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

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Yes, absolutely, ordering processes occur which reverse entropy on small scales. What I'm pointing out is that such processes require energy input, and they always create more entropy than they reverse, if you look at the system as a whole.

Entropy can be moved around but not obliterated. And it always grows when you try. Your example of the sun, the hydrogen nuclei go to a lower energy state when they fuse, creating energy which eventually ends up in the form of waste heat. So while the sunshine is powering little plants, the plants use more energy than the entropy they reverse, and emit the excess as waste heat. The sunlight that doesn't land on a plant ends up as waste heat. And eventually the plant dies and the whole thing is waste heat.

Depressing but inevitable.




posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

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


That is obvious but that potential energy is NOT dissipated, it just changes 'form' if one believes in the conservation of energy, or we would not have stars at all. Will anyone argue that stellar formation itself is not a negentropic( ordering ) process?


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.


I am not sure what you intended to say here... Does a resultant sphere not rather signify or lack of counteracting forces? Is it not more accurate to state that spheres result because gravitational potential energy is counteracted at the same mean distance around the center of gravity?

Stellar

[edit on 21-8-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
stellar i understand your perspective, however you are under the assumption that we are all dealing with the absolute(this is not the case). yes its true that the 2ndLAW has not been proven on the "ultimate" galactic scale. but as Tom pointed outs it is every where, and in all things that surround us. yes we assume that law extends to the far ends of the universe, is that so wrong?

as for the regeneration of the skin... your wrong. the exact skin that was removed can never come back. the missing skin is "replaced" by newly developed skin.

as for the car, you countered your self by this statment>



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


this is our point, by your terms it will wear out regardless of what is done. this is true and the scientific community defined such a realization a "entropy"




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.


rightly so... however define to me where known forces and unknown forces reside. that is what i mean by debated- the range of your "closed system" is a matter of perception and knowledge(opinion/choice). becuase its based on that, it can ALWAYS be debated.


your reasoning doesnt hold with me. ill use an example to explain>

lets say we fill a large container with water. once its filled we'll open a valve situated at the bottom. as the water drains(gravity), we begin to observe a whirl pool effect(coriolis effect), and lets say some seemingly random splashes.

what i get form your stance> youd say that because the draining(a clear attempt of entropy) created the whirl pool and the splashes, that shows deterioration is not taking place. if im wrong correct me*

this however is a failure of understanding. the whirl pool and splashes "are" evidence of deterioration. as Tom pointed out its the path of least resistance(low energy) taking hold here and the water will continue to follow such a path until its ran its course(or being interrupted)


using this tiny thought experiment lets extrapolate our finding across the known universe.

at the beginning the universe was perfect(lets say for the sake of keeping things clean). then something/someone(big bang/GOD) opened the valve so to speak. then all kinds of interesting things started happening. formations of galaxies and stars, planets, life..ect. to argue that the existence of these properties is a clear detraction away from deterioration- is not connecting the dots.

its goes like this > if god made you, who made god? much more relevant to our discussion> if our galaxy made us, what made our galaxy? keep chaseing that and youll find that something is responsible(physical action). physically speaking we are here becuase the universe is dieing.

youll also find that the predecessor is a greater force than that of the successor.Greater---->Lesser. the ----> is entropy. this is a universal law under natural situations. efficiency is always lower than 100% in a natural system. the reason i add "natural system" is becuase im giving you the hope its possible to achieve perfection in the realm of energy transfer using unnatural means.

however science has pretty much given up on seeking 100% efficiency.


what i dont get form your position is your resistance to the 2nd LAW, why deny that which can clearly be seen on a daily basis. if you want to keep a part of your mind not in league with the 2nd by all means. but our logic is sound, regardless of your rebellious stance.

[edit on 21/8/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Well, the potential energy is dissipated, in the form of heat as the particles collide as the protostar coalesces.

It's the same thing that happens when you jump off a cliff. The gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, then into sound and heat, at least that's what's left over after you're turned to mush.

As for the sphere, it's assumed the minimum energy state it can in terms of gravitational potential energy by forming a sphere. The rest of the gravitational potential energy caused by the infall is converted into heat.

