A conversation between an atheist and a Christian who discuss homosexuality and neon signs.
I grew up in a religious family. As a child, my mother dragged me to faith healers who showed up once a month in Albuquerque and tried to “cure” my deafness. The faith healers themselves, while varied in the way they delivered their healing sessions, almost always shared the same routine. They would prop me up on stage in front of the church, and begin yelling something to the effect that I had somehow been wronged. By whom exactly was never answered, though I once asked a pastor, “If God made me deaf, why do we need faith healers to fix what God has done? That doesn’t make sense.” (My pastor immediately started praying, though I never got an answer).…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments176 - gonzo marx
Les... it looks like the olde "7 x 13 = 28" Abbott and Costello schtick
i think i am following about the heat bit, but not how the coolant function of the fridge is "free"
to my Understanding, the total electric energy into the room is slightly greater than the function of all work done + heat loss due to hysterisis
but i'm waiting to see your entire bit all in one place so i can look it over, and again am willing to leave it to duane to check the math...i'm not at finest critical thinking capabilities at the moment...will look at it all again once finished with current difficulties and a nap...
but do keep going, am checking it as i can stand still..
and Andy...good ta *see* ya
Excelsior?
177 - Andy Marsh
The fisrt time I read the Gospel of Thomas (thanks gonzo) I could not understand why it was left off the list...then it was pointed out to me that the one quote...
77. Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
And this one...
39. Jesus said, "The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves."
These two quotes I think would have made it more difficult to get people into any church...let alone one that was in hiding!
These quotes were copied from... Gnosis
178 - Les Slater
Gonzo,
If you did we can explore the significance of this and move on the a scenereo where the violation of the second law is explored. This will require move from the frig example (also works with air conditioner bu not as easy to explain) to a new one where the thermal energy of molecules in a gas is locally reduced causing a local cooling.
Les
179 - gonzo marx
Les - carry on, as i said, i am interested in seeing where this goes...
Andy - glad to see your Reading has struck a Chord
the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Simon and Judas are indeed very interesting reading and aid in putting the first 2 centuries of christian thinking into context, a context far different than what Iraneus and the unified (catholic)Church and it's descendants desired...
big difference between working towards personal Enlightenment and scapegoating "salvation" unearned, eh?
Excelsior?
180 - Les Slater
Gonzo,
"Les - carry on, as i said, i am interested in seeing where this goes..."
Are you following it so far? Do you understand my 166 and 178. duane finaly acknowledge energy out = energy in. This is clealy pretty basic but just as clearly neither of you saw it in the examples I was presenting until much explanation with concrete examples.
Do you understand why I say the cooling in the frig was absoluteley free?
I long ago said where I was going. I need to know that the steps layed out so far are understoo.
Les
181 - Andy Marsh
LIke I said before gonzo...I was baptized a catholic...did first communion....and even comfirmation...I'm saved...doesn't matter what I do as long as I go to confession every once in a while...and get last rites before I die...the rest of you are screwed! At least that's what they taught me in catholic school!!!
Amazing that when I was a kid I had to go to confession for going to a church that wasn't catholic, christian, but not catholic! That was one of the things that really really bothered me about catholicism...that...we're right and everyone else is wrong attitude just really pisses me off!
Side note...I was in Borders...looking for the Gospel of Mary Magdalene...a saw a lady that was picking out different bible type books...you know the stuff..."scholarly" interpretations of bible writings...I pointed her towards the Gospel of Thomas explaining to her how incredible I thought it was and she actually picked one up and purchased it. I'd have loved to been a fly on the wall when she showed her pastor or priest the books she had purchased! Do you suppose I need to go to confession for that one???
182 - gonzo marx
Andy - this one was for you....
i figured you would get the Joke/Revelation when i typed it...
for Andy...
Excelsior?
183 - Andy Marsh
Very entertaining...both the links...thanks again gonzo.
184 - Les Slater
Specifically, do you see why the refrig being On or OFF in the winter example ment aabsolutely NOTHING as far as the amount of electricity being used?
185 - Les Slater
I can explain why the is no difference as to how much electricity whether the frig is on or not. I can lay it out more clearly if we do not full understand.
This is very contrary to current thinking so I am not surprised to disbelief here.
I'm about to shut off the computer and head home to Detroit. See ya in a few hours.
Les
186 - duane
OK, Les, your presentation thus far has a bit o' the sleight-of-hand about it.
"The cooling action of the frig is ABSOLUTELY FREE!"
You're simply trading off heating from two power sources.
