Entropy?

  • 36 Replies
  • 6619 Views
*

Dilla

  • 40
  • Nothing Like This
Entropy?
« on: May 16, 2007, 11:54:05 PM »
Without the force of gravitational attraction, why would any large object (sun, moon, other planets, and EARTH) stay together in one piece?
Wavelength and intensity have nothing to do with frequency.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2007, 11:55:23 PM »
Very good question. Im sure they will say the magical UA holds them together. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Dilla

  • 40
  • Nothing Like This
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2007, 12:08:04 AM »
The UA is only in 1 direction ('up') which would just 'spread out' (for lack of a better term) the earth even more than without it.
Wavelength and intensity have nothing to do with frequency.

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2007, 12:37:55 AM »
Without the force of gravitational attraction, why would any large object (sun, moon, other planets, and EARTH) stay together in one piece?
I believe you need to state the reason you'd expect these objects to move apart. What force (relative to each other) do you envision would be pushing them apart? I can't think of any.
Gulliver

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2007, 05:01:59 AM »
I believe you need to state the reason you'd expect these objects to move apart. What force (relative to each other) do you envision would be pushing them apart? I can't think of any.
Gulliver
With the sun, the "force" would be the energy outputted by fusion.
With the earth, the "force" would be inertia.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2007, 05:31:36 AM »
I believe you need to state the reason you'd expect these objects to move apart. What force (relative to each other) do you envision would be pushing them apart? I can't think of any.
Gulliver
With the sun, the "force" would be the energy outputted by fusion.
With the earth, the "force" would be inertia.
Sorry, but I think we need to review here. Newton says F=ma, neglecting calculus and the detail that m is a function of speed, but I don't believe that we're talking about relative speeds so great as to make that important. Inertia(m) is not a force(F). So, you're confused on the Earth comment. Fusion is a nuclear reaction that does create energy. Energy can be used to do work. Work could be the spreading apart of the objects. But you still haven't told me how. Yes, I have money. Yes, money can be used to buy candy. That doesn't mean I've bought any candy. You have more work to do on your Sun comment. By the way, I'm not convinced that the Sun uses fusion to generate light. According to RE it's 94 million miles away. It would need fusion to provide all the necessary light if that were true. But consider a Sun much closer, would it need fusion to supply Earth's light? Wouldn't coal do just fine?

I hope that helps.
Gulliver

*

Dilla

  • 40
  • Nothing Like This
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2007, 12:06:50 PM »
I believe you need to state the reason you'd expect these objects to move apart. What force (relative to each other) do you envision would be pushing them apart? I can't think of any.
Gulliver

The reason is entropy. Ordered systems move towards disorder. The earth would break apart into pieces and spread out to a more random state in the universe.
Wavelength and intensity have nothing to do with frequency.

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2007, 12:34:46 PM »
I believe you need to state the reason you'd expect these objects to move apart. What force (relative to each other) do you envision would be pushing them apart? I can't think of any.
Gulliver
With the sun, the "force" would be the energy outputted by fusion.
With the earth, the "force" would be inertia.
Sorry, but I think we need to review here. Newton says F=ma, neglecting calculus and the detail that m is a function of speed, but I don't believe that we're talking about relative speeds so great as to make that important. Inertia(m) is not a force(F). So, you're confused on the Earth comment. Fusion is a nuclear reaction that does create energy. Energy can be used to do work. Work could be the spreading apart of the objects. But you still haven't told me how. Yes, I have money. Yes, money can be used to buy candy. That doesn't mean I've bought any candy. You have more work to do on your Sun comment. By the way, I'm not convinced that the Sun uses fusion to generate light. According to RE it's 94 million miles away. It would need fusion to provide all the necessary light if that were true. But consider a Sun much closer, would it need fusion to supply Earth's light? Wouldn't coal do just fine?

I hope that helps.
Gulliver
By no means am I confused. I am aware that inertia is not a force, which is why I put force in quotes (" "). Inertia makes the Earth try to stay in one location in space. It can't stay in that spot, because the UA is  pushing it in the direction we call "up". It's tendency would then be to spread out perpendicular to the UA. But that's not what is happening to the Earth.