Lots of good data on this, go google "protostar infall heat"

So back to the original statement, no, the gravity itself isn't dissipated, but the gravitational potential energy is, and it is dissipated to the extent possible, and is converted into waste heat as is always the case at the end of the entropy food chain.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Ho, and, moverover, hum


Originally posted by StellarX
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 and what we believe may too a large extent bind or free us... No it does not and we really can not observe enough to risk making such arrogant claims. 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. 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.

Ah, the return of the post-chopper. Slice other people's contributions up into bite-sized chunks and 'refute' them with huge chunks of personal opinion, salted with quotes from The Conspiracy Nut's Book of 101 Things Scientists Have Been Wrong About. Seen it all before, seen it all before...

Sorry, O Secretly Bright And Shining One, but there are more interesting people to talk to on this board. I'll have to forebear the pleasure of mixing gobbledygook salad with you. Call it triage if you like, and go play with someone else.

By the way, I think your posts read much better when they're run all together like this. They almost seem to make sense.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Ho, and, moverover, hum
Ah, the return of the post-chopper.


I never left and if you want to see 'post chopping' just go on complaining.



Slice other people's contributions up into bite-sized chunks and 'refute' them with huge chunks of personal opinion, salted with quotes from The Conspiracy Nut's Book of 101 Things Scientists Have Been Wrong About.


Thanks for giving us your opinion.


Seen it all before, seen it all before...


So you went around the block and returned empty handed?


Sorry, O Secretly Bright And Shining One, but there are more interesting people to talk to on this board.


Don't let me keep you.....


I'll have to forebear the pleasure of mixing gobbledygook salad with you. Call it triage if you like, and go play with someone else.


At least we can agree that we both have better things to do; it's a fact that i can find far more ignorant opinions to correct or inform and i thank you for being so understanding.


By the way, I think your posts read much better when they're run all together like this. They almost seem to make sense.


IF you want to read without consideration, fact checking or thinking i suggest you find a nice romance novel and stop bothering me with your disappointingly inaccurate views.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Well the way i saw the Theory is that all things begin as complex as they can, and as their state changes, they grow less and less complex.

Also, they cannot grow more complex.

You can fry an egg, but you cannot unfry it.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Entropy is a measure of disorder. Disorder is unstable...it is life/exchanging energy and creating more 'microstates'..but all systems in universe love order...if we could by some trick, violate the 2 law of thermodynamic...oh, we would never ever die...


The entropy is not a physical property, but the number of possibilities that a system has to organize itself (Boltzmann).


[edit on 24-8-2007 by blue bird]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
stellar i understand your perspective, however you are under the assumption that we are all dealing with the absolute(this is not the case). yes its true that the 2ndLAW has not been proven on the "ultimate" galactic scale. but as Tom pointed outs it is every where, and in all things that surround us. yes we assume that law extends to the far ends of the universe, is that so wrong?


It is always wrong when we assume things that so negatively impacts human perception.


as for the regeneration of the skin... your wrong. the exact skin that was removed can never come back. the missing skin is "replaced" by newly developed skin.


It's unsettling that you think you need to tell me something so blatantly obvious.


as for the car, you countered your self by this statment>
this is our point, by your terms it will wear out regardless of what is done. this is true and the scientific community defined such a realization a "entropy"


Thank you for stating the obvious once again. The problem with your view is that you assume no intelligent interaction to counter the effects of entropy. You basically assume that entropy is more efficient at dissipating energy that human intelligence is at countering such effects.


rightly so... however define to me where known forces and unknown forces reside. that is what i mean by debated- the range of your "closed system" is a matter of perception and knowledge(opinion/choice). becuase its based on that, it can ALWAYS be debated.


A closed system is that by definition and by that chosen definition we have NO evidence to suggest that the universe contains such or is such.


your reasoning doesnt hold with me. ill use an example to explain>
lets say we fill a large container with water. once its filled we'll open a valve situated at the bottom. as the water drains(gravity), we begin to observe a whirl pool effect(coriolis effect), and lets say some seemingly random splashes.
what i get form your stance> youd say that because the draining(a clear attempt of entropy) created the whirl pool and the splashes, that shows deterioration is not taking place. if im wrong correct me*


That is not what i am saying... I am saying that the draining effect caused by gravity can be used to drive turbines to generate electricity as used in such schemes around the world.


this however is a failure of understanding. the whirl pool and splashes "are" evidence of deterioration. as Tom pointed out its the path of least resistance(low energy) taking hold here and the water will continue to follow such a path until its ran its course(or being interrupted)


But what both you and Tom do not seem to understand is that entropy is just energy changing from one form to another; intelligence such as ours can use energy in any 'form' and apply it do work (energy changing form) and at some future date even hold that energy captive to perpetually do work.


using this tiny thought experiment lets extrapolate our finding across the known universe.
at the beginning the universe was perfect(lets say for the sake of keeping things clean). then something/someone(big bang/GOD) opened the valve so to speak.


