I say the theory of entropy is neither useful nor even true.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I simply don't believe that entropy is a useful or even true theory. Look at it this way-entropy postulates a movement from complexity to simplicity, order to disorder. But the entire history of the cosmos seems to suggest the exact opposite has happened! Who would like to refute this belief of mine or, in the alternative, join in the revolution?




posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
i know you mean all good and well, but this "theory" is clearly one of the most misunderstood concepts people try to grapple with.

entropy doesnt(truly*) suggest "order->chaos" or even "chaos->order" nor "simplicity->complexity" or the inverse.

entropy is the realization that all matter breaks down along with the systems made of said matter, thats it(all things die). there is no philosophy involved, well it should not be applied to its understanding(which many people do).

the usefulness of such a realization is the "predictability" of a closed system. without this idea your ability to observe a system could run in circles(3 steps forward 3 steps back). "some" possibilities can be ruled out because of the shear unlikely hood of a reverse progression.

do you truly believe that the inevitable end can be averted?

**since this is a science forum please avoid resorting to religious elements. i respect what ever religious view you might have but those kind of discussions always get out of hand.**



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Well what the hell is that even supposed to mean, Glyph D? OK, "all systems run down"...that seems like a pretty subjective analysis, what is even meant by "running down"?

Before we can figure out whether or not this theory is true or false I think it needs to be clarified what it means.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Well what the hell is that even supposed to mean, Glyph D? .... what is even meant by "running down"?

Before we can figure out whether or not this theory is true or false I think it needs to be clarified what it means.


running down or "break down" is the process of deterioration. its when tiny minuscule pieces release from the larger whole of an object. where by shape and function are effected by this degrading process.

example>
take an object in your hand.
rubb your finger on that object continuously.

two things you will notice- first the object your rubbing(depending on its durability) has heat and possible visible streaks along your chosen path. second you might notice that skin from your finger has been removed.

this degrading/change is due to friction. all movement creates friction on some level and movement is constant.
it can be theorized that this friction is what enforces the concept of entropy. because friction exist everywhere as a continuous cosmic force it can be said that entropy exists everywhere.

till nothing is left.



[edit on 1/8/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
The One Unbreakable Law


Originally posted by uberarcanist
I simply don't believe that entropy is a useful or even true theory.

Sadly, I don't think belief is an option when it comes to physical laws. We may believe or disbelieve as we please, but we are still bound by them.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is implacable. Every observed event -- anywhere, anywhen -- bears it out. If it is wrong, then everything else we know about the universe -- and I mean everything, not just things we know through scientific observation and experiment but through commonplace, everyday experience -- would also be wrong. It's as basic as that.


Entropy postulates a movement from complexity to simplicity, order to disorder. But the entire history of the cosmos seems to suggest the exact opposite has happened!

What you are seeing is local aggregations of order at the expense of greater disorder throughout the system. It takes energy to make structures of any kind, and energy is invariably dissipated in the process of making them. That, in a nutshell, is entropy.

Seems a shame, I know. But there really is no getting round it.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I hear you.

If I recall anything about entropy it came from thermodynamics.

I read a book about the author of entropy and was a human interest and
not anything else.

I recall that due to the heat cycle engines, the hea t can never be recovered.
Thus we always lose entropy.

I don't have any links to William Lyne's theories right now but I might try
some of my own that are most likely off shoot of Lyne's.


Heat is and aether effect as much as magnetic lines of force and electric field.
Is there a current, we know if a wire sparks or a meter using
the current magnetic field it used as a force against a spring.

Spark something like an atomic gas, it gets hot and may glow but
it recovers to glow again. Only a noble gas or perhaps a gas in
a bulb so it cannot react with other molecules.

Is heat or energy recovered, not for a hydrocarbon burnt out and its
entropy is lost. So some things might defy the entropy theory.
It might be in the realm of atomic gases or even air of plasma or
aether generation.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I took a thermodynamics course a few years ago. While even the best minds in the field are hard pressed to define entropy (kind of like defining "time") it is very useful in calculations. It can be used in some cases to figure out a system's efficiency, or, in other words, how much energy is wasted. Since each substance has an exact entropy value at a certain set of physical conditions (temperature and pressure) it can be used as an additional known quantity in calculations.

At the very least, the concept we call entropy is useful mathematically. It's physical significance is rather hard to grasp, and I've seen many different definitions.

