Political Crossfire Forums

[mattwa33193]

cap'n queasy wrote: You should base your beliefs on what is in your heart. If you don't want to believe then you shouldn't.

And that's exaclty what I do :)

[psholtz]

John wrote: Quote: That could very well be, and then you would all be right.


And IF I am right...you're gonna really regret being wrong.
Yes, but as Jesus teaches in Matthew 25:21, first you must be right about the small things, before you can be right about the big things.

You're the guy who tried to convince me that the Law of Entropy keeps the Moon in its orbit, right? :-D

[John]

mattwa33193 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: You should base your beliefs on what is in your heart. If you don't want to believe then you shouldn't.

And that's exaclty what I do :)

Jeremiah 17
9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?

[John]

psholtz wrote: John wrote: Quote: That could very well be, and then you would all be right.


And IF I am right...you're gonna really regret being wrong.
Yes, but as Jesus teaches in Matthew 25:21, first you must be right about the small things, before you can be right about the big things.

You're the guy who tried to convince me that the Law of Entropy keeps the Moon in its orbit, right? :-D

No. I didn't. As usual you read what I wrote and understood the inverse. I said that entropy is causing the moon to leave its orbit.

But understanding this isn't nessesary in accepting your place in God's plan.

[mattwa33193]

John wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: You should base your beliefs on what is in your heart. If you don't want to believe then you shouldn't.

And that's exaclty what I do :)

Jeremiah 17
9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?

So I can't trust myself, therefore I must trust the Bible

Because the Bible says so.

[psholtz]

John wrote: psholtz wrote: John wrote: Quote: That could very well be, and then you would all be right.


And IF I am right...you're gonna really regret being wrong.
Yes, but as Jesus teaches in Matthew 25:21, first you must be right about the small things, before you can be right about the big things.

You're the guy who tried to convince me that the Law of Entropy keeps the Moon in its orbit, right? :-D

No. I didn't. As usual you read what I wrote and understood the inverse. I said that entropy is causing the moon to leave its orbit.
Which is just as incorrect a thing to say...

Believe me, I'm doing you favor by phrasing it the way I do.. :lol:

Quote: But understanding this isn't nessesary in accepting your place in God's plan.
My point is that you haven't exactly established a very credible track record of being "right" about much of anything so far. Be "right" about the small things, and maybe people will start believing you about the bigger things.

[John]

psholtz wrote: John wrote: psholtz wrote: John wrote: Quote: That could very well be, and then you would all be right.


And IF I am right...you're gonna really regret being wrong.
Yes, but as Jesus teaches in Matthew 25:21, first you must be right about the small things, before you can be right about the big things.

You're the guy who tried to convince me that the Law of Entropy keeps the Moon in its orbit, right? :-D

No. I didn't. As usual you read what I wrote and understood the inverse. I said that entropy is causing the moon to leave its orbit.
Which is just as incorrect a thing to say...

Believe me, I'm doing you favor by phrasing it the way I do.. :lol:

Quote: But understanding this isn't nessesary in accepting your place in God's plan.
My point is that you haven't exactly established a very credible track record of being "right" about much of anything so far. Be "right" about the small things, and maybe people will start believing you about the bigger things.

You can't even get what I said right...much less claim understanding in the behavior of the moon (which nobody really has a complete understanding of).

Entropy is causing everything that is in a state of order to drift eventually into disorder. Including the moon. And apparently your brain. :wink:

[psholtz]

John wrote: You can't even get what I said right...much less claim understanding in the behavior of the moon (which nobody really has a complete understanding of).
You're the guy who works at NASA, right? :lol:

How did you guys land a rocket on the moon? I hope you at least understood a thing or two about it...

In the first place, there is no such thing as a "Law of Entropy".. there's a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which sounds like its what you're referring to, but .. cluebrick .. that concerns thermodynamics, not orbital dynamics. Secondly, the motion of the moon (including the fact that it's receding from the earth) can be explained completely using just the law of gravity, conservation of angular momentum, and a few other details. "Entropy" doesn't enter it one way or another.