There is little evidence for the big bang and certainly nothing conclusive and our best evidence indicates that the universe is far older than any 'bang' model have so far attempted to deal with.


then all kinds of interesting things started happening. formations of galaxies and stars, planets, life..ect. to argue that the existence of these properties is a clear detraction away from deterioration- is not connecting the dots.


Not sure i am following here. How can a entirely entropic process yield galactic, solar formation and finally US?


its goes like this > if god made you, who made god? much more relevant to our discussion> if our galaxy made us, what made our galaxy?


But if you look at alternative cosmological models you do not have to deal with entropy and can in fact begin to understand the negentropic processes that yield us.


keep chaseing that and youll find that something is responsible(physical action).


I do not wish to pretend that i have the universe figured out so i am attempting to find the creator and simply dealing with what can in fact be observed.


physically speaking we are here becuase the universe is dieing.


And this is why i hate the second law and do not have much sympathy with it's proponents; it's all death destruction and general doom&gloom. You probably believe in peak oil and global warming as well and likely think humanity ruled the world and deserve to be exterminated.


youll also find that the predecessor is a greater force than that of the successor.Greater---->Lesser. the ----> is entropy. this is a universal law under natural situations.


Now you are just making a circular argument; the second law is true because the entropy is true. We do NOT know if the universe is a closed system so we can NOT say how much energy is coming in or going out thus making the second law speculative at best and certainly entirely useless.


efficiency is always lower than 100% in a natural system.


Well human designed systems are not natural and even nature does not seem to care for this 100% rule of yours otherwise we would not be here to discuss entropy.


The reason i add "natural system" is becuase im giving you the hope its possible to achieve perfection in the realm of energy transfer using unnatural means.


The means employs to do that is entirely natural and there is no 'god' that is trying to conserve the second law you so cherish. The ONLY thing the second law really claims is that it is far far more likely that energy will dissipate and that has been twisted by some to mean that no amount of intelligent ordering will change this.


however science has pretty much given up on seeking 100% efficiency.


Science is a process not a group and your confusion speaks volumes as to why you believe their claims instead of believing in the process they are supposed to employ. The science establishment have not 'given up' ( since they know it's true) but have decided to cover it up as their masters asked them too.


what i dont get form your position is your resistance to the 2nd LAW, why deny that which can clearly be seen on a daily basis.


We clearly see ordering on a day to day basis and it's the basis of all human activity. Why would you deny this negentropic process that has tamed rivers and oceans and harnesses the suns energy to create more food and thus more negentropic potential in the form of human beings?


if you want to keep a part of your mind not in league with the 2nd by all means. but our logic is sound, regardless of your rebellious stance.


Your logic is mostly sound but based on false data that makes the entire exercise futile.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
The science establishment have not 'given up' ( since they know it's true) but have decided to cover it up as their masters asked them too.

just one word....WOW




It is always wrong when we assume things that so negatively impacts human perception.

what negative impact? death is a part of life, get used to it because it will find you. cherish what life you have left.




It's unsettling that you think you need to tell me something so blatantly obvious.

you know i had the same feeling, but you obviously needed to hear it. both me and tom had to correct you.



The problem with your view is that you assume no intelligent interaction to counter the effects of entropy. You basically assume that entropy is more efficient at dissipating energy that human intelligence is at countering such effects.

so your off in fantasy realm talk now huh? maybe(just maybe) one day our science can yield your desires, but that is not today.



That is not what i am saying... I am saying that the draining effect caused by gravity can be used to drive turbines to generate electricity as used in such schemes around the world.

you are confusing entropy with good old fashioned ingenuity. not tom nor i had ever said such feats were not possible.




