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
No one is so far suggesting that energy or matter is created and my arguments so far simply states that the terms are interchangable and that not all processes are entropic.
And this presumes a isolated system....
Well if you go look at the what scientist and biologist are talking about i am not reaching and it's certainly far better science than anything related to the big bang or entropy!
A worse state for who? I mean this is clearly a value judgement and i am unsure that we know what nature likes or wants.
I think you should get back to the text books and just see how accurate your last claim were...
That's because your there and you just wont leave stuff alone!
This presumes a closed system but since we do not have evidence that nature as we know it is ( we don't know if our universe is isolated or open) is one or contains such we are just speculating.
And in some crystals forms which is non the less the most entropic condition...
In relation to what? What about the industrial process , negentropy, that this smoke is the result of?
Your presuming a big bang when we have good evidence to suggest otherwise and certainly enough to prevent anyone to have a final word.
Why would you want to preserve it by means of a vacuum when the Earth itself were unable to destroy it?
What will break up the diamond? What type of entropy can destroy a diamond?
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
You don't get it. Eventually every process in the universe is entropic. Maybe not the first billion years but eventually everything screws up.
No system is isolated from anything? Explain what isolation has to do with entropy?
To cut things short, I talked to somebody who knows lots of biology and she said that knowing what causes death doesn't mean we can beat it. Death is far more complex than just finding one sole reason.
Nature wants whatever uses little energy.
Think about that the next time you drop your medical thermometer on the floor. The mercury will come out and create small "bubbles" on your floor. This is because a shape of bubble uses less energy than any other shape.
Where am I wrong? Which law is stronger?
I see where you are coming from and I now know that I am truly right. Yes, me being in the room sure makes everything messier quicker. But let's say I leave my room there for all eternity. Nobody touches anything. Do you not agree that eventually everything will corrode, break and go bust?
Why does it presume an closed system?
Again you clearly don't know your chemistry. Yes for a given time they will be in a chrystal shape. But eventually after millions of years they will collapse.
Try leaving sodium untouched and let's see how long it takes for it to collapse.
Sorry but I didn't get this.
As far as I know everything suggests that there was a big bang.
Although widely accepted by astrophysicists and cosmologists as the best theory for the creation of the universe, the big bang model has come under increasingly vocal criticism from scientists concerned about inconsistencies between the theory and astronomical observations, or by concepts that have been used to "fix" the theory so it agrees with those observations.
These fixes include theories which say the nascent universe expanded at speeds faster than the speed of light for an unknown period of time after the big bang; dark matter, which was used to explain how galaxies and clusters of galaxies keep from flying apart even though there seems to be too little matter to provide the gravity needed to hold them together; and dark energy, an unseen, unmeasured and unexplained force that is apparently causing the universe not only to expand, but to accelerate as it goes.
Recent observations by NASA's new Spitzer space telescope found "old" stars and galaxies so far away that the light we are seeing now left those stars when (according to big bang theory) the universe was between 600 million and one billion years old -- much too young to have galaxies with red giant stars that have burned off all of their hydrogen.
Other observations found clusters and super clusters of galaxies at those great distances, when the universe was supposed to have been so young that there had not been enough time for those monstrous intergalactic structures to form.
universe.nasa.gov...
Just to make everything simplier. Nothing gets to tocuh mu dear diamond And if the diamond was to be heated up enough it would melt.
You only look at life ten minutes forward. We are talking billions of years.
When the sun has blown up or a comet has hit the diamond etc, it will be destoyed.
Originally posted by StellarX
I don't think YOU get it when you presume to argue that the universe is a closed/isolated system. Until someone can somehow prove that the universe is in fact a isolated system all discussion on entropy is mostly moot given that we do not know how much energy is going out or coming into it.
Ask her/him how long she could keep a human being alive if she could manipulate DNA to prevent or repair copying errors. I think the answer will set you on the right course but even if it does not there are alternatives to purely biological survival.
We don't know that and unless you can bring me a signed affidavit I'm not going to take your word for what nature wants. If you wish to argue that natural processes in isolated systems tends toward entropy then fine but we know that neither the Earth, the Solar system or the galaxy are isolated systems.
I have thought about this ( %$)%$*%) and i am frankly surprised that you that example can or should serve as evidence for entropy. Why can 'energy expenditure' that results in clumps really serve as evidence for entropy?
It simply can not be the strongest law because every living thing violates it by mere survival to say nothing of how entropy is shown the finger when actual growth takes place. Any law that is violated on a planetary scale can clearly not be the 'strongest' or the most useful law.
Sure it will 'corrode', 'break' and 'go bust' but your forgetting the fact that it was not naturally there to 'corrode', 'break' and 'go bust' and that all that can be prevented by applying some negentropic energy! I just fail to understand how the one set of facts is just being disregarded in favour of 'entropy' presuming no intelligence at all! Entropy is entirely meaningless when intelligently applied energy can be brought to bear. [/quote]
What is negentropic energy?
But diamonds last forever! Why do we have coal and oil? I'm not buying !
You just dug your own grave!
I'll continue laters...
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Sorry that it took a while to respond. I've been busy.
Originally posted by StellarX
You claim that nothing is isolated, but how can you know that? Until further proof we can only assume of things we know for sure.
You can't be sure that the universe isn't just a "simple sphere" where we are all moving.
Will do! I'll get back to this one.
Give me one good reason, with proof, why something uncontrollable like nature wouldn't chose to act on a more energy sufficient way?
This doesn't require isolated systems or anything else for that matter. Think of nature like a computer system. It wants to do everything as quickly as possible, using as little resources as possible.
Why would nature use more energy than it needs to complete something?
That was not evidence for entropy! That was evidence for why nature always choses the minimum amount of energy for anything it does.
Almost from his earliest days as a physicist, Yang had made significant contributions to the theory of the weak interactions--the forces long thought to cause elementary particles to disintegrate. (The strong forces that hold nuclei together and the electromagnetic forces that are responsible for chemical reactions are parity-conserving. Since these are the dominant forces in most physical processes, parity conservation appeared to be a valid physical law, and few physicists before 1955 questioned it.) By 1953 it was recognized that there was a fundamental paradox in this field since one of the newly discovered mesons--the so-called K meson--seemed to exhibit decay modes into configurations of differing parity. Since it was believed that parity had to be conserved, this led to a severe paradox.
After exploring every conceivable alternative, Lee and Yang were forced to examine the experimental foundations of parity conservation itself. They discovered, in early 1956, that, contrary to what had been assumed, there was no experimental evidence against parity nonconservation in the weak interactions. The experiments that had been done, it turned out, simply had no bearing on the question. They suggested a set of experiments that would settle the matter, and, when these were carried out by several groups over the next year, large parity-violating effects were discovered. In addition, the experiments also showed that the symmetry between particle and antiparticle, known as charge conjugation symmetry, is also broken by the weak decays. (See also CP violation.)
In addition to his work on weak interactions, Yang, in collaboration with Lee and others, carried out important work in statistical mechanics--the study of systems with large numbers of particles--and later investigated the nature of elementary particle reactions at extremely high energies. From 1965 Yang was Albert Einstein professor at the Institute of Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Long Island. During the 1970s he was a member of the board of Rockefeller University and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and, from 1978, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego. He was also on the board of Ben-Gurion University, Beersheba, Israel. He received the Einstein Award in 1957 and the Rumford Prize in 1980; in 1986 he received the Liberty Award and the National Medal of Science.
physics.nobel.brainparad.com...
The shape of a sphere is the most energy sufficient we know, due to the fact that lenght of the most outer particles to the center is constant.
We thing that it's not the strongest law by doing the mistake and observing living things. They don't work on the minimum energy principle the was nature does.
What is negentropic energy?
You just dug your own grave!
I'll continue laters...
Originally posted by jim_w
Life, growth an so are do not 'violate' the second law of thermodynamics.
All those processes take in energy in one form and (wastefully) convert it to other forms -
they follow the second law nicely.
No known process violates this law, otherwise it wouldn't have the status it does.
But diamonds last forever!
You should read a bit more before presuming that you in fact know anything other than what the corporate media consensus happens to be at this time.
Wastefully to who or what? Who makes this value judgement?
Presuming that there are a limited amount of energy and that a sun expends itself in the process!
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
I am busy right now so I will not be able to respond often.
I have came up a way to prove your "diamonds last forever" -theory wrong.
Your thesis is that diamonds can't be destroyed.
And if we know dump your sci-fi ways of making negentropy you have to admit that you are wrong.
When we find diamonds they aren't as beautiful as those in the shops. To be honest they are quite ugly.
The process is called cutting. Basically the truth is this. Yes diamonds are strong. Diamond is the strongest material we know when we talk about "direct impact". You can't break a diamond with a hammer.
But you can with abrasive paper. Diamonds can't be broken directly, but can be "brushed" so that there is no diamond left. That's how diamonds are cut to be good looking.
So, your theory isn't flawless.
No they don't. Entropy will eventually send a strom of abrasive paper on them.
There will always be those who think differently.
Scientists who claim tha Big Bang never happend usually want free press by stating "something unordianry".
It's an old trick and one would think that you would know how to filter crap from real stuff.
The fact remains that most of the scientists working on this problem are of the same opinion.
If you are wondering about the proof just ask and I'll tell you how they have came to the conclusion.
Perhaps , you should not always seek for revolutionary facts.
As I see it you always support theorys which prove well known theorys wrong.
