It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by StellarX
Probability does not include the actions of intelligence; if there were enough sufficiently advanced races or entities we could likely change the universe as we saw fit.
human behaviour is constructive ...
Cold fusion is by it's very nature a negentropic....
If the science establishment is not using the word as you do that normally spells trouble and you will have to decide if you wish to employ their credibility and stick to their rules or go your own course and defend each principle on your own terms. You can not have it both ways and i will press on the issue if you try to.
Yes... What allows for the electric/magnetic fields that surrounds charges and dipoles in general? What is being dissipated?
everything in my life and even your life proves entropy is very relevant to the human experience.
Some things do but your focusing exclusively on the negative and have done your utmost to ignore human civilization and progress in general.
You are basically telling us that all human activity is entirely futile, because we are somehow causing entropy elsewhere, and that we have achieved nothing on this planet.
You sir are in my opinion a nihilist who wants to distract those who see in humanity a great potential for managing and organizing this universe to make all dreams reality.
Originally posted by Glyph_D
your dream world will not happen. and if you were to try to make it happen a group of people would defy just to "defy".
your utopia would require a police state. you want your order to prevail:/
this is entirely perspective, what you see as constructive i could and probably would see as a pre-system for disaster.
list 5 things that humans have done that can be considered constructive to the universe?
these five things cannot impede on another existence, otherwise its destrucive.
humans detached from nature long ago, and i see no attempt(collectively) to go back to the truth.
how?? it does not prevent entropy in any way.
fusion is an action that can be utilized in this known universe, how do you see this action standing its ground against what is already a course of action greater than its self?
let me ask you why do your chickens/plants use cold fusion? becuase if they they dont they would die much sooner, neither the chicken nor the plant believe they have prevented their finality.
they merely have done what is necessary to survive a while longer.
if you want to argue that survival is your negentropic event say so, ill dissect it further.
have you got the answer to that?? becuase i far as a scientifically sound position it still undetermined.now we walk into the realm of theory.
you "could" accept the graviton as your answer(till a better explanation comes around). this is the ejecta i speak of, EMF waves propagate from its paths.
the(MY) theory is space is made of this particle, anything that "occupies" space is made of this particle(atoms). i go further and suggest that these atoms will decay to gravitons.
the reason i suggest this is becuase of the appallingly clear presence of entropy.
"As it is above, so shall it be below" or the inverse
you know what i want to say becuase youve pegged me pretty damn good as a nihilist.
human activity HAS been futile, we have not freed our selves(collectively) from the trappings of a perpetual slave minded existence.
what have we achieved? im not looking at the negative side of humanity, im struggling to see the positive side of humanity.
but i pegged you as well. you want to play god, and thats the very reason humanity is a scorn in this world.
when people like you get together they wage wars, they fight for there dreams to come true.
regardless of the encroachment onto other lives, they will selfishly continue to push.
"the road to hell was paved with good intentions"
the reason you dont want entropy in your mind is becuase it takes so much power out of your hands.
it make you feel weak and helpless.
it give you a chill you cant shake. im sure you got it all figured out huh?
just as long as people were like you this world would be better. everyone thinks like this(everyone). the problem is no one sticks up for the guy who doesnt push for his dream.
to me entropy is a god send, i can live in this wonderful world and not worry about maintaining it, becuase its been set in place.
hopefully that resonates a bit with you.
topics like this always get personnal:/ sometime we monkeys catch wind of things much bigger than ourselves,
and we freak out over it:/ in truth im not a nihilist. its true i dont have much faith in the collective, but as individuals we can achieve the impossible.
its laws like entropy that allow such things possible.
More circular reasoning without end. Can you please learn what circular reasoning is and how to avoid it?
Why would it require a police state and since when does police states lead to utopia?
The fact that you poses this question exposes the fact that you should probably find another planet and race as you clearly are not happy with being human.
We build, we grow, we give birth, we plan and we build communities.
Interaction can not always go smoothly and to suggest that this is somehow evidence of some inherent flaw in humanity is just sickening.
Nature do not care one bit for us and there is no reason we should not bend it to our will while maintaining what we require for the health and growth of human civilization.
Why are you avoiding the truth with your inane banter and avoidance of what is plainly obvious? Are you still holding out on the hope that i am going to leave you to spread your particular brand of nonsense?
Considering your beliefs about entropy i really would like something more proper than your opinion.
