Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 03-08-2002, 12:35 PM

Corwin:

Quote:

Fine tron.... so maybe you can explain where all that energy.... POTENTIAL OR OTHERWISE... is going?

Absorbed by the other matter around it? Fine, so either you're going to shatter the planet, or increase its temperature. Take your pick. Energy doesn't just sit there, potential or otherwise. There's always some effect. (Whether it's enough for us to notice or not is irrelevant.)

Christ you're thick. The whole point of potential energy is that it does just sit there - it doesn't go anywhere until you convert it into another form. In this case, it's not being converted into another form.

Let's go back to the rock on the table - its potential energy does not gradually decrease over time as it heats the table. It remains constant until you take away the table and let the rock drop.

tronvillain · 03-08-2002, 12:38 PM

Corwin:

Quote:

Your site doesn't even define work. Gee....

Are you saying you don't know the definition of work? W=Fd? Joules? Anything coming back to you?

Bookman · 03-08-2002, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:
<strong>It never ceases to amaze me how people will take my fairly moderate position and warp it to seem like I'm some blissed out wacko. Oh well.</strong>

It never ceases to amaze me how some people just can't bring themselves to say "I was wrong."

Your statement was neither moderate or extreme; it was simply incorrect. Period.

Bookman

tronvillain · 03-08-2002, 12:46 PM

Corwin:

Quote:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (Classical physics, I know... but still valid in this context.) Now... what we have at the center of the earth is a MASSIVE compressive force.

This is, in fact, the kind of force people are looking at using to make thermonukes that don't require a fission nuke to set them off.

This pressure is constant. Which means that in this system what you have is a constant application of force. Again.... it all has to go somewhere.

Everything is fine right up until the bold text. At that point you depart from existing physics.

Quote:

We also have to clarify my position.... (as it's been misinterpeted by people who are biased against my positions from other posts....) I'm not claiming this is the SOLE cause of the temperature at the earth's core, and never have. But it does have some effect.

It doesn't matter whether you think it's the sole cause or not, the effect appears to exist only in your mind. Does anyone other than you make this claim?

Quote:

It never ceases to amaze me how people will take my fairly moderate position and warp it to seem like I'm some blissed out wacko. Oh well.

Ignoring physics is not a moderate position.

bluefugue · 03-08-2002, 12:52 PM

Sorry Corwin, I don't think one can really hold a "moderate" opinion on this matter. This isn't a debate about the ethics of abortion, or the merits of Sartre's philosophy. This stuff has already been worked out. It's sort of like saying "1+1=3" is a more moderate position than "1+1=10."

(hope you don't mind if I borrow your shades)

Deimos · 03-08-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin:
<strong>

And to answer this I'd need more information, like exactly what the column is made of, (yes it does make a difference) and several formulae that I don't happen to have. Again, we're talking conceptual theory here, not math. (That's a different part of the process.)</strong>

Nice dodge, however, if you're so keen on converting us to your way of thinking (

) it wouldn't be to hard to show some initiative and pick a property set for the material. I don't care what it is, chose anything you like but please don't keep shovelling it.

Even an OUTLINE of how you would proceed with the calculation would be something.

Corwin · 03-08-2002, 12:59 PM

Fine tron.... try something for me.

Go find a battery (potential energy) that's been sitting there for about 5 years and use it.

What happens exactly?

Deimos · 03-08-2002, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
[QB}Actually, that's not what we want him to tell us. We want to know how constant pressure produces heat, not how applying pressure to a system will heat it.[/QB]

I wasn't too sure what he was meaning, but now that I've re-read some of his posts I see what you mean.

I wonder what Corwin thinks happens when an object is subjected to a tensile stress - does the object absorb heat from the surroundings?

Can this get any more entertaining.....

Baloo · 03-08-2002, 01:14 PM

Corwin,

The potential energy of a rock on a table is converted to kinetic energy when it falls off the table to the ground. The kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy when it hits the ground. Let's assume we're dealing with a total energy of 1 Joule. On the table, there is 1 Joule of potential energy. As it falls, the 1 Joule or potential energy becomes kinetic energy. When it hits the ground, the 1 Joule of kinetic energy is converted to 1 Joule of thermal energy (yes, the ground will get a little warmer).

