[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 752 KB, 1617x1454, 1261926998261.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3775695 [Reply] [Original]

Would you consider the Earth to be a "closed system"?

>> No.3775697

no
/thread

>> No.3775701

hell no.

>> No.3775705

>>3775695

Have you ever noticed the Sun in the sky?
If you have, you would have realized that your question is ridiculous.

>> No.3775708

>>3775695

no... energy & matter from the sun, cosmic rays and meteorites , etc.

>> No.3775712

>>3775697
>>3775701
>>3775705
>>3775708

Thanks, just checking.

>> No.3775753
File: 483 KB, 320x240, abesimpsons.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3775712

>> No.3775761

>>3775708

Don't forget energy lost due to radiation at night.

>> No.3775777

inb4 "laws of thermodynamics make evolution impossible" troll attempt.

>> No.3775779

>>3775695
i'm still getting over the /sci/diots that think the entire universe is an open system

>> No.3775782

>>3775777
like mr. trips here

>> No.3775791

Space exists therefore, no.

but the universe is a closed system though right??

>> No.3775802

>>3775779
>>3775791

You can't use that to deny evolution, though, as the entropy of the universe is currently EXTREMELY low.

>> No.3775809

No because God is everywhere and affects each and every one of us. Praise Allah.

>> No.3775815

>>3775802
I know. i wasn't trying to. I just always get confused about whether or not it's closed or open. I guess its one of these questions we have to acknowledge an answer without really knowing. Or is there is a definitive answer?

>> No.3775824

don't forget all those mighty space rocks burning up in the atmosphere. the earth actually has more mass than it did a few billion years ago

>> No.3775832

It's a semi-closed system. Other than the infall of millions of tons of rock and dust each year, and of course solar input, the system runs on internal loops.

Sure, turn the sun off and you'll see the system undergo a 99.9999% shutdown. But the sun can be considered part of the system's guaranteed energy input, and as such, the system is closed with it.

>> No.3775841

Earth is studied as a isolated system to understand the forces that are found on the earth. Yes meteorites impact the earth but this is a relatively small number compared to the bigger systems. Having a isolated system is impossible though because no boundary can really stop energy. So yes Earth is looked at as a closed system.

>> No.3775844

>>3775815

It's unknown and it'll be a long time if ever, until we determine it.

>> No.3775850

>>3775832
>>3775841

You can't fucking include the Sun in the EARTH'S system.

If you do, you're not working with the Earth as your system, you're working with the Solar System as your system.

>> No.3775902

Earth is a closed system because it is impossible to stop energy from flowing but the matter within is fixed.

>> No.3775907

>>3775902

The matter isn't fixed either, it just increases and decreases at incredibly tiny rates. Meteors and meteoroids increase it, radioactive decay decreases it. They mean little on a planetary scale unless you're looking at ranges of billions of years.

>> No.3775936

>>3775907

It is fixed though. It doesn't leave it just recycles on the earth. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Yes meteors and such come into the system but in such small amounts it really doesn't effect any given system or flux. Over billions of years its a large amount of mass but it is just now what we consider our system. If earth isn't a closed system then it is very close to being one. When being studied however i believe it is looked at as a closed system.

>> No.3775963

>>3775936

>Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

What the fuck? Yes it can, it's called converting it to energy or vice versa. When a proton and antiproton hit each other, both are destroyed.

>Yes meteors and such come into the system but in
such small amounts it really doesn't effect any given system or flux.

THEY'RE SO SMALL I CAN IGNORE THEM

No, shut the fuck up. If there is change, it is not "fixed". Even small change.

>Over billions of years its a large amount of mass but it is just now what we consider our system. If earth isn't a closed system then it is very close to being one.

It is nothing close to a close system, Earth is being bombarded by (relatively) gargantuan amounts of energy every second.

>When being studied however i believe it is looked at as a closed system.

No, it isn't.

>> No.3775977

>>3775802
congratulations on the stupidest thing ever said in defense of the indefensible.

>> No.3775982
File: 121 KB, 400x350, sun.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3775977

Explain yourself instead of ridiculing the argument

>> No.3775988

>>3775977

congratulations on saying the stupidest thing ever, on any subject.

>> No.3775997

>>3775802
>the entropy of the universe is currently EXTREMELY low.
I'm ignorant. Tell me how is it measured.

>> No.3776014

>>3775997

Entropy of a system = how much energy in it is background heat.

The CMBR is nowhere, nowhere near the amount of energy the observable universe contains otherwise. Therefore the entropy of the system of the observable universe is low.

>> No.3776017

>>3775997

YOU can start by estimating how much fusionable hydrogen is left.....

>> No.3776020

>>3775997
why do their homework for them? they say the ridiculous, let them show their work.

i've already pointed out how insanely stupid they are

>> No.3776025

>>3776014
so, you've measured all of the energy in the universe?

do you have any inkling how insanely foolish that sounds?

>> No.3776031

>>3776025

Nope, but E=mc^2.

