' was before my time. Is that the old-fashioned term for a sunburn?

Bruce Bathurst (biological machine, sans soul)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #200
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 9:39 PM EDT
' I’m glad to see that someone in this site has a sensible view and is confident enough to grasp and embrace the logic of modern science.'

Thank you.

' I’m guessing that his ability to grasp the logic of molecular philosophy, is something that only, primarily, chemical engineers and physical chemists can see, being that both professions are well-schooled in chemical thermodynamics? '

Yes. That is undoubtedly the problem. However, Princeton taught me graduate chemical engineering thermodynamics: why wasn't I schooled in the logic of molecular philosophy? Was it my low-quality tutors, as AA tells me?

Bruce Bathurst
Who doesn't like fibs told about him
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #201
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 9:46 PM EDT
Valence is short for outer orbital electrons, the ones that are weekly bonded to an atom and molecule, and can thus change positions, up or down in orbital. According to Feynman, and his 1985 view of QED (quantum electrodynamics), the theory of the interaction of light and (valence) electrons: “describes all the phenomena of the physical world except the gravitational effect”. In his view, life or biology is moving towards a chemical interpretation, and the theory behind chemistry is quantum electrodynamics. (pg. 8, QED, Feynman). In short, it is relatively easy to explain all human movement in terms of the interactions of valence shell electrons with the surrounding photon fields of the environement.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #202
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Wednesday, 9:51 PM EDT
To BB, that comment regarding sensible view, was more directed at PM, not you. At least you had the initiative enough to start a "Why I am not a molecule thread" and to make sensible objections to the human molecular view.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #203
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 10:35 PM EDT
Thank you. Because I never learned quantum electrodynamics, I shall (of course) take you word for everything about it. I knew that use of 'valence' couldn't have anything to do with Lewis's 1912 valence-bond theory.

Bruce Bathurst

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #204
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 10:47 PM EDT
'At least you had the initiative enough to start a "Why I am not a molecule thread" and to make sensible objections to the human molecular view.'

Please, you needn't be so effusive in your apology, which I humbly accept. Glad you liked my apparently extreme religious, Church of the Iron Apocolypse, view; the one you believe I proselytized.

Bruce Bathurst, PhD
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #205
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 11:17 PM EDT
Unfortunately this debate has turned into character assassination instead of focusing on the subject of debate. In my view, the subject of this debate is difficult; if it was easy a consensus would have been reached earlier. Let us not forget that early thinkers started explaining the world around them by speculating and engaging in philosophical debates. Later scientific methods replaced the old methods but never stopped the scientists and thinkers from engaging in philosophical debates, particularly when they found themselves at the boundaries of existing knowledge. Should we abandon some of the fields of human knowledge like psychology, social science because we cannot write equations to prove or disprove our hypothesis in these fields? Do we know on the circuit level what happens in the brain when it receives stimuli and why a particular output is produced? Not yet. But we can learn something about its operation, simply, by observing its outputs and its relation to its inputs. We take that even if we lack the knowledge to tackle the problem at neuron and circuit level. Today, such debates exist at the highest level of our scientific communities. There are community of physicist who are determinists (like
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #206
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 11:18 PM EDT
Einstein) who have doubts about quantum mechanics and the principle of uncertainty. Is M-Theory all correct? It may just be a mathematical adventure built on a wrong premise and certainly not measurable by humans that their cognitive ability cannot surpass three dimensional world much less eleven dimensional world. Why science ends up in philosophical debates, is exactly this: When measurement becomes impossible, when new technologies are not matured enough to build sophisticated equipment to put our hypothesis to test and terminate the debates once and for all. When scientists and thinkers find themselves at the boundaries of knowledge pertaining to their time, the insatiable hunger to know more forces them to turn to philosophy and express their views even if they know they cannot back their claims. Should we stop them from philosophizing? Of course not. Any idea should be welcomed. Isn’t it that through the accumulation of all and variety of ideas that eventually a
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #207
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 11:20 PM EDT
genius opens the door to the reality and the true science? Remember Boltzmann, no one believed in him. He was humiliated to a point that he could not stand it and committed suicide. Today, he is placed on the top of the list of geniuses. One of the qualities of a good scientist is to have doubts and to reexamine his scientific views and pursue what he believes that would lead him to the truth and let others do the same in their own way. If the foundation of a theory is wrong, sooner or later, it will hit the wall, produce nothing, and believe it or not, proving a hypothesis wrong, in itself, is a scientific achievement. Again, I am not taking side with anyone in this debate only trying to help make it more constructive and less personal.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #208
Aaron Agassi 75AaronAgassi (Aaron AgassiExternal link icon (c))
Wednesday, 11:30 PM EDT
"To Moriarty, regarding your wholesome savior Frank Lambert, what have you to say about Lambert’s 1968 article on the thermodynamic ontology of evil, wherein he argues that there are two thermodynamic aspects of evil: one involving an unwarranted disruption or disordering of an individual’s dynamic pattern of life and thought and the other involving a crystallizing or excessive ordering of life, which Lambert exemplifies by the Nazi organization and ordering of prisoners in death camps. Lambert, supposedly, thermodynamically views human activity as “a plateau of high free energy maintained between the two opposing tendencies of order and disorder” (section: 12-3: Entropy and Evil, pg. 327-28, of G. Tyler Miller’s 1971 Energetics, Kinetics, and Life).

So, it seems that your favorite entropy reference, Frank Lambert, also believes that state functions, such as free energy and entropy, apply to human society. Is he going to be spared the rod or is he now, in your view, a pseudoscientific drivel-pushing idiot like me?
"
He was, no doubt, speaking coloquially, and I'd be surprised if he actually attemped quantification.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #209
Aaron Agassi 75AaronAgassi (Aaron AgassiExternal link icon (c))
Thursday, 3:57 AM EDT
Disregard previous. A normal person would speak so of Bazi evil, roughly, metaphorically, A crank would beat it to death.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #210
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Thursday, 10:06 AM EDT
Unfortunately this debate has turned into character assassination instead of focusing on the subject of debate. In my view,

Yes. Please stop it. I've had to write many posts making it clear that I don't believe 'molecule' is a good term for the Earth or for people because this gives them properties they don't possess. You, out of the blue, have attributed it to my being a religious fanatic; and you have refused to apologize. I'm not part of your debate, just a victim of circumstances. I have not accused you of believing something you dont; but your write of my worship of the Sun god 'Ra' blinding me to the truth. Please stop assassinating my character.