Do you have anything of merit to add or is typing something randomly inane good enough for you?
Slave minded existence? Who are the slave drivers and why have average people been fighting them since time immemorial?
What speaks more to the humanity of humanity in general than their consistent struggle against tyranny and power?
Please look up the word 'scorn'
the fact that you are willing to wait a few billion years to see your lunacy realised speaks volumes about your commitment to the cause of eradicating humanity.
If entropy was in fact true on a universal scale that would mean we have many billions of years left to affect a understanding of this universe and how to bend it to our will and while i do not have it all figured out i am hoping that we someday will. As entropy is not meaningful on this planet it certainly does not bother me.
Originally posted by DeepCoverUK
Wow! It is certainly heated in here.....
I like entropy, it looks after all of my stuff
I remember a similar debate whilst I was at school, with regards to the most stable state of matter in the universe.
Hopefully one of you guys can explain it to me in simple terms.
Here come my simple questions.If everything is breaking down, what causes the stars and planets to be formed?
Shouldnt everything be going back to sub atomic particles?
I seem to remember my teacher saying that everything wants to become iron because that has the lowest energy level, is this true or was I just being fobbed off?
Do my questions make any sense or have I been up for too long?
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Sort of flailing there. Since you want to obscure the comment, let's go back to the first one:
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."
And down that trail we went, with me pointing out that the potential energy of infall was what heated it up, and you trying to dodge it by redefining what you were saying.
OP's first post was that entropy did not exist at ALL, which you applauded
It's quite obvious it does, which you have admitted to.
It's obvious that small scale negentropy exists, but only at the expense of more entropy in the larger system around it.
ME: Well it's supposedly been there for a few hundred million years and unless we use it or it is subducted deeply enough it's going to be there for a few billion more yet; if you think the sun works as they say it does...
He's not "powering state buildings" at all. It's being used for heating purposes, and not with zero energy input either.
Other than from Bearden, where do you get this?
This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.
However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?
sites.huji.ac.il...
In physics, the Poynting vector can be thought of as representing the energy flux (W/m2) of an electromagnetic field. It is named after its inventor John Henry Poynting. Oliver Heaviside independently co-discovered the Poynting vector. Usually, it is defined as
where E is the electric field, H the magnetic field strength, B the magnetic flux density, µ0 the permeability of vacuum, and µr the dimensionless relative permeability of the surrounding medium. (All bold letters represent vectors.)
For example, the Poynting vector within the dielectric insulator of a coaxial cable is nearly parallel to the wire axis (assuming no fields outside the cable) - so electric energy is flowing through the dielectric between the conductors. If the core conductor was replaced by a wire having significant resistance, then the Poynting vector would become tilted toward that wire, indicating that energy flows from the e/m field into the wire, producing resistive Joule heating in the wire.
en.wikipedia.org...
Objection 3: although some books say that you have to have a complete conducting loop before acurrent can exist, that is just another misconception. Electrons do not travel across the insulating gap in a capacitor nor do they jump across the space between the primary and secondary windingsof a transformer. This is so even when the energy source is a battery; I have constructed circuits likethose in figure 2 that show that the lamp lights up briefly when the switch is closed. No matter howthe energy travels in those examples, it must be able to get through empty space. (It is true that ifyou want to maintain a steady current in a circuit, then a continuous conducting loop is required.)
science.uniserve.edu.au...
What we observe is the field flowing along the conductors, and causing a flow of electrons through a load with a potential across it.
Electric currents in solid matter are typically very slow flows. For example, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm², carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is of the order of a millimetre per second. To take a different example, in the near-vacuum inside a cathode ray tube, the electrons travel in near-straight lines ("ballistically") at about a tenth of the speed of light.
However, we know that electrical signals are electromagnetic waves which propagate at very high speed outside the surface of the conductor (moving at the speed of light, as can be deduced from Maxwell's Equations). For example, in AC power lines, the waves of electromagnetic energy propagate rapidly through the space between the wires, moving from a source to a distant load, even though the electrons in the wires only move back and forth over a tiny distance. Although the velocity of the flowing charges is quite low, the associated electromagnetic energy travels at the speed of light.
The nature of these three velocities can be clarified by analogy with the three similar velocities associated with gases. The low drift velocity of charge carriers is analogous to air motions; to wind. The large signal velocity is roughly analogous to the rapid propagation of sound waves, while the large random motion of charges is analogous to heat; to the high thermal velocity of randomly vibrating gas particles.
en.wikipedia.org...
