Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 724:
Line 724: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 13:50, September 26, 2016
, 13:50, September 26, 2016Replied to comment
<center><big><math>\Delta E + d-T = hc</math></big></center>
<center><big><math>\Delta E + d-T = hc</math></big></center>
:Where <math>E</math> is an elephant, <math>h</math> is the act of the elephant hanging off <math>c</math> (a cliff) while gripping <math>d</math> (a dandelion) with <math>t</math> (its trunk). Math can "prove" just about anything; if you want to balance a battleship on the spout of a tea kettle, math will "prove" to the world it can be done. But actually seeing it is something else. The battleship's anchor alone would crush that tea kettle, and the elephant will fall to the bottom of the cliff, taking the dandelion with it. Your math is not matching up with what everyone is actually seeing on a daily basis. You are not correct. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 08:52, 26 September 2016 (EDT)
:Where <math>E</math> is an elephant, <math>h</math> is the act of the elephant hanging off <math>c</math> (a cliff) while gripping <math>d</math> (a dandelion) with <math>t</math> (its trunk). Math can "prove" just about anything; if you want to balance a battleship on the spout of a tea kettle, math will "prove" to the world it can be done. But actually seeing it is something else. The battleship's anchor alone would crush that tea kettle, and the elephant will fall to the bottom of the cliff, taking the dandelion with it. Your math is not matching up with what everyone is actually seeing on a daily basis. You are not correct. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 08:52, 26 September 2016 (EDT)
I have no idea what your equation means. Maths works by making some assumptions and proceed from there. For example, you never specified the gravitational field strength. On an asteroid, you could probably balance a typical anchor on a typical kettle with no problems.
Maths is based on logic. Maths won't allow you to 'prove' anything you want unless you make a logical contradiction. For example, you cannot 'prove' that 7 is a solution to the equation <math>2x=4</math>, interpreting that equation in standard notation.
A mathematical proof works either from a set of axioms (e.g. Euclid's axioms for space) or already something already derived from axioms and proceeding from there in a series of logical steps to derive something new or show something is true or false for example.
I am arguing that the second law does not apply to open systems. This:
<math> \Delta S = \int_1^2 \frac{dQ}{T}</math>
is a mathematical '''definition''' of the change in entropy in classical thermodynamics. I have started from here and calculated the entropy change for the system above. Since it is an open system and I have found the change to be negative, it follows that the statement "entropy cannot decrease in an open system" is false for that system.
I am '''not''' denying that entropy can increase in an open system. If you look at my maths, you can see that if we heated the coffee instead of allowing to to cool its entropy would '''increase'''.
If you disagree with my maths, please point out the step where I have made an error. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 09:50, 26 September 2016 (EDT)
(username removed)