Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

Yup same way I learned it, but they seem to have changed the categories, I guess we are over the hill.
View attachment 90617

new example of a closed system, A pressure cooker on a gas stove.
and many more

I like to think I was born further from the apocalypse.

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.

True, but without any objective verifiable evidence to support the belief in miracles.

The next word in the dictionary after miracle id 'mirage.'

An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

False, this is not remotely what atheists of scientists believe.

So who is the one who believes in miracles?

Those that believe in events that cannot be explained by Natural Laws and processes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would it be more appropriate to consider it functionally closed the the exchange of matter, despite the fact that matter is exchanged at a very low rate.

I like your metaphor though. It makes sense.

I am trying to think of an alternative naming scheme. Open is fairly obvious. As is Isolated. There is also a fourth possibility, a system where energy cannot enter or leave, but matter can. I cannot think of an example.

 

[shunyadragon]

I guess it's coming time to ban this forum for another month. When stupidity begins to fill so much space, it is time to discipline some so that they learn how to behave.

Somehow this bunch of clones think it's funny to disrespect forum members who don't agree with them on their ideas.

Someone has to teach some of them that they shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.

Wow! Turn sideways and we will not see you for another month. Is that a promise!

 

[Pogo]

We're having a terminology argument.
It doesn't make sense to call a system with
energy transfer "closed".
If a store had customers freely coming &
going, would you say the store is "closed"?
No, it would be "open".

I think you and I are going to be discussing the Mandela effect soon.
All these young people don't know their Thermo.
Halliday and Resnick 2nd Ed. maybe I can find a copy in a museum.

 

[Pogo]

I am trying to think of an alternative naming scheme. Open is fairly obvious. As is Isolated. There is also a fourth possibility, a system where energy cannot enter or leave, but matter can. I cannot think of an example.

Entropy vs Thermodynamic Entropy, not quite the same. Thermo is energy only.
Anyhow, @Revoltingest and I specifically remember that the only potentially closed system is the universe itself.
As a result it was easy to say to the creos that their 2Lot argument only applied to closed systems and then ask them if they had seen that orange ball in the sky. Thus the earth is not Thermodynamically closed except that apparently now it is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now you're braggin'. And you don't even have to. We are already in awe that you manage to survive in the closed system of Revoltistan.

I sometimes feel the need
to embiggen myself.

 

[Revoltingest]

For energy its considered open.
I would think the bold is why its also considered closed.

"Earth's mass is variable, subject to both gain and loss due to the accretion of in-falling material, including micrometeorites and cosmic dust and the loss of hydrogen and helium gas, respectively. The combined effect is a net loss of material, estimated at 5.5×107 kg (5.4×104 long tons) per year. This amount is 10−17 of the total earth mass.[citation needed] The 5.5×107 kg annual net loss is essentially due to 100,000 tons lost due to atmospheric escape, and an average of 45,000 tons gained from in-falling dust and meteorites. This is well within the mass uncertainty of 0.01% (6×1020 kg), so the estimated value of Earth's mass is unaffected by this factor."

Earth mass - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That low mass exchange is only the blink of an
eye in geological time. Over billions of years, mass
exchange would include objects large enuf to
create the Moon, & cause regular mass extinctions.
And then there's energy. Sunlight falling upon
plants is necessary. Radiating energy back into
space is also necessary to prevent temperatures
becoming too high.
This is how an open system functions, ie, it is
open to the transfer of heat....& this can include
transfer of matter.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you and I are going to be discussing the Mandela effect soon.
All these young people don't know their Thermo.
Halliday and Resnick 2nd Ed. maybe I can find a copy in a museum.

Mine was Sonntag & Van Wylen.
I've a copy around somewhere.
BTW, they argued there must be a
supreme being to prevent the heat
death of the universe...because that
would be simply unacceptable.
It was a very short chapter in between
classical & statistical thermodynamics.

 

[Revoltingest]

But then you are not considering the entropy of the fuel and the gases involved.

Only those that are within the system.
Entropy outside the system would
require defining the boundary(s) of
an external system(s).

The system of the engine is constant under constant load.

Once it reaches a stable temperature.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup same way I learned it, but they seem to have changed the categories, I guess we are over the hill.
View attachment 90617

new example of a closed system, A pressure cooker on a gas stove.
and many more

It'll change back after students get
comfortable with the crazy new version.
I remember that in grade school, current
flowed from minus to plus. Then in
engineering school, it was reversed.
Analysis of circuits works the same
either way.

 

[Revoltingest]

Entropy vs Thermodynamic Entropy, not quite the same. Thermo is energy only.
Anyhow, @Revoltingest and I specifically remember that the only potentially closed system is the universe itself.

And even that is pure speculation.

As a result it was easy to say to the creos that their 2Lot argument only applied to closed systems and then ask them if they had seen that orange ball in the sky. Thus the earth is not Thermodynamically closed except that apparently now it is.

If the definitions are consistently used,
the creos are wrong either way.

Another wrinkle....
Some have posited that life arrived on
Earth from elsewhere via comet or other
such body. This would be a potentially
small mass transfer with gigantic "practical"
thermodynamic effects.

It still seems ridiculous to call Earth a "closed
system" when energy flies hither & yon in
enormous quantities. And this energy is
essential for life, ie, a highly relevant theme
in this thread.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It'll change back after students get
comfortable with the crazy new version.
I remember that in grade school, current
flowed from minus to plus. Then in
engineering school, it was reversed.
Analysis of circuits works the same
either way.

I recall learning the former followed by learning the latter from an interest in automotive electronics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I just answered a call from Quinnipiac University and took one of their surveys. I'm guessing, based on my answers, that I'm going to skew the data.

 

[Pogo]

It'll change back after students get
comfortable with the crazy new version.
I remember that in grade school, current
flowed from minus to plus. Then in
engineering school, it was reversed.
Analysis of circuits works the same
either way.

Electrons vs current but try explaining negative charge carriers to a general studies teacher.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That low mass exchange is only the blink of an
eye in geological time. Over billions of years, mass
exchange would include objects large enuf to
create the Moon, & cause regular mass extinctions.
And then there's energy. Sunlight falling upon
plants is necessary. Radiating energy back into
space is also necessary to prevent temperatures
becoming too high.
This is how an open system functions, ie, it is
open to the transfer of heat....& this can include
transfer of matter.

Chicxulub came immediately to mind as this discussion has developed. Didn't think for enough back it seems from your example of the moon.

 

[Revoltingest]

Electrons vs current but try explaining negative charge carriers to a general studies teacher.

I don't dare explain something I learned
so long ago. What I do is point out my
old understanding (as remembered), &
say "it can be complicated".

 

[Revoltingest]

Chicxulub came immediately to mind as this discussion has developed. Didn't think for enough back though, it seems, from your example of the moon.

I can sometimes go into great breadth
& detail about things I don't understand
or remember well.

 

[John53]

I just took a nap and ignored everyone while I did it. I was a closed system.

 

[Pogo]

I don't dare explain something I learned
so long ago. What I do is point out my
old understanding (as remembered), &
say "it can be complicated".

When I tried to explain things to my wife, she would just give up and say "Its Physics" She could speak 4-5 languages but none of them were related to physics.