But what both you and Tom do not seem to understand is that entropy is just energy changing from one form to another;

im pretty sure both tom and i do understand this. we've stated this ourselves. it(energy) moves to a lower state.



intelligence such as ours can use energy in any 'form' and apply it do work (energy changing form) and at some future date even hold that energy captive to perpetually do work.

i appreciate the optimistic view toward our intelligence. but even in your dreamworld energy will be lost. you "can not" begin to grapple with the probability of atomic deterioration. youd have to build a system that can predict every state of matter from now to its finality. but you still can not avoid it death.



And this is why i hate the second law and do not have much sympathy with it's proponents; it's all death destruction and general doom&gloom.

why are you so emo? HAHAhahahah.



We clearly see ordering on a day to day basis and it's the basis of all human activity. Why would you deny this negentropic process that has tamed rivers and oceans and harnesses the suns energy to create more food and thus more negentropic potential in the form of human beings?

arguing orderVSchaos is futile because its entirely perspective. why are you hung up on these negative process? can you definitively explain whats a negative force and whats a positive?

ROCKS tame rivers because rocks are far more dense than water. sun light has been tamed by evolution and observation.

who twisted your mind? i must meet him.


seriously* do you believe it is possible for humans to create new atoms from scratch? if you figure that out then your dreamworld can become a reality. but until then all atoms will continue to dissapate till no atoms are left(admittingly that a long ways away, but it is enevitable).

[edit on 25/8/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The existence of the jet stream is in direct violation of man’s current understanding of entropy. It exists do to a process called the “Channelized Air Effect”.

I have produce hard experimental evidence through my research proving that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

I have published part of my research here on ATS on the following thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It will be much easier for those who are interested in what the "Channelized Air Effect" is to visit the thread than it would be for me to repeat to post here.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by graysquirrel
The existence of the jet stream is in direct violation of man’s current understanding of entropy.


im not goin to agree with you on that. the jet stream is a system replenished daily by many factors. the jet stream changes its course due to atmospheric pressures(which can be interpreted as properties of entropy). much like a river finding its way to the ocean; its course is able to change given the right variables. both the rivers and the jet streams speeds are regulated by properties, properties that force them to change.

as long as its source is present its course will continue, but when the source runs dry .....you get the picture.

as for your device- it will succumb to entropy, the material its made of will decay, and its function will become crippled. for your device to work "forever" it must be made of something more durable than atoms. OR a step down from that impossible option, you could repair it "forever"(as long as you can find an endless supply of materials(again impossible)).


chase the dream


[edit on 25/8/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
just one word....WOW


Why?


what negative impact? death is a part of life, get used to it because it will find you. cherish what life you have left.


The negativity that results from only propagating negative points of view.


you know i had the same feeling, but you obviously needed to hear it. both me and tom had to correct you.


I don't need to hear what i know to be true from anyone and your simply wasting my time.


so your off in fantasy realm talk now huh? maybe(just maybe) one day our science can yield your desires, but that is not today.


Our scientist proved that it was possible back in the 1870's and you really need to start researching instead of assuming that i did not.


you are confusing entropy with good old fashioned ingenuity. not tom nor i had ever said such feats were not possible.


But they are by nature negentrophic processes that shows quite clearly that human intelligence invalidates the basic tenants of entropy.


im pretty sure both tom and i do understand this. but this energy can only be handled in its atomic form.


Simply not true. The energy ( heat, friction, etc ) of one process may be applied in another process to do additional work thus basically invalidating the idea that 100% efficiency or more is not possible.

James L. Griggs

www.rexresearch.com...

www.freepatentsonline.com...



appreciate the optimistic view toward our intelligence. but even in your dreamworld energy will be lost.


This has nothing to do with dreaming and everything to do with dozens of inventions that proves the point.


you "can not" begin to grapple with the probability of atomic deterioration.


Neither to i have to unless i am trying to avoid the issue by introducing unrelated information.


youd have to build a system that can predict every state of matter from now to its finality. but you still can not avoid it death.


What a bunch of nonsense! I have to understand the entire universe to use solar, wind or tidal power?


why are you so emo? HAHAhahahah.


Because you are so desperately ignorant and so foolishly nihilistic.


arguing orderVSchaos is futile because its entirely perspective


It's NOT futile because it invalidates the second law that suggest entropy to be the primary force in this universe.


why are you hung up on these negative process? can you definitively explain whats a negative force and whats a positive?


What negative process? Negentrophy has absolutely nothing to do with negative force and maybe you should at some point check to see what it means. Sometimes i wonder if people still goes to school these days.