I have discussed this fallacy in detail in the proceedings of a previous workshop (Sefton, 2002) so
I will give only a short explanation here. The idea that an electric current, or the electrons which
constitute the current in a wire, pick up energy from a source and carry it along wires to some
load such a light globe is an attractive one but it is clearly wrong. It’s wrong because the
electrons don’t actually get far enough fast enough. In an alternating current the electrons don’t
go anywhere at all, they just jiggle about and in a direct current they just drift along very slowly
indeed. In view of these well-known ideas, it is a surprise to me that writers of school-level texts
can still get away with perpetuating this fallacy.
The origin of the fallacy may be traced to a common but spurious derivation about the power
(VI) delivered by a battery. The argument involves following a charged particle from one
terminal of a battery to the other and calculating the change in PE of that particle. That is fallacy
1 (above)! The particle does not own the PE – the whole system does. The derivation is also
spurious because, as already pointed out, charges in circuits don’t behave like that. (Nevertheless,
P = VI is a valid equation; it’s just the common derivation that is a fudge.)
science.uniserve.edu.au...
I have discussed this fallacy in detail in the proceedings of a previous workshop (Sefton, 2002) so
I will give only a short explanation here. The idea that an electric current, or the electrons which
constitute the current in a wire, pick up energy from a source and carry it along wires to some
load such a light globe is an attractive one but it is clearly wrong. It’s wrong because the
electrons don’t actually get far enough fast enough. In an alternating current the electrons don’t
go anywhere at all, they just jiggle about and in a direct current they just drift along very slowly
indeed. In view of these well-known ideas, it is a surprise to me that writers of school-level texts
can still get away with perpetuating this fallacy.
The origin of the fallacy may be traced to a common but spurious derivation about the power
(VI) delivered by a battery. The argument involves following a charged particle from one
terminal of a battery to the other and calculating the change in PE of that particle. That is fallacy
1 (above)! The particle does not own the PE – the whole system does. The derivation is also
spurious because, as already pointed out, charges in circuits don’t behave like that. (Nevertheless,
P = VI is a valid equation; it’s just the common derivation that is a fudge.)
science.uniserve.edu.au...
The generator moves an electric current, but does not create electric charge, which is already present in the conductive wire of its windings. It is somewhat analogous to a water pump, which creates a flow of water but does not create the water inside. Other types of electrical generators exist, based on other electrical phenomena such as piezoelectricity, and magnetohydrodynamics. The construction of a dynamo is similar to that of an electric motor, and all common types of dynamos could work as motors.
en.wikipedia.org...
Miraculously, every circuit will dissipate exactly the energy put into making the potential. It's as if the universe worked that way.
This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.
sites.huji.ac.il...
Yet you cite him constantly, although unattributed, and even quoted him during the thread as an authority.
Further, it's rare that I see you say anything that's not from either Bearden or the "electric universe" sites.
He may not be involved but it's like you've got a photo of him somewhere with little candles by it in a shrine.
I'd say you were calling the kettle black, but in your case I don't think you actually understand enough of what you're talking about to actually say it's a lie when you're inaccurate.
Originally posted by Glyph_D
where am i wrong?
no i say that because it can be done. it is possible for a system to be given a new task before that system decays completely. in laymen terms it means "salvaging", using all left overs; to waste not.
where are the effects negated ??? on any scale(let alone all)?
o but it is... i used that example to show the "salvaging process", as a counter to your position. i tried to convey that your perspective has no connection(directly) to entropy at all. but merely a confusion of terms.
the apples grew out of a degrading process of nutrients. in short the apples are the waste product of the apple tree.
ook as long as there are atoms> friction will be a real presence(friction is heat; heat is friction),
when the atoms fade away there will be no more friction(no more heat).
thats the ultimate system, the lesser systems run off of this.
however there are many levels of energy transfers before reaching this level.
what you see as negentropic force i see as a "critical mass" situation.
the situation creates mass distortion(expansion). an example is a star, it begins its critical mass sequence early in its cycle. growing and becoming hotter; eon after eon. until other systems that are present cant maintain structure. then "pop" a super nova takes place, reducing its grand achievement to a stretching halt.
some how i feel i wasted my time with that one:/
yes it does, its(atoms) the foundation of this reality.