Bruce Bathurst, PhD
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #211
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Thursday, 10:32 AM EDT
' Should we abandon some of the fields of human knowledge like psychology, social science because we cannot write equations to prove or disprove our hypothesis in these fields? '

Many of my friends, even after my Master's in geology, were shocked that I going to pursue a science. They were philosophers, psychologists, & sociologists, and they were sure I was going to integrate theology with these fields, mythology, parables, fairy tales, and folklore in general. Some didn't know I was a scientist.

C.P. Snow's division of academia into two camps does not apply to everyone. However, I noticed you earlier had a speech that similarly sounded prepared earlier, in which you force-fit me into a simplistic generality. I was just a pawn for your speech, as I am this one. People are not rational: logicians are rational. To live a healthy, balanced life, perhaps one should distinguish each: hot have science eat all or religion eat all. Bilingual people move between countries, and speak one language at a time; mixing the two, as must be done in Switzerland or the Alsace, damages both.

Neither pseudoscience nor scientism benefits a science or any humanity. A respect for why we distinguish between them, and the belief that neither is superior to the other, does. IMHO.

Bruce
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #212
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Thursday, 11:42 AM EDT
Bruce, it is not my intention to offend you (or for that matter anyone in this discussion). A well-known rule of polite conversation: is to never talk about religion, politics, or money, we are talking about all three here, thus many are going to be offended.

I very much appreciate your points about soul in the context of people being made of atoms. To state the facts, approximately 72% of people adhere to this theory. Likewise, approximately 57% of people adhere to the theory that they are a giant molecule. The two theories, at the moment, are not congruent. This is a huge project from someone in the future.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #213
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Thursday, 11:43 AM EDT
Regarding name and properties, even in the context of Lehn’s 1995 supramolecular chemistry, one gets into naming issues. Grunwald’s chapter “Thermodynamic Components and Molecular Species, of his 1997 book Thermodynamics of Molecular Species, spends a good deal of time discussing naming issues. He defines a molecular species as “a macroscopic or near-macroscopic ensemble of molecules that are characterized by a definite molecular formula, a definite and distinctive equilibrium geometry, and a distinctive set of molecular modes of motion and spectral properties.” This is one good definition, among others.

When an atomic structure gets to a certain size, in the protein-to-virus range, structural atomic turnover rates become a factor in what to call such a structure. To put the human scenario in context, the sun can also be defined as a “molecule” (sun molecule) as can the milky-way, and so on. There are certain factors to be worked out on this point of view, but it leads to interesting conclusions, such as that the attachment between the sun molecule and the earth molecule, as to the earth molecule to the human molecule, as to the human molecule to human molecules, are pure chemical bonds, meaning that gravity is function of chemistry (or an modified type of chemical bond).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #214
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Thursday, 11:45 AM EDT
You drew me back one last time with your “stalemate” bait, but no more.

It’s interesting just how many parallels there are between your position and that of a creationist arguing that their nonsensical pseudoscience should also be taken seriously. Re. your recent comment:- It is not up to me to explain the non-equilibrium thermodynamics of life to you. It is up to you to defend your “theories” and your position. You have singularly failed to do so. So, no, it’s not a stalemate. Arguing that I haven’t explained the non-equilibrium thermodynamics of life to you, entirely misses the point and is, as I say, nothing less than what I’d expect a creationist to say under similar circumstances. Ironic that you don’t appreciate this when you’ve put unwarranted allegations re. a supposed religious bias to me in the past. (Incidentally, to say that that particular allegation irritated me would be understating the case immensely. I’m Irish so I tend to pepper my conversation with a large number of expletives. I’ll not write down what I said to myself when you made that particular unfounded allegation.)

And given that you even don’t understand what a Carnot cycle is (Thermodynamics 101), it’d be a monumental task to explain non-equilibrium thermodynamics to you in any case, wouldn’t it?

And on the subject of Petrologist’s recent comment at the website: either leave the pages you’ve put together on me alone or remove them now. I’ll check back periodically because I don’t trust you. (I’ve downloaded and archived the pages of our debate/argument, by the way, because I also don’t trust you not to modify that).

From now on I’ll leave it up to readers of your website (of which I hope there’ll be very few) to ascertain whether our argument ended in a stalemate.

Good bye.

Philip Moriarty,
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #215
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Thursday, 11:53 AM EDT
"You drew me back one last time with your “stalemate” bait, but no more....

....From now on I’ll leave it up to readers of your website (of which I hope there’ll be very few) to ascertain whether our argument ended in a stalemate.

Good bye.

Philip Moriarty,
"
Thank you for posting this e-mail which was sent to your personal e-mail account. If I had wanted to post it here, I would have done so. I have not posted a single one of the e-mails you have sent me (to my personal e-mail account) to a public forum and would not do so without asking you first. Why do you not show me the same courtesy? (Not that I don;t stand behind everything I've written in that message).

Note the penultimate line regarding trust. Your are entirely untrustworthy, dishonest, and disingenuous.

Despicable behaviour.

Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #216
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Thursday, 11:58 AM EDT
At long last, Moriarty has shown us his weakness. In his last email (above), he states: “Arguing that I haven’t explained the non-equilibrium thermodynamics of life to you, entirely misses the point.” I, however, only asked him to explain how thermodynamics governs human society or existence. His insertion of the sub-field “non-equilibrium”, signifies (for those who don’t know), that he is an adherent to the anthropomorphic doctrines of Prigoginean thermodynamics:

In short, Moriarty believes that he is an evolved type of Benard’s cell, formed after several bifurcations. Oh how many-a-physicist will open a paper with the statement: “life as a far-from-equilibrium dissipative structure …”
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #217
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Thursday, 12:00 PM EDT
Moriarty, in case you didn't know, rule #1 in life is: "You can't trust anyone!"
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #218
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Thursday, 12:02 PM EDT
"Thank you for posting this e-mail which was sent to your personal e-mail account. If I had wanted to post it here, I would have done so. I have not posted a single one of the e-mails you have sent me (to my personal e-mail account) to a public forum and would not do so without asking you first. Why do you not show me the same courtesy? (Not that I don;t stand behind everything I've written in that message).

Note the penultimate line regarding trust. Your are entirely untrustworthy, dishonest, and disingenuous.

Despicable behaviour.

Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)
"
Apologies. That should of course be "You are entirely untrustworthy, dishonest, and disingenuous" in the previous comment (rather than "Your are..."

Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)

P.S. Did you ask any of the other people whose e-mails you have reproduced here whether it was OK to do so...?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #219
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Thursday, 12:05 PM EDT
"Moriarty, in case you didn't know, rule #1 in life is: "You can't trust anyone!""
No, I can trust many people. In fact, without trust, my life would be terribly and awfully barren.

Your "You can't trust anyone!" comment, and your story at your "Eytymology of Libb Thims" web page actually make me feel rather sorry for you.

Goodbye.

Philip (Moriarty)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #220
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Thursday, 12:45 PM EDT
"No, I can trust many people. In fact, without trust, my life would be terribly and awfully barren.

Your "You can't trust anyone!" comment, and your story at your "Eytymology of Libb Thims" web page actually make me feel rather sorry for you.

Goodbye.

Philip (Moriarty)"
So struck by your dishonesty, Libb/Sadi, I'm putting typographical errors everywhere.

That should, of course, be "Etymology of Libb Thims" in Comment #240.

Philip Moriarty

P.S. Could someone please explain the difference between equilibrium and non-equilibrium to Sadi/Libb in my absence? Thanks.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #221
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Thursday, 1:03 PM EDT
Thank you for finally addressing 'Why I am not a Molecule'. One of the advantages of writing your own books is that you can select your vocabulary, so long as it makes sense. My personal classification of sciences differs from the traditional; but this difference is inconsequential.

My personal definition of physical science is one in which the objects of study are identical. Gravity, light, quarks, electrons, isotopes of elements, & molecules are identical. A 'molecular species' is a homogeneous molecule, as H2O (liquid) or NaCl (xtal). The only physical sciences are physics & chemistry.

Natural science studies natural objects that are not equal, but equivalent: they have some properties in common, but not all: seas, continents, birds, people (studied biologically), stars, fossils.

Suns differ in many properties. Sol's many properties change continuously, in a chaotic manner. It is, in my definition, a natural object.

Though my classification differs from others, the meaning of its objects are consistent with current scientific theory.

No suns are molecules or molecular species. Their compositions change among one another, and Sol's properties change internally too much, in a continuously chaotic manner.

You may call a sun a molecule; but then you cannot apply current theories of molecules to one. This is a fact, not a theory or opinion.

Bruce Bathurst, PhD
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #222
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Thursday, 1:39 PM EDT
SC: 'A well-known rule of polite conversation: is to never talk about religion, politics, or money, we are talking about all three here, thus many are going to be offended.'

Please speak for yourself. Religion is all over your website, which is why I asked if you were referring to a 'soul', earlier (since yours can be weighed & scratched). Also, I didn't know Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many Hindus worship the Sun god 'Ra'.

SC 'I very much appreciate your points about soul in the context of people being made of atoms. To state the facts, approximately 72% of people adhere to this theory.'

Excuse me? I'm sorry, but I truly don't understand. What theory? My only point I've made about the soul is that, in major religions, it is incorporeal, not observable by everyone, and thus not a scientific object. Is anyone else offended by this?

P: 'Let me make myself crystal clear, again. People know absolutely nothing of any trace of religious belief I might have. I don't have to be religious to defend the separation of church & state, as guaranteed by the American Constitution. Were I religious, I should not have to believe in a 'soul'. Were I to believe in a 'soul', it would (in no major religion) be 'an indestructible corporeal essence'.

Remember, the Buddha lectured that there is a soul to those who did not believe in one; and lectured that there is no soul to those who did believe in one. This is just a fact.

Bruce

PS. There is no religious opinion here, so where is the politics and money?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #223
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Thursday, 2:13 PM EDT
My view is that one's writing about his views long enough does not make them worthy of discussion.

You are apparently wanting to change a paradigm, as Newtonian mechanics was changed by Einstein. Einstein didn't set out to do this: it came as a result of normal science discovering & exploring paradoxes. All I can suggest is that you study a branch of science extremely well, then attack the most difficult, scientific problems.

It is likely you will discover new theorems in the present theory (as I did in thermodynamics). You would be very luck to create a new theory. (What I'm working on is a recasting of an old one.) Granites have been measured to be very viscous, yet paper-thin layers are found in schists & gneisses. I do have an hypothesis that explains this and many other unexplained phenomena in granites; but I've yet to test it, which may take years. I expect it to fail.

Each theorem of thermodynamics I proved in three different ways*, then tested at least three different predictions. Finally I model each mathematically, calculating my models to 15 decimal places. Only when my predictions proved accurate to 15 decimals places did I mention I had a theorem to anyone. This is the care some scientists take in offering new ideas.

You can't set out to revolutionize science. It is usually a fortuitous accident.

Bruce

*When writing a Masters thesis, I would perform mathematical calculations all day. The second day, I would repeat these, without looking at the first. If they didn't agree, I would repeat the calculations on the third day, see which it agreed with, then find the error in the spurious set of sheets.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #224
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 6:00 AM EDT
Equilibrium. WARNING: This is a personal explanation, which avoids any mention of 'reversible paths'. Hence, anyone is welcome to fix it.

Dr Moriarty wrote that he wished there were some comments, probably on Carnot's cycle, that explained equilibrium. My post had necessary conditions of a Carnot cycle, but not sufficient. I have a problem with reversible paths and equilibrium that has alienated me from other geologists. However, I'm in good company, with Fermi, Reiss, Katchalsky & Curran.

Pippard takes a very abstract view, and first proves the existence of adiabatic surfaces. Carnot is much more beautiful, I feel; and proves this existence by 'interpretation': building a thermally insulated cylinder & piston, with the 'valves' end either open or closed, at constant, hot temperature T2. Fermi best illustrates the cycle of isothermal expansion, adiabatic expansion, isothermal compression, then adiabatic compression.

It's important to remember that the operation used to measure heat flow is conductivity times a temperature gradient. So, when the closed cylinder at T2 is placed on a reservoir at T2, & the piston slowly moves outward to do work, we mean this: the piston is moved slowly enough that the heat it extracts from the T2 reservoir creates a T-gradient in it that we can't observe. It's traditional to specify no thermal gradient in the reservoir, slowing the piston to quasi-static (zero speed). Clearly this has conceptual problems: the gradient T2 - T1 must just be very measurable compared to the thermal gradient in the reservoir. Now the cylinder is placed on a thermal insulator and expanded until the temperature drops to T1. To be continued ...
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #225
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 6:02 AM EDT
Equilibrium, continued ...

