Origin of Life

[Pogo]

NO. Living systems exist, 2LoT is a man made description of closed systems.

No such thing as a closed system in nature, just omissions of the natural.

OKey dokey.

I have been dealing with the obtuse, since a teenager.

In most cases teenagers grow up to find that with further knowledge that great idea that they thought they had did not in fact rewrite the knowledge base. You seem to be an exception.
It is not we who are obtuse in our multitude but you who are unable to present your idea in an understandable manner or your idea is not correct.
Your comments re the 2LoT demonstrate at the very least that you do not understand thermodynamics and appear to be making a hash of it in your "theory'.

 

[Bthoth]

In most cases teenagers grow up to find that with further knowledge that great idea that they thought they had did not in fact rewrite the knowledge base. You seem to be an exception.

ok..........

It is not we who are obtuse in our multitude but you who are unable to present your idea in an understandable manner or your idea is not correct.

Unable and unwilling to convey.

Your comments re the 2LoT demonstrate at the very least that you do not understand thermodynamics and appear to be making a hash of it in your "theory'.

What in my comments express that i do not understand: non compliance? Did i use terms that did not comply?

Otherwise, your imposed assumption is not just rude but 'less than' understandable. It's almost religious in mannerism.

 

[Pogo]

ok..........

It is not we who are obtuse in our multitude but you who are unable to present your idea in an understandable manner or your idea is not correct.

You: Unable and unwilling to convey.

If as it appears you are " Unable and unwilling to convey", why are you here?

You: No such thing as a closed system in nature, just omissions of the natural.

While this is trivially true with the possible exception of the universe itself, what does this have to do with whatever argument you appear to be "Unable and unwilling to convey".

You: 2LoT is a man made description of closed systems.

The laws of thermodynamics are no more man-made than the laws of gravity, they are mathematical expressions to describe observations of nature.

You: What in my comments express that i do not understand: non compliance? Did i use terms that did not comply?

Yes the idea without evidence of non-compliance with the laws of thermodynamics is evidence of a lack of understanding.

You: Otherwise, your imposed assumption is not just rude but 'less than' understandable. It's almost religious in mannerism.

No, the following is religious in mannerism statement to the extent that is not just pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo

Life, survives by it's own 'intent' even if not thinking about it. That perspective and 'word' drives the old timers absolutely crazy. But they will use 2Lot as if a commandment by god yet no causality. The old scope is an intent to equilibrium. I see the energy rolling over a lake as entangling more mass and why the focal wave is appearing to dissipate. Yet that energy is still there.

 

[Pogo]

Maybe a sidetrack would be useful.
PV=nRT is another "man-made" law, what is right and wrong or inadequate about it?

 

[Bthoth]

If as it appears you are " Unable and unwilling to convey", why are you here?

Still learning and enjoy life.

While this is trivially true

Nothing trivial, scientific fact!

with the possible exception of the universe itself,

How is that? Have you observed the whole of the universe to witness and measure the universe?

what does this have to do with whatever argument you appear to be "Unable and unwilling to convey".

It doesn't but as usual the obtuse, throw tangents at the wall expecting to find something to say 'Aw ha'. As if trying to find the one moment to be right.

The laws of thermodynamics are no more man-made than the laws of gravity, they are mathematical expressions to describe observations of nature.

I know, so claiming that I don't understand is your own assumption. I mentioned that there is no closed system is clear and yet you continue to argue

Yes the idea without evidence of non-compliance with the laws of thermodynamics is evidence of a lack of understanding.

I am aware that the premise of the 2LOT exists because of assumptions, not real world.

No, the following is religious in mannerism statement to the extent that is not just pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo

The religious methodology of imposing an assumption to be right on the topic is exactly what you are doing. example: closed system about like claiming a 'god said so' per bible. Same kind of nonsense.

The pseudo are compliant but never actually did the work and never maintain a sense of integrity to the parameters. Which is exactly what you are doing with 2LOT and closed systems. It's about like holding mudd and suggesting it's water and dirt but never understanding how they work or combine.