Do you see the fucking matter of the universe? Compare that to the total energy of the CMBR, it's <span class="math">RIDICULOUS[/spoiler].

>> No.3776033

>>3776025

TO you.. To anyone who knows anything about physics.... not so much.

>> No.3776037

>>3776031
you have an equation that explains all of reality?

do you have an inkling of how foolish that sounds?

>> No.3776041

>>3776033
ok rocket scientist

lol

you couldn't measure the energy in one acorn

>> No.3776042

>>3776037
Could you just shut the fuck up?

>> No.3776044

>>3776037

No, but the estimated mass of the observable universe is about 8×10^52 kg.

>> No.3776052

>>3776042
what's wrong? don't like your core tenents mocked?

lol

"scientists"

>> No.3776054

>>3776041

You mean like in a calorimeter?

>> No.3776055

>>3776044
and, the observable universe, is what, exactly?

>> No.3776058

>>3776055

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

>> No.3776061

>>3776054
no. how many trees eventually come from one acorn, and how much energy will that take?

you have an equation for that?

>> No.3776064

>>3776055

the 'observable' universe.. is the Universe that is within range of our telescopes.
But if you are a thorough-going Skeptic.. I recommend you become a Solipsist.

>> No.3776065

>>3776058
lolwiki

you fail

>> No.3776070

>>3776061

Just because you string words together, doesn't guarantee they will make sense. And yours don't.

>> No.3776072

>>3776065

You are made of Fail.

>> No.3776078

>>3776070
are you aware of the phenomenon of oak trees growing out of acorns?

perhaps this has been neglected in your studies?

it's an easy question. any fool can count the acorns on an oak tree.

i want you to count how many oak trees are in one acorn.

>> No.3776085

>>3776078

At the time of an acorn, existing alone on its own?

Absolutely 0 oak trees exist within it.

The system of the lone acorn has zero trees.

Now, if we introduce soil, water, and perpetual energy bombarding it from above...

IT'S NOT A SYSTEM OF A SINGLE ACORN ANYMORE! :3

>> No.3776087

>>3776072
which is how it is so easy to spot you

:P

>> No.3776090

>>3776085
who called an acorn a system?

you?

i asked a relatively simple question, that should not be too hard for people who know what the observable universe is, how much it weighs, and how old it is.

really, quite a simple question.

how many oak trees are in one acorn?

>> No.3776103

>>3776090
0 duh and oak tree wouldn't fit inside of an acorn

>> No.3776108

>>3776090

You don't see any acorns.

>> No.3776110

>>3776090

0.

>> No.3776113

>>3776108
these aren't the droids i'm looking for?

>> No.3776114

>>3776087

NO U R.

>> No.3776117

>>3776110
wrong

there are oak trees

they have all come from acorns

it's an easy math problem, isn't it? for people who know how much energy is in the universe?

>> No.3776122

>>3776113

you are in a maze of twisty little passages.

>> No.3776128

>>3776117

you are confused. God makes every tree individual. The acorns are the squirrels to eat.

>> No.3776132

>>3776117
Oak trees do not come from acorns, but rather from acorns in combination with soil, water, sunglight, etc.

>> No.3776137

>>3776117

>they have all come from acorns

Incorrect. The oak trees come from acorns, soil, water, and sunlight.

Acorn is one part of the equation.

There is no oak tree within an acorn.

There is a blueprint for an oak tree within an acorn.

Faggot.

>> No.3776139

>>3776132
is this true for earth, or for the entire "observable universe"?

>> No.3776140

>>3776122
L
NW
take lamp

>> No.3776148

>>3775695
I'd say the solar system is a closed system.

>> No.3776154

>>3776137
there is a blueprint for how many oak trees in one acorn?

i would submit that this answers the question

>> No.3776155

>>3776139
both

>> No.3776156

>>3776137
There are no faggots, only the blueprint for man love.

>> No.3776162

>>3776155
this has been verified how, exactly?

>> No.3776164

>>3776148
Silly faggot, there's no such thing as a closed system.

>> No.3776170

>>3776154

>there is a blueprint for how many oak trees in one acorn?

Fundamentally, one. For every acorn.
Acorns are made by pollination, you see, so it takes two oak trees to contribute the data to make one acorn.

>> No.3776180

>>3776170
>this is what /sci/diots actually believe.

>> No.3776186

>>3776180

>fuck I've run out of my shitty backpedaling arguments

>> No.3776188

>>3776164
can't be, not for your precious godless universe to exist all on its lonesome, where you argue stridently that you are no more important or valuable than a monkey.

lol

>> No.3776194

>>3776186
see, when a mommy oak and a daddy oak love each other very much, they exchange a special hug between oak trees....

yeah. oak tree sex. just like people.

>> No.3776205
File: 1.69 MB, 400x300, 1303314725971.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3776188
Bro, are you high?

>> No.3776207

>>3776205
i am now, thanks to your post

>> No.3776209

>>3776188

Seriously: You are confusing Metaphysics with Science. I recommend you go to a REAL Theological Seminary.