Quote: Entropy is causing everything that is in a state of order to drift eventually into disorder. Including the moon.
Can you write the relevant equations down for me?

Can you cite the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific paper that documents this startling discovery?

If not, you're little more than a "sounding brass" and a "tinkling symbal", and you're just making up random words to suit whatever view of the world your imagination feels like conjuring up today. Which, btw, is the same thing you do religiously, as you seem to do scientifically.. and in both domains (religion and science) such conduct frowned upon w/ good reason.

[John]

I understand that entropy is a measurement. That goes without saying. Does one need to talk like a robot for you to understand what they're saying? I don't have time to go into the complexities of things that are not even on the subject with you when I can make my point in one simple sentence that reasonable people understand.

It’s like you just wanna argue for the sake of it.


Entropy = the result of all the factors that cause disorder.

All the factors that cause disorder are causing the moon to drift out of orbit.

Or

Entropy is causing the moon to drift out of orbit.


And that all I'm going to say about the moon. Get back on topic.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: In the first place, there is no such thing as a "Law of Entropy".

Uhhh.. Paul.

You're the only one on this thread who used the term "Law of Entropy".

Quote: You're the guy who tried to convince me that the Law of Entropy keeps the Moon in its orbit, right?

What was that you said about tinkling?

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: In the first place, there is no such thing as a "Law of Entropy".

Uhhh.. Paul.

You're the only one on this thread who used the term "Law of Entropy".

Quote: You're the guy who tried to convince me that the Law of Entropy keeps the Moon in its orbit, right?

What was that you said about tinkling?
Yes, I used the term b/c John coined it.

John tried to convince me once that the "Law of Entropy" was what kept the Moon in orbit. As you can see, such an assertion is absurd on numerous levels, including (for starters) that a Law of Entropy does not even exist. I believe he's referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, although I'd be surprised if he's capable of quoting or expressing it here in quantitative form.

[cap'n queasy]

I hear more tinkling. :-D

[John]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: In the first place, there is no such thing as a "Law of Entropy".

Uhhh.. Paul.

You're the only one on this thread who used the term "Law of Entropy".

Quote: You're the guy who tried to convince me that the Law of Entropy keeps the Moon in its orbit, right?

What was that you said about tinkling?
Yes, I used the term b/c John coined it.

John tried to convince me once that the "Law of Entropy" was what kept the Moon in orbit. As you can see, such an assertion is absurd on numerous levels, including (for starters) that a Law of Entropy does not even exist. I believe he's referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, although I'd be surprised if he's capable of quoting or expressing it here in quantitative form.

Man...you can't help yourself from lying can you?

I could have possibly called the second law of thermodynamics the law of entropy once in the past (they're interchangeable / I'm not writing a technical paper, I'm posting on a forum)). But I have never claimed that it keeps the moon in orbit. You keep restating that lie even though I keep correcting you. You do that a lot.

[psholtz]

John wrote: I understand that entropy is a measurement.
Entropy is actually a state function, but you're close enough.

Quote: Does one need to talk like a robot for you to understand what they're saying?
No, but you do need to speak intelligently and you can't just redefiine words to mean whatever you feel like.

Quote: Entropy = the result of all the factors that cause disorder.
Classically, entropy is a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work (work, in the "physics" sense of the work). Statistically, it can also be defined as the amount of uncertainity in the microscopic state of a system once its macroscopic state has been specified (in other words, "disorder"). It can further be shown that the statistical definition encompasses the classical definition.

Quote: All the factors that cause disorder are causing the moon to drift out of orbit.
If you told me that when an ice cube melts, the overall entropy of the system increases, I would agree w/ you. If you tell me that the moon is receding in its orbit, I'm going to tell you the reason for that is b/c the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon has to be conserved, and the Moon is being forced to make compensations in its motion (i.e., to recede) to maintain that equilibrium (and conservation law).