But now enter Corwin's Wonderful World of Science. In this world, as the rock sits on the table, it's potential energy starts "turning into" thermal energy, heating the table we're to presume. After all, says Corwin, it HAS to go somewhere. So, we are to believe, that after 1 day, the rock (still on the table) still has 1 Joule of potential energy. But it has also heated the table up (by how much, you ask? gosh darn it, Corwin doesn't have the formula handy, quit being so anal, we're talking concepts here). But, I'm guessing that if we waited a few thousand years, the rock would still have it's 1 Joule of Potential Energy, but would have probably heated the table up by 100's of Joules of Magicle Corwin Energy. Or would the Potential Energy of the rock start to decrease over time...hmmm... that would be interesting. Eventually, maybe the rock would lose all of it's potential energy to heating the table, and start floating...

Similarly, in the pressurized center of the earth, sitting there with so much potential energy, well.... that potential energy HAS to go somewhere, right? So naturally, it's going to heat itself up (somehow). Oddly, though, the center of the earth is able to heat itself up without LOSING any pressure, thus without losing any POTENTIAL ENERGY. And yet, magically, we get THERMAL ENERGY. Let me say this agian. EVEN THOUGH THE POTENTIAL ENERGY REMAINS THE SAME, IN CORWIN'S MIND, THERMAL ENERGY JUST STARTS "BEING" THERE. hmmmm....

Honestly, I wonder if the guy is just trying to feign stupidity to see how long he can egg us on... in which case, I think a DNFTT will be more than appropriate.

03-08-2002, 01:16 PM

Corwin vs. the second law of thermodynamics.

Bambi meets Godzilla.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2002, 12:52 PM	#85
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	Sorry Corwin, I don't think one can really hold a "moderate" opinion on this matter. This isn't a debate about the ethics of abortion, or the merits of Sartre's philosophy. This stuff has already been worked out. It's sort of like saying "1+1=3" is a more moderate position than "1+1=10." (hope you don't mind if I borrow your shades)

03-08-2002, 12:59 PM	#87
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Fine tron.... try something for me. Go find a battery (potential energy) that's been sitting there for about 5 years and use it. What happens exactly?

03-08-2002, 01:14 PM	#89
Baloo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 417	Corwin, The potential energy of a rock on a table is converted to kinetic energy when it falls off the table to the ground. The kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy when it hits the ground. Let's assume we're dealing with a total energy of 1 Joule. On the table, there is 1 Joule of potential energy. As it falls, the 1 Joule or potential energy becomes kinetic energy. When it hits the ground, the 1 Joule of kinetic energy is converted to 1 Joule of thermal energy (yes, the ground will get a little warmer). But now enter Corwin's Wonderful World of Science. In this world, as the rock sits on the table, it's potential energy starts "turning into" thermal energy, heating the table we're to presume. After all, says Corwin, it HAS to go somewhere. So, we are to believe, that after 1 day, the rock (still on the table) still has 1 Joule of potential energy. But it has also heated the table up (by how much, you ask? gosh darn it, Corwin doesn't have the formula handy, quit being so anal, we're talking concepts here). But, I'm guessing that if we waited a few thousand years, the rock would still have it's 1 Joule of Potential Energy, but would have probably heated the table up by 100's of Joules of Magicle Corwin Energy. Or would the Potential Energy of the rock start to decrease over time...hmmm... that would be interesting. Eventually, maybe the rock would lose all of it's potential energy to heating the table, and start floating... Similarly, in the pressurized center of the earth, sitting there with so much potential energy, well.... that potential energy HAS to go somewhere, right? So naturally, it's going to heat itself up (somehow). Oddly, though, the center of the earth is able to heat itself up without LOSING any pressure, thus without losing any POTENTIAL ENERGY. And yet, magically, we get THERMAL ENERGY. Let me say this agian. EVEN THOUGH THE POTENTIAL ENERGY REMAINS THE SAME, IN CORWIN'S MIND, THERMAL ENERGY JUST STARTS "BEING" THERE. hmmmm.... Honestly, I wonder if the guy is just trying to feign stupidity to see how long he can egg us on... in which case, I think a DNFTT will be more than appropriate.

03-08-2002, 01:16 PM	#90
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	Corwin vs. the second law of thermodynamics. Bambi meets Godzilla.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.