 

[Pogo]

Still learning and enjoy life.

First thing to learn today is that science as currently practiced does not deal with unevidenced assumptions such as "intent" or gods, at the very least to enter into the discussion, you would need to show how hypothetical intent would have an effect and evidence that it does.

Nothing trivial, scientific fact!

Yes it is a scientific fact. It is trivial in that is understood that no system inside the universe is truly closed but can only be approached and approximated.

How is that? Have you observed the whole of the universe to witness and measure the universe?

The universe itself may well be a closed thermodynamic system so long as it expands, This is a question of cosmology irrelevant even to our visible portion

It doesn't but as usual the obtuse, throw tangents at the wall expecting to find something to say 'Aw ha'. As if trying to find the one moment to be right.

If you are unwilling and unable to explain what and how it effects your idea of intent or whatever to reality, why should we consider it, it is not us being obtuse.

I know, so claiming that I don't understand is your own assumption. I mentioned that there is no closed system is clear and yet you continue to argue

As I said it is known to be a trivial fact when dealing with sub-universal systems.

I am aware that the premise of the 2LOT exists because of assumptions, not real world.

Quite the contrary, it is what is left when you remove external inputs from the system and dealing only with the behavior of system contents itself. It is not an assumption, but a conclusion from evidence.

The religious methodology of imposing an assumption to be right on the topic is exactly what you are doing. example: closed system about like claiming a 'god said so' per bible. Same kind of nonsense.

Again, the contrary, you are assuming without evidence or even hypothesis that there is something else going on. waves of interacting energy or whatever, which would actually just be open inputs to the system if you could find them.

The pseudo are compliant but never actually did the work and never maintain a sense of integrity to the parameters. Which is exactly what you are doing with 2LOT and closed systems. It's about like holding mudd and suggesting it's water and dirt but never understanding how they work or combine.

And now we have religious unevidenced assertion and conspiratorial thinking that demonstrates that you have never actually dealt with the science behind thermodynamics. Show us something out there or we are correct in dismissing your claims.

Again, I ask you to explain PV=nRT.

 

[Bthoth]

First thing to learn today is that science as currently practiced does not deal with unevidenced assumptions such as "intent" or gods, at the very least to enter into the discussion, you would need to show how hypothetical intent would have an effect and evidence that it does.

Man created the gods's's's too, not just words. Entropy is 'tends' towards chaos. A direction is implied.

Yes it is a scientific fact. It is trivial in that is understood that no system inside the universe is truly closed but can only be approached and approximated.

Guesstimations? I had long ago, created that word just for such approximated realities

The universe itself may well be a closed thermodynamic system so long as it expands, This is a question of cosmology irrelevant even to our visible portion

so why use the idea for 2LOT as you did? Another premise based on guesstimations?

If you are unwilling and unable to explain what and how it effects your idea of intent or whatever to reality, why should we consider it, it is not us being obtuse.

You attempted to tell me how i misunderstood thermodynamics. I do not have to guess about living systems intent to survive. It's a universal and anyone can observe the premise, without being insulted

As I said it is known to be a trivial fact when dealing with sub-universal systems.

I get it. 2LOT is sub-universal based on guesstimations and assumptions.

Quite the contrary, it is what is left when you remove external inputs from the system and dealing only with the behavior of system contents itself. It is not an assumption, but a conclusion from evidence.

Inputs? What about consuming, accretion, eating and breathing. The living system consumes as a behavior, not an accident. Can you conclude the same or will you try to close up a life, into a box and then tell me a story about how it will die?

Again, the contrary, you are assuming without evidence or even hypothesis that there is something else going on. waves of interacting energy or whatever, which would actually just be open inputs to the system if you could find them.

Did you ever consider that the life, is existing because of the 'waves' (em energy) upon the mass without an outside input?

