<p>ok i corrected it after i got confused between the relationship between delta G and E (standard cell potential), nevertheless, I still proved my point.</p>
<p>"concerning the subject of blackhole, Hawking admitted that the so called “Blackhole evaporation” does not exist, he never said blackhole or wormhole can’t exist.</p>
<p>Go read up</p>
<p>also hawking rarely publish calculations, he do them in his head. he is not very effective at getting those lengthy calculation out, he only tells you the results."</p>
<p>No blackhole evaporation = no wormhole time-travel
Black holes and wormholes certainly do exist, but time-travel through them doesn’t. Besides, in order to explain Hezekiah, you’d have to pass Earth itself through a wormhole without messing up the solar system in the process, I’d imagine…</p>
<p>O the ignorance.</p>
<p>go read up on the calculation of Gibb’s free energy, in some circumstances entropy decreases, but free energy remains negative, because there is another thing called delta H</p>
<p>“No blackhole evaporation = no wormhole time-travel”</p>
<p>worm hole is not blackhole. wormhole is linked to the so called naked singularity in kerr blackholes and such, and i don’t see how wormhole and blackhole evaporation relate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fine then. When T is high enough and is mulitplied to S (which is positive), it will weigh out the H. This explanation is for those who cannot do simple mental algebra.</p>
<p>“Fine then. When T is high enough and is mulitplied to S (which is positive), it will weigh out the H. This explanation is for those who cannot do simple mental algebra.”</p>
<p>good. and it’s called a type 2 or type 3 reaction. </p>
<p>BTW, i recieved 5 on both AP chem and bio, and had straight A in college bio and chem courses, so…</p>
<p>Berkeley, delta-S is NEGATIVE, so the second term is POSITIVE no matter what temperature it is
Delta-H is POSITIVE if the reaction is endothermic (which it has to be, since we can burn amino acids for fuel)
Therefore, Delta-G is POSITIVE NO MATTER WHAT, which means the reaction is NON-SPONTANEOUS
The only way it can happen is with (1) a side reaction that has a HUGE NEGATIVE delta-G (which is how plants make it) or with (2) lottery-winning luck.</p>
<p>YOU better read up on your thermo now…</p>
<p>delta-S negative??? better check up on that…</p>
<p>“Berkeley, delta-S is NEGATIVE, so the second term is POSITIVE no matter what temperature it is
Delta-H is POSITIVE if the reaction is endothermic (which it has to be, since we can burn amino acids for fuel)
Therefore, Delta-G is POSITIVE NO MATTER WHAT, which means the reaction is NON-SPONTANEOUS
The only way it can happen is with (1) a side reaction that has a HUGE NEGATIVE delta-G (which is how plants make it) or with (2) lottery-winning luck.”</p>
<p>eh? you are twisting something that is being teach to students worldwide everyday. If you somehow manage to twist this. I bow to you. A discussion that must distort science is fruitless and is offensive to my faith (science)</p>
<p>also I believe berkeley inverted the turns, delta S stands alone and H is with the temperature.</p>
<p>of course, theoretical physics is not my field, and I have a feeling it isn’t yours either, so let’s not get into a debate where both of us are bound to mess up pretty badly</p>
<p>Delta-S = Change in entropy
Amino acids are more complex than those simple gases, so Delta-S must be negative</p>
<p>no delta s is usually postive which makes the second term negative. it would make little sense in saying that as tempature increases the the reaction is less likely to occur.</p>
<p>“of course, theoretical physics is not my field, and I have a feeling it isn’t yours either, so let’s not get into a debate where both of us are bound to mess up pretty badly”</p>
<p>It just happens that I am taking a course on modern physics.</p>
<p>im too tired right now…Im still in post-AP mode.</p>
<p>In this case Delta-S is negative</p>
<p>Visualization time! I take a canister with those gases, and I place them in an oven. Do I get amino acids? No! I take a canister of amino acids, and I heat them. Do I get those gases? Yes! What do you think happens when Mom burns her meatloaf?</p>
<p>“Amino acids are more complex than those simple gases, so Delta-S must be negative”</p>
<p>actually, for the same class of molecules, the larger it is, the less organized it is, for there are more ways to twist/turn (intermolecular bonds).</p>
<p>go read.</p>
<p>“Visualization time! I take a canister with those gases, and I place them in an oven. Do I get amino acids? No! I take a canister of amino acids, and I heat them. Do I get those gases? Yes! What do you think happens when Mom burns her meatloaf?”</p>
<p>actually there has been an experiment done, in a primitive earth condition, amino acids have been synthesised from their precursors. I don’t know why you are choosing this link to attack, especially when it has been proven to be possible.</p>
<p>though amino acids don’t usually clog up and form proteins by themselves.</p>
<p>Taking an intro class, and yet you claim to be able to understand Hawking…conceited, aren’t we?</p>
<p>“Taking an intro class, and yet you claim to be able to understand Hawking…conceited, aren’t we?”</p>
<p>I took the intro class in highschool. I didn’t claim to understand him, but on my intro course the professor told us there is no link between evaporation of blackhole and wormhole.</p>
<p>"actually, for the same class of molecules, the larger it is, the less organized it is, for there are more ways to twist/turn (intermolecular bonds).</p>
<p>go read."</p>
<p>An amino acid is a molecule in the same class as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen?</p>
<p>fine, for ANY molecules, the larger it is, the less organized it is because there are more ways to twist/turn (intermolecular bonds).</p>
<p>If you have never read a chemistry text in your life, I suggest you stop arguing on this front. You are making a fool out of yourself.</p>