Also, your assumption was that the fridge had reached so-called "equilibrium," where no cooling action is required at all. So, your conclusion in 166 contains in it a direct contradiction of your assumption.
Your criterion of merit is the amount of room heating as it translates to a comfortable room temperature. By removing the need for the fridge to cool, you may as well use light bulbs as heat sources. The fridge, in its capacity to cool air, has been removed from the equation.
But let's not get sidetracked again. Please just lay out your argument in toto, and then we'll have a look at it.
187 - Les Slater
duane,
I'm at a rest stop in Michigan so will only be able to give this one shot for now.
"By removing the need for the fridge to cool, you may as well use light bulbs as heat sources. The fridge, in its capacity to cool air, has been removed from the equation."
This is precisely what I intended to do. And yes light bulbs could be used. However the light bulb would not have any of its internal parts below ambient temperature. The frig does. From a black box point of view, over a bracketed period of time, there is no difference between the light bulb (I prefer a heater) and the frig.
If you agree that this is the case, then one musk ask, what energy is keeping the internal temp of the frig at a relatively stable temperature, which is below the ambient?
No slight of hand here.
Les
188 - duane
Les, again you're jumping back and forth between idealizations and realities. On the one hand, you assume the the fridge temperature is stable with no outside energy input, but on the other hand you're asking what energy maintains stability. You can't have it both ways.
IF it's stable, there is NO cooling required (by definition). The only energy input is stand-by energy.
IF cooling is required, then energy input is required.
The REAL answer is that there is no way to keep the fridge colder than the outside environment without supplying power. Try it yourself. Unplug the fridge and see how your frozen veggies hold up.
Am I missing something?
189 - duane
Here we go with the continuing debate about refrigerators. Under the "Satire" heading, no less.
Les asks (#167), "...what energy is keeping the internal temp of the frig at a relatively stable temperature, which is below the ambient?"
You tell me.
190 - Les Slater
The actual EXTRA energy that is NEEDED to pump the HEAT from INSIDE the frig to the OUTSIDE is precisely the energy of the HEAT that was REMOVED.
191 - zingzing
why are you talking about refridgerators?
192 - Les Slater
zing, would you prefer air conditioners?
I have deen trying to debate with the Priests of the God of Thermodynamic.
I am an atheist.
193 - zingzing
i don't know...
194 - duane
Les, back up. I thought you had invoked some kind of "equilibrium" state where no heat was being pumped at all. Now (#189), you're talking about pumping heat from inside the fridge.
Please clarify your hypotheses or we aren't going to get anywhere.
Besides, your statement
"The actual EXTRA energy that is NEEDED to pump the HEAT from INSIDE the frig to the OUTSIDE is precisely the energy of the HEAT that was REMOVED"
is not generally true. I wrote #146 for a reason. My Eq. (3) shows the relationship of the heat removed and the power input. It depends on the two temperatures. If, for example, the fridge temp is 270 (Kelvin scale) and the outside temp is 540, then, in a minimum-entropy heat exchange, Pt=Q_low. You can find other temperature pairs that will allow the same thing. With typical values T_cold=270 and T_high=300, the power requirement is only 11% of the heat extraction rate. Check it out.
Zing (#190). Very good.
195 - Les Slater
duane,
"Les, back up. I thought you had invoked some kind of "equilibrium" state where no heat was being pumped at all."
I never said that nothing was being pumped. All I said was that at eqquilibrium net energy in = net energy out. Equilibrium does not at all mean no heat is being pumped. As a general rule, equilibrium is when all counteracting forces balance each other.
"is not generally true. I wrote #146 for a reason. My Eq. (3) shows the relationship of the heat removed and the power input. It depends on the two temperatures. If, for example, the fridge temp is 270 (Kelvin scale) and the outside temp is 540, then, in a minimum-entropy heat exchange, Pt=Q_low. You can find other temperature pairs that will allow the same thing. With typical values T_cold=270 and T_high=300, the power requirement is only 11% of the heat extraction rate. Check it out."
I'm a high school drop-out but I know enough that your equations do not, in any sense whatever, address the simple relationships that we are talking about.
Efficiency is not a very useful concept here. Does one say that a black box is 0% efficient because there is no noticeable output but heat, or that it is 100% efficient because it is a heater and ALL the electrical energy is converted to heat?
Les
196 - duane
Les: "...your equations do not, in any sense whatever, address the simple relationships that we are talking about."