As for the sun, the most popular idea among FEers is that it is indeed powered by fusion. Since the sun is a sphere (in either model) the energy generated would cause the sun to expand outward from the center. I don't get where you are going with your candy comment, but if you think the sun uses something other than fusion, please put your explanation up here. It's not FE if there aren't two contradicting explanations for a phenomenon.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2007, 12:55:34 PM »
I believe you need to state the reason you'd expect these objects to move apart. What force (relative to each other) do you envision would be pushing them apart? I can't think of any.
Gulliver
With the sun, the "force" would be the energy outputted by fusion.
With the earth, the "force" would be inertia.
Sorry, but I think we need to review here. Newton says F=ma, neglecting calculus and the detail that m is a function of speed, but I don't believe that we're talking about relative speeds so great as to make that important. Inertia(m) is not a force(F). So, you're confused on the Earth comment. Fusion is a nuclear reaction that does create energy. Energy can be used to do work. Work could be the spreading apart of the objects. But you still haven't told me how. Yes, I have money. Yes, money can be used to buy candy. That doesn't mean I've bought any candy. You have more work to do on your Sun comment. By the way, I'm not convinced that the Sun uses fusion to generate light. According to RE it's 94 million miles away. It would need fusion to provide all the necessary light if that were true. But consider a Sun much closer, would it need fusion to supply Earth's light? Wouldn't coal do just fine?

I hope that helps.
Gulliver
By no means am I confused. I am aware that inertia is not a force, which is why I put force in quotes (" "). Inertia makes the Earth try to stay in one location in space. It can't stay in that spot, because the UA is  pushing it in the direction we call "up". It's tendency would then be to spread out perpendicular to the UA. But that's not what is happening to the Earth.

As for the sun, the most popular idea among FEers is that it is indeed powered by fusion. Since the sun is a sphere (in either model) the energy generated would cause the sun to expand outward from the center. I don't get where you are going with your candy comment, but if you think the sun uses something other than fusion, please put your explanation up here. It's not FE if there aren't two contradicting explanations for a phenomenon.

Sorry, but you're not making any sense. Please review Newton's Laws of Motion. A object accelerates in the direction in which the force is applied, not outward from the "up" force.

Sorry again, but you're not making sense. A sphere that is heated internally need not expand. Even if the Sun were a solid, it could readily maintain a constant size, shape, and temperature, if only the energy created internally matched the energy radiated. Indeed RE relies on this principle too.

And would you do me the favor of using the right word, instead of the wrong word in quotes? I'm dimwitted and just can't guess what right word you want me to insert for you.

Also, I don't feel any need to conclude what source the Sun uses for energy.

I'm only trying to help, really.

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2007, 01:09:01 PM »
Sorry, but you're not making any sense. Please review Newton's Laws of Motion. A object accelerates in the direction in which the force is applied, not outward from the "up" force.
Think of a bug on the windshield of an accelerating car. Except with less violence.


Sorry again, but you're not making sense. A sphere that is heated internally need not expand. Even if the Sun were a solid, it could readily maintain a constant size, shape, and temperature, if only the energy created internally matched the energy radiated. Indeed RE relies on this principle too.

What would cause the
Quote
energy created internally
?
Right, RE gravitation by mass. Which FE doesn't use.


And would you do me the favor of using the right word, instead of the wrong word in quotes? I'm dimwitted and just can't guess what right word you want me to insert for you.
I only used force because that's what you asked for.


Also, I don't feel any need to conclude what source the Sun uses for energy.

I'm only trying to help, really.
As I suspected, you have little to contribute. All you can do is poke holes in other people's theories.

Good day.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2007, 03:13:27 PM by Agent_0042 »
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2007, 01:34:04 PM »
Sorry, but you're not making any sense. Please review Newton's Laws of Motion. A object accelerates in the direction in which the force is applied, not outward from the "up" force.
Think of a bug on the windshield of an accelerating car. Except with less violence.


Sorry again, but you're not making sense. A sphere that is heated internally need not expand. Even if the Sun were a solid, it could readily maintain a constant size, shape, and temperature, if only the energy created internally matched the energy radiated. Indeed RE relies on this principle too.
What would cause the
Quote
energy created internally
?
Right, RE gravitation by mass. Which FE doesn't use.


And would you do me the favor of using the right word, instead of the wrong word in quotes? I'm dimwitted and just can't guess what right word you want me to insert for you.
I only used force because that's what you asked for.


Also, I don't feel any need to conclude what source the Sun uses for energy.

I'm only trying to help, really.
As I suspected, you have nothing to contribute. All you can do is sling mud at other people's theories.

Good day.
I assume that the Earth is the bug in your analogy. What would be the windshield? A bug pushed along by an accelerating car's windshield would, all other forces net zero, stay put.