The moon's drift in its orbit is very mathematical and very predictable (to w/in the limits we have under consideration.. yes, I understand that theoretically speaking the solution to the three-body problem, to say nothing of the n-body problem operating in the open solar system, is chaotic .. but that's not the level you're speaking at.. we're simply talking about why the moon's orbit is slowly increasing, and that rate of increase is very predictable under normal "Newtonian"-style calculations). There is no element of "disorder" or "unpredictabiltiy" in how the moon is receding from the Earth.. it's all quite predictable and orderly. Hence, I don't see how or why you're trying to bring entropy into this..

And you work at NASA... :-D

Quote: Entropy is causing the moon to drift out of orbit.
Entropy is what happens when ice cubes melt.

Moons in orbit are something entirely different.

[cap'n queasy]

And just what does all that tinkling have to do with the subject?

[psholtz]

John wrote: psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: In the first place, there is no such thing as a "Law of Entropy".

Uhhh.. Paul.

You're the only one on this thread who used the term "Law of Entropy".

Quote: You're the guy who tried to convince me that the Law of Entropy keeps the Moon in its orbit, right?

What was that you said about tinkling?
Yes, I used the term b/c John coined it.

John tried to convince me once that the "Law of Entropy" was what kept the Moon in orbit. As you can see, such an assertion is absurd on numerous levels, including (for starters) that a Law of Entropy does not even exist. I believe he's referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, although I'd be surprised if he's capable of quoting or expressing it here in quantitative form.

Man...you can't help yourself from lying can you?

I could have possibly called the second law of thermodynamics the law of entropy once in the past (they're interchangeable / I'm not writing a technical paper, I'm posting on a forum)). But I have never claimed that it keeps the moon in orbit. You keep restating that lie even though I keep correcting you. You do that a lot.
Sure, except that you're wrong.

The conservation of angular momentum is best explanation for why the moon is receding in its orbit, not entropy. There is no disorder to the moon's recession (to w/in the limits of our discussion). It's all very predictable and very mathematical.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: And just what does all that tinkling have to do with the subject?
What it has to do w/ the previous topic of conversation (not sure if its the subject of the thread), is that John was bragging about how if he was "right", then all non-believers are going to burn in hell.

I'm just saying, I have yet to see John be "right" about much of anything.

Like Jesus teaches, first be right about the small things. Then people might believe what you have to say about the bigger things.

[cap'n queasy]

http://cannon.sfsu.edu/~gmarcy/planetsearch/bd/ecc.html

These guys seems to think that entropy has something to do with planetary and satellite orbits.

I think you are trying to pull a little of the ol' baffle them with bulls**t routine.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: http://cannon.sfsu.edu/~gmarcy/planetsearch/bd/ecc.html

These guys seems to think that entropy has something to do with planetary and satellite orbits.

I think you are trying to pull a little of the ol' baffle them with bulls**t routine.
Orbital eccentricity is something quite distinct from thermodynamic entropy, isn't it? And a third distinct thing is the fact that the three-body problem (to say nothing of the n-body problem) has a chaotic (chaotic in the mathematical sense of the word) solution.

But all these things have very precise definitions, and if John wants to play the game, he has to use the precise definitions.

Moreover, the recession of the Moon is not an eccentricity in its orbit. The precession of the Earth about it's own axis every 25,000 years is an eccentricity. The Moon is receding b/c it was blasted apart from the Earth God-knows-how-many-years ago, and the Earth-Moon system is now (still) trying to conserve its angular momentum.

[John]

Matthew 25
14 "For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them.

15 "To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.

16 "Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.

17 "In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.

18 "But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19 "Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.

20 "The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'

21 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'

22 "Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'

23 "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'

24 "And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.

25 'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.'

26 "But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.

27 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.

28 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.'

29 "For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.

30 "Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.



Do you really think this is stating that you must understand physics?