The heat absorbed by the cylinder has been Q in. As it slowly compresses isothermally at T2, then adiabatically to T2 (a cycle), heat Q out diffuses out the bottom slowly enough to not create a measurable gradiant in the reservoir T2. The net heat absorbed during the cycle was Q in - Q out = W, so Q in - Q out / Q in = 1 - heat lost, ranges from 1 to 0. Any faster movement of the piston will reduce T2, reducing T2 - T1, reducing Q in, W, and the efficiency.

During the entire cyclic path of the piston, at maximal efficiency, the entire fluid in the cylinder has been (at any moment) at equilibrium. :-)

Warning: No chemist, physicist, or other geologist is responsible for (or would likely touch) this definition.

Bruce Bathurst, PhD

Refs

Carnot, S. 1824. Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu et sur les machines propres a développer cette puissance. Paris: Chez Bachelier, Libraire, Quai des Augustins, No 55. (Engl. trans. R.H. Thurston, 1960, London: Constable & Co, Ltd.

Bridgman, P.W. 1932. The Logic of Modern Physics. NY: Macmillan.

Fermi, E. 1936. Thermodynamics. London: Constable & Co, Ltd.

Denbigh, K. 1955. The Principles of Chemical Equilibrium with Applications in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Pippard, A.B. 1957. The Elements of Classical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.

Reiss, H. 1965. Methods of Thermodynamics. London: Constable & Co, Ltd.

Katchalsky, A. & P.F. Curran, 1975. Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics in Biophysics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ Press.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #225
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 6:06 AM EDT
It's very late, so I take no responsibility whatever for any horrible blunders in the above (except avoiding reversible and 'quasi-static'. It simply sounded good in my head. :-)
Bruce
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #226
Aaron Agassi 75AaronAgassi (Aaron AgassiExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 10:16 AM EDT
"Thank you for finally addressing 'Why I am not a Molecule'. One of the advantages of writing your own books is that you can select your vocabulary, so long as it makes sense. My personal classification of sciences differs from the traditional; but this difference is inconsequential.

My personal definition of physical science is one in which the objects of study are identical. Gravity, light, quarks, electrons, isotopes of elements, & molecules are identical. A 'molecular species' is a homogeneous molecule, as H2O (liquid) or NaCl (xtal). The only physical sciences are physics & chemistry.

Natural science studies natural objects that are not equal, but equivalent: they have some properties in common, but not all: seas, continents, birds, people (studied biologically), stars, fossils.

Suns differ in many properties. Sol's many properties change continuously, in a chaotic manner. It is, in my definition, a natural object. Though my classification differs from others, the meaning of its objects are consistent with current scientific theory. No suns are molecules or molecular species. Their compositions change among one another, and Sol's properties change internally too much, in a continuously chaotic manner. You may call a sun a molecule; but then you cannot apply current theories of molecules to one. This is a fact, not a theory or opinion.

What is a fact? What foes the word even mean? When I realized that I actually do not know, I stopped using the word: 'fact.' More at: http://www.FoolQuest.com/metaphysics_for_dummies.htm#fact Therefore, I would classify your closing remark: "You may call a sun a molecule; but then you cannot apply current theories of molecules to one." -as an uncontroversial assertion, extremely well supported by massive invariantly consistent corroborating observation and the body of current science. I would even venture that what you say is all true, meaning correspondent to reality. Any doubt is surly as small as it ever becomes.

And Bruce, when you say that current theories of molecules cannot be applied in describing a star (though made of molecules, of course), you mean that theories of molecules cannot be applied directly and wholesale. -That only analogy is possible, and the question will be, when metaphor begins to break down. Indeed, you have named specific non molecular behaviors of stars. And bearing that in mind, it is then incumbent upon Sadi-Carnot to qualify his hypotheses, and explain application of molecular theories to macro-objects such as stars, let alone humanity.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #227
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 11:49 AM EDT
In the positivist spirit, the 'stuff' of science are 'operations': one observes a property or phenomenon objectively, so everyone (who isn't hallucinating) will agree. That quartz & orthoclase touch one another in granite is an observation and a fact.

Facts are accepted by everyone (during a scientific investigation) without dispute. However, facts are more than physical observations.

In statistical mechanics, the motion of molecules can be classed as either translations, rotations, or vibrations. This is a fact to those who have studied this subject. (No plasma flows.) Everyone agrees the theory uses this requirement, which is why:

'You may call a sun a molecule; but then you cannot apply current theories of molecules to one. This is a fact, not a theory or opinion.

No analogies here, I think; just properties.

Bruce Bathurst
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #228
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 12:22 PM EDT
What is of more interest (to me) is restating theorems in terms of real operations (no isolated systems--which no one can observe, no ideal gasses, no internal energy, no reservoirs, &c). By requiring that the hypothetical reservoir be a real reservoir, it requires a temperature gradient & thermal conduction. By juggling these two quantities of the reservoir and those in the material of the engine, I appear to have slithered past reversibility when defining 'equilibrium'. (There is a very good reason for wanting to do this: the Carnot cycle can be the traditional mathematical concept: a hypothetical cycle (that occurs 'infinitely' slowly), as presented in Pippard; or it can be more (a real concept for which I was exiled).

Carnot's cycle, by the way, defines both the Kelvin & Clausius concepts of entropy, and can be used to create the concept of absolute temperature. (I didn't have time.) Fermi's is the simplest treatment, and is also the most carefully phrased.

Should you find a mistake, remember that one Yale professor began each of his courses in thermodynamics with the Carnot cycle, got it wrong each time, and reportedly always had to repeat his lecture correctly on the second day. That would be Willard Gibbs. (Carnot's simple-appearing paper was true genius. :-)

Also note that Carnot's paper had errors, but these were easily fixed. Mr Thims' errors would be inconsequential, if they could be easily fixed.

Bruce Bathurst
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #229
Aaron Agassi 75AaronAgassi (Aaron AgassiExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 1:03 PM EDT
As in my entry for 'fact' in my 'Metaphysics for Dummies,' at http://www.FoolQuest.com/metaphysics_for_dummies.htm#fact , in science "facts" are indeed, repeatable observations or claims thereto. But then you bring in the problem of personalities and multiple obverses, drawing upon, as if complementary or consistent, an entirely different usage of the word 'fact,' as articles of consensus, as within a scientific community. And these are simply not the same things. And if you have troubled to read my entry for 'fact' in my 'Metaphysics for Dummies,' then you know how it only gets worse.