However, I suspect you might be looking at this from a slightly different point of view. Check out the following wiki article:

en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps that is more what you are looking for, if I haven't helped any.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
A good way to think of it is using a bingo ball shuffler.

Think of the balls bouncing away from the bottom as chaos.
Think of the balls re-joining at the bottom as order.

You're understanding relies on the idea that either everything will return to order, or everything will return to chaos. The answer is actually both.
Everything will hit order and chaos many times over, again and again and again.

Back to the bingo ball analogy.

Even though the balls are bouncing chaotically away from the base of the bingo ball shuffler... individually they do come back down to the bottom again.
They all 'want' to rejoin in one nice pile at the bottom, but the forces at work make sure they never stay in order.

I know of course, this is a crude analogy... but the point is, even though it's decaying into chaos, doesn't mean it's not getting ready to return to order... and just because it's reaching a state of order, doesn't mean it's not about to return to a state of chaos.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Entropy is something like a probability calculation, I just have to review the
uses and mechanics of the statement.

Most likely useful in steam tables and steam engines.

However, I mentioned the behavior of compressed gases such as air
may present an energy advantage.

I just do not have the data. Finding averaging integrals like Einstein for
for quantum formulas to construct empirical formulas is much the same
as Entropy following the data from steam engines, its the Law for what it
works for.

The data that proves the Law wrong is not documented.

Molecular Hydrogen to Atomic hydrogen to Molecular Hydrogen energy
release is a pet example by Lyne and mentioned by Bearden.


THE ATOMIC HYDROGEN REACTION

Its True, Its True.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Well, I found this quote in wikipedia's "entropy and life" article:

"the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave."

But where in nature does a true closed system exist? If such a system is nonexistent, is the second law of thermodynamics valid at all?



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Well, I found this quote in wikipedia's "entropy and life" article:

"the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave."


the key word above is "adiabatically".

the statement above through translation is as> in a reverse case scenario, entropy can gain or stabilize.

it is saying the only way to violate entropy is to "violate" entropy. nowhere in nature does this take place, so in other words entropy is not violated anywhere.

its basically saying something like this. 2+2=4, as long as 2=2 and 2+2=4. if the norm can be distorted then the result will be different. if 2 equals the sum of 3, then it is impossible for 2+2=4(as long as 4=4).

now if entropy can be reversed/stabilize, that in and of its self makes it not entropy(much like the numbers).

the 2ndLAW is valid because of this, through our own understandings this has never(yet) been violated.



But where in nature does a true closed system exist? If such a system is nonexistent, is the second law of thermodynamics valid at all?


the exact meaning behind "closed" can be debated. however look to a star for the example. they form, they grow, they die. the matter that is discharged is sent out through space, possibly being embedded into a lifeform on some planet(like earth-based life). from that life it is transfered to other life so on and so forth.

this recycle and reuse is where chaos and order come into play, argue all you want on "what came first the chicken or the egg". the ultimate truth is at some point neither will be able to exist any more, because the matter they are made of will dissipate into pure unusable energy.

[edit on 2/8/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
This sounds like all those conditions the teacher always talked about
in Physics, Math and Engineering that I never paid too much attention to.

I just remembered to do things the way teacher wanted them done.
There wound be no math model at all because different conditions
meant a different solution, which no one could figure out.

I am sure the comments in this thread are correct.


MBF

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
This sounds like all those conditions the teacher always talked about
in Physics, Math and Engineering that I never paid too much attention to.

I just remembered to do things the way teacher wanted them done.
There wound be no math model at all because different conditions
meant a different solution, which no one could figure out.

I am sure the comments in this thread are correct.


They say that the first time you take thermodynamics, you are lost and don't really have much of a clue what is exactly going on. The next time you go through it, you are pretty sure you know what's going on except for two or three things that you are not completely sure of. The third time you go through it, you realize that you are just as ##!%*$@ lost as you were the first time.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
So, you don't believe in entropy, eh? So, just for practical every day examples, you also don't believe in your refridgerator and your car? I hope you like eating plain cereal while you walk to work, but at least you won't need to wear any clothing or as much as you wish while you travel to work, because you don't believe in temperature either.

Sounds like a leisurely existence.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
But the entire history of the cosmos seems to suggest the exact opposite has happened!


