Entropy in everyday life

[Write4U]

Did you just claim that weight is defined by the symbols printed on them? Did you just claim that weight is defined by the symbols printed on them?

Yes indeed. The intended weight (value) of playing cards is indeed assigned symbolically. In that context it has nothing to do with mass.
In bridge, an Ace of spades carries more weight (greater value) than an Ace of clubs even as the Ace of clubs weighs more than an Ace of spades (as demonstrated earlier).

You can't pick up, say, an anvil in one hand and a feather in the other and feel the difference in weight?

OK, now you have moved the goal posts several times from your original difference in weight comparison among playing cards. Even then, in a vacuum a feather and an anvil will fall at the same rate. This a proven scientific fact.

But the original objection to the use of playing cards was about its lack of subtlety.

Can you tell the difference between the weights of playing cards when the difference is measured in centigrams and randomly distributed among the different values of the cards in the deck?
It took a guy with scientific scale 1/10000 accuracy to measure the differences.
Are you telling me we have people with that kind of brainpower and sensory awareness who can tell the difference in weight in individual playing cards? I find that hard to believe.
And I'm sure supermarkets will back me up on that...

But even that was not the context in which I was using the term "weight" this time. If you read my post more thoughtfully, I'm sure you will see the context in which I was using the term, .....

Weight didn't exist before humans came along and stamped numbers on things?

Of course weight existed, and in several contexts. A medicineman in those days carried a lot of weight within the tribe, he had the paints to prove it. As doctors do today in society, they wear the title MD.
In days of old trading, a pretty seashell carried as much weight in value as a deer hide. Sacred items carried a lot of weight among primitive peoples. As they do today, still.

I think you'll want to restate that.

No, not in the context I used the term.

Agreed
Write4U, Think more about what your saying

Oh, I know what I was saying.

Apparently no one else did because they do not attach enough weight to my posits, so let me clarify the definition of weight strictly as a value, without attachment to mass.

2. attach importance or value to.
"speaking, reading, and writing should be weighted equally in the assessment"

3. the ability of someone or something to influence decisions or actions.

4a. the importance attached to something.

4b. "individuals differ in the weight they attach to various aspects of a job"

STATISTICS.
5. a factor associated with one of a set of numerical quantities, used to represent its importance relative to the other members of the set.

https://www.google.com/search?q=weight definition

And who wants to carry the weigth of the world on their shoulders? I don't .

 

[exchemist]

Technically correct

Weight is a CONCEPT and has no physicality




So no need to restate

Perhaps one of you two are confusing WEIGHT with MASS

Of course MASS exist (it's the stuff all around)
WEIGHT on the other hand does not exist, it's merely a relationship number with, again, no physicality

Sorry, this is ridiculous. Weight is the force exerted by a mass due to gravity. It is just as "real" as any other force.

In general, F=ma. In the case of weight, W=mg.

 

[Michael 345]

Sorry, this is ridiculous. Weight is the force exerted by a mass due to gravity. It is just as "real" as any other force.

In general, F=ma. In the case of weight, W=mg.

OK

So if I was to put forth

the Earth, in its current configuration, has no weight

you would be able to tell me its weight?

 

[wegs]

So, getting away from cards for a moment...

Would the Big Bang be considered minimum entropy? Was it (beginning of the universe) at zero?

HEY...how about these ^^ questions??

 

[exchemist]

HEY...how about these ^^ questions??

Yes, the Big Bang would start from a low entropy state. Entropy in the universe has increased since then so yes it would have been at a minimum. The balance between potential energy, light and heat is probably tricky to talk about however.

 

[exchemist]

OK

So if I was to put forth

the Earth, in its current configuration, has no weight

you would be able to tell me its weight?

Deliberately silly example, not worth commenting on.

 

[Write4U]

Question; If we inflate a balloon very quickly, will it gain heat?
IOW; does the act of inflating the balloon make it heat up?

 

[DaveC426913]

So, getting away from cards for a moment...

Would the Big Bang be considered minimum entropy? Was it (beginning of the universe) at zero?

