Re: First Law of Thermodynamics [from a dummy called (m)adman]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:32:24 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:03:24 -0500, heekster <heekster@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:34:04 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:28:27 -0500, heekster <heekster@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:31:13 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:36:57 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 02:44:16 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:34:08 -0500, heekster <heekster@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:32:25 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:53:44 -0500, "adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Since some of you did not understand the First Law of Thermodynamics thread
#1,

I will now make a Thermodynamics thread#2 for dummies.

Let us begin with a look at the defination of the First Law of
Thermodynamics

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of
Energy.

Correct.

This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to
another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the
total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant.

Correct.

Not correct. There is no proof that the universe is closed in a
thermodynamic sense.

It has to be, otherwise it is not the universe.

This is not correct. You are assuming that the word "universe"
means "everything".

That is the way the word is defined.

That's a hypothesis. In fact there are
parts of our universe that are now beyond reach in that no light
from them will ever reach us.

They are still part of the universe.

Then you've got a problem. Everys second new parts of the
universe recede too far for us to contact them any more.
And they take their energy with them.

The universe does not just consist of the parts we can see.


Worse, standard thermodynamics insists that the total energy in
a system can be known. We can't know the total energy in the
universe.

The odds appear very strong that the total energy is zero.

The zero point of energy is arbitrary. Cosmologists have their
own favorite zero points.

I believe that what is being talked about is the net energy
is a given region of space. Done carefully this avoids the
problem of having to define the moment in time when you
measure the energy.

No, I'm talking about the total energy of the whole universe.

The problem lies in the "moment of time", not in measuring
the energy.

Relativistic thermodynamics is a very difficult subject and
the few folks who do it argue with each other a lot. There is
no time variable in standard thermodynamics. One can't describe
the universe without a time varible. Hence standard thermo
can't apply, unmodified, to the universe.

Time can be ignored when looking at the closed system is all you want
is the total energy level.

I don't see how. Now right here isn't now somewhere else.

Now is now everywhere.

Wrong answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

At relativistic speeds, time slows relative to external frames of
reference. Your knowledge of cosmology is apparently moving at v ~ c.
And it has been since the first half of the twentieth century.

Granny and egg sucking spring to mind.

I suppose that will do for a weak mind.

Now is now. Universal. It has nothing to do with the passage of time.
For someone moving at relativistic speeds the time between the now
when I started to write and the now when I finish typing may be a lot
shorter than it is for me - but the nows are the same nows to both of
us.

In simplest terms, you do not understand relativity.

Since I've written articles on the subject, lectured on the subject
and edited books on the subject, I can assure you that I do understand
the subject.

Perhaps you should study the subject, instead of continuing your
uninformed bloviating.

.

Relevant Pages