And now we have religious unevidenced assertion and conspiratorial thinking that demonstrates that you have never actually dealt with the science behind thermodynamics.

Which religious assertion are you talking about?

Show us something out there or we are correct in dismissing your claims.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? What is the 'we' of your choice?

Again, I ask you to explain PV=nRT.

Why?

Do you expect differential equations before observing living systems outright?

 

[Pogo]

Man created the gods's's's too, not just words. Entropy is 'tends' towards chaos. A direction is implied.

Does your refrigerator work? It is proof that entropy is locally reversible no manmade gods or external intent required.
Note: More proof that you don't understand thermodynamics.

Guesstimations? I had long ago, created that word just for such approximated realities

Guesstimate is an informal English portmanteau of guess and estimate, first used by American statisticians in 1934 or 1935.

so why use the idea for 2LOT as you did? Another premise based on guesstimations?

Because I was trying to educate you about a possible closed system. my bad

You attempted to tell me how i misunderstood thermodynamics. I do not have to guess about living systems intent to survive. It's a universal and anyone can observe the premise, without being insulted

Is your refrigerator living, no , then intent is not required, only the ability to use energy in chemical reactions.

I get it. 2LOT is sub-universal based on guesstimations and assumptions.

you have lost the thread., and see above.

Inputs? What about consuming, accretion, eating and breathing. The living system consumes as a behavior, not an accident. Can you conclude the same or will you try to close up a life, into a box and then tell me a story about how it will die?

refrigerators consume as well, life dies when it ceases to consume energy. That is it for thermodynamics contribution, no intent involved, just physics.

Did you ever consider that the life, is existing because of the 'waves' (em energy) upon the mass without an outside input?

Here is your basic problem, Electromagnetic Energy IS the outside input to the system that takes it out of being a closed system.
This is the crux of what you don't understand about thermodynamics and 2LoT

Which religious assertion are you talking about?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? What is the 'we' of your choice?

Why?

Do you expect differential equations before observing living systems outright?

 

[Pogo]

last part of my post was lost in the aether so.

Bthoth said:
Which religious assertion are you talking about?

your assertion that there is more going on without evidence and contrary to the evidence based on internal faith and ignorance

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? What is the 'we' of your choice?

The we is all the posters here who have been attempting to educate you.

Why?

because it is another example of an accepted reality that does not actually exist like a truly closed system internal to the universe.

Do you expect differential equations before observing living systems outright?

No, but not even understanding the notation my have something to do with your inability to understand thermodynamics.

 

[Bthoth]

Does your refrigerator work? It is proof that entropy is locally reversible no manmade gods or external intent required.
Note: More proof that you don't understand thermodynamics.

You are kind of cute.

Because I was trying to educate you about a possible closed system. my bad

Yes, bad. You did not educate about anything except that I was not the creator of guesstimations.

How about 'hugenormous' or ghonapsyphilherpalaids?

Is your refrigerator living, no , then intent is not required, only the ability to use energy in chemical reactions.

Sure the intent to create the thing is man made.

you have lost the thread., and see above.

Of course, the buzz on the spin cycle should be over.

refrigerators consume as well, life dies when it ceases to consume energy.

Sure but the refrigerator requires a switch to turn it on and off. Living systems operate on their own accord, intent to survive.

That is it for thermodynamics contribution, no intent involved, just physics.

Physics is a description of natures processes. It does not include plugging in the refrigerator.

Here is your basic problem, Electromagnetic Energy IS the outside input to the system that takes it out of being a closed system.

Correction youngster: no 2 elements can even combine to become a molecule without em in one wavelength or another.

So to put any molecule in a box requires em upon that mass.

This is the crux of what you don't understand about thermodynamics and 2LoT

My point exactly, you have no idea how nature works but you sure want to defend a theory because it is so well accepted.

You could make a fine preacher of the branch davidians.

 

[Bthoth]

last part of my post was lost in the aether so.

