Re: 2nd law clarifications

Liste des GroupesRevenir à t origins 
Sujet : Re: 2nd law clarifications
De : {$to$} (at) *nospam* meden.demon.co.uk (Ernest Major)
Groupes : talk.origins
Date : 10. Jan 2025, 18:23:53
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vlrl38$51ad$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/01/2025 12:18, MarkE wrote:
 As I noted previously, where one draws the system boundary is critical in this analysis. I agree that the contribution of energy released during polymerization needs to be considered as well.
If the result depends on where you draw the boundary would that not be an indication that there's something wrong with the analysis.
 However, let's define our initial local system not as a set of activated nucleotide monomers but inactivated versions. In this case, energy must first flow into the system from the surroundings for activation, and then flow out again during polymerization. I'm not sure what the net effect of this is precisely, but clearly a much small net change to the system, if not close to zero. This then allows configuration entropy to be significant.
--
alias Ernest Major

Date Sujet#  Auteur
2 Jan 25 * 2nd law clarifications40MarkE
2 Jan 25 +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
2 Jan 25 +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
2 Jan 25 +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
2 Jan 25 +* Re: 2nd law clarifications3RonO
3 Jan 25 i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications2MarkE
3 Jan 25 i `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1RonO
2 Jan 25 +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1erik simpson
2 Jan 25 +* Re: 2nd law clarifications22Ernest Major
2 Jan 25 i+- Re: 2nd law clarifications1RonO
3 Jan 25 i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications20MarkE
3 Jan 25 i +* Re: 2nd law clarifications6Kerr-Mudd, John
3 Jan 25 i i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications5MarkE
3 Jan 25 i i +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
3 Jan 25 i i +* Re: 2nd law clarifications2Ernest Major
4 Jan 25 i i i`- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
7 Feb 25 i i `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1Kerr-Mudd, John
3 Jan 25 i +* Re: 2nd law clarifications6Rufus Ruffian
4 Jan 25 i i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications5MarkE
4 Jan 25 i i +* Re: 2nd law clarifications2Rufus Ruffian
5 Jan 25 i i i`- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
4 Jan 25 i i `* Re: 2nd law clarifications2DB Cates
5 Jan 25 i i  `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1MarkE
3 Jan 25 i +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1Ernest Major
3 Jan 25 i `* Re: 2nd law clarifications6RonO
4 Jan 25 i  +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1jillery
8 Mar 25 i  `* Re: 2nd law clarifications4Kerr-Mudd, John
9 Mar 25 i   `* Re: 2nd law clarifications3MarkE
10 Mar 25 i    +- Re: 2nd law clarifications1Kerr-Mudd, John
10 Mar 25 i    `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1LDagget
3 Jan 25 +* Re: 2nd law clarifications3aph
4 Jan 25 i`* Re: 2nd law clarifications2MarkE
5 Jan 25 i `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1aph
5 Jan 25 `* Re: 2nd law clarifications7LDagget
7 Jan 25  `* Re: 2nd law clarifications6MarkE
7 Jan 25   `* Re: 2nd law clarifications5LDagget
10 Jan 25    `* Re: 2nd law clarifications4MarkE
10 Jan 25     `* Re: 2nd law clarifications3Ernest Major
10 Jan 25      `* Re: 2nd law clarifications2LDagget
11 Jan 25       `- Re: 2nd law clarifications1Bob Casanova

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal