pianistimo-fading out?

[tds]

what's holding her back now?

[ahinton]

what's holding her back now?

Her dancing partner, one may suppose - or at least one may assume that it is her back that he's holding...

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

She does seem to be conspicuous by her absence.

Maybe the constant onslught on her (strange but) deeply held view have sapped her will?  Rather like Puff the Magic Dragon?   

[ahinton]

She does seem to be conspicuous by her absence.

Maybe the constant onslught on her (strange but) deeply held view have sapped her will?  Rather like Puff the Magic Dragon?   

No, that would be "pianowelsh", would it not? (dragon and all that...)

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

?  i'm reading proscribed reading material (whenever i get my daughter off to the bus) - and also cleaning a terribly messy house.  sometimes when i look at it - i think our entire family is messed up in the head.  clothes, papers, what have you. 

[wishful thinker]

here here

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

I am actually sorry for "Pianistimo" because given a definite onslaught on her, especially from a religious viewpoint, I wouldn't blame her for having to endure more stress, given an already (correct me if I am wrong) tedious and painstaking lifestyle. "Pianistimo" is more or less a compasionate person, and I could see how a couple of degrading threads could affect her.

[prometheus]

She defends the murder of children in the bibe.

She has no compassion for them.


I wonder what she will do if god asks her to kill children as well. Will she show compassion and disobey god?

[debussy symbolism]

No, she is not. There are certain things that humans generally will not go against. Our super ego, or "conscience" is developed at a very early age, and prevents us from succumbing to our libido, or the Id. If the Bible should indeed guide Pianistimo to anything that isn't approved by her conscience, she just simply wouldn't do it.

[prometheus]

Well, I really tried to get her to say that

But apperently she has no sense of good and evil. To her God's word is law. So if God kills babies and children then it must be just.

[debussy symbolism]

Even though she consecrates the Bible as the most prime of things, she still is guided by the subconscious mind. She probably grew up in peaceful environment, where "killing children" was a taboo. She therefore has that impression on her and will not deviate from it, no matter what the Bible, or for that mater anyone might say.

There is of course one aspect of childhood development that can't be overlooked. The "Oedipus Complex." Or the "Electra Complex" if you want to look at it that way. It basically states that at around the age of 5, children get the urge to view their opposite sex parent as an erotic object, but are discouraged from getting intimate by the fear of losing their phallus, a fear imprinted in by a father figure, hence the development of "super ego." According to Freud however, should the "Oedipus Complex" not be resolved, the person will possibly be homosexual. In my opinion, the abscence of a strong super ego denotes a mind that is free to pursue the libido, and hence act out in ways that might be deemed as taboo. In other words, unless "Pianistimo" got intimate with her father, there is a highly improbable chance that she would go as far out as killing children. No offense to Pianistimo of course.

[pianistimo]

wierd.  i think you all are extremely wierd.  you call me crazy.  i think you are crazy. 

my step-father was a decent man and would never have done anything like that.  he was too busy working to support our family and as most young fathers was not around that much until later at night - when he went to bed exhausted.  also, if anything like that happened, i would have been very angry at him and my mother.  being that i was adopted at the age of 2 - i think i would remember these things and know!  my parents were hot for each other, too - which makes it nice -excepting if he came home during the day, i had to go outside and swing on the swingset a lot when they were bothered.

in terms of evolution, i think what is crazier than crazy is when people assume everyone tells the truth.  i mean - some children go to school and assume that the knowledge they are given is accurate.  my mother, bless her heart, didn't believe everything - and neither do i.  i tell my children to give the answers that the school is asking for - but to know in their hearts that God is supreme.

i don't think that has anything to do with the ego.  it has to do with looking outside of oneself for truth.

[debussy symbolism]

No offense, but how does evolution connect with anything here? It does, in that evolution shapes our brains and gives us morals, but that is not the point here.