FE states that the sense of gravity on Earth is created by an acceleration. I've not seen any statement that the Sun would not have gravity. Regardless, until the Sun becomes a neutron star, it's fusion in the RE that's creating the light.  I don't comment on the Sun's source of power in FE. I take the FAQs at their value. If you wish to challenge that Sun's ability to produce the needed heat under the geometry of FE, then we could start an new thread for that debate. I believe that you may be able to point out another problem with FE if you were to do so.

If you'll point out where I slung any mud, I'll gladly apologize and refrain from similar errors in the future. However, your statements "... you have nothing to contribute." and "All you can do is sling mud at other people's theories." are personal attacks and do not further our understanding. Please consider some kindness.

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2007, 03:12:37 PM »
Sorry, I was trying to do my Midnight impression.  ;D I edited my post to be a bit nicer to you.

Yes, the UA would be the windshield in this case. If you still don't understand what I mean, I'll get you a diagram later. Probably not tonight, though.

I wouldn't take the FAQ at face value if I were you. It is very old and VERY obsolete. One of the mods right now is in the process of updating it, at which point we'll see what it has to say. I see no need to start a new thread about the power source behind the sun, as there are already many doing so and the FEers still try to cling to the fusion idea. And I'm fairly certain I can point out the problem you're thinking of already.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2007, 03:45:21 PM »
The sun in RE is trying to explode outwards: a force only counteracted by the implosive force of gravitation. A fusing FE-sun could not take advantage of this force due to its small size, and would just blow apart. If the sun was coal-powered or anything else it would:

A. Have run out ages ago most probably.
B. Not produce the emission spectra expected of hydrogen and helium.

The FE sun could not be gaseous as it would simple deflagrate, and were it solid it could not be made of the materials it has been shown to be made of.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Dilla

  • 40
  • Nothing Like This
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2007, 03:52:14 PM »
Sorry, but you're not making any sense. Please review Newton's Laws of Motion. A object accelerates in the direction in which the force is applied, not outward from the "up" force.
If gravitational attraction did not exist there wouldn't be anything holding the earth together aside from molecular bonds and particles of different charge. With the UA it would spread out, which conforms to Newton's First Law (by spreading out it is resisting being accelerated aka law of inertia)

I think a better analogy of it like throwing a sphere of pizza dough at a wall. The NET acceleration is in the direction of the force applied by the wall, but it also changes into a flatter more disk like shape.
Wavelength and intensity have nothing to do with frequency.

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2007, 04:30:43 PM »
Sorry, but you're not making any sense. Please review Newton's Laws of Motion. A object accelerates in the direction in which the force is applied, not outward from the "up" force.
If gravitational attraction did not exist there wouldn't be anything holding the earth together aside from molecular bonds and particles of different charge. With the UA it would spread out, which conforms to Newton's First Law (by spreading out it is resisting being accelerated aka law of inertia)

I think a better analogy of it like throwing a sphere of pizza dough at a wall. The NET acceleration is in the direction of the force applied by the wall, but it also changes into a flatter more disk like shape.
Dilla,

Thank you for the follow-up.

I don't mind the argument that if the Earth were to plow into a wall, there might be a spreading out as the result on a partially inelastic collision. But I strongly urge you to draw a force diagram to see if you can determine the sideways force required to support your original premise assuming that the Earth hasn't hit the wall. (It's not that you're not trying to use the right concepts, it more that you're using the concepts incorrectly. Also, while my crystal ball is hazy, I predict that this line of inquiry will not yield a significant challenge to FE.)

Regards,
Gulliver

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2007, 04:40:57 PM »
A force diagram would, presumably, assume the FE as a rigid body. This is not the case. On a large scale rock is more like a liquid or semi-fluid than the hard substance we are used to in terms of the way it behaves. The UA would result in a spreading of the Earth's matter because of the tendency of matter to try and occupy a state of lower potential in a gravitational field. This would be best achieved by the earth forming a layer 1 atom thick, as then all parts would be very very close to the point of lowest potential. The FE would try to attain this state, but needless to say it would take a ridiculous amount of time to even come close to that thin. In practical terms we would expect to see a spreading of the Earth over millions of years akin to the movement of tectonic plates, except in an outward direction from the north pole.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Pyrochimp

  • 577
  • Senator Awesome
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2007, 05:03:24 PM »
Gravity?  A liquid being accelerated in space eventually turning into a disc 1 atom thick perpendicular to the force seems kind of odd.
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2007, 05:11:07 PM »
Gravitation caused by acceleration.