ROCKS tame rivers because rocks are far more dense than water. sun light has been tamed by evolution and observation.


But rocks can not move themselves to block oceans or rivers. Why are you doing your best to avoid the facts here?


who twisted your mind? i must meet him.


First you will have to show that my mind is the twisted one.


seriously* do you believe it is possible for humans to create new atoms from scratch?


We already do in low energy nuclear reactios and biological entities have been doing since life got going.


if you figure that out then your dreamworld can become a reality.


Then , according to your inaccurate and ignorant definition, it always has been.


but until then all atoms will continue to dissapate till no atoms are left(admittingly that a long ways away, but it is enevitable).


Atoms do not dissipate and a whole lot of ignorance of the subject matter is required to arrive at such a ludicrous conclusion.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
How anyone could not believe in the breakdown of systems is beyond me.

(the body dies, its made up of various systems which in the end break down) there, I have proved entropy.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.2ndlaw.com...

Entropy is not a THEORY - en.wikipedia.org...

Entropy is not a HYPOTHESIS - en.wikipedia.org...

Entropy IS a LAW - en.wikipedia.org...

Thats all I have to add to this discussion.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grock
How anyone could not believe in the breakdown of systems is beyond me.

(the body dies, its made up of various systems which in the end break down) there, I have proved entropy.

AGREED



Originally posted by StellarX
Our scientist proved that it was possible back in the 1870's and you really need to start researching instead of assuming that i did not.

hook me up with that whopper of hidden science:/



Simply not true. The energy ( heat, friction, etc ) of one process may be applied in another process to do additional work thus basically invalidating the idea that 100% efficiency or more is not possible.....I have to understand the entire universe to use solar, wind or tidal power?

again....you are confusing entropy with good old fashioned ingenuity. why do you say this?

let me get this straight> if i take an apple, and cut it in two. use one half for apple cider and the other half for apple slices.
that in of its self proves entropy does not exist? or even that 100% efficiency has been obtained?

thats total BS, you are not listening to what entropy means or even where it is applied. regardless of what you do with your apples they are going to rot. this rotting is entropy.

its BREAKDOWN; its happens all the time in all corners of the known universe.




you "can not" begin to grapple with the probability of atomic deterioration.


Neither to i have to unless i am trying to avoid the issue by introducing unrelated information.

atomic deterioration is very much relevant to this discussion, the deterioration is synonymous with entropy(they are the same concept). its this concept you obviously are failing to grasp.



Because you are so desperately ignorant and so foolishly nihilistic.

i wont deny my hate, but know its ignorance like yours that sets me off





arguing orderVSchaos is futile because its entirely perspective


It's NOT futile because it invalidates the second law that suggest entropy to be the primary force in this universe.

simply wrong, ill define what chaosVSorder truly is>
imagine a ball; half is chaos, the other half is order.
now spin that ball end over end as fast as your mind can permit.
now take a good look at your ball; "when" can you see a clear moment of chaos or even order?

if you followed my instructions you wont be able to define when one starts and the other ends, the realization you should come to is both chaos and order are happening in the same moment and in the same space.

then you should ascend to the perspective that arguing chaosVSoder is futile. because its clearly perspective.

but even if you give that fight up, youll still have entropy everywhere.



What negative process? Negentrophy has absolutely nothing to do with negative force and maybe you should at some point check to see what it means. Sometimes i wonder if people still goes to school these days.

in the context it does have to do with negative forces. since entropy is the path of discussion, then its ultimate finality is the positive outcome. any variable that counters that outcome is a negative force.

the hordes of fools who stand behind this notion of "negative entropy" believe its a positive outcome, it is the (hypothetical)violation of entropy.

negentropic events are not as prevalent as entropic events. id dare to say for every 1 negentropic event there are 1million entropic(and im being extremely modest).

tom and i addressed this earlier- ill quote>


glyph
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.


tom
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.

you see we get your point but we are smart enough to realize that its so statistically improbable its not worth wasting our time with.



Why are you doing your best to avoid the facts here?

Hmmmmm?




We already do in low energy nuclear reactios and biological entities have been doing since life got going.

what????? we do not build atoms, we take atoms from our surroundings. the reason we have carbon in our bodies is because carbon was there to be used. one day that carbon will not be here to be used, and either we(life) make the appropriate changes or die off.


we use fusion and fision to make alternate atoms from already present atoms.
we do not make the atoms from scratch.