There is a problem with not believing anything- you don't get to know anything. If the Bible said that Santa Claus existed, would you argue with all of those that said that he didn't exist? If your children could give the school answers, the school would need to come to them. Searching for answers? Yes, that is correct, but that generally starts with learning.

[debussy symbolism]

If you don't believe anything, then how come you have that second law of thermodynamics in your signature?

[pianistimo]

who said i don't believe anything?  i don't believe it all came into being over billions of years.  that's all.  everything is here, alright!

[debussy symbolism]

who said i don't believe anything?  i don't believe it all came into being over billions of years.  that's all.  everything is here, alright!

Um, you said that in your previous post.

[debussy symbolism]

Thats the problem. You choose to believe in something that has been disproven. How can you possibly hope for finding aswers if you belive in fallacy? I am not trying to purposefully refute your claims, but they are so far disproven by science. It is proven that the Sun isn't 6000 years old, as the Earth dates to around 4.5 billions years of age. How can you possibly stick to your theory if you know that it was proven wrong?

[pianistimo]

you cannot personally prove these things.  you take it on faith that a scientist is giving you accurate information.  what if God has the most accurate information?

[debussy symbolism]

The thing about science is is that it can be proven. So far, we have proof that the Earth is 4.5 billion of years of age. What proof do you have that the Sun is 6000 years old?

[asyncopated]

you cannot personally prove these things.  you take it on faith that a scientist is giving you accurate information.  what if God has the most accurate information?

But would god whisper in your ear what this information is?  How to  build a computer? Make a plane fly, send a spaceship to the moon?  I am of the opinion that god, if he does exist, expects us to think for ourselves.  He sets the puzzle that is the universe and we can either ignore it and go about without purpose, or we can engage him and is puzzle and try to untangle all that is strange and wonderful.

Why are you quoting Carnot/Clausius?   The laws of thermodynamics, expecially the second law is very difficult to grasp.  I'm not saying that you don't understand it (although I have to admit that in my arrogance, I think it is highly unlikely that you do.)  What I am more interested in is why you did choose to quote the second law and what it means to you.  I.e. how would you explain it in whatever context you choose?

[debussy symbolism]

Why would God expect us to figure out the mysteries of the universe if He proposed the Bible? It seems like if anything, He wouldn't want us to look outside our own box and rather devote our energies to following His protocol.

I remember studying some about heat and energy in chemistry classes. I don't understand the concept that Pianistimo has "presented" us with. Can you explain it to me, or at least try to, or just cover it?

[ada]

Even though she consecrates the Bible as the most prime of things, she still is guided by the subconscious mind. She probably grew up in peaceful environment, where "killing children" was a taboo. She therefore has that impression on her and will not deviate from it, no matter what the Bible, or for that mater anyone might say.

There is of course one aspect of childhood development that can't be overlooked. The "Oedipus Complex." Or the "Electra Complex" if you want to look at it that way. It basically states that at around the age of 5, children get the urge to view their opposite sex parent as an erotic object, but are discouraged from getting intimate by the fear of losing their phallus, a fear imprinted in by a father figure, hence the development of "super ego." According to Freud however, should the "Oedipus Complex" not be resolved, the person will possibly be homosexual. In my opinion, the abscence of a strong super ego denotes a mind that is free to pursue the libido, and hence act out in ways that might be deemed as taboo. In other words, unless "Pianistimo" got intimate with her father, there is a highly improbable chance that she would go as far out as killing children. No offense to Pianistimo of course.

Honestly, what are you rabbiting on about?

I suggest you forget about the armchair psychoanalysis and stick to your day job 

[ahinton]

Honestly, what are you rabbiting on about?

I suggest you forget about the armchair psychoanalysis and stick to your day job 

There's a whole lot of rabbits in A'straaalia, so your question here is obviously more potent that it might have been from a non-A'straalian. Don't ask me for the answer, for I have less than no idea. On the "strength" of what he writes here, maybe the writer might be even better employed psychoanalysing an armchair than sticking to whatever day job he may or may not have...

Going back to the rabbits, why don't they make more frequent appearances on A'straaalian restaurant menus like they do on French and Spanish ones?