>> No.3776214

>>3776194

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollination

Yup.

>> No.3776219

>>3776209
you are confusing science with science.

i am not.

>> No.3776227

>>3776214
so, furfags, ponyfags, and now treefags.

nice.

equally incomprehensible to an outside observer.

>> No.3776237
File: 88 KB, 510x621, 1316268503752.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3776227

Still out of backpedaling faggotry, so you appeal to ridicule.

>> No.3776246

>>3776219

Then give me the TECHNICAL mean of the term 'Logos'

>> No.3776250

>>3776246
'Logos' is 'Logos'

but science is not science

why not, /sci/fags?

>> No.3776255

>>3776237
your lateral diversion failed, so post gay pics

success?

>> No.3776261

>>3776214
yup, the oak is a flower?

i'm confused.

or you are.

>> No.3776266

>>3776250

you don't know, do you?
etymological tricks don't really work, do they?
>>3776250

>> No.3776280

>>3776266
of what use is a riddle if the answer is given so easily?

when is science not science?

>> No.3776281
File: 60 KB, 431x283, Oak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3776261

The Oak tree is indeed a flowering plant.

>> No.3776282

I seriously hope the acorn guy ITT is a troll. And I pity the people feeding him.

>> No.3776292

>>3776266
au contraire, mon frere, i am personally acquainted with Logos

>> No.3776295

>>3776281
awfully tall for a flower, isn't it?

see many bees around oak trees, do you?

>> No.3776297

>>3776282
that's just mean. if you know how many oak trees can come from one acorn, you should tell the class and impress them with your knowledge.

>> No.3776306

>>3776295

Don't need bees to pollinate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemophily

And not every flower grows on stems. Apple trees are flowering, too.

>> No.3776314

>>3776306
so, fuck the bees?

is that what you're advocating?

>> No.3776316
File: 237 KB, 537x457, 1314137603392.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3776314

Oh no, no, no. Not every plant is wind-pollinating, but oak trees are.

>> No.3776325

>>3776316
okay. oak trees get laid when the wind blows. like most of /sci/

but still no answer as to how many trees are potentially contained in one acorn

sad

also, does anyone know something they didn't look up on wiki?

>> No.3776335

>>3776325
i thought 1 acorn was 1 tree...

>> No.3776337

>>3776292

OCD.

>> No.3776341

>>3776325

>but still no answer as to how many trees are potentially contained in one acorn

Fundamentally, only one. An acorn can only create one tree.

However, given proper input from another tree, a tree can generate more acorns, each capable of generating one tree on their own. But they will be comprised of different data (thanks to recombining the DNA from the other tree), and therefore be different trees.

>> No.3776344

>>3776325

why remember anything when it is just a couple of cliks away?

>> No.3776354

>>3776292

are you "Born Again"... if so, stick around. I will give you the full treatment. One of us will enjoy it.

>> No.3776374

>>3776325
>also, does anyone know something they didn't look up on wiki?


Yes.

>> No.3776375

>>3776337
Obviously Comprehending Dios?

Yes

>> No.3776380

>>3776341
so your input is that trees are different from one another?

thank you. i guess.

>> No.3776384

>>3776344
and this, fellow men, is why we will all die when the EMP is triggered

>> No.3776387

>>3776354
i was born again; now i am a new creature

you, however, sound like just a creature; or maybe even a creature within a creature.

>> No.3776391

no, but a clothed system yes...and that has to stop.

>> No.3776396

>>3776391
agreed! rise up against the oppressor clothes!

>> No.3776400

>>3776354
still waiting, satanfag

>> No.3776424

>>3776325
are you trying to get at an infinite number? sort of like how the first life has eventually lead to all species alive today?

>> No.3776432

>>3776424
is this what i'm trying to do?

if so, wouldn't someone know the number was infinite? or is infinite a number? or finitely uncountable? or in some other way unknowable except to God?

yes, that was it. it was a poem. /sci/ cannot into poetry.

but yet /sci/ thinks it knows the weight of the universe

ponderous, isn't it?

>> No.3776447

>>3776432
yea i wasn't sure about using infinite, more of an unpredictable number, but finite

>> No.3776468

>>3776447
‘The creation of a thousand forests is in one acorn."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

>> No.3776474

>>3776354
you trying to bore me to death? it's working.

>> No.3776511

>>3776354
remember when Elijah killed all of the priests of baal after they couldn't raise fire from heaven, and Elijah could? and the fire consumed both alters, all the water, and both sacrifices?

good times, good times.

>> No.3776539

i guess all satanfags are losers

by definition

>> No.3776572

>>3776474

for a 'new creature' you are kind of vain and snotty.
I recommend you make your discourse more 'Christlike'

>> No.3776598

>>3776572
should then the unsaved tell the saved how to live?

no, never, not a thousand times no, but no, forever

>> No.3776620

>>3776572
believe you me, if i could figure out how to bumrush /sci/ with a whip made out of reeds, and overthrow all the furniture, and drive out all the hypocrits, i would do so

in a Christlike manner, of course