all other systems run off of this system. entropy work in other systems because its runs on the atomic level(and most certainly deeper).
negentropy is "negative entropy" its basically a violation of entropy(belief). i already went over this earlier in this thread.
how so? the reason these thing come to be is because other systems are running along side entropy, like GRAVITY, massive quantities of gravity hold these galactic sytems close together.
this gravity is a distortion of space, caused by the abundant supply of mass. when this mass ceases to exist the system(galactic) will fall apart.
by "we" i hope you mean you and by "know" i hope you mean believe. becuase i dont see how its violating entropy.
if your referring to orbits; those orbits will deviate at some point in the distant future. because those orbit rely on systems that are dictated by entropy(decay).
but transmutation has nothing to do with this discussion.
wait a damn minute are you confusing "atoms" with "molecules"?
i DID NOT say anything counter to this point. i asked you a question, you answered that question with a bunch of stupid; so i corrected you.
i can understand if your confusing atoms and molecules, because that actually make your response somewhat intelligent, however if you swear you are indeed speaking of atoms> you sir are wrong.
transmute in reactors "yes", build from scratch "no"
ughh i walked way from my pc and lost interest in continuing this post:/ hope i covered everything
by the entropy wins quote]
Well you made sure that it's more obvious than before that you will defend this entropy 'thing ( you clearly don't understand what it entails) to the death whatever the truth.
Stellar
Originally posted by Glyph_D
first off thanks for the good laugh, your rhetoric is top notch
as i understand it> it means choosing a view and finding reasons to support/justify that view.
this is hardly the case, but it may be your problem. look into it.
i wont dig into this because its clearly off topic but i will say this> my conclusions are coincidental not convenient.
becuase you would have to control those that would defy your dream reality.
2 your right a police state would not get you what you want. thats my point your dream world is just that A GOD DAMNED DREAM.
perhaps
sound much like the nature of a virus; consume and dominate:/
in other words; who gives a rats ass to those we trample apon. sickening indeed
so your one of those destroy nature folks huh? sad. we do not need much to sustain a workable society, what you want is overkill.
back at ya:lolmg im laughing to hard :/
stop projecting, it doesnt suit your agenda.
to be quite honest i never wanted to state my theory on the matter, i came to this topic with a clear point; ive stated that point. you deny its presence so further explanation was given(to my regret:/).
within this thread the truth has been written, if you continue to deny this truth so be it.
the continuation of this thread is solely up to you, im simple having an obscure discussion with a loon:/
those crazy scientists that are hiding the truth.
compassion, fairness, honesty just to name a few. what you fail to see is these tyrants think just like you, resorting to ad hominid speech.
some of your postings are way off base and clearly your running out of options. using catchy terms such as nazi and camps to sway the reader to your side.
if you continue to deny what many have come to accept, i wont stop you.
have you readers and cherish your victory, i dont need them. if you all want to live in a fantasy, i dont give a damn.
when i typed that i knew someone(you) would jump on it.
i intended to use scorn however my order of speech was off. what i should have written was "thats the very reason humanity has been scorned by this world."
i have no desire to eradicate any life forms of any nature. lunacy or not, if its going to happen then its going to happen.
and seeing as thats the case, then entropy is very real. regardless of the time frame it will take place.
my point on this is> this is the course our reality subscribes to, and every natural system within this reality is not going to violate this path.
ahhh thats it find the silver lining yes its true the scale is so vast that you will never see its end, however the end is there.
in addition- entropy is very meaningful to this planet, because its a system of large proportions, and all systems will reflect its mechanics.
we will continue to see the small interactions of this reality adhere to entropy.
the value of this is to make appropriate plans for such outcomes.
"hope for the best, plan for the worst" and "always be prepared"
Originally posted by StellarX
Homes once built do not simply collapse and machines which are effectively designed can run without trouble for very long times.
So now food and humans , who grew in the same general way, are 'waste products'? This is why people like you disgust me.
Please make it expressly clear when you are giving us your opinions. We do NOT know this and unless you present the reasoning and science behind it you have no business introducing it as fact.
Building from 'scratch' is something you added later to counter the fact that we do in fact create new elements.
The fact that you presume that people need to be controlled by a centralized authority makes you the tyrant and liar.
Tyrants believe that there is not enough for everyone while i believe there is more than any of us could ever use up.
In tribal situations blood is rarely spilt as the loss of a member means more work and risk for everyone else. It takes centralized authority and a horrendously flawed economic system to make people redundant and thus 'expendable' in wars and whatever else. It is not natural and if you studied REAL history this would become apparent.
Can we have some moderation in thinking
It's interesting that whenever pressed you refuse to defend the supposed science that allow for your conclusions. Is that also coincidental or shall i just continue to presume that your making up the facts to maintain your conclusions?
Well if you don't need anyone i will once against suggest how we could all benefit by you finding another species and planet.
in addition- entropy is very meaningful to this planet, because its a system of large proportions, and all systems will reflect its mechanics.
But it does not so why say that it does? Why is there still life on Earth four billion years after it first started here? When is entropy going to set in and kill us all? Logic is clearly dead in some minds.
Originally posted by Glyph_D
you know what the hell we are saying, the above proves this. "for a very long time" or another way for this to be expressed is "at some point it will shut down".
this basic of basic ideas is entropy.
look i get no joy when one discovers his existence is a byproduct.
but thats the way it is, that being of course when trying to avoiding long winded speeches to convey an alternative so its more harmonious to the ear:/
your absolutely right. but we mere mortals have only but underdeveloped brains and a horrible sense of belonging in our world:/
short point is> im NOT the authority here, if i was it would be my name youd be reading in your wiki links.
no actually this has been my point from the get go.
to create atoms from scratch has the implications of creating a new universe.
if you trust the theory of entropy you would see that our reality is falling apart, if we could "create" atoms we could then violate entropy from reaching its finality.
restore that which has been exhausted, however "because" we can not achieve this feat, our fate is sealed.
im trying to get a better understanding of how your mind sways but sometimes :/....
i do not want to control anyone for any amount of time. my point was(as youve failed to grasp agian:/) that poeple are not easily controlled they wont allow a complete shift,
your dream world wont happen becuase they will stop you.
and should you ever try to obtain your dream you would have to use force to get any progress.
some people want to be stupid, sorry they do.(im sure you claim im one of those eh??)
we may indeed have more than enough, i never said we had a small supply. economics is not my way of life, but we live in a society where it is. ???for what its worth.
im no history buff but i will say this> we havent been part of a tribal society for a very long time, and unless you pull a monkey out your arse we aint going back to it either. we are where we are, moving forward is all we can do.
yeah.... cant we just accept that entropy is here and move on?
his made me laugh, at this particular moment it is indeed coincidence, what "kind" of evidence are you looking for???
every day you deal with systems of entropy, we dont need science to see it.
i would love very much to give you the book that has all the answers you want and even the ones you dont want, but i have misplaced that book when i was cleaning sorry
how about this since youve revived this thread(negentropicly), how about you tell us your perspective and not a view that can be linked. heres why im asking you obviously have read enough to convince you of your position,
but does that position have any merit? from my perspective no, you say entropy is false and then try to prove it with unrelated(technically it is related) subject matter.
you say i dont use logic and then say this. IF by chance i was saying i dont need the lot of you, why would i need to find a new species??
i wouldnt need them either right?this is a rhetorical statement
Originally posted by Glyph_D
im sorry bro but entropy is everywhere,
i dont know why you have this stigma attached to it, but its really not that horrible of a outcome.
we(life) have survived the ages by pure desire(subject to debate) to persist with/of our environment.
we are not really that complex of creatures, im a nihilist blah, blah, blahh. we are here solely becuase our environment is here, we evolve according to our environment. when our environment takes a hit we feel the repercussions.
in the past they stated the our land is our mother, this is what they spoke of. we are intrinsically connected to our world. when our world dies so shall we.
so as far as entropy is concerned with survival it goes somthing like this. the environment(earth) is a by product of star activity. since we are beings that have not evolved beyond the scope of our environment ill scrap the rest of the universe out of the equation. within our environment we have many systems that are currently taking place, all of which are repercussions of a prior event.
** i dont know your beliefs and i apologize if a trample over them with what im goin to say next.**
we(life) are the nature of a fungus.
in the beginning we grew because chemical reactions dictate that outcome.
as more elements were exposed to our existence, more chemical reactions took place.
at some point in this process a particular chemical reaction became the sole purpose(desire) of the form.
the movement(hunting) that form was regulated by by the elements them selves(analogous to magnetism).
now what we have here is a brainless consuming machine. as the environments began to change so did the critter, branching of into various ecosystems.
your digestive system is designed to facilitate that primal of desires.(*just pointing that out)
i have this feeling you want to attribute negentropic events into this , but really it doesnt apply here.
you may ask how does that prove entropy?? well it doesn't prove entropy (directly). we are simple creatures searching for our next chemical reaction, and are supported by those chemical reactions.
nothing here is being sustained nor is progression(systematically*) being achieved.
we are moving from a deposit of elements to another. when those element dissipate ......
[the life(soul) that people believe in is a chemical reaction restored by a supply of elements stored in the body.
*on that point- im not saying the soul is not real im just saying the soul has a physical property that can be identified. the other side of the gate might have better answers, but we got what we got.]
so survival is not a form of progress nor is it a mode of sustainment.
it is a chemical reaction that "choice(or the illusion of)" feeds, until the body run out of the essentials.
ENTROPY
Stellar, I wish I wouldn't do this because I know that you will eventually tire me out.
The very foundation of physics say that matter nor energy can be re-created.
I have no idea how you think you can just make something out of nothing by mixing substances. That's not how it works.
Entropy exists, I have no idea where you have got your ideas from.
But eventually everything will go bust. It may take seconds, years (many years even) but entropy will take over.
You try to beat this problem by using pure logic.
That's not how physics works. Only if you let your mind see every aspect of a problem you will understand this.
Stating here that humans can live forever, and that we are godlike, tells me one thing and one thing only.
It shows a fear of death.
Why are you neglecting the very basic physics just so you can create a world where everything works the way you want it to?
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Nature will always lean to a choise which is in a worse state than the previous one, as long as it uses less enegry.
To this day, the "minimum energy principle" is the strongest law of nature, and usually a worse state tends to use less engery.
Hell, look at a teenager like me, my room never gets cleaner by itself, only worse.
To some, it may seem that entropy is nothing but an illusion, something stupid created by wacky scientists,
but as proved in many cases a system will always have an increased entropy if no energy is put in to balance it back.
There are numerous examples. Chemical mixtures blending causing a more mixed state than before.
The smoke coming out of a chimney spreads out causing a more disorder like phenomena.
And yes, even universe follows this law. In the beginning there was matter, all concentrated in one point, now it's everywhere.
Yes it may seem to us as if entropy would decrease when planets form and suns born, but eventually even they will collaps to a worse state than before.
Think of a diamond. Now you will try to keep it safe from the evil entropy by closing it in a box with the most perceft vacuum ever created. No light, no matter can enter this box.
Won't the diamond survive forever? No, eventually the box containing the diamond will be broken as a result of increased entropy and then it's bye bye diamond.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Stating here that humans can live forever, and that we are godlike, tells me one thing and one thing only. It shows a fear of death.
Originally posted by StellarX
If no intelligent action is taken to maintain or correct whatever is not working as designed? Why do you insist on misrepresenting every damn thing i say?
But even ignorants such as yourself can and SHOULD introduce the supposed science they are basing their twisted views on.
to create atoms from scratch has the implications of creating a new universe.
No it does not and i would like you to introduce the scientific principle your derived that view from.
So once again we can not create atoms because you have decided that entropy says we can't? Can a self respecting person really engage in this much circular reasoning by shear accident?
your arguments are entirely speculative.
What you don't seem to understand is that not all progress is in fact forward and that there is plenty of evidence that hundreds of millions of people are far worse off today than they were hundreds of years ago.
[1]I would call this what it is you are trying to say. Why do you think ( i am giving you credit as it seems more like faith) desires are involved in evolution and why do you believe that chemicals or their reactions have such?
[2]We do have brains and so do many other life forms on this planet. There is no direct geological or anthropological connection between environments and the life in it changing together in any well understood or useful fashion.
[3]But not all chemical reactions are good and we are most certainly not spending ALL our time looking for the next chemical reaction! In fact given sufficient wealth you spend almost NO time thinking about those chemical reactions!
[4]I do not think it's proven that we have souls
There is once again no logical reason why a human being should die at all
Originally posted by StellarX
I am saying that entropy is IRRELEVANT the same way that the expected cooling down of the sun, in four odd billion years, is. It's not that say that entropy on a universal level is not true but that we JUST DON'T KNOW and we don't really have to worry about it in terms of human life expectancies.
You could prove that you don't need anyone or anything by giving up on sharing your uninformed and unsupported opinions with the rest of us.