Best,

Alistair

[pianolist]

As you will no doubt have noticed, there are also plenty of camels in Australia, with large humps, but I don't suppose MacTits serves them up as delicacies.

[pianistimo]

dear asyncoped,

you are entiredly correct in stating that only a few of us (not me - but scientists and people who study science) actually know what's going on.  but, even in my 'state' i understand what the second law of thermodynamics means to evolution.  we cannot have evolved from something cold blooded.  and, then crawled onto land - grown feet, etc. etc.  we are larger #1  - we have more body heat #2.  for warm-blooded creatures to develop from cold-blooded is bloody stupid.  pardon the expression.  and, yet, i cannot take credit for thinking all this out on my own...so i already know i'm included in the stupid.

asyncopated - i appreciate your unbiased approach because you give plausible thought to the idea of God.  though i cannot understand half or 3/4 of what i read scientifically because of very little background in science - can you make out what this means:

'radiometric dating is a statistical science that assumes in every measurement that no physical process has distributed the individual atomic nuclea in some 'non-random' manner...radiogenic dating neglects the history of the individual atoms before they congealed to solid rocks.  all of the processes that give rise to elements generate them at temperatures that exceed their ionization temperatures by many magnitudes.  before these elements became bound up in rocks, they existed as plasma in interstellar space....

[mad_max2024]

Actually, I thought the second law of thermodynamics said the entropy of an isolated system must always rise
Doesn't say anything about heat

Are we dragging the evolution discussion into this topic as well?

[pianistimo]

ok.  the entropy of an isolated system - how about amoeba.  have you ever seen something small in space - suddenly produce enough heat to pass it on to something else?

[ahinton]

we have more body heat

'radiometric dating is a statistical science that assumes in every measurement that no physical process has distributed the individual atomic nuclea in some 'non-random' manner...radiogenic dating neglects the history of the individual atoms before they congealed to solid rocks.

Never mind the rest - but maybe you should reserve your body heat for all this dating that you're talking about (OK, so we all know about internet dating but you're writing here about radio dating); perhaps it rocks (on occasion) - solidly or otherwise - but, to return to the thread topic, there seems to be less than even the slenderest evidence that you are "fading out", susanistimo...

Best,

Alistair

[musik_man]

Actually, I thought the second law of thermodynamics said the entropy of an isolated system must always rise
Doesn't say anything about heat

There are alot of different ways to state the second law.  This is the form that we used in my Thermo class last year (which does involve heat energy.)

The left hand side is S or entropy.

[debussy symbolism]

There's a whole lot of rabbits in A'straaalia, so your question here is obviously more potent that it might have been from a non-A'straalian. Don't ask me for the answer, for I have less than no idea. On the "strength" of what he writes here, maybe the writer might be even better employed psychoanalysing an armchair than sticking to whatever day job he may or may not have...

I enjoy your sarcasm Alistair. 

[ahinton]

I enjoy your sarcasm Alistair. 

I'm pleased to note that you claim to enjoy something of what I wrote here, even if it was not as you appear to describe it...

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

Actually everyone so far who has given a definition for the second law of thermodynamics has done so accurately and correctly.  They appear in different froms depending on historical context and subject to the mathematical representation available at the time.  The most common and accurate from used today is the last one given by musik_man.  (Btw, there is a dash over the d is dQ, because the integral is path specific)

The laws of thermodynamics actually do extermely poorly for living beings and systems.  The main reason is that thermodynamics assumes the the system is in thermal equilibrium.  Most living objects are constanly changing mass, generating heat, and doing stuff (for a lack what a better everyday activity).  The law as never meant be used on living things.

In particular, as to what I know, it makes no statement about what is possible or impossble in evolution.     


As for the statement

'radiometric dating is a statistical science...'

This is correct.  Basically one quantifies the amount of radioactive material left by it's half life -- the average time it takes to decay from one form to another, emmiting a radioactive partical in the process.  The process is quantum mechanical in nature thus is basically a random process.