Can you expand on this idea? I don't think you have already. I want to feel like I understand your position on this before I put forth my own thoughts..



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
uberarcanist: Thanks for your ,almost, lone voice of reason...


Originally posted by Glyph_D
running down or "break down" is the process of deterioration. its when tiny minuscule pieces release from the larger whole of an object. where by shape and function are effected by this degrading process.


Or for instance when sun's explode or humans apply their killing machines...


example>
take an object in your hand.
rubb your finger on that object continuously.

two things you will notice- first the object your rubbing(depending on its durability) has heat and possible visible streaks along your chosen path. second you might notice that skin from your finger has been removed.


But the skin will grow back; so much for entropy.


this degrading/change is due to friction. all movement creates friction on some level and movement is constant.


That is only the case when no negentropic forces are in evidence.


it can be theorized that this friction is what enforces the concept of entropy. because friction exist everywhere as a continuous cosmic force it can be said that entropy exists everywhere.

till nothing is left.


But that friction can also then be said to power the sun that is responsible for life and evolution on this planet. The only scale we can truly claim entropy to be at work at is at a universal level and we don't even know if the universe is a closed system.


Originally posted by Glyph_D
the key word above is "adiabatically".
the statement above through translation is as> in a reverse case scenario, entropy can gain or stabilize.


Overall entropy can never decrease in a truly closed system.


t is saying the only way to violate entropy is to "violate" entropy. nowhere in nature does this take place, so in other words entropy is not violated anywhere.


Energy can and is violated on local scales ( galactic clusters etc, galaxies, stars, planets etc) and the only claim that is made is that it will increase in terms of a universal average.


its basically saying something like this. 2+2=4, as long as 2=2 and 2+2=4. if the norm can be distorted then the result will be different. if 2 equals the sum of 3, then it is impossible for 2+2=4(as long as 4=4).


Not following.



now if entropy can be reversed/stabilize, that in and of its self makes it not entropy(much like the numbers).


Right....


the 2ndLAW is valid because of this, through our own understandings this has never(yet) been violated.


It's violated all the time and i don't blame you for having the wrong idea; the science community has done it's best to fool us.


the exact meaning behind "closed" can be debated.


No, it can't be. A closed system is a system where no forces are known to propagate over the chosen boundary lines.


however look to a star for the example. they form, they grow, they die.


We presume...


the matter that is discharged is sent out through space, possibly being embedded into a lifeform on some planet(like earth-based life). from that life it is transfered to other life so on and so forth.


That's just the matter from supposed exploded stars and it hardly deals with the negentropic effects it during it's 'life'.


this recycle and reuse is where chaos and order come into play, argue all you want on "what came first the chicken or the egg".


The Chicken came first and what we need to resolve is where the chicken came from; or if you like ask what or who hatched the egg.


the ultimate truth is at some point neither will be able to exist any more, because the matter they are made of will dissipate into pure unusable energy.


Energy can supposedly not be created or destroyed and given the fact that we are negentropic forces ourselves entropy is not something we need to concern ourselves with; there is no such thing as unusable energy.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
But the skin will grow back; so much for entropy.


The process of regrowing the skin uses energy - that energy is lost as heat. Entropy always wins.

If you have to think of it verbally, try this - a car wears out. That is because it starts at a highly ordered state (perfect function). Now, as it is used, the parts that are rubbing together can become more ordered (doesn't happen) or less (there you go).

As the process of wear is essentially random, it's possible for the material worn off the bearings to redeposit perfectly so that the bearings "wear back to perfection", but so statistically unlikely that it won't ever happen. It's hugely more likely that the particles will erode and go somewhere bad. Thus the system becomes more random, because the process itself is statistical.

Another - if I throw a bowling ball down the lane and hit the pins, it's possible that they'll tumble around and line back up perfectly like nothing happened. But it never happens. Because lying down in a heap is a lower energy state than standing on end in a nice triangular array.

The pin setter can reverse that entropy, but never without using more power than can be gained from disordering the pins.



But that friction can also then be said to power the sun that is responsible for life and evolution on this planet. The only scale we can truly claim entropy to be at work at is at a universal level and we don't even know if the universe is a closed system.


But the energy lost as waste heat is larger than that which powers a local reversal of entropy. It's like a refrigerator. In order to remove 1000 BTU's of heat (random particle motion) from a refrigerator, I have to apply no less than 1000 BTU's of external energy, and reject 2000 as waste heat.

