Your experiment of falling cards on earth is hopelessly flawed, by any scientific standard......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! a) playing cards are 2 D planes falling in an atmosphere tend to fly, they do not fall, they glide or flutter. b) additionally if we conduct the experiment in an atmosphere, we run into air movement as well as air resistance, unreliable. c) only if we conduct the experiment in a vacuum, will gravity become the only factor in the rate of fall. d) without an atmosphere all things fall at the same rate, be it a feather or a car or a cow. Hence any experiment requiring consistency must be performed in a vacuum and trying to shuffle a deck of falling cards by air resistance is utterly random, regardless of sample size. In order to perform any experiment all variables must be brought to an absolute minimum in order to get consistent, reliable results. But if we pay attention to all requirements, the rate of fall gets closer and closer to the Law of falling bodies and would be useless for any kind of weight to fall ratio measurement. I thought that the control factors in experiments determine the accuracy and legitimacy of any experiment. Tell me I'm wrong.
Ladies and gents, I thought what Dave was getting at (back in post 117) was just an alternative way of defining "order", as it could be applied to a pack of cards. Conventionally one would consider the attributes of suit, colour and number. But one could equally well consider the mass of the card, given that they do not all have identical mass, and consider them "ordered" if arranged in order of ascending mass. So I don't think anybody has to drop anything off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, as Galileo did not do, or worry about air resistance, or any of that other shit that Write4U wants to introduce, imbecilically, in order to derail the discussion and get it onto flying planes (because he does that, you see).
I don't have an experiment. Talk to SSB about that. What I have is the principles. Nonetheless: So what? Statistically, they'll reach the ground in order of their weight. Gee. Maybe SSB's experiment will eliminate spurious air movement as a factor... As for air resistance, again: that's the point. Air resistance with gravity is the sorting mechanism. Same area, with larger mass reaches ground sooner. A hammer made of steel will hit the ground before a piece of styrofoam shaped like a hammer. You have read nothing. Air resistance is what sorts the cards. Same surface area, different masses. A hammer made of steel will hit the ground before a piece of styrofoam shaped like a hammer. Read this again ^
Is it just me? Am I using invisible ink? Are they simply skipping everything I say until they find a tidbit they can object to without bothering to read the context? The whole 'how do we design the experiment thing' is SSB's straw man.
Er, perhaps it would be safest if, first of all, you tell me whether my summary above is on target, or whether I too am missing your point.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Of course it's on target. You got that in one post, and summarized it in, like, three sentences. That's partly because you actually read what I wrote.
No it does not. Look at the videos I have provided. The experiment is performed with a 2lb hammer and a 1/2 lb hammer. They fall at identical rates because air resistance has not yet slowed either down until they reach terminal speed in that medium. Only then does the heavier hammer have a momentum advantage. Floating cards do not have straight down momentum. No accurate measurements can be achieved, ever.
Phew, just checking the branch I am on is solid before venturing further out on it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So your real point, to get back to the discussion, is that information entropy, when considered in reference to a physical system, has a subjective quality to it that the thermodynamic original does not. I find this actually quite interesting, in the context of some of the discussions one can have with creationists. They can get hung up on the decrease in entropy implied in the development of long chains of DNA, based on the high information content they represent. The normal counter to that is to explain the thermodynamics of biochemistry and show that the metabolic processes of the organism lead to far greater increases in environmental (thermodynamic) entropy than the decrease implied in building a DNA chain and synthesising proteins from it etc etc. Perhaps what this thread shows is that this argument is actually missing a step, since to be rigorous one needs to explain how it is that a DNA chain has not only a high informational content but a low thermodynamic entropy, too, compared to the starting materials used to build it.
Don't be naughty, wegs. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm trying to see if I can rescue this thread from a downward spiral........
You do it constantly to me. Any small error in my presentation elicits great consternation and accusations of not being scientific. I reserve the right to make the same counter when I see a scientifically flawed argument.
The microtubules processing the mitotic information are dynamic, they build and decay and rebuild constantly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule And here may be your answer to the stability of DNA ; Seems microtubules are incredibly efficient and retain a high degree of information without loss. If something goes wrong in microtubules in the brain it may result in Alzheimer's, a clear indication of entropy.
Don't be a berk. This thread has sod-all to do with dropping objects or floating f***ing cards. It is not a "scientifically flawed argument": you have not even grasped what the argument is about. You have missed the point entirely, and are derailing it by going on and on with this irrelevant, distracting and childish side-issue. Do me a favour: read my posts 204 and the first 3 lines of 211. That is the point of Dave's example.
I never asked anything about the stability of DNA, you gormless moron. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I can think of a thousand ways to define order in a deck of cards. What is the point? What's wrong with the original order of a deck of cards. What changes if I sort them by weight, color, or symbolic markings? The point is that playing cards were designed for specific purpose and are symbolically marked for specific values as used during game play. Sorting them by weight does not create another order in a deck of cards. There are 4 cards of each with similar weight, and as demonstrated the Ace of Clubs is the heaviest card in a particular deck, but that does not guarantee that another "lighter" Ace may not be preceded by another "heavy card" in any of the 4 colors or denominations. The exercise is meaningless. The example of cards was just not appropriate in this instance and I believe you alluded to that yourself earlier. IMO, it would be wise to drop the example in this instance and maybe find a better illustration of a scientific argument. p.s. I do understand Dave's thrust of the argument, but that does not excuse a highly controversial 'alternative' method of ordering. I like Bohm's concept of hierarchical orders. Bridge is a perfect example of a card game using a hierarchical ordering of playing cards.
I think that the earlier points about order had to do with order being subjective, an arbitrary ''state,” so to speak. You could sort the cards by weight, color, etc and have that be your starting point for order. Remember, this thread is posted under ''Philosophy,'' because I was waxing poetic the other day, when thinking about entropy, and how it affects my life. But, ya'll had to bring science into it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ((that's also a joke))
Yes exactly. The card example shows that information entropy can have a subjective element, if you try to quantify it for a physical system. Thermodynamic entropy on the other hand is objective.......but a lot less sexy, as it does not lend itself to hand-waving flights of fancy. It was in fact you yourself who, earlier in the thread, reminded me of something I had been in danger of losing sight of: that it is really about the distribution of energy, rather than what we might perceive as "order". So you brought science into it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes I understand the intent, it is just that sorting cards by weight does not bring any order at all. Don't forget that the weight is achieved by the symbolic printing and the printed symbolic hierarchy of values do not match the weight of the cards in any logical manner. And we all showed interest in your post, it is worthy of discussion, but if it is worthy of discussion, it is worthy of logical consideration, not untenable examples of hierarchical "ordering". I, for one want to give your posts serious consideration. You're worth it....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