In some models, yes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Weight is a CONCEPT and has no physicality

WEIGHT on the other hand does not exist, it's merely a relationship number with, again, no physicality

So, you have trouble physically telling the difference in weight between a brick and a feather?
I know I can. It's certainly physical.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes indeed. The intended weight (value) of playing cards is indeed assigned symbolically. In that context it has nothing to do with mass.
In bridge, an Ace of spades carries more weight (greater value) than an Ace of clubs even as the Ace of clubs weighs more than an Ace of spades (as demonstrated earlier).

The weight of playing card is approximately 1.6 grams. No one except you is talking about any other kind of weight.

OK, now you have moved the goal posts several times from your original difference in weight comparison among playing cards.

I am - and always have been - talking about physical weight.

Even then, in a vacuum a feather and an anvil will fall at the same rate. This a proven scientific fact.

No one except you is talking about vacuum.

I am talking about falling in air. A heavier card will reach the ground faster than a lighter card of the same physical size. Because of air resistance and terminal velocity.

But even that was not the context in which I was using the term "weight" this time. If you read my post more thoughtfully, I'm sure you will see the context in which I was using the term, .....

OK, you're having a bit of fun.

Of course weight existed, and in several contexts. A medicineman in those days carried a lot of weight within the tribe, he had the paints to prove it. As doctors do today in society, they wear the title MD.

That's a common back peddling ploy. "Ho! Did you think I was serious about all that? No, I've been joking the whole time!"
Off you go then.

 

[exchemist]

Question; If we inflate a balloon very quickly, will it gain heat?
IOW; does the act of inflating the balloon make it heat up?

Irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Shall I start another thread for you and we can discuss? Under physics? Say yes and I'll do it right away.

 

[Write4U]

Irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

Shall I start another thread for you and we can discuss? Under physics? Say yes and I'll do it right away.

I thought it was a natural follow up to wegs' question. We are talking entropy, no?

Sorry....

 

[Write4U]

The weight of playing card is approximately 1.6 grams. No one except you is talking about any other kind of weight.

And the difference in weight among cards is in centigrams, no? Apparently you are not talking about that kind of weight measurement. You should!

I am - and always have been - talking about physical weight.

I know you were, you just didn't realize I was not. But that came later. I had already responded to your example of playing cards falling through the air. But I changed perspective in the very first paragraphs of post #241

The intended weight (value) of playing cards is indeed assigned symbolically. In that context it has nothing to do with mass.
In bridge, an Ace of spades carries more weight (greater value) than an Ace of clubs even as the Ace of clubs weighs more than an Ace of spades (as demonstrated earlier).

No one except you is talking about vacuum.

It is the only scientific way to assert a natural law, which you were citing incorrectly. All other examples other than a vacuum have too many variables, especially when talking about very light objects in a dynamic atmosphere, such as air.

I am talking about falling in air. A heavier card will reach the ground faster than a lighter card of the same physical size. Because of air resistance and terminal velocity.

You're wrong. Any difference in weight of playing cards is far to small (centigrams) to have any effect on the law of falling bodies, especially if the falling body is a 2D plane.
No flat 2D card will fall straight down throught the air, they will flutter like leaves. Make sure all air conditioning fans are off, before you drop your cards . Oh, and close the doors, might have a cross-draft.

I give you an example of a guy at a military base who did weigh playing cards on a scientifically calibrated scale and you question me about weights of playing cards? Please.

Your example of free-falling playing cards is a poor scientific test at best. Think about it critically, please. It is not conclusive of anything at all other than that playing cards do respond to gravity in a random way, when falling through the air.

OK, you're having a bit of fun.

Not really. When I make a joke I accompany it with a smiley. If not, I am serious and it is disheartening to see people skim over what I write and respond with knee-jerk reactions.

That's a common back peddling ploy. "Ho! Did you think I was serious about all that? No, I've been joking the whole time!"

Ah, I see, you have now constructed an entire scenario out of thin air........ and attributed it to me......
That's the point I was making. You are not taking me seriously and thus you are missing the subtleties of my arguments. You tend to do that sometimes....

Off you go then.

