More Bad News For JPP's Coal & Oil Shills

Stretch said:
I'm in the mood to publicly embarrass myself today so I'm gonna take a stab at the thermodynamic stuff. Hopefully, Sailor and/or Alice can correct me where I'm wrong.

From what I was taught...looooooooooonnnng time ago.

1st Law:
Ultimately says nothing is every destroyed, nothing. Scientists have recognized that things change form, but nothing is ever destroyed. Furthermore, nothing is being created. That which has already been created can be rearranged into other shapes and forms, but nothing is being created. Science knows that. Matter is static in the sense that it's never destroyed and it's never being created. Nothing new and nothing going out of existence (kind of like what the Bible says). Science calls it conservation of mass and energy, right?

2nd Law:
This states that although mass and energy are always conserved, they are also breaking down and going from order to disorder. In other words, while you never destroy matter, and it's never created, it is disintegrating, breaking down. It goes from order to disorder, from cosmos to chaos, from system to non-system. Matter breaks down and as it breaks down its energy dissipates and ultimately the world and the universe as we know it will become dead because of the total breakdown of energy. It'll be unable to reproduce itself and it'll become a dead universe.

This is the opposite of the Theory of Evolution which says that somehow matter is in the process of going upward...it's always improving and it goes from the one celled amoeba to complex man. That's not what science and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says.
Click to expand...

You are referring to what is known as the heat death of the universe. Energy would not become dead, it would just approach a state where it is evenly distributed, thereby allowing no work to performed. That is one of the most common views. There are plenty of folks who think differently about that. They are of the mind that entropy cannot be applied to the universe for reasons such as if the universe has never been in equilibrium, how can entropy apply to it?

I like the fact that you took the time to write down what you did.
 
Stretch said:
I'm in the mood to publicly embarrass myself today so I'm gonna take a stab at the thermodynamic stuff. Hopefully, Sailor and/or Alice can correct me where I'm wrong.

From what I was taught...looooooooooonnnng time ago.

1st Law:
Ultimately says nothing is every destroyed, nothing. Scientists have recognized that things change form, but nothing is ever destroyed. Furthermore, nothing is being created. That which has already been created can be rearranged into other shapes and forms, but nothing is being created. Science knows that. Matter is static in the sense that it's never destroyed and it's never being created. Nothing new and nothing going out of existence (kind of like what the Bible says). Science calls it conservation of mass and energy, right?

2nd Law:
This states that although mass and energy are always conserved, they are also breaking down and going from order to disorder. In other words, while you never destroy matter, and it's never created, it is disintegrating, breaking down. It goes from order to disorder, from cosmos to chaos, from system to non-system. Matter breaks down and as it breaks down its energy dissipates and ultimately the world and the universe as we know it will become dead because of the total breakdown of energy. It'll be unable to reproduce itself and it'll become a dead universe.

This is the opposite of the Theory of Evolution which says that somehow matter is in the process of going upward...it's always improving and it goes from the one celled amoeba to complex man. That's not what science and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says.
Click to expand...

That is a very good understanding. Now if we apply it to energy production we get the following

Oil, natural gas and coal are high density forms of energy

Solar and wind are diffuse forms of energy

This means that the former has more stored potential energy than the latter.

This is the crux of the matter and the point I am making. You can't change the fact that oil, natural gas and coal have more stored potential energy than wind and solar. Thus making them more efficient and more cost effective
 
Sailor said:
This is words of wisdom here. They can ( and right now have to) compliment each other to serves the worlds energy needs. Eventually there will even be a power source that dwarfs what we are all discussing now. Maybe not in our lifetime, but someone will figure it out.
Click to expand...

complement

:chuckle:
 
Sailor said:
It is clear your "command" of the English language has not managed to keep you employed. Ever think of Spanish there oh public assistance collecting one?
Click to expand...

Hey, the same guy going around calling everyone uneducated makes the most embarrassing junior H.S. usage and spelling errors. You shouldn't be surprised when someone points them out. Maybe you shouldn't be such a prick. That would work.
 
Micawber said:
Hey, the same guy going around calling everyone uneducated makes the most embarrassing junior H.S. usage and spelling errors. You shouldn't be surprised when someone points them out. Maybe you shouldn't be such a prick. That would work.
Click to expand...