Ultimately, you have demonstrated my point that there is neither consistent observation nor consensus upon the meaning in usage of the very word: 'fact.' And so, in blithe unawares confusion, even self contradiction and denial, you continue in bypassing, exchange which is not genuine communication because it lacks sufficient intersubjectivity and does not carry at all the same meanings or even purpose, intention or point at all between participants.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #230
Aaron Agassi 75AaronAgassi (Aaron AgassiExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 1:06 PM EDT
(continued)

I conjecture, etiologically, that all the above is symptomatic of Justificationism on your part. It can be cured.

That one cannot directly or literally apply current theories of molecules to macro objects such as suns or people, is, indeed, an assertion. Assertions are Ontological statements concerning objective reality, such as employ the verb: to be. Tautologically, all assertions are both opinion and claim to truth. The assertion of your in question, Bruce, is, however, utterly and unassailably valid inference from current science, indeed both extremely non controversial and extremely well Empirically supported.

Again, Sadi-Carnot's crank error here is the logical falsity of unrestrained argument from analogy, as if to assert that because cranberries are red and edible, red fire engines must be yummy too! -For example, with the perfectly allowable observation of Brownian motion in crowds of students in confined space, to the confident hope of who knows what more in prediction, indeed ignoring all of the complex non particle like human behavior. From observed similarities, better defined conjecture of unobserved similarities, ought to be followed up far more cautiously.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #231
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 3:33 PM EDT
Why are you writing here? Is it to help me remedy my poor 'communication skills', as you claim? Are you such an authority on classical thermodynamics that your 'conjecture' is of value?

I use simple language, and an 'assertion' I use as a statement that I'm yet to provide justification for. I felt the simple motion necessary to be a molecule, a necessary axiom in statistical mechanics, already justified my statement. Because 'true' is thin truth, it is true that stars will not obey the behavior that current chemical theory predicts of molecules; but it is a fact that stars fail the definition of a molecule given in these theories.

Why are you writing? Why are you using metaphysical jargon? This is a website about chemical engineering. Drawing upon operationalism and logical positivism, I choose my words more carefully than many. In fact, I collect dictionaries & study clarity of expression. My words, should I publish a monograph, will first be defined in standard English, not metaphysical jargon.

Though I have studied the logical positivists, I consider their early opinion of metaphysics extreme. It is possible, however, I could change my mind.

Fortunately, deriving equilibrium from Carnot's cycle completes my obligation here.

Bruce Bathurst
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #232
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Friday, 4:00 PM EDT
In case any random person happens to read to the end of this discussion, I will recap: On August 04, 2009, Irish physicist Philip Moriarty, a professor of thermal physics for six years, made the following statement on video, supposedly in efforts to teach people what entropy is:

“You cannot say that a particular arrangement of students has a thermodynamic entropy.”

Certainly we commend people in their aims to educate the world. If, however, what one teaches is incorrect, then it is possible that one is doing more harm than good. The above statement is an example of incorrect teaching. The only structures (or arrangements) in the universe that do not have a thermodynamic entropy, are pure solids or a pure liquids at 0 K. Baring an absence of temperature, one can define a thermodynamic entropy for any arrangement in the universe. The logic behind this is what is called the third law of thermodynamics.

I started this thread to see exactly just how many people think the above statement (by Moriarty) is true. Somehow the thread veered far off topic. Whatever the case, some of the discussion certainly was food for thought.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #233
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Friday, 5:14 PM EDT
"You cannot say that a particular arrangement of students has a thermodynamic entropy."
Yes, Libb, you're correct - I do say that. But you've taken the statement entirely out of context. Check out the video at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av8aDFFtSs0&feature=channel_page

to see the statement in its correct context.

See also Comments #7, #99, and #206. Before attempting to lecture on the 3rd law, Libb, let's get the 2nd law sorted out. Have you worked out yet why the Carnot cycle can only ever be an idealisation?

In addition, why don't you explain to us why you think Muschik (Comment #99) has got it wrong?

Philip Moriarty

www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano
www.youtube.com/sixtysymbols

P.S. As I've explained to you before, I'm not a professor of thermal physics. However, given that trustworthiness - and, by extension, honesty - are not qualities you value in scientific debate, it's not surprising that you'd assert this again. You provide a link to my staff page at the University of Nottingham elsewhere at this site. Do me the courtesy of reading that page. Thank you.

PPS It becomes clearer and clearer why Wikipedia banned you from editing articles because of your habit of "misrepresenting sources".
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #234
Frank Lambert 75Anonymous (Frank Lambert)
Friday, 5:46 PM EDT
Thims, you probably have a copy of the gen chem text you used at Michigan in 1994. Check it. I’ll send $20 to your account if it has any conceptual definition of entropy other than something to do with “disorder”. Kistiakowsky never dealt with a qualitative concept for entropy. He taught about entropy as did most physical chemists of the 20th century: “Do enough problems and you will understand entropy.”

This is not true. You will be able to do problems, but you will NOT understand entropy. I sweated on a myriad of problems and got a B in the course – which was not at all bad l considering that only three of us in the class of some 24 were undergrads. But neither I in 1942 or brilliant Thims in ’94 or later _understood what entropy WAS_. That’s why I wrote some articles that were foolish up until about 1970; they were based on ANALOGY to the meaning of entropy as an increase in “disorder” of ANY kind.

Frank L. Lambert
Professor Emeritus
Occidental College
Los Angeles, CA 90041
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #235
Frank Lambert 75Anonymous (Frank Lambert)
Friday, 5:56 PM EDT
But, lucky to live long – that Thims appears to consider a defect in my character – I also spent months in thinking deeply (not just superficially reading masses of material as does Thims), and writing peer-reviewed articles in first-rank journals. That is why I have been successful in developing an approach for any level of chemists. It has been accepted by so many chemistry texts (with 45 authors) because of its merit alone . (entropysite.oxy.edu).

Thims, sadly, is stuck in the 20th century foolishness of endless analogies of entropy with “disorder” -- and the impossibility of converting that to math certainty. Feggedaboud it!

