optimist

I am working on a paper for my undergrad physics class. It tries explaining the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and then briefly mentioning certain places perpetual motionists and creationists misuse those laws. I leave out information theory, I am way to "angry" sounding towards creationism in the essay, and I do not explore creationist ideas too thoroughly... I already know that and am working to fix those deficiencies. However I need feedback on all the other deficiencies I do not see myself.

If you know of anything else I should add, leave out, quote... anything, please post here or email me at andrew.thomas.fyfe@us.army.mil

Here is a link to the paper w/o bibliography or footnotes-
<a href="http://academic.evergreen.edu/f/fyfand30/thermo.html" target="_blank">http://academic.evergreen.edu/f/fyfand30/thermo.html</a>

Thanks.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: optimist ]</p>

Automaton

Well done! That is an extremely good paper, it has found its way into my bookmarks for the next time a creationist starts bothering me with the second law argument (last time, it took me two hours of heated debate just to convince him that he was wrong!) Sorry I am unable to provide any constructive criticism, as my knowledge of physics is somewhat meager, but I'd thought you'd like to know.

Answerer

I think you can added in saying that those who don't believe in 2nd law of thermodymanics can throw their ovens, air conditionors, etc in their house as they bound to cause problems since they think the 2nd law is wrong. Sometimes, I found it hard to believe that these people actually delude themselves up to the point where they even distrust the working function of their house refrigerator.

optimist

Good call Answerer. I need to cut out negitive attacks on creationists in the paper but I think your advise is too good to not put in.

Thanks for the comments Automaton. I hope the paper helped, but if you get into an arguement with a advanced creationist they might start talking about "information theory" and evolution which I did not cover in my paper (but I plan on doing later), so be forewarned. I doubt you'll get that much though.

I am endlessly curious what my prof. will think of this paper... *stress alert* <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Automaton

I think the refridgerator would be the best example of the second law counter to the creationist claims.

hedonist ogre

Overall, a very good exposé on thermodynamics. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Not to be nit-picky, but you asked for it. I would suggest a few minor corrections:

1) At the beginning of the Common Sense section, you talk about Columbus and belief in a flat. It was generally known and accepted that the earth was a sphere and the approximate size was known, Columbus thought the size estimates were too high and thus thought he could make it around to India. (see <a href="http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm" target="_blank">this article</a>)

2) Grammar errors - "apart of sciences past" = "a part of science's past" ; "win themselves a noble prize" = win themselves a nobel prize" ; "and have been respectfully been shown where they made a mistake in their reasoning" = too many beens ; "only one concern of it’s destination" = "only one concern of its destination" ; "When the National Academy of Sciences polled 517 of its members show that a little over 93% are atheists or agnostics." = incomplete sentence ; "THE BIG BANG (EXTREAMS) PT. 1" {heading) = "THE BIG BANG (EXTREMES) PT. 1" ; "The principles most such a machine would run on are well-known and common place." = "The principles such a machine would run on are well known and commonplace." ; "the same amount of energy increases you speed less and less" = "the same amount of energy increases your speed less and less" ; "The temperatures where so extreme at creation" = "The temperatures were so extreme at creation" ; "The motor expends energy, irreversible, and this raises the entropy of the kitchen." = "The motor expends energy, IRREVERSIBLY, and this raises the entropy of the kitchen" ; "We life forms ourselves require must break the chemical bonds of food in order to live" = "We life forms ourselves must break the chemical bonds of food in order to live"

3) The section CONSERVATION OF ENERGY AND THE BIG BANG (EXTREAMS) PT. 1 could be edited for readability.

4) In the section CONSERVATION OF ENERGY AND THE BIG BANG (UNKNOWNS) PT. 2, I personally would add a brief discussion of Bell's theorem to the section on indeterminism in Quantum physics.

Good job!

optimist

"earth was a sphere and the approximate size was known"

Thanks for stressing this to me. I knew this, but thought I might be able to get away by putting "many people" instead of "people at that time" but really I should just search for a different example of commonsense being wrong…it shouldn't be a long search.

"Grammar errors"

Wow, thanks for taking the effort in finding those! That helps a lot!