'that assumes in every measurement that no physical process has distributed the individual atomic nuclea in some 'non-random' manner...'

This is also correct.  In order to take a measurement, we have to assume some starting point for initial quantities of radioactive material.  I will also talk about the basic case.  In practice, there maybe some corrections that can be made to get more accuracy.  This is how it works.

We know that radioactive carbon-14 is produced in nature at a constant rate, and a very small amount of this stuff is in everything -- food, air, desolved in water.  For living organisms, because we eat, drink and breath and grow, the amount of carbon-14 in us is about same as that in the environment. 

Once we die, we stop taking in carbon.  If the body is preserved somehow, the carbon slowly over thousands of years decays into nitrogen.  So in the simplest case by looking at the ratio of carbon to nitrogen, we can tell when the fossil was preserved.   We know this is relatively accurate, because we can test this against stuff that we do have dates for, and using other techniques

On rereading the statment, it think that it sounds slightly odd.  The words 'distributed the individual atomic nuclea in a 'non-random' manner' are really out of place.  In my opinion, it should have read something like 'that assumes in every measurement that there is no physical process which biases the initial distribution of radioactive atomic species'. 

'...radiogenic dating neglects the history of the individual atoms before they congealed to solid rocks.  all of the processes that give rise to elements generate them at temperatures that exceed their ionization temperatures by many magnitudes.  before these elements became bound up in rocks, they existed as plasma in interstellar space....'

Basically he is saying that chemistry in the process of rock formation may affect radioactive decay rates (halflives)

I need to read the rest of the article to tell you if this is plausible or not.  i.e. to be sure that it is not just competely wrong because of some schoolboy error.  It's not the history of the individual atoms that is important, it is basically the constancy or at least predictibility of the environmental state pertaining to the radioactive element used for dating that is important. 

This is because for radioactive dating , it really does not matter how each individual atom behaves, or even the chemistry it undergoes.  This is because chemistry has to do with electrons, whereas radioactive dating depends on neutrons decaying into protons, which is basically determined by quantum mechanical barriers of the quarks.  It should have nothing to do with the chemistry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle#.CE.B2.E2.88.92_decay_.28electron_emission.29

But like i say,  I need to read the complete article and find out if he is talking about special cases where it might (for some reason that I don't know).  I will also need to cross referece his claims to other articles in the area.

I think you might find this page interesting, there is loads of science to plough though -- I've only scanned through but believe that it is accurate.  However, i think the most interesting bits are in the last couple of pages. 

https://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

[mad_max2024]

I still don't understand pianistimo's reasoning
but anyway the second law of thermodynamics is completely impossible to apply to evolution since the Earth is not an isolated system
The input of energy from the sun is monstruous...

[prometheus]

I already gave the refutation of the creationist claims before she finally found them at a creationist site.

[ahinton]

Wouldn't "pianistimo fading out" signify an "estinto" in the making?

Best,

Alistair

[mad_max2024]

Guess she faded back in...

[cmg]

Phew.  Pianistimo, your efforts (at least, I THINK this what you are doing), to prove the existence of a Higher Power through the laws of thermodynamics is laudable, but I'm totally out of my depth here.

What I would do if I were you is go about it the other way, i.e. study a text written by a respected scientist who finds physical evidence in the universe that supports spiritual views.  A great book for that is "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Carpra.  He doesn't analzye Judeo-Christian tenets specifically, but tackles Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism and finds parallels with the latest discoveries in physics.

You might find this type of inquiry easier at first for non-physicists like you and me.  I really think you'd enjoy this book.  Quite accessible and gives non-scientists at least one leg to stand on in trying to understand what physicists are talking about. 

