These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Toward Equilibrium: Slave Avenger
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Elmund Egivand
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2016-02-02 01:48:33 UTC
Valerie Valate wrote:
Slave Avenger.

or...

SLAVENGER !


Such painful punning.

Gosakumori Noh wrote:


Besides, Hek needs tea.



I am very sure the Vherokior Enclave carries tea. Go check that place out.

No, we do not drink our tea with sugar, honey, milk and condiments.

A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#42 - 2016-02-02 04:22:49 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:


But as for demanding equilibrium and disequilibrium, you see, the universe is going towards equilibrium. Every system does. This is a law of thermodynamics. As soon as the equilibrium is reached, the system stops its evolution. Reactions cease. Energy transfers stop as there is no energy gradient anymore. It becomes static. Particles inside this system distribute evenly in their freedom. And it means death.

Any life is impossible in equilibrium. There is only death, decay and freedom.


Actually a system under equilibrium conditions is not stagnant at all. I get what you're trying to say but I also have the feeling you have no real clue what you're talking about. Best stay in the metaphysical aspects of this argument.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Gosakumori Noh
Coven of One
#43 - 2016-02-02 06:00:22 UTC
Elmund Egivand wrote:
I am very sure the Vherokior Enclave carries tea. Go check that place out.


Excuse me! Hello! Hello, is this thing on!? Excuse me, but we are also on the same side, here!

Buying the tea does not strike a blow against slaver imperialist hegemony.
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Doomheim
#44 - 2016-02-02 09:43:10 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:

But as for demanding equilibrium and disequilibrium, you see, the universe is going towards equilibrium. Every system does. This is a law of thermodynamics. As soon as the equilibrium is reached, the system stops its evolution. Reactions cease. Energy transfers stop as there is no energy gradient anymore. It becomes static. Particles inside this system distribute evenly in their freedom. And it means death.

Any life is impossible in equilibrium. There is only death, decay and freedom.


Hey, if you're going to apply scientific concepts out-of-context to human life why stop at thermodynamics?

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of those good for nothing neutrinos and their insistence to barely interact with anyone else at all. They're almost as bad as those bosons that keep on imparting mass or force when they're not even asked to!

But they're probably not as bad as all those atoms in my hot cup of tea behaving with so much freedom and chaos. Damn them all, I should put them in a fridge and teach them some order via some authoritarian heat exchange!

However, you're probably going to have some way to go in proving that the entire universe as a whole is a thermodynamic isolated system approaching a state of equilibrium when factoring in basic things like the quantum gradients inherent in a vacuum or the fact that gravity imparts negative entropy within a system because component velocities increase as energy is removed from them.

However, even if hypothetically the universe did reach maximum entropy then the very laws of thermodynamics state that given an infinite period of time there will be a spontaneous decrease of entropy as a whole due to thermal fluctuations within the system.

So, maybe as said stick to the metaphysics and what you actually know, eh?

Kurilaivonen|Concern
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#45 - 2016-02-02 12:37:29 UTC
Desiderya wrote:
I also have the feeling you have no real clue what you're talking about. Best stay in the metaphysical aspects of this argument.

Then leave your feeling to yourself and don't say me where to stay if you don't want me to tell you where to go.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#46 - 2016-02-02 12:59:32 UTC
Okay, let me be a bit more blunt: You've been using some buzzwords out of context.
In short: This was a load of incorrectly applied pseudo-scientific bullcrap.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#47 - 2016-02-02 13:00:10 UTC
Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:

Hey, if you're going to apply scientific concepts out-of-context to human life why stop at thermodynamics?

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of those good for nothing neutrinos and their insistence to barely interact with anyone else at all. They're almost as bad as those bosons that keep on imparting mass or force when they're not even asked to!

Don't be stupid. Assigning a moral property to subatomic particles is a pinnacle of ignorance. They behave according to laws that Maker bestowed upon them, they can't be good or bad, kind of evil, they are just like gears in a system, doing their job. Like all of us should.

Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:

But they're probably not as bad as all those atoms in my hot cup of tea behaving with so much freedom and chaos. Damn them all, I should put them in a fridge and teach them some order via some authoritarian heat exchange!

"Behaving with so much chaos and chaos?" Or maybe behaving with chaos and chaos and chaos and chaos and chaos and chaos and chaos and... ...
and chaos.
Okay, jokes aside. Probably I should send you a chemistry textbook so you can find out that there are actually no free atoms inside your cup of tea. And even if you saturate it with inert gases most probably their atoms will have orbital overlapping with water molecules simply because water in aqueous solutions display strong polarization abilities. Not sure to what degree inert gase atoms would be polarized and how strong their interaction with water molecules will be (because Im a soldier, not a chemist, please consult someone from that field about exact interaction energy numbers), but anyway, there are no free atoms in teas. There might be ions of some solved salts, but again, these ions should never be considered free as they have incredible strong bonds with water molecules. Solutions are complex systems of interacting molecules.

Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:
However, you're probably going to have some way to go in proving that the entire universe as a whole is a thermodynamic isolated system approaching a state of equilibrium when factoring in basic things like the quantum gradients inherent in a vacuum or the fact that gravity imparts negative entropy within a system because component velocities increase as energy is removed from them.

Most probably I won't waste my time trying to prove anything to you in particular. Even if I am not a scientist myself, I'd prefer talking about such subjects with someone... more educated in basic chemistry and physics.

Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:

However, even if hypothetically the universe did reach maximum entropy then the very laws of thermodynamics state that given an infinite period of time there will be a spontaneous decrease of entropy as a whole due to thermal fluctuations within the system.

That wouldn't be equilibrium.

Veikitamo Gesakaarin wrote:

So, maybe as said stick to the metaphysics and what you actually know, eh?

Considering what you have said, back to you. Don't get involved into topics that you fail to comprehend, then maybe you won't be bothered about "bad" subatomic particles and "free atoms" inside your cup of tea.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#48 - 2016-02-02 13:01:12 UTC
Desiderya wrote:
Okay, let me be a bit more blunt: You've been using some buzzwords out of context.
In short: This was a load of incorrectly applied pseudo-scientific bullcrap.

Tell that to this Gesakaarin, not me.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Jev North
Doomheim
#49 - 2016-02-02 13:13:51 UTC
The universe tends towards maximum entropy; better swallow a bullet.

Even though our love is cruel; even though our stars are crossed.
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#50 - 2016-02-02 13:22:06 UTC
Don't you think Gesakaarin's post was very, very obvious satire?

Anyways. You should really stick to soldiering because you're messing up terms quite hard again. Really, stop, please.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#51 - 2016-02-02 13:23:46 UTC
Jev North wrote:
The universe tends towards maximum entropy; better swallow a bullet.

After you

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#52 - 2016-02-02 13:26:41 UTC
Desiderya wrote:
Don't you think Gesakaarin's post was very, very obvious satire?

Anyways. You should really stick to soldiering because you're messing up terms quite hard again. Really, stop, please.

I think her post was ignorant.
And I think your post are trolling and not helping the conversation. Please cease and desist.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#53 - 2016-02-02 14:08:56 UTC
Why was her post ignorant and yours isn't?
At least she wasn't serious about it.

Anyways, as you're feeling this is unproductive let me elaborate:

Your argumentation has no basis as the premise of using the laws of thermodynamics to describe non-physical systems makes no sense. Assuming you just wanted to talk about something completely disconnected from the initial discussion you're still not using the concepts correctly as it is a very questionable assumption that you can simplify something as big (and in parts still unknown) as the universe into a closed system. And if you do, you're having troubles explaining where the energy came from in the first place. Just think of the first law.

Now, speaking of chemistry: There are free atoms in your cup of tea - this is called equilibrium conditions. But for all effects and purposes their lifetime is too small for them to play any meaningful part. Speaking of molecules would be the correct term. Your input ends there. Inert gases are, surprisingly, inert. If they react they need a highly reactive partner. Water is not. Besides. which orbitals should overlap?
Also, hydrated ions still have their DOF of translation. If that's not free I don't know. It's kinda necessary for conductivity.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#54 - 2016-02-02 14:38:16 UTC
Desiderya wrote:
Why was her post ignorant and yours isn't?
At least she wasn't serious about it.

Anyways, as you're feeling this is unproductive let me elaborate:

Not going to reply on blatant trolling part.

Desiderya wrote:

Your argumentation has no basis as the premise of using the laws of thermodynamics to describe non-physical systems makes no sense. Assuming you just wanted to talk about something completely disconnected from the initial discussion you're still not using the concepts correctly as it is a very questionable assumption that you can simplify something as big (and in parts still unknown) as the universe into a closed system.

And again, I'll ignore your trolling... for now.

Desiderya wrote:
And if you do, you're having troubles explaining where the energy came from in the first place. Just think of the first law.

If you'd be reading Caldari school books about physics instead of talking in IGS, you'd know that the energy is an invariant of system by time. In other words, it is a characteristic of a closed system that doesn't change in time. Where it does come from? From the forming of the said system. There are though different forms of energy that turn one into another, but the summary energy stays the same.

Desiderya wrote:

Now, speaking of chemistry: There are free atoms in your cup of tea - this is called equilibrium conditions.

Name exact free atoms that can be found in any given cup of tea. I'd like to remind you that atoms in molecules aren't free, just like ions in solutions. In fact, you can even test if your system has free atoms. Since besides inert gases all free atoms are paramagnetic (they have unpaired electrons), they can be found by electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy. Though there are even whole molecules with unpaired electrons that can give EPR signals, like oxygen, but I am pretty sure the EPR can give difference between oxygen atom and molecule. Again, consult a specialist about that case, I am not very good in chemistry. But, on other hand, I am pretty sure that a specialist will whistle and twist finger at temple if you ask them to find free atoms in your cup of tea... Or maybe would call you straightforward an ignorant or idiot, I don't know... ask them.