Well, Les, then I guess I'm through here. The equations are nothing more than simple algebraic expressions of the laws you are purporting to challenge. I have shown you, on at least two occasions, that you are simply mistaken, and pointed out inconsistencies or confusion in your statements, which you refuse to acknowledge. OK, that's BC for ya. But #146 is not merely an opinion based on political leaning, or religious persuasion, or a philosophical credo. It describes nature. You will have to work very, VERY hard to refute anything in that particular post.
All along, you have insisted that others follow your argument, and we have tried. I am disappointed to find that you have not understood my comments, especially #146, since, in spite of your claim to the contrary, it addresses the topic squarely in the face.
If you do not understand, or worse, will not accept basic physics -- and that's all it is, I didn't pull that stuff out of a hat -- I cannot help you.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not leaving in a huff. I just think we're on different wavelengths. I will read along, but I'm going to have to drop out of the discussion. Please finish elucidating your idea.
Carry on.
197 - Les Slater
Duane #134 “The heat energy dumped to the environment (your kitchen, in this case) is greater than the electrical power input, which satisfies the 1st Law.”
My #135 “Why do you say that? Where does the extra energy come from?”
In #136 duane states “There is no extra energy. (electric power x time) + (heat drawn from cool reservoir) = (heat out)”
But in my #135 (note that this precedes his #136), I say the same thing, “"The only time when more heat gets dumped into the kitchen than is supplied to the frig is when the frig is in the process of cooling its interior." It is only different in the sense that both are referring to different points in the same process. Duane’s is referring to a phase of the process where net heat is being removed from the frig. Mine is after the process has stabilized and no further NET heat is being removed from the frig. These are not contradicting each other.
Further in #136, duane says he agrees, “That’s all I’m saying.” But then shows his confusion, “But it is always in the process of cooling.” He just explicitly agreed with my, “"The only time when more heat gets dumped into the kitchen than is supplied to the frig is when the frig is in the process of cooling its interior." We both seemed to have made the distinction between before and after the point of equilibrium, then, “But it is always in the process of cooling. It is not perfectly insulated from the outside. So the power is always being drawn.”
The power is always being drawn? Is he implying that even after equilibrium, more heat is coming out of the box than the equivalence of the electrical energy going into the box? If this is his implication then he has to explain why he would call this an equilibrium. The only place this heat can come from is from within the box and this means that the temperature would have to further drop and continue to drop to provide this extra heat.
Duane ends, yes, CONCLUDES, his #136 with, “Besides this minor quibble, I think we're OK.”
Minor quibble? He either is saying that there is no equilibrium, or even if there is, it is still drawing power because of the lack of perfect insulation. But what should we think of this ‘minor quibble’? That we can ignore it because that there is no consequence in this discussion? That’s nonsense. It is not a minor quibble, but a fundamental point of confusion on duane’s part.
Also note that he is agreeing with me, excepting for a minor quibble of course, without any recourse to any specific temperatures, or temperature differences. His only mathematical framework here is, “(electric power x time) + (heat drawn from cool reservoir) = (heat out)”.
His fundamental problem seems to be his understanding of the nature of the second term on the left side.
198 - gonzo marx
imo, duane is not the one with the fundamental problem...
Excelsior?
199 - Andy Marsh
I'm just kinda curious...what the hell does this have to do with christianity and atheism?????????
200 - gonzo marx
i think Les was going to somehow tie in his refrigerator stuff with what happens to our Energy when we die...
still ain't seeing it, have some hunches of where he is going to try and go
in #146 duane lays out the Math that describes the situation of Les' example (analogy/metaphor)
what i think is going on is that Les is attempting to equate human Consciousness(Mind/Spirit/Soul) with the *equilibirium* *state* of his "fridge"...and thus that he is theorizing that during Life our Energy is in an equilibrium state between input of fuel(food) and output (muscular energy + thought) with nothing left over for the inEffable...
just a guess..and i don't want to assume i understand where Les is going...
Excelsior?
201 - Les Slater
Gonzo,
I am in no way going in the direction with this thermodynamics question to deal with the question of afterlife.
I am, though, sing some similiarities between some's understanding of thermodynamics and faith.
I was also hoping thagt the Gospel of Thomas might go some place, that is a little closer to my ideas of afterlife.
I went to a couple of lectures by Elaine Pagels, one of them was about the Gospel of Thomas. I was quite impressed with her historical materialst approach to the subject. I also read her 'Beyond Belief'.
Next, I will start moving on to see how this all fits into the violation of the second law and actully propose a mechanism that would do just that.