Really? Why don't you pay more attention before you go off into lala land and accuse others of writing the story.

 

[Michael 345]

Deliberately silly example, not worth commenting on.

OK

So, you have trouble physically telling the difference in weight between a brick and a feather?
I know I can. It's certainly physical.

Oh you mean gravity
Gravity exist
Yes I can feel gravity

Weight on the other hand is very fickle

ie weight on Earth is one number with that number changing to one sixth of that number on the moon

The Earth in its current configuration has no weight

Put it on Jupiter and it has weight

Weight is a CONCEPT and is not listed as a force in any list which I have found of forces

 

[billvon]

the Earth, in its current configuration, has no weight
you would be able to tell me its weight?

Sure; zero. That's easy.

 

[Michael 345]

Sure; zero. That's easy.

Of course it was easy

I gave you the answer

 

[billvon]

Of course it was easy. I gave you the answer

Right . . . not sure why you asked though.

 

[DaveC426913]

And the difference in weight among cards is in centigrams, no?

It is measured in fractions of a gram, yes..

Apparently you are not talking about that kind of weight measurement.

I have been all along. You should follow along more carefully. I have referred to weights in grams multiple times.

I know you were, you just didn't realize I was not.

Yes. That was disingenuous. You are attempting to obfuscate.

It is the only scientific way to assert a natural law,[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Stop making stuff up.

I'm talking about cards falling - fluttering and all. Statistically, the heavier cards will land first. This is not the same as a large ball and a small ball; it is more akin to a golf ball and a ping pong ball. The golf ball will land first - because air resistance will cause the ping pong ball to reach its terminal velocity rapidly. Galileo didn't use two balls of different masses. but the same size.

Any difference in weight of playing cards is far to small (centigrams) to have any effect on the law of falling bodies, especially if the falling body is a 2D plane.

You haven't the slightest evidence if this is true.

I grant it will have a small effect - even a vanishingly small effect. But that does not mean it won't be statistically significant. Which is what I actually said.

No flat 2D card will fall straight down throught the air, they will flutter like leaves.

Yes they will. Never said they wouldn't.
Statistically, the heavier ones will reach the ground first. Similar to the golf ball over the ping pong ball.

Just because they flutter doens't mean the laws of physics stop working.

Your example of free-falling playing cards is a poor scientific test at best.

I never offered any test. That is a straw man, and it was made up by SSB. Take it up with him.

I said that, statistically, heavier objects will reach the ground sooner than lighter objects, given they are both the same size. Yes, even if they flutter.

You are not taking me seriously and thus you are missing the subtleties of my arguments. You tend to do that sometimes....

I suspect that you are too quick in your eagerness to prove me wrong on something - on anything. I called you out several times when you invoked several utterly irrelevant articles and principles. It's like you read a couple of key words, and copy them into Google, and then post the first article you find, without reading it. I suspect you're trying too hard to win, and not trying hard enough to be thoughtful. That's not like you.

Just a few posts ago, you deliberately attempted to stall this discussion through obfuscation. You deliberately started talking about the "weight" of the value of cards, when that has nothing to do with the topic. You didn't introduce it as a new idea, so anyone else could have time to switch gears, you simply started it as a response to a post about weights (in grams).

That looked pretty insincere to me. You want to be taken seriously? Simply acknowledge that was a mea culpa.

 

[wegs]

When I think of “free falling” and/or “fluttering” cards, it’s representing the randomness or spontaneity within a system. (Think of a deck of cards falling off the side of your desk - randomly and without your effort) The cards can weigh ten lbs or ten oz each - entropy of a substance increases with its weight, but also with other factors present.

Not sure why weight is such a focus?

It would be obvious that a few “heavier” cards would fall sooner to the ground, than a lighter card, but who cares?

Unless the issue is that entropy shouldn’t be used in statistical weight assessments?

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh you mean gravity
Gravity exist
Yes I can feel gravity

No you can't.

You can only feel the effects of gravity i.e. weight.

Einstein captured this in his Equivalence Principle. In a closed room, you have no way of telling if you are in a gravity field or simply accelerating.
All you know is the sensation of weight.