Desiderya wrote:

But for all effects and purposes their lifetime is too small for them to play any meaningful part.

Is your cup of tea glowing?
That's golden.

I wouldn't drink a tea if I'd know there are atoms with small lifetime. In fact, I wouldn't even stay in the same room with this cup. Well, maybe only behind a lead wall.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Sanguina Dieudonne
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#55 - 2016-02-02 14:57:51 UTC
Gosakumori Noh wrote:

Consequently, in the interests of Equilibrium, I have taken up the cause of the Matari people.

We are not friends anymore.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#56 - 2016-02-02 15:09:28 UTC
Desiderya wrote:

Inert gases are, surprisingly, inert. If they react they need a highly reactive partner. Water is not.

You don't need an actual chemistry reaction, there are way weaker bonds besides covalent. For example, van der Waals forces. In this case there will be a Debye force between a permanent dipole (water molecule) and induced dipole (inert atom). Atoms are polarized if electron clouds are shifted and center of negative charge doesn't stand in a tiny nucleus, even a single atom can become a dipole.

Desiderya wrote:
Besides. which orbitals should overlap?

One of occupied inert atom orbitals with free orbital of a molecule. If you will create a compound of several ligands around a central inert atom, exact interacting orbitals of the atom can be found by the symmetry of the compound. In most cases they are px, py and pz orbitals, can be d-orbitals for d-elements. From the molecule side it would be a molecular orbital instead of atomic and often it is either a highest occupied (HOMO) or a lowest unoccupied (LUMO). In case of inert atoms I bet that would be LUMO. Meh, really, don't remember much of that stuff, Im just a soldier, after all.

Desiderya wrote:

Also, hydrated ions still have their DOF of translation. If that's not free I don't know. It's kinda necessary for conductivity.

They don't "swim alone" in the solution. They swim with a whole heck a lot of water molecules attached to them, like a huge bubbles. There is even information available about cation sizes in GalNet. If you can run the search, you can find out, for example, that a radius of a free sodium cation (Na+ in vacuum) has size of about 0.1 nm, while hydrated (aq*Na+) it has radius about 0.7nm because all of these water molecules.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Gosakumori Noh
Coven of One
#57 - 2016-02-02 15:59:01 UTC
Well I for one have Complete Confidence that constantly spreading cosmology and the curious ejaculations of Emptiness will together conspire to deny the Universe the peace which any suicidal tendencies toward Complete Equilibrium might bring, ionized soup bubbles notwithstanding.

That sounds yummy! Garsown, sweetie, would you bring me a cup of clam chowder? Yes, darling, and another bloody Mary.

Make it two.

Recent expansions in my localized space have given me a terrible headache.
Gosakumori Noh
Coven of One
#58 - 2016-02-02 16:48:28 UTC
Sanguina Dieudonne wrote:
Gosakumori Noh wrote:

Consequently, in the interests of Equilibrium, I have taken up the cause of the Matari people.

We are not friends anymore.


I do realize that it is an awkward situation and understand completely, darling. But on the plus side, at least I am shooting at those despicable Amarrians. Ick! Ick! Alternatively, I am occupying their coherent photon streams for brief periods of time, introducing new opportunity costs.
Jev North
Doomheim
#59 - 2016-02-02 17:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jev North
Gosakumori Noh wrote:
The first time I saw a spectacular sand mandala erased, I was horrified. Now, I (mostly) get it. On some level, I suppose that capsuleers act like monks destroying mandalas.

Quite. We can't have mandalas cluttering the place up everywhere.

Those monks mostly seen to destroy their own. I wonder if they are disturbed if another monk does it for them, and why.

Even though our love is cruel; even though our stars are crossed.
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#60 - 2016-02-02 17:10:00 UTC
Free atoms:
Nascent species exist. Water equilibrium under standard condition will obviously net next to nothing to begin with as reverse reactions are highly favoured in all cases of the chain - doesn't mean you don't get it. The lifetime of the species will be infinitesimal and I guess impossible to detect with ESR. I wasn't talking about radioactive decay.

Ions in solution:
Their sizeable solvent hull does not stop their mobility. The solvated ions can move freely in solution.

Orbitals:
Diana Kim wrote:

One of occupied inert atom orbitals with free orbital of a molecule. If you will create a compound of several ligands around a central inert atom, exact interacting orbitals of the atom can be found by the symmetry of the compound. In most cases they are px, py and pz orbitals, can be d-orbitals for d-elements. From the molecule side it would be a molecular orbital instead of atomic and often it is either a highest occupied (HOMO) or a lowest unoccupied (LUMO). In case of inert atoms I bet that would be LUMO. Meh, really, don't remember much of that stuff, Im just a soldier, after all.


This is what I mean about quoting buzzwords: You are not using the terms quite in the correct situations and are just creating a heap of confusion.

If you want, because I feel that a proper response is nontrivial in nature and would completely derail this topic, we can continue this discussion somewhere else.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.