You can thus have local reversal of entropy, but only at a cost greater than that order which is achieved in a limited area.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Sadly, I don't think belief is an option when it comes to physical laws.


The science establishment said that powered flight were impossible after people proved them wrong; physical laws may be independently true but the perception of what they are does not correspond so accurately with observation.


We may believe or disbelieve as we please, but we are still bound by them.


And what we believe may too a large extent bind or free us...


The Second Law of Thermodynamics is implacable. Every observed event -- anywhere, anywhen -- bears it out.


No it does not and we really can not observe enough to risk making such arrogant claims.


If it is wrong, then everything else we know about the universe -- and I mean everything,


Establishment scientist frequently indulge in these type of diatribes, while virtually foaming at the mouth, but the burning of all science texts have never taken place before and certainly not because someone improved on earlier theories.


not just things we know through scientific observation and experiment but through commonplace, everyday experience -- would also be wrong. It's as basic as that.


It's NEVER as basic as that and anyone who has ever had to mow his lawn, have a haircut or partook in anything constructive endeavours knows that the second law is at best useless to the human experience.


There are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it.

Philosopher / Physicist P.W. Bridgman



What you are seeing is local aggregations of order at the expense of greater disorder throughout the system.


Which is something we simply do not have the means to prove.


It takes energy to make structures of any kind, and energy is invariably dissipated in the process of making them.


It supposedly only takes gravity to make a star and unless you wish to explain how gravity is 'dissipated' in stellar formation you should probably go with another example.


That, in a nutshell, is entropy.

Seems a shame, I know. But there really is no getting round it.


Our mere existence is evidence enough that the second law is rather irrelevant when dealing with life and certainly not proved on a universal level. It's a abstraction at best and it's propagation is only useful to those that wish to demoralize people.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
It supposedly only takes gravity to make a star and unless you wish to explain how gravity is 'dissipated' in stellar formation you should probably go with another example.


The gravitational potential energy of the particles with respect to each other is reduced to a minimum as they coalesce.

In fact, the reason they form a sphere instead of a dodecahedron or something is because the spherical shape represents a minimal energy state.

Sorry, but the example is good.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
The process of regrowing the skin uses energy - that energy is lost as heat. Entropy always wins.


Energy that is easily regained by consuming food from the wild as provided by the Sun.


If you have to think of it verbally, try this - a car wears out. That is because it starts at a highly ordered state (perfect function).


A car only wears out if used frequently or left to the elements.


Now, as it is used, the parts that are rubbing together can become more ordered (doesn't happen) or less (there you go).


Which is why we use our intelligence to correct or destroy the influence of entropy.


As the process of wear is essentially random, it's possible for the material worn off the bearings to redeposit perfectly so that the bearings "wear back to perfection", but so statistically unlikely that it won't ever happen. It's hugely more likely that the particles will erode and go somewhere bad. Thus the system becomes more random, because the process itself is statistical.


Which once again is based on the assumption that the driver does not know how to maintain the vehicle or replace worn parts. I am not arguing that entropy does not happen on the local level but that it becomes irrelevant when there are negentropic forces at work.


Another - if I throw a bowling ball down the lane and hit the pins, it's possible that they'll tumble around and line back up perfectly like nothing happened. But it never happens. Because lying down in a heap is a lower energy state than standing on end in a nice triangular array.
The pin setter can reverse that entropy, but never without using more power than can be gained from disordering the pins.


So there is momentary entropy until we consume the food the sun freely creates and so reorganize energy. So basically we should be colonizing the universe and giving the second law the finger.


But the energy lost as waste heat is larger than that which powers a local reversal of entropy.


That depends entirely on how you think the sun works...


It's like a refrigerator. In order to remove 1000 BTU's of heat (random particle motion) from a refrigerator, I have to apply no less than 1000 BTU's of external energy, and reject 2000 as waste heat.

You can thus have local reversal of entropy, but only at a cost greater than that order which is achieved in a limited area.


But we can in fact re-order and that is my point. The second law is based on the principle that there are no negentropic processes which is simply not the case and even then it must still assume a closed universe which has not been proven. We simply can not argue that energy is being 'lost' in a system when the system might be externally powered to start with.

Stellar





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join