Entropy is the concept in science that traditionally has been most frequently misused and misinterpreted -- primarily because of its supposed connection with "disorder" of every type imaginable. Nonsense. Check entropysite.oxy.edu

Frank L. Lambert
Professor Emeritus
Occidental College
Los Angeles, CA 90041
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #236
Aaron Agassi 75AaronAgassi (Aaron AgassiExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 6:07 PM EDT
All hypothesis begins from unfounded conjecture, only then followed if at all, by critical preference and only then with Empirical evidentiary support. Bruce, you poor thing, there is no such thing as prior justification, nor need thereof. You ask me why I apply terminology from the philosophy of science in the Epistemological Methodological examination of matters of scientific method. Isn't that somewhat like demanding why algebra is referenced in Mathematics? And haven't I already gone into all of this on my 'Metaphysics for Dummies,' at http://www.FoolQuest.com/metaphysics_for_dummies.htm ? And lastly, what in Hell has logical positivism got to do with anything?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #237
Aaron Agassi 75AaronAgassi (Aaron AgassiExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 7:39 PM EDT
http://plato.stanford.edu/about.html

Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up to date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/

The Vienna Circle was a group of early twentieth-century philosophers who sought to reconceptualize empiricism by means of their interpretation of then recent advances in the physical and formal sciences. Their radically anti-metaphysical stance was supported by an empiricist criterion of meaning and a broadly logicist conception of mathematics. They denied that any principle or claim was synthetic a priori.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Let us briefly examine an example of the strong form of the thesis that metaphysics is impossible. The logical positivists maintained that the meaning of a (non-analytic) statement consisted entirely in the predictions it made about possible experience. They maintained, further, that metaphysical statements (which were obviously not put forward as analytic truths) made no predictions about experience. Therefore, they concluded, metaphysical statements are meaningless—or, better, the ‘statements’ we classify as metaphysical are not really statements at all: they are things that look like statements but aren't, rather as mannequins are things that look like human beings but aren't.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #238
Aaron Agassi 75AaronAgassi (Aaron AgassiExternal link icon (c))
Friday, 8:57 PM EDT
Straw.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #239
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Friday, 9:02 PM EDT
Frank, why don't you give us a photo for your article? Either email it to me (libbthims@gmail.com), and I will format it, or edit your article and add it using the upload button? All of these articles are for future generations. I would ask the same of Phil, but I guess he dosen't what his photo in his article, as he removed the last one I put there?
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #240
Frank Lambert 75Anonymous (Frank Lambert)
Yesterday, 1:33 AM EDT
I'll send one instantly – and not a fake photo – if you let me edit your calumnious page of me and of energy dispersal.

I have no concern about "future generations" noting or remembering your material, but it would be nice if your writing about me were a bit more in touch with reality.. I play with you only because of occasional boredom -- but I am genuinely curious: What was your gen chem text in 1994? Did you use Atkins in phys chem? Didn’t you ever wonder why they connected entropy with “disorder”?

Frank L. Lambert
Professor Emeritus
Occidental College
Los Angeles, CA 90041
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #241
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Yesterday, 4:06 AM EDT
"Equilibrium, continued ...

The heat absorbed by the cylinder has been Q in. As it slowly compresses isothermally at T2, then adiabatically to T2 (a cycle), heat Q out diffuses out the bottom slowly enough to not create a measurable gradiant in the reservoir T2. The net heat absorbed during the cycle was Q in - Q out = W, so Q in - Q out / Q in = 1 - heat lost, ranges from 1 to 0. Any faster movement of the piston will reduce T2, reducing T2 - T1, reducing Q in, W, and the efficiency.

During the entire cyclic path of the piston, at maximal efficiency, the entire fluid in the cylinder has been (at any moment) at equilibrium. :-) Warning: No chemist, physicist, or other geologist is responsible for (or would likely touch) this definition.

Bruce Bathurst, PhD

Refs

Carnot, S. 1824. Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu et sur les machines propres a développer cette puissance. Paris: Chez Bachelier, Libraire, Quai des Augustins, No 55. (Engl. trans. R.H. Thurston, 1960, London: Constable & Co, Ltd.
Bridgman, P.W. 1932. The Logic of Modern Physics. NY: Macmillan.
Fermi, E. 1936. Thermodynamics. London: Constable & Co, Ltd.
Denbigh, K. 1955. The Principles of Chemical Equilibrium with Applications in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.
Pippard, A.B. 1957. The Elements of Classical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.
Reiss, H. 1965. Methods of Thermodynamics. London: Constable & Co, Ltd.
Katchalsky, A. & P.F. Curran, 1975. Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics in Biophysics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ Press.
"
You should have a look into more modern litterature: A reversible process is defined as trajectory in the equilibrium subspace. They do not exist in nature. They are not connected to so-called quasi-static processes. Equilibrium is defined by the equilibrium variables spanning the equilibrium subspace
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #242
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Yesterday, 5:32 AM EDT
Dr Moriarty, I presume. (You should identify yourself.)

This derivation was Carnot's, with ideas borrowed from Fermi & Bridgman. I should appreciate your fixing it! I was unaware that old ideas were necessarily wrong, sorry. (I though Carnot's only errors were, ironically, the use of the earlier caloric theory.)

This derivation I made my own, so (comparing two different cycles between equal temperatures) the cycle with an efficiency of 1 would contain a material that is always at equilibrium. I thought you requested equilibrium.

You may, if you wish, call the section on, say, a p,V-plane a reversible path. This takes little extra effort. For reasons that are irrelevant, I choose not to.' In my obsolete library, 'reversible process', 'quasi-static process', and 'equilibrium process' (mainly Russian) are almost always synonymous. (Paths, not processes, are important to you.)

Please offer correct references. What space contains an equilibrium subspace? That is out of my league. I'm comfortable, however, with differential geometry.

Unfortunately, I have been bedridden for a decade and am poverty stricken. However, My goal is to walk to a research library, only four blocks away. Sorry I confused the explanation, but it was a late, first draft. :-) Thank you very much for the better references!

Bruce Bathurst, PhD
Geologist
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #243
Philip Moriarty 75Anonymous (Philip Moriarty)
Yesterday, 10:25 AM EDT
Re. #265: No, Comment #264 is not mine. I usually identify myself - I think I've only forgotten to do so once or twice. [By the way, the terms quasi-static and reversible are certainly not synonymous].

Re. #262: No, Libb, I didn't remove a photo of myself at any point from your website.