[pianistimo]

godel appeals to me.  basically because he is able to explain in non-definate terms - science.  he doesn't make any absolute statements. 

somehow, in my limited mind - separating electrons from protons and making it an either or (chemistry or radioactive dating) seems odd.  but, i will study this.  you're probably right - plasma has a significant number of electrons outside of the nucleus?  the nucleus can't hold them because there are so many of them?

dear asyncopated,  thank you for taking such time to explain everything.  i am a musician first and a scientific person last.  so - you and prometheus would have a better chance to truly understand each other.  and, yet, i will read both your posts in terms of hoping to understand better about radioactive dating and why such emphasis is placed on it's precision.  i mean - if i take the bible literally - something has to go.  either physics is not evolved enough yet - or the bible is God's joke on scientists.  He made it to look like things are older than they are.  in any case - i will retain  my belief in God - whilst attempting to understand the complexities of the universe.

excuse me for one moment while i take a little break.  i read too much into the definition on wikipedia and am momentarily psychotically altered.  do you find with science - the same as with piano.  if you over-read or over-practice - you lose focus and forget the 'train of thought?'  so, with science - are your best thought processes done while sleeping?  this sounds good to me right now.

[ahinton]

A fading pianistimo.

A contradiction in terms.

Spot the difference, folks - if you can or dare...

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

godel appeals to me.  basically because he is able to explain in non-definate terms - science.  he doesn't make any absolute statements. 

Goedel is difficult.  I recommand the book Goedel, Echer, Bach.  It is a very very though read, but a very clever book (sometimes too clever for it's own good).  It talks about a lot of the symmetries/similarities in music, art and science.

somehow, in my limited mind - separating electrons from protons and making it an either or (chemistry or radioactive dating) seems odd.  but, i will study this.  you're probably right - plasma has a significant number of electrons outside of the nucleus?  the nucleus can't hold them because there are so many of them?

If you recall, the nucleus is in the middle with protons and neutrons and electrons are a charge cloud surronding the nucleus.

What I meant by this is the electrons are basically in charge of chemistry.  Chemistry happens when element find it more convenient to (are more stable when they) share electrons.  A plasma is when material that has so much energy that some of the electrons get knocked out of their shells. This is because each of the atom has so much energy that it can displace electrons of other atoms out of their orbitals. 

Radioactive dating has very little to do with this because it relies on the process of some unstable neutrons changing into protons (all happening in the nucleus), and is usually much less affected by the chemistry or temperature.

i mean - if i take the bible literally - something has to go.  either physics is not evolved enough yet - or the bible is God's joke on scientists.  He made it to look like things are older than they are.  in any case - i will retain  my belief in God - whilst attempting to understand the complexities of the universe.

From the looks of it I think I would go for God is playing a joke on scientists.

Physics/Science is not very advanced, but it is advanced enough to tell that some of the things claimed in the bible are definately not correct or at least extremely, extremely improbably.

What I've been trying to convience you of is that your original assertion is incorrect.  One cannot take everything in the bible literally. 

I would go even further to say that god does not want to give us all the answers.  If not we would know the way, why bother with life?  God certainly wants us to find out and I also believe that he wants us to challenge ourselves.  The bible to me is definately not a book that has all the answers.  I think god would be pretty crazy to give us a book like that, conversly I think he would be wise enough not to do that.

excuse me for one moment while i take a little break.  i read too much into the definition on wikipedia and am momentarily psychotically altered.  do you find with science - the same as with piano.  if you over-read or over-practice - you lose focus and forget the 'train of thought?'  so, with science - are your best thought processes done while sleeping?  this sounds good to me right now.

Happens to me all the time. 

[ada]

Going back to the rabbits, why don't they make more frequent appearances on A'straaalian restaurant menus like they do on French and Spanish ones?

Best,

Alistair

Sorry to go off topic but I just had to respond to this one.

Rabbits here are vermin and pests and we'd no sooner eat a rabbit than a rat.

That is unless you go to wanky high class restaurants, where items like "epigram of rabbit saddle with wasabi jus" may appear on the menu, with an astronomical price tag.

[prometheus]

Rabbits here are vermin and pests and we'd no sooner eat a rabbit than a rat.

That makes sense. But is this actually true or a joke?