paranoiaman wrote:
Enjoy it while it lasts
Yeah, you may be right. Although, I do still think that this world will outlive me.
Oh I do so hope it shall outlive me. I’d hate to think it was all just for my entertainment ;-)
paranoiaman wrote:
Oh I do so hope it shall outlive me. I’d hate to think it was all just for my entertainment ;-)
Yeah, exactly … lol :D
This account has been deactivated.
my_name_i wrote:
HELL YEAH
Is “HELL YEAH” referring to the original post or to the world outliving me and Paranoiaman. Sorry, I’m confused :s … lol
How does that work if energy can never be destroyed? You mean, it becomes useless?
Everything you said makes sense, other than the earth being a closed system. The most contributing source for energy abundance on earth, is the sun. The other is life(chemical reactions), albeit this too is dependent on the sun.
Which brings up a possibly more interesting system, that is more closed than the earth. Even after billions of years the sun will not reach an “equilibrium” temperature, I think.
This makes me believe that the “closed system” should be modified to “under certain parameters”.
Yeah - how is it a closed system?
The sun? Well, I suppose it isn’t. Asteroids and meteors will be drawn into it’s gravitational field, thus creating energy, both in friction, and fuel.
Thermalization is an interesting phenomenon though. If entirely true, this would mean that our universe, potentially, could last forever. However, I suspect this scenario to have many exceptions. For instance the instability of particles, and their tendency to travel in and out of any parameters. This might mean, that over an extensive time line, any system would dissipate.
I’m caught up in the whole “energy becomes useless” bit. I dont understand how that makes any sense.
Energy doesn’t become useless. That would violate the conservation of energy law; energy is neither lost nor gained.
Quantum_Spirit wrote:
Energy doesn’t become useless. That would violate the conservation of energy law; energy is neither lost nor gained.
That’s what I said up there!
“This free energy, when used, transforms into energy that is unusable.” This is the part that doesn’t make any sense to me. What does that mean, unusable energy? Free energy? I’ve never heard of energy being classified as “Free” or “unusable”
Quantum_Spirit wrote:
Energy doesn’t become useless. That would violate the conservation of energy law; energy is neither lost nor gained.
Isn’t it “energy is neither lost nor destroyed”…energy is gained all the time?
energy is neither lost nor gained, it changes form. Energy is really interesting stuff, despite that I have no idea what energy really “is”. It appears to have no corporeal form, to my knowledge. It is defined simply by the capacity to perform activity.
I see.
Well I still dont understand the whole “unusable” “free” energy bit. It doesn’t make any sense.
So I reject this concept of Thermodynamic Equilibrium until further notice.
To answer your concerns:
1) When I refer to free energy, I am actually referring to Gibbs Free Energy (ΔG).
“In thermodynamics, the Gibbs free energy (IUPAC recommended name: Gibbs energy or Gibbs function) is a thermodynamic potential that measures the “useful” or process-initiating work obtainable from an isothermal, isobaric thermodynamic system. The Gibbs free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system.” (ie Gibbs free energy measures the amount of energy, that has the potential to initiate work, as contrasted with energy, that no longer has that potential, within a thermodynamic system.)
2) Entropy (S), which is used to calculate Gibbs Free Energy, is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work in thermodynamics. (There’s a lot more info. on entropy and how it relates to gibbs free energy but I think trying to explain it here would be futile.)
3) “A closed system is a system in the state of being isolated from its surrounding environment. The term often refers to an idealized system in which closure is perfect. In reality no system can be completely closed; there are only varying degrees of closure. A closed system can exchange heat and work (aka energy), but not matter, with its surroundings.” (Planets may also be treated as Isolated Systems that exchange neither heat nor matter with their surroundings … although this may not be true in reality, real systems behave similar to isolated systems for finite periods of time and thus the idealization of a real system as an isolated system is acceptable within limits. … Just to further explain, I am treating the Earth as a closed system for the moment.)
4)
Quantum_Spirit wrote:
Energy doesn’t become useless. That would violate the conservation of energy law; energy is neither lost nor gained.
I am not saying that energy is lost or gained (by the way thelma.dair, energy cannot be lost NOR GAINED, it can only be transferred). I am saying that the energy, which has the potential to initiate work, transfers and becomes energy that no longer has that potential (therefore, it can no longer be treated as the free energy, mentioned above). This is not contrary to the conservation of energy law but rather fits within it. (You may also wish to look into the first law of thermodynamics for further info.)
Hope this clarifies some points. I’d b interested in discussing this further if you’d like.
Oh, I didn’t see that Quantum_Spirit had already explained the energy cannot be lost nor gained thing. My bad … lol =D
Coolbrav wrote:
Oh, I didn’t see that Quantum_Spirit had already explained the energy cannot be lost nor gained thing. My bad … lol =D
First, to both of you - yes, thanks, I already knew this law of physics….
I was asking specifically about the phrasing because it is often phrased “Energy is neither lost nor DESTROYED, merely transferred from one party to the next”…and when you say it is neither lost nor GAINED merely transferred, I was thrown because doesn’t “transferred” indicate that a part has gained said energy?
You really dont have to answer, I guess I was nit picking. But yes, just so were all clear, I’ve known about this law since about grade 6, thanks.
So if I’m understanding what you’re saying - there is a finite amount of energy in the world (a closed system).
So, question - are you referring specifically to planet Earth, or the universe as a whole? Even if life ended on Earth, there is no way to be sure it would end entirely.
But I suppose if there is no one there to observe it, it isn’t really there in the first place…hmmmmmm
thelma.dair wrote:
You really dont have to answer, I guess I was nit picking. But yes, just so were all clear, I’ve known about this law since about grade 6, thanks.
Cool, point taken! lol :D
If it helps, lets just leave the conservation law at … Energy can neither be lost nor destroyed nor can it be created nor gained. (Gained being somewhat interchangeable with created.)
thelma.dair wrote:
So, question - are you referring specifically to planet Earth, or the universe as a whole? Even if life ended on Earth, there is no way to be sure it would end entirely.
In my opinion, the Universe is just a closed system on a very large scale. As far as I know, it doesn’t exchange energy, matter or anything else with its surroundings (but then again, that’s assuming that the universe is not infinite in space and that there is something else surrounding it).
thelma.dair wrote:
But I suppose if there is no one there to observe it, it isn’t really there in the first place…hmmmmmm
Well, that’s pretty philosophical (we could go on about that for a long long time).
Coolbrav wrote:
In my opinion, the Universe is just a closed system on a very large scale. As far as I know, it doesn’t exchange energy, matter or anything else with its surroundings (but then again, that’s assuming that the universe is not infinite in space and that there is something else surrounding it).
Spooky…maybe we are just an experiment…but I believe that the universe is in fact infinite.
Than again, who the **** knows.
Coolbrav wrote:
Well, that’s pretty philosophical (we could go on about that for a long long time).
I really could.
thelma.dair wrote:
Spooky…maybe we are just an experiment…but I believe that the universe is in fact infinite.
Well, I like to believe that the Universe is limited (which it sort of is as it is bound by space and time) and that there is an entity greater than the universe (as in God) that exists outside of this universe whilst not being bound by any parameters/limits (so a truly unlimited being).
Coolbrav wrote:
Well, that’s pretty philosophical (we could go on about that for a long long time).
I really could.
Yeah, it is quite interesting. If you wish to share opinion on it, then I’m listening (I have yet to make up my mind on all of this … lol).
Oh snap, some of the stuff I wrote got put down as if you wrote it! … Sorry!
I wrote the line: “Well … being).”
I want you to find a movie and watch it - What the Bleep Do We Know.
In the meantime, go read my post - it has an article attached to it - tell me what you think.
As for the universe being limited by time and space…well that is still up for debate :)
Oh and before someone surely chimes in: note that the article is a theory, not a fact.
I don’t understand why a system that absorbs energy, can be deemed closed in reference to thermodynamic equilibrium. If the heat is increasing at a particular rate, the system would never find equilibrium. And what about chemical reactions that produce heat?
What the Bleep Do We Know is both very misleading, and eye opening. For the misleading part, I don’t like it.
Quantum_Spirit wrote:
What the Bleep Do We Know is both very misleading, and eye opening. For the misleading part, I don’t like it.
What is misleading about it?
Wow interesting read.
question! please correct me if I am wrong here. So essentially you are saying Thermodynamic Equilibrium would be we use all of the types of energy sources that we know how to use at our current technological rate that then is transferred to another source (maybe into other particles bonding with atmosphere particles, got me… example of creating energy) We don’t know how to use that energy so eventually we will stop consuming because there isn’t any given to us?
Pretty much though the planet and everything gets its energy from the sun and the sun only has a certain amount of fuel it can bur. So when it goes red giant on us we are ******!
I think your on the right track but its not so that we won’t know how to use the energy as it is that we simply won’t be able to use the energy (as the energy will have lost its potential to initiate work).
So basically, right now we have a finite amount of energy one the planet. This energy is of two kinds: 1) it has the potential to initiate work and 2) it no longer has that potential.
All of our actions require some of the first type of energy (ie energy that we use to produce work). So, if we move our hand or turn our body or commit any movements or reaction(whether with our body or with a machine) we use the first type of energy but upon its usage this energy then becomes the second type of energy (that can no longer produce work).
Therefore, as we continue to meticulously rearrange our cities (ie create better infrastructure, find new technologies, arrange our home furniture, create bigger and better state of the art facilities); we are in fact heading towards equilibrium (where everything is completely constant - there is energy but it can no longer produce any work/results - everything ceases, unchanging)
And although, the Sun provides heat as do chemical reactions these do not seem sufficient to change the above. (because in deeming our planet a closed system, scientists are already disregarding the heat produced from the sun and chemical reactions)
Coolbrav wrote:
I think your on the right track but its not so that we won’t know how to use the energy as it is that we simply won’t be able to use the energy (as the energy will have lost its potential to initiate work).
So basically, right now we have a finite amount of energy one the planet. This energy is of two kinds: 1) it has the potential to initiate work and 2) it no longer has that potential.
All of our actions require some of the first type of energy (ie energy that we use to produce work). So, if we move our hand or turn our body or commit any movements or reaction(whether with our body or with a machine) we use the first type of energy but upon its usage this energy then becomes the second type of energy (that can no longer produce work).
Therefore, as we continue to meticulously rearrange our cities (ie create better infrastructure, find new technologies, arrange our home furniture, create bigger and better state of the art facilities); we are in fact heading towards equilibrium (where everything is completely constant - there is energy but it can no longer produce any work/results - everything ceases, unchanging)
And although, the Sun provides heat as do chemical reactions these do not seem sufficient to change the above. (because in deeming our planet a closed system, scientists are already disregarding the heat produced from the sun and chemical reactions)
alright i got it now, cool thanks. I was gonna google it and I may still but good understanding
paranoiaman
my_name_i
thelma.dair
Quantum_Spirit
Korwinn