No idea what you are talking about. Be specific.

your assertion that there is more going on without evidence and contrary to the evidence based on internal faith and ignorance

What now. Did i bring up neils bohr or evolution and you had no idea how either of them work?

The we is all the posters here who have been attempting to educate you.

Educate? Slam and jump on the wagon of attacking. is not education, it's almost like inquisitors.

because it is another example of an accepted reality that does not actually exist like a truly closed system internal to the universe.

I know a closed system does not actually exist, but sure unpluging the refrigerator will also prove to be an open circuit.

No, but not even understanding the notation my have something to do with your inability to understand thermodynamics.

No, i understand thermodynamics but do you have any idea what makes something hot? What causes the resonance?

And the consequence of arrogance is ignorance.

Always remember, for your education, that HEAT is not a force of nature. When you learn what causes heat, then you can perhaps try to understand thermodynamics.

 

[Pogo]

No idea what you are talking about. Be specific.

What now. Did i bring up neils bohr or evolution and you had no idea how either of them work?

Educate? Slam and jump on the wagon of attacking. is not education, it's almost like inquisitors.

I know a closed system does not actually exist, but sure unpluging the refrigerator will also prove to be an open circuit.

No, i understand thermodynamics but do you have any idea what makes something hot? What causes the resonance?


And the consequence of arrogance is ignorance.

Always remember, for your education, that HEAT is not a force of nature. When you learn what causes heat, then you can perhaps try to understand thermodynamics.

Well causes isn't the right term, but heat is basically the flow of energy through a temperature differential.

That said, I read a few of your other posts and now understand why everybody smiles and rolls there eyes at you when you speak which you misinterpret as obtuseness. You are not the first person I have run into who believes in "resonant frequencies" and Rife generators. Your (em)energy frequency acting on mass is just the same 100 year old nonsense I heard about 40 years ago from a new age quack.
ElectroMagnetic energy and fields act on all matter the same way physicists have been telling you and there is no difference whether the matter is part of a living being or not.

Oh and there is no perpetual motion generator to harvest energy from which was one of my son's childhood fantasy, took him a while to outgrow that too.

Good luck.

 

[Dimi95]

When you learn what causes heat, then you can perhaps try to understand thermodynamics.

CO²?

 

[exchemist]

No idea what you are talking about. Be specific.

What now. Did i bring up neils bohr or evolution and you had no idea how either of them work?

Educate? Slam and jump on the wagon of attacking. is not education, it's almost like inquisitors.

I know a closed system does not actually exist, but sure unpluging the refrigerator will also prove to be an open circuit.

No, i understand thermodynamics but do you have any idea what makes something hot? What causes the resonance?


And the consequence of arrogance is ignorance.

Always remember, for your education, that HEAT is not a force of nature. When you learn what causes heat, then you can perhaps try to understand thermodynamics.

It's a bit daft to demand of someone what "causes heat", when heat is an end product of so many physical processes. Almost all forms of energy end up converted to heat eventually. It's obvious from what he or she has posted that @Pogo has a good grasp of thermodynamics.

Whereas this waffle of yours about "resonance" looks like woo to me, unless you are specifically referring to absorption of radiation by matter.

 

[exchemist]

CO²?

CO2 traps heat from the ground when it has been heated by radiation from the sun. That is why it is sometimes called a "greenhouse gas". It does not cause heating but slows down the rate at which heat can escape from the earth by re-radiation into space.

Unlike most of the other gases in the atmosphere (chiefly nitrogen, oxygen and argon), CO2 interacts with infra-red radiation by absorbing and re-emitting it. So radiation coming up from the warm ground is absorbed and then re-emitted in random directions, instead of travelling straight out into space. So its path is delayed, more of it is hung up in the atmosphere and so the balance point between incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation into space is shifted, causing a rise in temperature.

 

[exchemist]

Well causes isn't the right term, but heat is basically the flow of energy through a temperature differential.