I have no idea why but it's dumb. Even dumber when the proof of your theorys circle around sci-fi which will never be possible.
We are. Humans see what nature wants by empirical ways of research. That does not put us in a Godlike position however.
Einstein was interested in God. He found a way to see God in nature, and he succeeded. Or was Einstein wrong?
It's not really persuming is it?
How can there not be a limited ammount of energy.
And don't start with "we can't know" because that's bogus.
You don't have to see the previous pagenumber in your book to know what it is, it's enough proof that you see the pagenumber you are currently on and take one pagenumber away. Follow?
Originally posted by jim_w
Whether or not diamonds eventually get broken up has nothing to do with entropy and the second law of thermodynamics...
Nothing anyone has said is evidence against the second law, while every physical process we know about is evidence for it.
The laws of thermodynamics are as universal as any laws we know
there isn't a single example of a process disobeying these laws.
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by jim_w
How does growth break the second law?
A plant (say) carries out a bunch of wasteful processes turning energy from one form to another, losing some to heat at every step, contributing to the overall heat death. Growth absolutely does not violate the second law.
As for being more specific, I can't go through every process that obeys the second law and explain them all - the onus is on anyone who claims the second law is false to describe a system that violates it.
None of the examples in this thread do that - if you want me to go through a specific example then pick the one you think violates the second law "the most" and I'll explain that one.
It should suffice to point out that thermodynamics is a very old and very important field and if any common everyday processes violated the laws they would certainly have been disproved by now.
Of course someone might find some exotic process which does break those laws - anything's possible! But no process currently know to science breaks them.
Originally posted by jim_w
The second law of thermodynamics states that heat will not flow from a hot body to a cooler body.
How does a plant growing contradict that?
Originally posted by jim_w
Oops! That's what I get for replying after booze.
Of course a human is more complex that the parts he's made of.
How does that disprove the second law of thermodynamics?
No heat is moving from a cooler body to a hotter one...
so your whole argument is "im stupid, your stupid; lets bake a cake"?
and you say im wasting your time
why do you hold the notion that is impossible for a theory(of incomplete information) to every be accurate?
cant luck be a factor?>isnt your negentropic events entirely based on luck?(yes)
i do not need to be god to know how some things work.
as for the diamond issue they succumb to entropy as well. if you heat a diamond enough it will rupture(into dust), heat it more it brakes back down ito liquid carbon.
regardless of its travels through its existence, it will follow the greater movement of the universe- degrade as the material(atoms) breaks down(or stripped from it(black-holes)).
as for you nature doesnt think or choose statement. ill lets you presume that nature is a mindless zombie, however nature has a course. that course can be observed(orbs, coriolis effect, vortices's(spirals)), that course is CALLED by our human language a degenerative process, becuase of how we define that term.
it is a cycle but its a cycle that collapses in apon itself, all of this(mechanical processes) has been given a term> entropy. with the small stipulation of heat being a real dominant factor.
WHY?? becuase through observation it was discovered that heat of all things creates movement(without it, your not moveing(think ZERO KELVIN).
becuase we see in the macro verse that ALL objects move to a motionless state,
we say the micro must behave the same. now because we are who we are we started trying to verify/discredit that claim, we have made some minor progress
(not becuase of your beloved negentropy),
used the concept of “negative entropy” in his popular-science book What is life?. Later, Léon Brillouin shortened the expression to a single word, negentropy. Schrödinger introduced the concept when explaining that a living system exports entropy in order to maintain its own entropy at a low level (see entropy and life). By using the term negentropy, he could express this fact in a more "positive" way: a living system imports negentropy and stores it.
In a note to What is Life? Schrödinger explains his usage of this term.
“ Let me say first, that if I had been catering for them [physicists] alone I should have let the discussion turn on free energy instead. It is the more familiar notion in this context. But this highly technical term seemed linguistically too near to energy for making the average reader alive to the contrast between the two things. ”
In 1974, Albert Szent-Györgyi proposed replacing the term negentropy with syntropy, a term which may have originated in the 1940s with the Italian mathematician Luigi Fantappiè, who attempted to construct a unified theory of the biological and physical worlds. (This attempt has not gained renown or borne great fruit.) Buckminster Fuller attempted to popularize this usage, though negentropy still remains common.
en.wikipedia.org...
but time is not on our side when it comes to analyzing this venture.
bottom line is SCIENCE is the exploration of our reality. it is not a spiritual journey, it is not pillow talk, its cruel and painful at times.
your beef is not with entropy, your beef is with the thought process of science.
i suggest you find your self a religion, a girl, and start makeing a family, becuase youll just get in the way:/
Originally posted by StellarX
What do you mean time is not on our side? You don't think we can travel to other stars and keep going long after all stars might have burned out? You don't think we will never manage fusion and so be able to recreate living conditions? The depth of your ignorance is just ASTOUNDING.