jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,220
- 29,150
- 2,180
I don’t think you know your pointIf you don't know what the point is, you are not understanding what SSDD thinks, and what the actual science is.What’s your point?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don’t think you know your pointIf you don't know what the point is, you are not understanding what SSDD thinks, and what the actual science is.What’s your point?
Tree dries out like a humanAgain, whether this "energy" comes from immediate surroundings or rotting is attributed to "internal organisms" (fungi, bacteria) all within the system being considered part of the experiment or under study, it's spontaneous, else not. By definition, if you shine light on something from outside after the experiment has begun all resulting light produced back is not spontaneous. Only the portion that would have been produced without your interference is spontaneous.And..rotting requires energy from the surroundings to happen... therefore not spontaneous..
Your point?Tree dries out like a human
Your point?Tree dries out like a human
Thanks. Brings up an example I've been considering. An old man ("a human") dies. His progeny are to see that his 'remains" are buried in a casket further contained within a concrete vault, all centered in a graveyard plot bearing the family headstone and all purchased long prior for these purposes according to his wishes as stated in the Will.
So the funeral takes place. The casket is lowered into the vault. The vault lid is positioned. Each family member shovels a little dirt on top and they start heading off. Two scientists arrive as the vault handlers pack down the last bits of rough soil. They synchronize their stopwatches and say "Go!" The experiment has now officially begun...
See, unbeknownst to the family, these scientists had checked every detail in advance. They had inspected the hole, the vault, the casket, the body, everything... Only after they were 100% satisfied with the pristine quality, cleanliness, sanctity, caulking.. in short the dry, pure, wholesome, sanitary nature of the entire business, did they finally give the go ahead to the funeral home to bring the body to the gravesite.
One scientist had bet the other $1000 that the body would not rot encased in such an air and water tight shell. He swore repeatedly that without the chemical processes within a living organism, without energy from the surroundings, even if the body were somehow being consumed by organisms, though we had the mortician thoroughly disinfect and double embalm the old fart just to make sure,.. he could not rot and even if he did it simply couldn't be considered spontaneous.
Well, guess what? A month later the peer review panel had the casket exhumed and inspected the remains, the other scientist quietly snickering to herself all the while. And soon after they declared their near immediate unanimous decision, noses all firmly in hand, she laughed all the way to the bank.. and more on her way back home!
If you manufacture a phosphorescent material in complete darkness, and store it in complete darkness, it will never eff nit the first photon of light. It is only after it absorbs em energy that it phosphoresces... clearly not a spontaneous process...and there is no electricity in a battery till it is charged...the final step in the manufacturing process...and when all that electricity is gone, wes whatever process it was powering ceases...again...clearly not a spontaneous process...
You don't understand the physics of spontaneous processes!
Illuminating a phosphor is not spontaneous.
After illumination, put the phosphor in the dark again.
It will spontaneously emit because no further energy is powering it.
That makes it a spontaneous process. That is the meaning of the physics definition.
If you don't abide by the physics definitions, you are talking absolute nonsense!
.
It is the science definition. Not my interpretation.It is not spontaneous because as soon as all the energy it absorbed from the surroundings us used up the process stops...phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight. You reinterpret and modify till even you dont know what the hell you are saying.
It is the science definition. Not my interpretation.It is not spontaneous because as soon as all the energy it absorbed from the surroundings us used up the process stops...phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight. You reinterpret and modify till even you dont know what the hell you are saying.
Spontaneous emission of radiation generally decays exponentially. So what? Nobody ever said that it would go on indefinitely. That's absurd.
Spontaneous process - Wikipedia
A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.
You are simply in denial of the physics definition and the science behind it. You desperately want to deny back radiation and will bastardize physics and substitute your own fake physics to rationalize yourself. Let's face it you are a science nihilist.
.
It is the science definition. Not my interpretation.It is not spontaneous because as soon as all the energy it absorbed from the surroundings us used up the process stops...phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight. You reinterpret and modify till even you dont know what the hell you are saying.
