Reviews for Major Error in Science Today

Reviews For: Major Error in Science Today

That Name Goes Here 2005-03-24 ch 1,	abuseNicely done. A few grammar and smelling mistakes, but good. And by the way, I wrote the essay in 7th grade. Hehe, found it in the bad of my closet and rewrote it :)
Ryter 2005-02-09 ch 1,	abuseDid you know that the original concept of science came from a drug induced halliucination? Just a thought.
infamously-anonymous 2005-01-28 ch 1,	abuseThere are many major errors in science today, this is just one of them, but I don't think you can be absolutely correct, even though you definately have some valid points in there. I can't say that I honestly understand all of this, but I can say that I like what I do understand of it, for the simple fact that it goes against what science says and is quite possible. You asked me three question in your reviews so they're in my fictionpress page now, coz I hate making reviews long wthi answers.
Modulated 2004-12-27 ch 1,	abusePoorly spellchecked. Sorry to start on such a downer, but it's the nails on chalkboard for me. Sound science, and a good point. You might also want to point out Newton's law of equal and oppisite reactions. It was strangly missing from this piece.
Between the Light and Dark 2004-12-26 ch 1,	abuseIntriguing, I must say. A bit more serious than mine is, heh heh. Very good observations, although I must agree with g21lto on this one. Got any more? I could use some theories to bounce a few ideas back and forth.
Lauderdale 2004-12-22 ch 1,	abuseGreat essay; a little ahead of me though. I'll keep this in mind when we learn about entropy. Interesting.
Chris Taylor 2004-12-19 ch 1,	abusehmm, i see the point your making in this, but this is just a theory. unfortunately, the nature of theories is that they are almost NEVER proven. we'll probably never know how the earth was made to have human life, we wont know how the dinosaurs died, and we will probably never know if what you said is true or if in fact the OPPOSITE is true. while i do agree to a certain extent your side of things (ie, the prior charging, prior heating part) but unfortunately, the flaw comes from the AFTER-effect (ie, once that battery is done, it's not gonna re-charge without some help). your point proves valid, but also shows flaws. (and sorry about this, i'm not TRYING to bash this, it seems well thought out, there's just a few little holes, like in every theory that exists). at least your not one that sits idly by and goes along with everything everyone says. good job. Peace and Chicken Grease
Wayward Ballerina 2004-12-13 ch 1,	abuseWell that certainly is an interesting theroy. When talking on the topic of energy it never "dies" or is "born, merely transformed. The energy from a battery is a chemical reaction that is transforned in electricty, the electricty may be sent to a light which the enrgy is transformed into light and heat by another reaction and so on and so forth. I do agree with your theroy in the sence that if something is done one way that it certainly could be done in the opposite. If something can cool the logically it can heat as well. It's all really to do with the dispersal of energy. If something dies the energy is just being transformed into a different type. It's just to do with everything being equal. Law of physics: "every action had an opposite and equal reaction." Hmm.. I kind of lost my path of thought there and went off track, I also think I may have been restating the orrional theroy. M... Well that was a nice little review. I may be wrong on what I'm stating though (mainly for the fect I have never read the Second Law of Thermodynamics in great depth). Well anyway a nice little read and well written, you may have wanted to explain about the law abit more for those who don't know much about it. Nice to know I'm not the only strange person who spends their time pondering on scientific theroys while on school holidays. But alas it's time for me to stop babbling on and say farewell.Cheers,Sarah.
biminator 2004-12-12 ch 1,	abusehm. makes me think.
gangster-dolly 2004-12-08 ch 1, anon.	abuseHehe, to the second review: I'm too yound to do chemistry. Another year or two :-P gangster-dolly
g21lto 2004-12-08 ch 1, anon.	abuseThe things you point out -- crystals growing as the atoms and molecules arrange themselves in a lattice and objects heating up -- are good observations. They do not represent an error in the second law of thermodynamics, though. As you state, the 2nd law refers to an "isolated" or "closed" system, in which energy will disperse and matter will become more disordered with time. For an object to heat up, energy must be added to it. If we look at the object as a system, it is not a closed system since it is interacting with its surroundings in the form of taking on energy. If the object were kept from all energy sources and were indeed a closed system, it would not heat up. Likewise in the example of sugar crystals growing, the sugar-and-water solution is not a closed system, since for the sugar crystals to form some of the water must evaporate, throwing the solution out of equilibrium and allowing for crystal formation. For the water to evaporate and leave the system, it must not be a closed system. * Your observations are valid, but they fit well within the 2nd law. This was an interesting essay, though.
Radyn 2004-12-07 ch 1,	abuseShoulda paid attention in Chemistry, mate. Endothermic reactions will never occur spontaneously, that is, without any outside impetus, UNLESS energy is added to the system that will overcome the natural tendency toward disorder. There's an equation dealing with Gibbs free energy that explains it well, but I seem to have forgotten it at the moment. Point is, objects heating is a direct result of energy being used in order to heat it up. Bones heal because the body actively spends energy to heal it. Water heats up because we put it on the stove. Batteries recharge because we manually insert more potential energy into it.
Nat Rich 2004-12-07 ch 1,	abuseInteresting. If I am correct, you are stating that the law is wrong in saying things always cool down, or disolve down--meaning they have to heat up before they can cool down. That is true, however, if it was not hot how could it be cold? And our universie IS getting bigger and bigger, thus it never ends. I do agree with you, however in your essay it was hard to read your thesis and really get across what you were trying to say.

Return to Top