Les
202 - Les Slater
When I say all, I am not referring to Thomas or any other topic connected with what happens to the energy of the brain after death. The second law question will proceed from the frig question, no need to bring Jesus, any of His disciples or God into this.
203 - gonzo marx
do continue on, Les...i'm curious as to where you are going with this
the link Andy put up goes to Gnostic Bishop Heoller's site...good reference material there for all things Nag Hammadi as well as all kinds of Gnostic reference material and lectures...quite comprehensive, imo
Excelsior?
204 - gonzo marx
on the side topic of Bishop Hoeller...
what is a gnostic? is a nice essay written by Hoeller that serves as a decent Introduction for those interested....poke around the rest of the site for info and links...
shout me if i can help with the topic
Excelsior?
205 - troll
hey socrats - your dialog is for shit...nobody is following you down the garden path
how about defining your terms - listing your axioms - and stating your hypothesis
then if folks don't get what your saying they can ask direct questions other than: 'what the fuck - ?'
206 - Alyse
I am not going to enter the god/no god debate (I fall squarely on the no god side). I just wanted to say I enjoyed your article.
Dog On,
Alyse
207 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
All the Discussion has disapparated for almost a week...
Looks like Les Slater and Duane got into a time machine, went to Electric Avenue in Monkey Wards in the late '90's and have continued their conversation there, surrounded by then brand new fridges....
And they don't appear to have returned...
208 - troll
I prefer to think that Les is considering how to reformulate his argument
209 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Troll,
If either of them return, we can ask them if they have any flower petals from the year 807,563 CE. And also if they have reformulated their arguments.
Personally, I like the argument reached by some scientists that the Universe has more the character of Mind than Matter. It sticks in their throats to say "G-d" (even with the vowel popped in the middle), but hey, that's okay.
210 - Les Slater
troll,
"I prefer to think that Les is considering how to reformulate his argument"
No, my argument stands as it were. It's not an argument anymore. It is simply the recognition that after the frig stabilizes it is the thermal equivelent of a resistance heater as far as heat output and electrical input are concerned.
My further discussion was to introduce a proposed machine that would violate the second law.
The frig example does not violate the second law. It is a SIMPLE illustration of the first law. It is just looking at it from another perspective.
The question I have for Ruvy. Can God violate any of these laws?
Les
211 - Les Slater
I am not the one that has introduced nonsense into the discussion. I had tried to keep it totally within the realm of the first law. It must be the mere fact that I even mention the second law that stands as a barrier to simple and straight thinking.
Duane, dwelling on the losses AFTER thermal stability, is introducing the erroneous idea that this loss somehow comes from a place other than the input electrical power.
His #188 pretty much shows his hopeless confusion.
"IF it's stable, there is NO cooling required (by definition). The only energy input is stand-by energy."
This is not true on more than one account. First, this is only a particular case of stability, namely that of the inside of the frig at ambient temperature. It does not even need the standby energy. It can be unplugged. If the ambient is stable, then the temp inside the frig will ultimately be stable and at ambient temperature.
Second, another, and more useful point of stability, is that at a desired inside temperature which lower than ambient. In this second case, nobody is proposing that power is not consumed. All I am saying is that the all of the power that is consumed is turned into heat.
I focus on the stabilized state because as the temperature is dropping we have a more complicated situation. We start with a certain amount of energy inside the frig, and then remove it. WHILE it is being removed, we have the output energy equaling the input energy PLUS the amount of energy removed. When the frig is turned off we have no input energy from the AC power but we do indeed have input energy which, does in fact, heat the inside of the frig. When the inside temp of the frig reaches ambient temp, the energy removed from the ambient is exactly the same as that was removed by the cooling in the earlier part of this cycle.
This is SIMPLE first law here. Where's the problem?
"The REAL answer is that there is no way to keep the fridge colder than the outside environment without supplying power. Try it yourself. Unplug the fridge and see how your frozen veggies hold up."
No shit. What’s the point?
"Am I missing something?"
Yes, look up and notice the forest. Not all wisdom is in the trees. There's a bigger picture.
212 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Les,
The way I comprehend all this, the universe is G-d's creation. Therefore, He makes the rules - and changes them according to His whim. So, the answer is that He is not "violating" any rules, He is acting according to His will.
That said, logic dictates that He not go outside of these rules or bend them too often, lest his creatures go nuts trying to figure out which end is up - literally.