Spontaneous emission of radiation generally decays exponentially. So what? Nobody ever said that it would go on indefinitely. That's absurd.
Spontaneous process - Wikipedia
A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.
You are simply in denial of the physics definition and the science behind it. You desperately want to deny back radiation and will bastardize physics and substitute your own fake physics to rationalize yourself. Let's face it you are a science nihilist.
.
Are you stupid? Or are you just dishonest? Or are you stupid and dishonest? Here is your definition.
A spontaneous process is the time-evolution of a system in which it releases free energy and it moves to a lower, more thermodynamically stable energy state.[1][2]
and there is where you stopped..did you stop there because you thought it agreed with you? Did you stop there because you thought you might fool someone? Did you stop because you just didn't want to have to admitting that you were wrong and would rather lie?
Les continue with YOUR DEFINITION right to the end...I will bold it for you when we get there.
The sign convention for free energy follows the general convention for thermodynamicmeasurements, in which a release of free energy from the system corresponds to a negative change in the free energy of the system and a positive change in the free energy of the surroundings.
Depending on the nature of the process, the free energy is determined differently. For example, the Gibbs free energy is used when considering processes that occur under constant pressure and temperature conditions whereas the Helmholtz free energy is used when considering processes that occur under constant volume and temperature conditions.
Because spontaneous processes are characterized by a decrease in the system's free energy, they do not need to be driven by an outside source of energy
Decrease in free energy...it said it right there in the first sentence of YOUR DEFINITION and you didn't even know what the hell it meant or you would rather lie than admit that you did and that it meant that you have been wrong all along...which is it?
Because in a spontaneous process the system is releasing it's own energy, no energy from any other source is required..
Now take your lying wrong ass off somewhere and for Pete's sake, try to learn something before something before you come back.
So, despite your earlier reticence, you now agree that a rotting organism well represents a spontaneous process while sternly avoiding explicitly saying so or exhibiting any appreciation for the story telling delivery or injected humor. Tough crowd. Tough crowd indeed.Your point?Tree dries out like a human
Thanks. Brings up an example I've been considering. An old man ("a human") dies. His progeny are to see that his 'remains" are buried in a casket further contained within a concrete vault, all centered in a graveyard plot bearing the family headstone and all purchased long prior for these purposes according to his wishes as stated in the Will.
So the funeral takes place. The casket is lowered into the vault. The vault lid is positioned. Each family member shovels a little dirt on top and they start heading off. Two scientists arrive as the vault handlers pack down the last bits of rough soil. They synchronize their stopwatches and say "Go!" The experiment has now officially begun...
See, unbeknownst to the family, these scientists had checked every detail in advance. They had inspected the hole, the vault, the casket, the body, everything... Only after they were 100% satisfied with the pristine quality, cleanliness, sanctity, caulking.. in short the dry, pure, wholesome, sanitary nature of the entire business, did they finally give the go ahead to the funeral home to bring the body to the gravesite.
One scientist had bet the other $1000 that the body would not rot encased in such an air and water tight shell. He swore repeatedly that without the chemical processes within a living organism, without energy from the surroundings, even if the body were somehow being consumed by organisms, though we had the mortician thoroughly disinfect and double embalm the old fart just to make sure,.. he could not rot and even if he did it simply couldn't be considered spontaneous.
Well, guess what? A month later the peer review panel had the casket exhumed and inspected the remains, the other scientist quietly snickering to herself all the while. And soon after they declared their near immediate unanimous decision, noses all firmly in hand, she laughed all the way to the bank.. and more on her way back home!
The problem with your scenario is that all the air tight perfect seal almost guarantees that a body will turn to sludge. Embalming only provides a temporary halt to the breakdown process and rarely permeates the body well enough to kill all organisms and does nothing about the enzymes our bodies start to release upon our demise that break down cell walls.
Our bodies, unlike plants are made up mostly of liquid filled cells surrounded by membranes that are mostly liquid. Thos membranes break down and we begin to turn to sludge in an environment with no airflow whatsoever. Airflow serves to dry out the cells and rather than burst they tend to mummify.