That said, I read a few of your other posts and now understand why everybody smiles and rolls there eyes at you when you speak which you misinterpret as obtuseness. You are not the first person I have run into who believes in "resonant frequencies" and Rife generators. Your (em)energy frequency acting on mass is just the same 100 year old nonsense I heard about 40 years ago from a new age quack.
ElectroMagnetic energy and fields act on all matter the same way physicists have been telling you and there is no difference whether the matter is part of a living being or not.

Oh and there is no perpetual motion generator to harvest energy from which was one of my son's childhood fantasy, took him a while to outgrow that too.

Good luck.

This poster is very odd. He seems to have, or to have once had, some knowledge of science, but for some reason has embraced woo and seems unable to communicate coherently.

 

[Dimi95]

CO2 traps heat from the ground when it has been heated by radiation from the sun. That is why it is sometimes called a "greenhouse gas". It does not cause heating but slows down the rate at which heat can escape from the earth by re-radiation into space.

Unlike most of the other gases in the atmosphere (chiefly nitrogen, oxygen and argon), CO2 interacts with infra-red radiation by absorbing and re-emitting it. So radiation coming up from the warm ground is absorbed and then re-emitted in random directions, instead of travelling straight out into space. So its path is delayed, more of it is hung up in the atmosphere and so the balance point between incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation into space is shifted, causing a rise in temperature.

As i know the Earth gets a few percent of its heat from radioactive decay of elements in the core and few percent is residual heat from the gravitational potential of its formation and the rest is from the Sun.

Still without the Sun , i belive that heat can be produced naturally through the decay of matter.

 

[exchemist]

As i know the Earth gets a few percent of its heat from radioactive decay of elements in the core and few percent is residual heat from the gravitational potential of its formation and the rest is from the Sun.

Still without the Sun , i belive that heat can be produced naturally through the decay of matter.

Sure heat is produced by all manner of processes. It's quite hard to think of examples that do not produce heat eventually, in fact. The metabolism of micro-organisms certainly gives off heat, just as our own bodies do. Famously, compost heaps can be seen to "steam" sometimes in cold weather.

 

[Pogo]

Still without the Sun , i belive that heat can be produced naturally through the decay of matter.

Minor clearification, the decay of organic matter and in fact the energy released by burning fossil fuels does involve the sun in that the energy stored that is being released is only there because it originally came from the sun. It is all natural.
The problem of global warming is not that there is anything unnatural but that we have disrupted the equilibrium that has sustained our current environment from what we rely on.

 

[Bthoth]

Well causes isn't the right term, but heat is basically the flow of energy through a temperature differential.

Cause is the correct pursuit. Heat is not a property of nature, what causes heat is.

That said, I read a few of your other posts and now understand why everybody smiles and rolls there eyes at you when you speak which you misinterpret as obtuseness. You are not the first person I have run into who believes in "resonant frequencies" and Rife generators.

That's an eye roll all by itself. You wrote: "who believes in "resonant frequencies" and Rife generators. " I never wrote a word on the terms, which is the same kind of nonsense, that the OBTUSE try to impose as a debate point.

Your (em)energy frequency acting on mass is just the same 100 year old nonsense I heard about 40 years ago from a new age quack.

Yet the bohr anology is exactly what is taught to set the premise of particle physics. Why? Because even the very first electron to jump a shell must capture em in one wavelength or another. The fools omit the fields and use the scope of a particle (photon). That's the joke that exhibits I maintain causality and the parameters of natures phenomenon some do not.

ElectroMagnetic energy and fields act on all matter the same way physicists have been telling you and there is no difference whether the matter is part of a living being or not.

EM energy is light of the em spectrum. 'Light upon mass' is unique in terms to the obtuse.

Oh and there is no perpetual motion generator to harvest energy from which was one of my son's childhood fantasy, took him a while to outgrow that too.

Good luck.

There's another quackado comment. 'perpetual motion generator' are you having arguments in your own head? Or does the peanut gallery have a bunch of those types of arguments that require me to step on?