The 1 atom thick thing was more illustrative than literal. Obviously at some point other forces will take over, but a massively thick piece of rock that is at least partially molten would easily spread out.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Pyrochimp

  • 577
  • Senator Awesome
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2007, 05:16:05 PM »
You're right about the molten rock part, but I'm talking about the actual gravitation of Earth's mass, not the supposed gravitation from the mysterious UA.
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2007, 05:17:31 PM »
But that would attract all matter to the centre of mass...forming a sphere.

I don't get where you're coming from.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2007, 05:29:38 PM »
A force diagram would, presumably, assume the FE as a rigid body. This is not the case. On a large scale rock is more like a liquid or semi-fluid than the hard substance we are used to in terms of the way it behaves. The UA would result in a spreading of the Earth's matter because of the tendency of matter to try and occupy a state of lower potential in a gravitational field. This would be best achieved by the earth forming a layer 1 atom thick, as then all parts would be very very close to the point of lowest potential. The FE would try to attain this state, but needless to say it would take a ridiculous amount of time to even come close to that thin. In practical terms we would expect to see a spreading of the Earth over millions of years akin to the movement of tectonic plates, except in an outward direction from the north pole.
I believe that I do understand your point. Your model would require agitation to allow various particles to move around and settle lower. That would provide the lateral forces needed in the force diagram. I also recall the FE (and RE) required earthquakes to explain other outcomes, so I can accept your prediction that over eons and ignoring the possibility that the Ice Wall and volcanism might negate the effect. But perhaps we should concentrate on effects that we can observe in our lifetimes. (I'm intent on determining by irrefutable, repeatable observation which theory deserves my confidence.)

*

Pyrochimp

  • 577
  • Senator Awesome
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2007, 05:53:39 PM »
But that would attract all matter to the centre of mass...forming a sphere.

I don't get where you're coming from.

Right, we've just proven the accelerating disc theory impossible, unless the disc is rigid and well-supported for some reason, in which case we're back to square one.
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #22 on: May 17, 2007, 06:09:37 PM »
OK cool. I think the disc would have to be pretty fucking rigid to not collapse under its gigatons of weight over millions of years. FEers? Is it made of some unearthly (;D) material we don't know of? Evidence?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

TheRealMagellan

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #23 on: May 17, 2007, 10:43:55 PM »
Entropy has nothing to do with the earth breaking apart. The earth is unmoving, as is the sun and moon. Newton stated that any object not in motion will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force, and since there is no force existing to act upon these objects, they stay at rest. Entropy has more to do with things like heat transfer throughout a system. You need to check your understanding of entropy.

Also, Dilla, watch how you talk on these forums. Through your posts, you come off as a pompous asshole with a "better than you" sort of attitude.

Your beliefs hold no more weight than any other.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #24 on: May 18, 2007, 01:41:01 AM »
Quote
The earth is unmoving, as is the sun and moon.

This is untrue in RE and FE, as in both the Earth is accelerating.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

DakaSha

  • 115
  • I'm so obviously gay
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2007, 04:28:34 AM »
sheesh i should have stayed in school and learned some physics...

i have a somewhat off-topic question here: i keep on hearing that speed = acceleration... why? i mean ca somebody give me an example?

speed to me is a constant.. well speed. and acceleration is gaining speed. why is something moving at constant speed accelerating?

I know the waterfalls shadow is wrong. Eat a dick you fuckin know-it-all :P
A Genius: PBF

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2007, 05:35:15 AM »
Surely, you need to consider the Earth's rotation, as well? that would push matter outwards

Re: Entropy?
« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2007, 05:37:58 AM »
Objects moving at a constant speed are not accelerating.  But objects can accelerate at a constant though.

?

DakaSha

  • 115
  • I'm so obviously gay
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2007, 07:40:06 AM »
ah i must of misread somthing then... either that or somebody just posted junk

I know the waterfalls shadow is wrong. Eat a dick you fuckin know-it-all :P
A Genius: PBF

*

Pyrochimp

  • 577
  • Senator Awesome
Re: Entropy?
« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2007, 07:48:43 AM »
They could be talking about angular acceleration in RE, where the Earth's speed is constant, but its velocity is changing, since velocity is speed and direction, and acceleration is a change in velocity.
Some people are ****ing stupid! ~ George Carlin

Mathematical proof of the flat Earth:
[{(Diameter of Earth)*(tan[distance from Earth to sun/distance from North pole to equator])}2]/0