"The section CONSERVATION OF ENERGY AND THE BIG BANG (EXTREAMS) PT. 1 could be edited for readability."

I'll definitely look into that.

"Bell's theorem to the section on indeterminism in Quantum physics."

I might try to include a mention of Bell's theorem but I have been trying to reduce the length of the essay--maybe in an appendix.

Thank you for all your advise, it is not nit-picky but in fact very important! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

liquid

NOTE: I am being really really really picky here, but only because I care!

"laws of thermodynamics are awash"

Laws can't be awash. Keep technical papers technical.

"derivability"

derivation. Simpler word and works just as well.

"carcass etc"

Again, this looks more like an opinion essay than a technical paper. If that's what you want, then keep the metaphorical language. Otherwise, drop it.

"motionists"

No such word. Try 'suppoters of...' or similar

"The"

Don't capitalise. And lawS.

"top expositions of thermodynamics on the internet"

Source?

"paradox"

stick to contradiction. it's not a paradox as such.

"bad wording"

try something like 'improper explanation/definitions'. Saying something like 'bad karma' is not actually good grammar, and wording is not the right, well, word.

"plague all texts"

horrible generalisation and one that will get any engineer's backs up, including myself. try 'many texts'.

Scientists 'ARE' not writers.

"no dead definition will dupe you ever again."

A bold claim and an inappropriate one.

"way of lowering a weight differently from that by which it is raised"

You might wish to mention that thermodynamic properties are 'properties' precisely because their value does not depend on the route taken to arrive at them. Similarly, an the value of an integral is the same no matter which route of integration is taken (which is important in many thermo eqns.). Therefore, the issue of raising and lowering differently is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with process, only property.

"Darwin and Wallace with evolution"

Sentence too brief, improper grammar.

"where"

were

"independently suggested something resembling the modern law of energy conservation"

different statements of the same law are called corollaries. Good word to put in.

"In science, when a truth cannot be explained, but always occurs, it is a law"

A law is a mathematical description of reality, with no explanatory power. That's a better definition. Some laws can be explained, e.g. Hooke's. Oh, and it is 'Isaac'.

Enough for now. Got to go. Migt do more later if it is helpful, or just tell me to shut up!



I really like the body of it so far by the way.

wdog

I didn't read all, but I'll chip in with 2 cents anyway.

As with theory and law stuff, I like to give one good example of why those words can be just semantics. the creationists like to ignorantly claim that somehow a law is better than theory (i assume so that they can simplify their argument as they usually don't understand many details of physics). The theory of relativity provides a more accurate correction to Newton's second law. The second law is good only for speeds less than about 80% the spped of light, relativity is good at all speeds. Here is a case where 'theory' is more accurate. These stupid word games are a substitute for real understanding.

Also as for the second law of thermo, there are plenty examples of self-organizing open systems. Creationist ignorance usually entails asserting that since all isolated systems must increase in entropy, then so must most open including the cell and genome. What they never do though is actually perform any kind of rigorous justification. Only analogy and assertion are provided.

Here is a good example of a system (closed even) that self organizes on a molecular scale.
<a href="http://www.chem.northwestern.edu/brochure/stupp.html" target="_blank">http://www.chem.northwestern.edu/brochure/stupp.html</a>

This alone should be enough to refute any assertion that everything must tend toward disorder.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Optics Guy ]</p>

optimist

liquid -

Thank you for all the feedback, it really helps.

I am not the best at grammar, and so that aspect helped a lot.

"Laws can't be awash. Keep technical papers technical."

It is not a technical paper since it has no math in it. It is not a simple paper because it goes more in-depth then a casual reader would be willing to go. In this gray intermediate level paper I decided not to restrict myself solely to a 3rd person, technical style. However I would like to cut out those places where it seems unprofessional and I feel that the entire "carcass etc" is too metaphorical. I definitely plan on cutting that out.

"horrible generalization and one that will get any engineer's backs up"

One of your many good criticisms, but I am curious what "get any engineer's backs up" means...?

I really appreciated everything you said and would be honored if you feel like criticizing it some more.

Optics Guy -

Thank you for your great example of why the law/theory division is just semantics.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: optimist ]</p>