And finally, to Libb/Sadi-Carnot: I've stated a few times before that I was going to leave this debate/argument and then got drawn back in. It's the start of the new academic year here next week so I really am going to draw a line under this. It's a shame that the debate descended into acrimony and I regret my "hot-headedness" at times but, to be fair, it's difficult to debate with someone who can be so blatantly disingenuous. (You've admitted above that trustworthiness is not a quality for which you have any time).

There is no question that your knowledge of the historical development of the field of thermodynamics is better than mine. Your human thermodynamics "theory" is, however, pure pseudoscience. I know that sounds harsh but the best way to counter my (and many others') criticisms is not to spend your time on this website but rather to **submit your work to peer-reviewed journals**. (And I mean proper *anonymous* peer-review.) That is what any scientist has to do today. It's no longer the 18th/19th Century.

Subject your work to rigorous peer-review. Let experts in the field of thermodynamics (and I'm certainly not one) comment in detail on your work. Any scientist welcomes rigorous and intelligent peer-review. Although it can be frustrating at times(!), it helps us to strengthen our work against criticism. Instead of ignoring the issues raised above (e.g. comment #99, the Carnot cycle question, comment #64, #112 etc...), tackle them head on.

Best wishes,

Philip Moriarty (www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/research/nano)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #244
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Yesterday, 10:39 AM EDT
"Dr Moriarty, I presume. (You should identify yourself.)

This derivation was Carnot's, with ideas borrowed from Fermi & Bridgman. I should appreciate your fixing it! I was unaware that old ideas were necessarily wrong, sorry. (I though Carnot's only errors were, ironically, the use of the earlier caloric theory.)

This derivation I made my own, so (comparing two different cycles between equal temperatures) the cycle with an efficiency of 1 would contain a material that is always at equilibrium. I thought you requested equilibrium.

You may, if you wish, call the section on, say, a p,V-plane a reversible path. This takes little extra effort. For reasons that are irrelevant, I choose not to.' In my obsolete library, 'reversible process', 'quasi-static process', and 'equilibrium process' (mainly Russian) are almost always synonymous. (Paths, not processes, are important to you.)

Please offer correct references. What space contains an equilibrium subspace? That is out of my league. I'm comfortable, however, with differential geometry.

Unfortunately, I have been bedridden for a decade and am poverty stricken. However, My goal is to walk to a research library, only four blocks away. Sorry I confused the explanation, but it was a late, first draft. :-) Thank you very much for the better references!

Bruce Bathurst, PhD
Geologist "
You will receive better references the middle next week. ThermoSyst.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #245
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Yesterday, 12:51 PM EDT
Yes, do send a photo. To note, there are no fake photos on this site. And yes feel free to edit your articles (please, however, don’t delete the historical background to how you came about your theory, etc.). We would be glad to have you join the site, as I’m sure you will have references (unknown to me) that you could add to articles.

Re: chemistry textbooks, although I’m sure we’ve been through this before at Wikipedia, my 1990 Ebbing General Chemistry and 1998 Chang Chemistry both define entropy as a measure of randomness or disorder. The entropy disorder definition comes predominantly from Planck (1901): principle of elementary disorder. Planck needed Boltzmann’s views on disorder to substantiate his quantum hypothesis.

Another chemistry textbook in my 1,100+ book personal science library, Pauling’s 1969 General Chemistry, however, defines entropy via S = k ln W, I started the article for the symbol W.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #246
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Yesterday, 12:51 PM EDT
Noting your penchant for entropy definitions, you might like to help us make a chronological table (year-by-year) of entropy definitions. I can set up the page and table if you want and you can past in the definitions and references? It might end up looking like the symbols table. The following entropy etymology page is a prototype example. Myself, I am slowly building a thermodynamics (chronology) definition table, to see how the definitions of thermodynamics have changed over the last 160-years.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #247
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Yesterday, 12:52 PM EDT
Regarding Muschik’s comments: “From a thermodynamical point of view, the procedure is clear: If one has a distribution (that means some items must be distributed), you can define a not necessarily thermodynamic entropy (if it is thermodynamic or not, depends on the items which are distributed).

If one additionally can define an energy belonging to the set of the distributed items, one can define a temperature by differentiating the entropy to this energy. Then one can call the set of the distributed items a thermodynamical one (if you want).

Let us consider a set of students having different heights. Then one can introduce a distribution function describing the distribution of the different heights spanning the R1. The one can define an entropy (information measure). But because there no energy belonging to the considered set of students, you cannot define a temperature and this set of students does not represent a thermodynamical system (as we knew that from the very beginning).”

Moriarty requests that I explain this statement. Muschik is mixing together apples (student heights) and oranges (heat flow) together in efforts to make a vegetable conclusion.

Statistical mechanics (a mechanical principles view of the first two laws) is a subfield of thermodynamics. Talking about distribution is simply an ideal gas way of looking at entropy. The true way to discuss entropy is in talking about the equivalence value of all uncompensated transformations, which applies to all systems.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #248
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Yesterday, 12:52 PM EDT
Moriarty: “Have you worked out yet why the Carnot cycle can only ever be an idealisation?”

I really don’t know why he is asking this question, but I suppose reversibility is puzzling issue for many who are thrust through a thermodynamics class without really getting the inside scoop.

The short answer is that Carnot borrowed the Lavoisier heat model in presenting his theoretical heat cycle. Hence to understand Carnot’s cycle, you actually have read the first 20-pages of Lavoisier’s 1787 Elements of Chemistry, to understand Carnot’s mindset, wherein Lavoisier explains his geometric understanding of equilibrio in the caloric. Part of this is explained here.

In short, in explaining his cycle, Carnot assumed (in an unwritten manner) a Papin engine cycle in conjunction with the Lavoisier heat particle model, whereby in the expansion phase (stroke) you would put in, say, 10 caloric particles, and in the contraction phase (stroke) you would remove the exact same 10 caloric particles, after which the ‘working body’, typically steam, would return to the exact same atomic configuration. This was the central issue that Clausius had with Carnot, a result of which was thermodynamics.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #249
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Yesterday, 12:53 PM EDT
To Bruce Bathurst: regarding your eoht user page, there’s no conspiracy here, people joint this site monthly, and to help me keep track of who they are (e.g. Bruce Bathurst, PhD work in thermodynamics, = Petrologist), I tend to add a note or two on their user page (if they don’t). On yours I simple pasted parts of what were on your public Wikipedia page, which I linked to. In the future, I suppose, I will try to be clear about this to new joiners.