Eventually microbes and what ever other creatures can get to us will will devour all of us to dust or if conditions are just so, we may mineralize and parts obecome fossils, but the process can take a very long time...
True. Both are generally spontaneous. Both produce "a decrease in the system's free energy." Neither need "be driven by an outside source of energy."phosphorescence is no more spontaneous than a flashlight.
Because in a spontaneous process the system is releasing it's own energy, no energy from any other source is required..
We are getting off topic but another fine capitalist trick is to sell printers for 25 cents, and ink refills at 70 dollars. I'm exaggerating on the printer cost but not on Canon ink refills.Now THAT's American capitalism at its finest, baby! Rinse and repeat...
Don't be silly. Proof of fraud. Stick in a bold "spontaneously" somewhere and you're golden!We are getting off topic
Hahaha. Very funny, blowhard. Meanwhile this remains reality:I'm a scientist, doofus. I know more about science than you ever will. Consensus is political, not scientific.
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]
Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (of reproducible results by others), scholarly debate,[2][3][4][5] and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[6] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.
Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[7][8] climate change,[9] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[6]
con·sen·sus | \ kən-ˈsen(t)-səs \
Definition of consensus
1a : general agreement : unanimity the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border— John Hersey
A peptic ulcer is an area of damage to the inner lining of the stomach, esophagus, or duodenum (the first part of the small intestine). Over 25 million Americans will have a peptic ulcer at some point in their lifetime. People of all ages can suffer from ulcers. Men and women are equally affected.
Peptic ulcers were formerly thought to be caused by stress, coffee consumption, or spicy foods. Now it is clear that about 60% of peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection that can usually be cured. Another 20% are caused by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin and ibuprofen (Advil, Nuprin, etc.), and another 20% have miscellaneous causes such as cigarettes or no clear cause.
I remember well my mandatory class on human behavior and keeping yourself from becoming a deaf, dumb, and blind scientist. Confirmation Bias is human nature. The average human will group themselves with people who share their same beliefs causing confirmation bias as each will look for approval of those around them for their "findings". Its a death spiral to destruction and its human habit. To bad most of these people will not venture outside of their comfort zone to see the point of view from the other side.Hahaha. Very funny, blowhard. Meanwhile this remains reality:I'm a scientist, doofus. I know more about science than you ever will. Consensus is political, not scientific.
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]
Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (of reproducible results by others), scholarly debate,[2][3][4][5] and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists; however, communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the "normal" debates through which science progresses may appear to outsiders as contestation.[6] On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing the consensus can be quite straightforward.
Popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but not necessarily controversial within the scientific community may invoke scientific consensus: note such topics as evolution,[7][8] climate change,[9] or the lack of a link between MMR vaccinations and autism.[6]
Try a real DICTIONARY meaning of the word, from Merriam-Webster
con·sen·sus | \ kən-ˈsen(t)-səs \
Definition of consensus
1a : general agreement : unanimity the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border— John Hersey
It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.
REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science, not a "group opinion" of a people.
There have been MANY Consensus failures over the last few Centuries, which is why good scientists use Reproducible research instead, over a group belief based on a standard, that too often gets overturned by a few or even ONE person.
Recall how Stomach Ulcers were caused by "spicy foods", or "stress" or, "Coffee" and so on, it was a Consensus belief, which was smashed by a single person who discovered that a simple Anti-Biotic treatment made it vanish, but at first he was rebuffed by the.... ahem... the consensus.
From Medicine Net
A peptic ulcer is an area of damage to the inner lining of the stomach, esophagus, or duodenum (the first part of the small intestine). Over 25 million Americans will have a peptic ulcer at some point in their lifetime. People of all ages can suffer from ulcers. Men and women are equally affected.
Peptic ulcers were formerly thought to be caused by stress, coffee consumption, or spicy foods. Now it is clear that about 60% of peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection that can usually be cured. Another 20% are caused by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin and ibuprofen (Advil, Nuprin, etc.), and another 20% have miscellaneous causes such as cigarettes or no clear cause.
This one from DISCOVER Magazine
The Doctor Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery
The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and didn't want to hear otherwise.