Atoms do not dissipate and a whole lot of ignorance of the subject matter is required to arrive at such a ludicrous conclusion.

sir atoms do dissipate.


[edit on 26/8/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
i just thought of somthing.

do you think "you" can play GOD with gods sand box?



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grock
How anyone could not believe in the breakdown of systems is beyond me.


How anyone could believe that it's relevant to the human experience is beyond me.


(the body dies, its made up of various systems which in the end break down) there, I have proved entropy.


Which proves that we can beat entropy for up to 120 years in some cases. Why this is evidence that 'entropy' rules human interaction and actions i have no idea.


en.wikipedia.org...

www.2ndlaw.com...

Entropy is not a THEORY - en.wikipedia.org...


I know how to read and i have read actual BOOKS ( things with pages containing information) which as led me to my current conclusion. If you do not wish to address my specific claims then don't but please do not pretend that i am the uninformed party here.


Entropy is not a HYPOTHESIS - en.wikipedia.org...


No it isn't but what does that have to do with Human beings?


Entropy IS a LAW - en.wikipedia.org...


If you wish to follow and believe in laws that are patently useless to our experience then you are free to. If you persist in lecturing me about it will persist in telling you why your selling out yourself and humanity in general.


Thats all I have to add to this discussion.


Thanks for telling us things that i hope all participants were made aware of back in high school.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Well, the potential energy is dissipated, in the form of heat as the particles collide as the protostar coalesces.


And yet it's change of form is exactly what allows the evolution of a star and the matter contained is certainly in a more organized state than it was before.


It's the same thing that happens when you jump off a cliff. The gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, then into sound and heat, at least that's what's left over after you're turned to mush.


That's a pretty bad example and a better one would be a rock falling into a pond.


As for the sphere, it's assumed the minimum energy state it can in terms of gravitational potential energy by forming a sphere.


Which means you got it wrong the first time round...


The rest of the gravitational potential energy caused by the infall is converted into heat.


It's also converted into light...


Lots of good data on this, go google "protostar infall heat"


I do that at the start of a discussion...


So back to the original statement, no, the gravity itself isn't dissipated, but the gravitational potential energy is, and it is dissipated to the extent possible,


But not all of it is and your still thinking of 'dissipation' as waste instead of saying that it's just a change of form that can and does power life on Earth.


and is converted into waste heat as is always the case at the end of the entropy food chain.


But there is no food chain and it's revealing that you need to use dog-eat-dog analogies. The universe is not at war with us and the energy will not somehow 'run out' if we do not 'conserve it'.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Which means you got it wrong the first time round...


Nope. It will be so much easier if you go back and follow your own argument, if not, I can repost each and every comment along this line. Starting just before the point where you make the non-sequitur that "gravity can't be dissipated".



It's also converted into light...


The heat is re-emitted as light, so in a sense yes.



But not all of it is and your still thinking of 'dissipation' as waste instead of saying that it's just a change of form that can and does power life on Earth.


Dissipation is dissipation. The energy of infall is eventually radiated away. When I say "waste heat" I'm not making a value judgement - it's a thermodynamics term. If you have enough infall, the star may ignite, then you have a lot more waste heat. But if it doesn't, all you have is the energy of infall, and eventually a cold wad of hydrogen, trace gases and dust.

And as I'm sure I've already stated in this thread - it powers local reversals of entropy, but the energy required to do it is more than that tied up in the entropic reversal. See also: Carnot limit.





But there is no food chain and it's revealing that you need to use dog-eat-dog analogies. The universe is not at war with us and the energy will not somehow 'run out' if we do not 'conserve it'.

Stellar


It will run out eventually whether you conserve it or not. That's the way entropy works. Chaos will win.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Lordy, you all dooo make my head hurt!!


I seem to recall a fairly simple example given by some long ago professor......

If I build a brick wall out in the middle of a field, the instant that the last brick goes in, the wall begins to fall apart. The wind, sun, rain and any other thing that comes along works on returning the bricks and mortar back to dust, and beyond.....

Fits pretty well with the second def, according to Webster:



2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder


Personally I've always felt that housework is an excellent example, as a clean house begins to fall apart faster than anything else in the universe!





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join