213 - troll
*the energy removed from the ambient is exactly the same as that was removed by the cooling in the earlier part of this cycle*
so...let's assume this as a premiss (and argue about it later if need be)
what's next...even given a thought experimental machine that violates the second law where are you going with all this - ?
214 - Les Slater
"so...let's assume this as a premiss"
I shouldn't have even mentioned it. It is of very little importance. I give up.
215 - Les Slater
Ruvy,
I know. I just like hearing it. It's so comforting.
Thanks,
Les
216 - troll
Les - if you can't proceed to state where you are going and continue to get snagged on this item 'of little importance' then you should give up
at this point I can only surmise that you've had some epiphany that you cannot express in a way that I as a member of the hoi polloi can grok
217 - Nancy
That's what I like about BC: some of these discussion start of on Subject A & then go all over the map. From a proselityzing waitress to the bible to thermodynamics & Tao. If ya hadn't read it, you'd have to wonder how on earth it got there. Good discussion all. Nice story to being with, too.
218 - Les Slater
snagged?
"so...let's assume this as a premiss (and argue about it later if need be)"
Assume the premiss? And maybe argue about it later? Of course, only if need be.
Sheesh!!!! What you consider the PREMISS on which to proceed was totally peripheral to what I am trying to say.
We can not start by walking into a forest, walking up to a tree, getting out the magnefying glass, aha, the bark, let's proceed with the bark as the premiss.
219 - gonzo marx
Les - relax....breathe..
try setting down your metaphorical tangent, and just say what yer trying ta say
so far, if i understand the convolutions correctly....all ya have stated is that the electricity is all being used
ok..go with it, now what?
Excelsior?
220 - Les Slater
"If ya hadn't read it, you'd have to wonder how on earth it got there."
Faith Based Quantum Thermodynamic Tunneling.
221 - gonzo marx
"Faith Based Quantum Thermodynamic Tunneling."
non-sequitor
i'm trying to see where you are going with this, but the faith based and tunneling parts are throwing me off
thermodynamics don't require "Faith"...it just works, and "tunneling" i would need defined
Excelsior?
222 - Les Slater
"so far, if i understand the convolutions correctly....all ya have stated is that the electricity is all being used"
Finally! If I said that in the first place nobody would believe me. Well, at least as far as the frig is concerned.
If all the electricity is being used, turned into heat, then we have a complete satisfaction of the first law. No?
My point is that this is true, wheter or not, some cooling has occured. You pay the same to the utility company either way. Frig, electric heater, same heat output, same electic bill.
223 - gonzo marx
with the caveat that not all of the energy transforms into heat...i'm with you, and you should have just said it straight up...your dithering was much more confusing than you might think
i'll go so far as to say all the electricity that your meter monitor is used somewhere in the house that is being monitored...a miniscule percentage is wasted, but the vast majority goes into either powering a device (lightbulb, computer, tv, radio, fridge, washer/dryer, etc) or as waste energy of heat due to hysteresis losses
so?
Excelsior?
224 - Les Slater
Gonzo,
You're not as close as I thought you were. You are still mystifying the process. I'm trying to make this as simple as possible.
The room under consideration has its own metering. we'll for the purpose of argument assume that the meter only registers to power that was delivered to the room, whether or not, it has consumed any power.
I will also assume that the temp outside the room is cooler than the lowest temperature ever reached inside the frig and that this temp is constant and has infinite sink.
I have also stated that the room has a heating capability of its own and does not depend on the frig. And that the frig's heating the room is not sufficient to maintain what I have been referring to as the ambient temperature. The in-room control of its heating system is sufficiently accurate to maintain a constant temperature and there are mechanisms to maintain constant temperature distribution.
The walls, ceilings, windows, doors all have a uniform heat loss to the outside.
The heat generatede by all controls inside the room only must be sufficiently low as to not heat the room to ambient with refrigerator running.
In other words, a highly controlled situation.
Misc source of heat do not matter. Whatever heat the the refrig provides or does not provide will be compensated for by the the thermostically controlled room temp by turning on and off of the heater to maintain room temp.
I say that the room takes a certain amount of power, gotten from the electrical service, to maintain its desired ambient temp. That power, all turned into heat, will make no difference as to whether the frig is on or off. Of course the frig uses no power when it is off. It also produces no heat. The room heater has to make up the difference.
The electric bill is the same.
Les
225 - gonzo marx
so?
you have many postulates which you ask to be a given, but are indeed variables
for the sake of discussion, i'm more than happy to set those aside with the caveat that they exist, but a minor thing
i still ask...so?
and await your getting to the point
Excelsior?