Excerpt:
For years an obscure doctor hailing from Australia’s hardscrabble west coast watched in horror as ulcer patients fell so ill that many had their stomach removed or bled until they died. That physician, an internist named Barry Marshall, was tormented because he knew there was a simple treatment for ulcers, which at that time afflicted 10 percent of all adults. In 1981 Marshall began working with Robin Warren, the Royal Perth Hospital pathologist who, two years earlier, discovered the gut could be overrun by hardy, corkscrew-shaped bacteria called Helicobacter pylori. Biopsying ulcer patients and culturing the organisms in the lab, Marshall traced not just ulcers but also stomach cancer to this gut infection. The cure, he realized, was readily available: antibiotics. But mainstream gastroenterologists were dismissive, holding on to the old idea that ulcers were caused by stress.
red bolding mine
LINK
===========================================================================================
You need to drop this stupid Consensus bullcrap since they have been wrong many times, Alfred Wegener, J. Harlan Bretz, Semmelweis and more tried to correct the group belief in something, but that took years even 50 or more years before the consensus group were wrong and ONE person was right.
Okay, calm down... You calm? Now look again at the definition I provided:It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.
REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science, not a "group opinion" of a people.
Got it? That is the main point. Not just "an OPINION based on reports". And I agree with you. There's lots of sucky institutional bias involved. No one suggested otherwise nor that it was perfect. I could write a book of ranting and raving about issues here and driven too much by need to publish there. Opinion? Of course! But the intent is improvement over relative chaos. Best practices. And so here we are. Easy to criticize by bringing up examples of apparent failure. How about the successes? Where would we be now if medicine still relied mainly upon those screaming loudest about having the latest, greatest,most wondrous cure of all time?Consensus is achieved through {...yada, yada...}, replication (of reproducible results by others), {...yada, yada...}
No shit. That's why simple "consensus" has never been the real issue. Scientific consensus, yes! The "scientific" part means checks and balances are built in to try and mitigate the negative effects of confirmation bias. Can you say "Scientific consensus"? I knew you could! Do I expect you to ever begin doing so here? Hell no! Not from what I've witnessed here so far..I remember well my mandatory class on human behavior and keeping yourself from becoming a deaf, dumb, and blind scientist. Confirmation Bias is human nature. The average human will group themselves with people who share their same beliefs causing confirmation bias as each will look for approval of those around them for their "findings". Its a death spiral to destruction and its human habit. To bad most of these people will not venture outside of their comfort zone to see the point of view from the other side.
Okay, calm down... You calm? Now look again at the definition I provided:It is an OPINION based on reports, which means it isn't science research they rely on, it is an OPINION over something a group of people believes in.
REPRODUCIBLE research is what drives science, not a "group opinion" of a people.
Got it? That is the main point. Not just "an OPINION based on reports". And I agree with you. There's lots of sucky institutional bias involved. No one suggested otherwise nor that it was perfect. I could write a book of ranting and raving about issues here and driven too much by need to publish there. Opinion? Of course! But the intent is improvement over relative chaos. Best practices. And so here we are. Easy to criticize by bringing up examples of apparent failure. How about the successes? Where would we be now if medicine still relied mainly upon those screaming loudest about having the latest, greatest,most wondrous cure of all time?Consensus is achieved through {...yada, yada...}, replication (of reproducible results by others), {...yada, yada...}
Middle ground in decision making, between total assent and total disagreement. Consensus depends on participants having shared values and goals, and on having broad agreement on specific issues and overall direction. Consensus implies that everyone accepts and supports the decision, and understands the reasons for making it. See also collective responsibility.
A decision achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid resolution is arrived on an issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution.
agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole
“the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions”
“those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus”
Ever notice how people disagree about just about everything, from who's the best baseball player to how high taxes should be? Whenever there's disagreement, there's no consensus: consensus means everyone is on the same page. When you're talking about all the people in the world, it's hard to find a consensus on anything. There are just too many opinions. However, in a smaller group, reaching a consensus is possible.