To Philip Moriarty: regarding assertions of mis-trust, general protocol suggests that scientific correspondence tends to be open for discussion. The famous demon of thermodynamics, for example, came from the letters of correspondence of James Maxwell and Peter Tait in 1867.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #250
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Yesterday, 12:54 PM EDT
Here’s a 2006 article/study that came to mind today, regarding actual distributions of students in various high school cafeterias, sage grouse distributions in leks (mating fields), rats in connected but boundaried fields, in the context of Van der Waals 1910 discussions on the connection between degree of associations of gas molecules when transitioning into the liquid and solid states and state functions:

http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/RP/Cafeteria-Densities.html

Specifically, in conclusion of his 1910 Nobel Lecture he reasons that the connection between the Gibbs free energy equation, the degree of association between molecules, and the development of a state equation needed to exactly define the state of a molecular system exists, and suggests that ‘perhaps there is a direct way’.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #251
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
Yesterday, 12:54 PM EDT
It seems that both Moriarty and myself are ready to end this discussion, as he has classes starting, and I have other matters to attend to. I think, from the statements in #255 and #256, that we are all in agreement that every structure or arrangement in the universe (including a group of students), above absolute zero, has a thermodynamic entropy. Hence, if anyone else has off-topic questions or concerns, please start a new thread, on a different page (or in the discussion forum) as this one is getting too long to follow and keep track of. Thanks, Libb.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #252
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Yesterday, 1:46 PM EDT
That's very kind. Books, treatises, & papers before 1990 I've likely consumed. Then all stopped. Write bathurst@alumni.princeton.edu should I not be here. Could you give me an initial idea why this sketchy definition of equilibrium is wrong. It's on that point I differed with other geologists, who confused it with, well, absolute zero.

My own research uses historical papers in geology to motivate axioms, dfns, & theorems in a thermodynamic interpretation of linear geometries. Linear subspaces & their annihilators play major roles. Equilibrium is both local and 'moving' (as in the Carnot cycle)--its this that offends geologists. Was that your objection as well? Only Fermi, Riess, & Katchalsky & Curran (& Rice, in a monograph) take me unacceptable view. So, what linear space are you referring to? Thanks!

Bruce
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #253
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Yesterday, 3:28 PM EDT
Msr Carnot,

Sorry, but I thought your comparing the diurnal cycle with Carnot's was just accident. I left out many important things in my posts, for reasons of space, but it wasn't incorrect (well ... I didn't proof-read them :-).

Though my father was an iron-worker, an engine is not a metal device but a thermodynamic cycle, one that converts heat to work or work to heat (refrigerator). The Carnot cycle is very efficient, usually converting all heat to work. This violates the second law of thermodynamics. To do this, it takes forever. Its efficiency makes it hypothetical. (Note I'm avoiding the word 'reversible' again. Bridgman, at least, would appreciate this.)

The Carnot cycle is made of four paths; the diurnal cycle isn't. The Carnot cycle is hypothetical: if real, it would violate the 2d Law of Thermodynamics. The Carnot cycle takes forever, not one day. For any of these reasons, a diurnal cycle can't be a Carnot cycle.

We should note some other errors. 'Caloric' was just a corporeal heat; but it was 'vaporous', not particulate. Carnot's cylinder was closed at all times. Carnot's engine could produce more work than any other, both acting between the same two temperatures. In the 'contraction stroke', the 10 heat units would expand the piston, doing the equivalent of 10 heat units of work (and dropping toward the lower temperature). Your engine has efficiency 0.

Your last paragraph, the one of substance, is a great problem for you. What is the 'exact same atomic configuration'? (Even Carnot suggested that heat was the movement of atomic or molecular particles.) His working substances (air, then steam) would return to the same temperature. Even violating the 2d Law, the the same temperature would be an uncountable number of changing molecular configurations, never 'the exact same'.

Bruce Bathurst, PhD
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #254
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Yesterday, 3:34 PM EDT
Msr Carnot,

You'll be pleased to know your views on sociological entropy, with reference to Human Thermodynamics, is well represented in the 'Entropy' article in the Wikipedia.

Bruce B.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #255
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Yesterday, 3:38 PM EDT
Msr Carnot,

Thank you. However, I checked the Wikipedia. It doesn't state there that I studied 'Human Thermodynamics' in the 1960s. Admittedly, what you initially wrote & told me of didn't contain this. It was only by accident later that I checked my profile and found this had been added later without telling me.

Bruce
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #256
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Yesterday, 4:17 PM EDT
Everyone,

I'll end my participation here with one of the consequences of the similarity between Human Thermodynamics and creationism that I noted. (Similarity in their consequences to society.) It is hopeless to convince someone that their scientific theory or field of study is wrong if they have confused 'truth' and 'thin truth', confusing science, philosophy, and religion. I'm not arguing here, just reminding everyone that the good scientist welcomes kind correction. New, important theories sometimes follow a realization of ignorance. Thermodynamics, about every ten year, I realize I don't understand at all. I then totally rebuild it in my mind, resulting in a better understanding. (About three months ago I had such an epiphany. Is 'my' classical thermodynamics, at its deepest level, a physical theory or an interpretation of a mathematical theory? Physical is winning, so far.) The point of this post is that a change of viewpoint can only occur when both people debating maintain a good, scientific philosophy.

Goodbye.

Bruce Bathurst, PhD

PS. Personal integrity, to me, means that one's conscious mind is integrated with one's ethical, unconscious mind.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #257
Person icon 75Petrologist (Bruce BathurstExternal link icon (c))
Yesterday, 4:30 PM EDT
PM: [By the way, the terms quasi-static and reversible are certainly not synonymous].

Indeed, thanks. Such terminology has not always been presented well. Reversible paths are not possible, but reversible processes are (for we can externally guide these back). Quasi-static can move or not. Bridgman believed one could use only efficiency in classical thermodynamics, and avoid all these terms. I tried that on Carnot's cycle.

Bruce Bathurst
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Comment #258
Thims 75Sadi-Carnot (Libb Thims)
17 minutes ago
To end this discussion on a positive note, here’s a nice article, which I found today, by Indian chemist Surya Pati about two weeks ago entitled “The Thermodynamics of Human Bond”, wherein he uses entropy to explain human relationships as chemical reactions:

I will know lock the thread, so that we can all move on to something else. Enjoy!

Continued
Moriarty-Thims debate (part one)
Moriarty-Thims debate (part two)

See also
Rossini debate
What is entropy debate
TDics icon ns

More pages