And you are still unemployed. Funny how that works huh?
 
Sailor said:
And you are still unemployed. Funny how that works huh?
Click to expand...

Nope, gainfully employed. That doesn't change the fact that you did not know to use complement instead of compliment in that dumbass yawn commentary above. It's a tell. You had a poor education. What would your Harvard educated relatives say? Bahahaha
 
Micawber said:
Nope, gainfully employed. That doesn't change the fact that you did not know to use complement instead of compliment in that dumbass yawn commentary above. It's a tell. You had a poor education. What would your Harvard educated relatives say? Bahahaha
Click to expand...

Finally got a job as a Walmart greeter huh? About your level.
 
Stretch said:
I'm in the mood to publicly embarrass myself today so I'm gonna take a stab at the thermodynamic stuff. Hopefully, Sailor and/or Alice can correct me where I'm wrong.

From what I was taught...looooooooooonnnng time ago.

1st Law:
Ultimately says nothing is ever destroyed, nothing. Scientists have recognized that things change form, but nothing is ever destroyed. Furthermore, nothing is being created. That which has already been created can be rearranged into other shapes and forms, but nothing is being created. Science knows that. Matter is static in the sense that it's never destroyed and it's never being created. Nothing new and nothing going out of existence (kind of like what the Bible says). Science calls it conservation of mass and energy, right?

2nd Law:
This states that although mass and energy are always conserved, they are also breaking down and going from order to disorder. In other words, while you never destroy matter, and it's never created, it is disintegrating, breaking down. It goes from order to disorder, from cosmos to chaos, from system to non-system. Matter breaks down and as it breaks down its energy dissipates and ultimately the world and the universe as we know it will become dead because of the total breakdown of energy. It'll be unable to reproduce itself and it'll become a dead universe.

This is the opposite of the Theory of Evolution which says that somehow matter is in the process of going upward...it's always improving and it goes from the one celled amoeba to complex man. That's not what science and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says.
Click to expand...

You are wrong on the Evolution thing. It says nothing about a species or organisms "improving".
 
domer76 said:
You are wrong on the Evolution thing. It says nothing about a species or organisms "improving".
Click to expand...

I've seen some version of that entropy belying evolution specious argument before from the Christian right over the years. It must be conservative gospel. We should not be evolving, humans should be disintegrating and flying off into the dark recesses of the universe.
Knowledge is a pick and choose, or a pick and misapply sort of thing with them.
 
Sailor said:
For you it is a godsend. Guess you are a believer now huh?
Click to expand...

I believe you are a worthless poster with poor English skills (with a corresponding intellectual inferiority complex that presents as an overgrown ego and anger management difficulties, much like Dump)
 
Right said:
If your measure of a fellow poster is based on a thanks to a poster that you don't like, then what does that say about you lol?
Click to expand...

A supposed engineer thanking a post full of ignorant blather as if it were correct.
Fool.
 
Stretch said:
Guess you didn't read the whole article...or just didn't comprehend it.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to play word games with you. I have never understood why most message boarders feel the need to play arm chair expert on every topic under the sun. I worked for near a decade in petroleum exploration. But if it somehow suits your cyber-ego to think you know more than me about petroleum, I have no vested interest in debunking your fantasy.

Your assertion that oil is available as an "endless" supply would be laughed out of every oil corporation meeting and seminar I ever attended. Oil takes millions of years to generate, and thus it is not available to us to use as energy in limitless and endless supplies. To suggest or imply anything else is word games suitable only for dunces and ignoramuses.

National Geographic

Non-renewable energy comes from sources that will run out or will not be replenished in our lifetimes—or even in many, many lifetimes.*
*
Most non-renewable energy sources are fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/non-renewable-energy/
Click to expand...
 
1) Laughers and scoffers don't bother me.
2) Simple math shows millions of years of oil and has constantly been renewing with lighter crude showing up as the newer batches. So, its already been replenishing over many, many lifetimes.
3) It's not from "fossils". No animals and plants have been found in depths below 100 miles.
4) Do them all from personal choice. I don't care. Oil, gas, coal, wind, solar...whatever floats your boat. :)

National Geographic mirrors leftist ideologies in all forms of its media anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top