Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2



This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete CDC   (talk)  30 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Human thermodynamics
Someone tagged this as a speedy because it's got the same name as recent vfd deleted content, but this text is IMO significantly different. I'm bringing it here to see what the community opinion is before acting. Please be sure to read the text and not just vote based on the previous VFD. - Mgm|(talk) 21:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Phrase only gets 14 google hits, but it might be one of many terms used to describe a similar concept - in which case, I might vote to keep if it made sense once translated into something more easily understandable. -- BD2412 talk 22:01, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm inclined to dismiss this as patent nonsense.  At best, it's original research and original speculation tacked on to the name of a paper by Libb Thims (name of the journal in which the article appeared would help with verifying that) and a misapplication of thermodynamics (closed system, people, closed system).  No, I take it back, that's not at best.  At best, this isn't original research and speculation, just a really sloppy presentation of non-notable pseudoscience.  The Literate Engineer 01:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. I read the text, and I understand the material. It is well-disguised nonsense. It is, for the most part, basic thermodynamics (badly presented, should be in LaTeX) that is dealt with just fine by other, dedicated articles. See, e.g. entropy, free energy. Note that these terms are standard thermo terms. Then, the article goes off the rails and says things like "wherein a man M meets or collides in time with a woman W over the substrate surface called &#8216;earth&#8217; to form a bonded relationship" which is nearly patent nonsense and it goes down hill from there. The website looks professional, to a point, and claims they have a PhD - I reckon it's an elaborate hoax. Further the Google hits deal with the perfectly good topic of human thermo in terms of "how do you keep people cool" and "what sort of ways do humans lose heat/warm up" etc. It's subtle, but I reckon it's nonsense.-Splash 01:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It's different than the last article, but "different" does not mean "better" in this case. --Xcali 03:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I am the author.  I understand everyone&#8217;s inherent frustration with its content, i.e. the application of reaction mechanics to one&#8217;s own life.  It's emotionally-confusing to point the microscope at oneself.  However, let me ask this: in human life, do we all agree that bonds are broken and bonds are formed?  If so, why is it that we cannot find one semblance of an article related to human bonding in Wikipedia written in the format of chemistry, in spite of the fact that numerous Laureates have spent decades working on such a premise (as shown by all the quotes)?  Maybe I should search under &#8216;witchcraft&#8217;, &#8216;mystery&#8217;, &#8216;glue-all&#8217;, or maybe &#8216;Romance Novels&#8217;?  According to Merriam-Webster, an &#8216;encyclopedia&#8217; is defined as: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge.  Is this or is this not an encyclopedia?  By definition, thermodynamics is the science of energy transformations.  By definition, human thermodynamics is a branch of thermodynamics.  If I was a random person curious as to whether or not thermodynamics is applicable to human life, I would be extremely content to find such a straight forward article.  As Wikipedia is such renowned worldly encyclopedia, I would certainly expect it to have some content in this direction.  P.S. human systems are &#8216;open&#8217;.  Check your facts. --Wavesmikey 03:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm aware human systems are open systems. My understanding is, though, that the second law of thermodynamics, referenced in this article, from which Gibbs free energy, also referenced, is derived applies primarily to closed systems.  I admit, open systems do exist and can be described with thermodynamics; nonetheless, their application to group dynamics is a major stretch, and modeling human relationships on them involves all sorts of unstated assumptions, for instance that a state function (like Gibbs free energy) even applies.  Or that they're spontaneous.  My skepticism of this article is heightened by having looked at the site linked to from the Thims reference and noticed it firmly on the pseudo- side of fringe science.  And, since Thims seems to be the only actual researcher in the field of "human thermodynamics", the article now strikes me as unverifiable.  I stand by my vote, thus ends my comment. The Literate Engineer 04:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Creative and original, but not scientific or encyclopedic.  Thermodymics isn't meant to describe human relationships&mdash;and there is little evidence to suggest that this is a notable pet theory.  --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for your rebuttal; let me clarify the situation. Yes, the second law applies to ‘closed’ systems.  However, Gibbs free energy change &#8710;G does not apply to ‘closed’ systems.  The Gibbs free energy change &#8710;G represents the minimum ‘work’ exchanged by the system with the surroundings – hence we are discussing ‘open’ systems.  On a positive note, I do sense there to be a consensus forming to ‘close’ this article.  Thus, let me ask our wise panel the following: What is the scientific name of the ‘force’ that holds a married couple together in ‘bonded’ matrimony?  I’ll give you a hint: there are only four choices: 1. the strong nuclear force, 2. the electromagnetic force, 3. the weak nuclear force, 4. the gravitational force.  There’s a 25% chance you’ll get it right.  --Wavesmikey 06:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as cruft. Xoloz 06:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete entirely non-encyclopedic, non-notable fringe and original research. Bambaiah 06:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Patent nonsense/original research. Not an encyclopedia article - delete. - Mike Rosoft 07:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Summary: as we are all in such a fine consensus, might someone guide me to a better, more-notable, more-encyclopedic, less-fringe, less-cruft article on the thermodynamics of human life – which is by the way, if no one has a clue, the animated interaction of matter with energy. If we want something more scientific – there’s always the paranormal section at Barnes & Noble.  --Wavesmikey 07:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no; I don't believe that thermodynamics is any more relevant to human life than to anything else. We don't have an article about thermodynamics of vegetables or thermodynamics of chairs, do we? - Mike Rosoft 10:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Very funny!!! However, if you were, for a moment, to expand on your narrow-minded view and do a search at Amazon or Google, you would find articles or books on: biological thermodynamics, atmospheric thermodynamics, black hole thermodynamics, economic systems thermodynamics, relativistic thermodynamics, chemical thermodynamics, finite time thermodynamics, molecular thermodynamics, classical thermodynamics, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, equilibrium thermodynamics, statistical thermodynamics, psychological thermodynamics, open systems thermodynamics, gradient based thermodynamics, etc.  Nice jab though.  Any other pleasant comments?  --Wavesmikey 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you could give us links to the journal papers you have published, or that have been published, on human thermodynamics in the sense in which your article uses it, you could probably close the discussion in your favour. It would also help your case if the article included considerably more information on your theory rather than a repetition of basic, undergraduate thermodynamics &mdash; can you add some good thorough science and externally verifiably references to your article? The references you give are very old and do not deal with your work, and quoting a bunch of romanticising famous people doesn't really count.-Splash 15:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * The paper in question, which as we see is very controversial, has been encompassed into four soon to be published textbooks on human thermodynamics; see: HT Books. However, I am not the only one working in this direction – check the links.  For the moment, possibly to help clear up the air, let me give a tutorial:


 * First, generally speaking, the science of thermodynamics began in 1824 when Sadi Carnot published his analysis on heat engines. The heat engines of his time were steam engines, where wood or coal was burned to create heat.  The heat was used to boil water to make pressurized steam.  The controlled release of this steam was used to drive a piston.  The cyclical movement of the piston was used to turn pulleys to lift water out of salt mines in Europe.  Hence, Carnot defined work as ‘a weight lifted through a height’.


 * The ‘system’ in question here is the chemical reaction: coal + oxygen --> carbon dioxide + water. Through this exothermic reaction, energy goes off in two parts: (1) work and (2) waste.   Coal is predominately comprised of hydrocarbons.  The simplest of hydrocarbons is methane [CH4].  When methane burns with oxygen we have the following reaction: CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O.  In simple language, first someone ‘sparks’ reaction.  Second, because of this ‘spark’ the methane and oxygen molecules develop an intense desire to ‘react’ with each other.  Third, through the process of this reaction these two molecules are ‘transformed’ into new molecules.  Forth, heat is given off, owing to the fact that these new molecules have reached a more stable configuration.


 * Now, unless this is the dark ages, which I’m assuming it isn’t, I’m going to presume that we all agree that humans are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons bonded via photon exchange – just as our simple water molecule is made of 10 protons, 8 neutrons, and 10 electrons bonded via photon exchange. Thus, as we see, heat engines are nothing more than systems containing ‘chemical reactions’.  Next, given a mass composition table of a human, such as is found in John Emsley’s Nature’s Building Blocks, we can calculate the empirical molecular formula for one human and from this a molecular formula.  If you do the calculation, you see that the entity called ‘human’ is actually a twenty-six element molecule.


 * So, the elaborate superficial phenomenon of two humans bonding in an intimate relationship is simply put: ‘a Chemical Reaction’. Here, two molecules bond, energy is given off; some energy goes to waste, some to purpose.  If anyone finds this to be pseudoscience than perhaps ignorance is bliss.  To ask again: is human life a chemical reaction or not?  If it is, then what we have here is straight textbook science.  If human life is not a chemical reaction, than yes this presentation is incorrect.  My reason for posting this article, is with intentions for that 15-year-old person out there who may possibly search Wikipedia with aims to find some semblance of a scientific article as to why human life works the way it does.  Thanks again.  --Wavesmikey 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not really the place for that kind of thing. It belongs in the article and I maintain that this is almost entirely basic, undergraduate theory that is profoundly unoriginal. Anyway, you referred me to the book. That isn't published and it certainly isn't a journal paper so it has little or no credence at present. I don't need basic thermo repeating, I need you to provide evidence. In the meantime, I continue to think you are elaborately hoaxing and I'm not taken in.-Splash 17:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply If you want evidence, pick up any Physical Chemistry textbook and look up ‘Gibbs free energy equation’, the description you will find is: the Gibbs free energy equation can be used to measure the spontaneity of any chemical reaction.  For corroboration reference: Emory University Chemistry Professor David Hwang’s analysis on the subject: Human Bonding.  Thank-you.  --Wavesmikey 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we take discussion of the concept to Talk:Human thermodynamics. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is some standard thermodynamics interspersed with (unsupported) original research about human interactions. If you removed the human interaction bits you would get stuff that duplicates other thermodynamics articles. DJ Clayworth 17:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete what is correct is a duplication of material in other articles (See Category:Thermodynamics), the rest is duck science, OR at best. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Physchim62 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Second Comment. How many times do I have to listen to the phrase: ‘elaborate hoax’?  Why would I spend countless hours mentally-constructing this article, writing this article, cleaning this article, confirming its encyclopedic coherence, consistence, and validity with numerous well-educated associates, re-writing bits and parts of this article based on these consultations, and then adding this article to Wikipedia only to now waste countless more hours debating over the obvious clarity and scientific-validity of its content with everyone here?  So far the only person to have made proper informed criticism is BD2412.  The name ‘human thermodynamics’ functions as an umbrella term to encompass all of the following variations:

‘Human Thermodynamics’ - name choice antecedents:

1. Physical Chemistry – Gibbs [1876]

2. Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics – Prigogine [1977]

3. Complex Systems Thermodynamics– Sychev [1986]

4. Ecosystem Thermodynamics – Schneider & Kay [1995]

5. Open Systems Thermodynamics – Schneider & Kay [1995]

6. Economic Behaviors Thermodynamics – Nordholm [1997]

7. Biophysical Chemistry – Cantor & Schimmel [1997]

8. Thermodynamic Evolutionary Theory – Gladyshev [1997]

9. Modern Thermodynamics – Prigogine [1998]

10. Equilibrium Supramolecular Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

11. Equilibrium Hierarchical Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

12. Local Supramolecular Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

13. Chemical Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

14. Macro Thermodynamics – Gladyshev [2002]

15. Hierarchical Thermodynamics of Heterogeneous Systems – Gladyshev [2002]

16. The Thermodynamics of Life – Schneider & Kay [2005]

17. The Thermodynamics of Biology – Schneider & Kay [2005]

18. Gradient-Based Thermodynamics – Schneider & Kay [2005]

19. The New Thermodynamics – Schneider & Kay [2005]

20. Human Thermodynamics – Thims [2002-2005]

Such semblance is needed so to bring unison and exactness to this barrage of present-day randomly-used verbiage and terminology (as shown above). Thank-you: BD2412. And I suppose all of the above researchers are duck-scientists? Regarding ‘duplication of material’, you are confusing ‘reproduction’ with honest efforts to conform with Wikipedia’s style protocol. Regarding ‘original research’, do twenty variations on the applications of thermodynamics to human life, as above, count as original or a branch? I feel like I’m battling a stream of robots in ‘attack’ mode? Is this true? --Wavesmikey 21:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Third Comment. Regarding the remark: ‘standard thermodynamics interspersed with human interactions’, if you are expecting some framework of thermodynamics grandeur to explain human life – don’t count on it – human life is no different than hydrogen life – or guanine life – or Coenzyme A life – their interactions all obey the four laws of thermodynamics – as does everything in the universe.  To encapsulate this entire idiotic debate let me quote from Arthur Eddington:

The law that entropy always increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equation—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equation. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well, these experimentalists do     bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of         Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it                  but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Sir Arthur Eddington - English Astronomer [1882-1944]
 * Thank-you. --Wavesmikey 22:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment: To clarify further, please study the link Human Thermodynamics History which contains a full discussion on all scientists related to the development of human thermodynamics.  Also, please study the link Human Thermodynamic Glossary which contains a full dictionary of terms, diagrams, reaction mechanics, etc., related to the thermodynamics of human life processes.  Thank-you.  --Wavesmikey 15:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Nonsense / non-notable original "research". The supposedly forthcoming books are a possible hoax: if you look at the book covers of the supposedly forthcoming books, they all display the same ISBN, and it is a number that is already in use by a different work. --Tabor 21:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Response: your over-inflated intellect combined with your haughty-perception on reality is a ‘hoax’. Thank-you.  --Wavesmikey 13:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Summary. If need be we were to modify the article such to terminate all connection to that of Libb Thims, the article will stand verifiable based alone on those works as:
 * David Hwang’s Gibbs Free Energy & Reaction Mechanics - applications: Click
 * Frank Lambert’s Activation Energies - applications: Click
 * Eric Schneider’s Second Law - applications: Click
 * Ilya Prigogne’s Dissipative Structures - applications: Click
 * Georgi Gladyshev’s Supramolecular Thermodynamics - applications: Click
 * Presently, Wikipedia has no articles of representation in these directions. Thank-you: --Wavesmikey 07:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Response: as stated, the books by Libb Thims are ‘soon’ to be published – hence, the ISBN numbers are ‘mock’ numbers for (temporary) display purposes only. Furthermore, the framework of content in the article has nothing to do with these books – those principles presented have all been said-and-done.  Thank-you.  --Wavesmikey 09:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Lastly, seeing as how we’re all so eager to discard this article as a ‘joke’, and seeing as how we are all so cerebral in our understanding of scientific-validity, can anyone name one falsity in the given article? Done!!! --Wavesmikey 11:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Original essay. The author of this article would be better off spending his time publicizing his ideas rather than polluting VfD with his verbose and poorly-written arguments, or Wikipedia with his verbose and poorly-written articles. &mdash; Phil Welch 03:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they're so badly-written; I think they're just nuts! :) Xoloz 05:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete again. Original nonsense. jni 29 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.