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

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

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.



You don't get it. Eventually every process in the universe is entropic. Maybe not the first billion years but eventually everything screws up.




And this presumes a isolated system....



No system is isolated from anything? Explain what isolation has to do with entropy?




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!


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.




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.


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.




I think you should get back to the text books and just see how accurate your last claim were...



Where am I wrong? Which law is stronger?




That's because your there and you just wont leave stuff alone!


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?





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.


Why does it presume an closed system?




And in some crystals forms which is non the less the most entropic condition...


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.





In relation to what? What about the industrial process , negentropy, that this smoke is the result of?


Sorry but I didn't get this.




Your presuming a big bang when we have good evidence to suggest otherwise and certainly enough to prevent anyone to have a final word.


As far as I know everything suggests that there was a big bang.





Why would you want to preserve it by means of a vacuum when the Earth itself were unable to destroy it?


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.




What will break up the diamond? What type of entropy can destroy a diamond?


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.




posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   

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.


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.


No system is isolated from anything? Explain what isolation has to do with entropy?


No natural or unnatural systems are isolated and that basically shows that we lack the means to claim that entropy is the end all and be all. Not long ago the steady state theory were still in vogue and given the fact that we have no good reason to believe we know how or when this universe came into existence we have no good arguments for eventual decay.


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.


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.


Nature wants whatever uses little energy.


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.


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.


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?


Where am I wrong? Which law is stronger?


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.


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?


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.


Why does it presume an closed system?


Only in a closed or isolated system are we aware of the energy available but with a open system it's far harder to do accounting of all the forces at work even given the presumption that we understand all the forces at work.


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.


But diamonds last forever! Why do we have coal and oil? I'm not buying !


Try leaving sodium untouched and let's see how long it takes for it to collapse.


How long and under what conditions? How long should we expect it to take?


Sorry but I didn't get this.


I didn't get your example either but i presumed that the smoke coming from the chimney there were the result of a industrial process of one type or another. Basically you are not considering what the smoke is the result of.


As far as I know everything suggests that there was a big bang.


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.

metaresearch.org...

www.wired.com...


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.


But what is going to heat it? I mean in a universe where heat is supposedly consistently dissipated ( and don't let the blindingly obvious sun blind you) what is going to heat and destroy a diamond?


You only look at life ten minutes forward. We are talking billions of years.


I try to stick to things i can understand and i do not pretend to understand , unlike some stupidly arrogant scientist, what might or might not come to pass FOR SURE in four billion years. We really don't know and untill we can fill all the gaping holes in our basic understanding of the universe we should not spend so much time speculating about what might happen to this universe in 70 billion years.


When the sun has blown up or a comet has hit the diamond etc, it will be destoyed.


Comet? The sun blowing up is unlikely to do anything to our planet beside stripping the atmosphere and even some top soil and as far as i know it's not going to melt diamonds either.


Stellar



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Sorry that it took a while to respond. I've been busy.


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.


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.




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.


Will do! I'll get back to this one.




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.


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?



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?


That was not evidence for entropy! That was evidence for why nature always choses the minimum amount of energy for anything it does. 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.




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.


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.




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...



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Sorry that it took a while to respond. I've been busy.


No need to make excuses, we are ALL 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.


Precisely my point and since i am not pretending that we KNOW why suddenly accuse me of being the problem?


You can't be sure that the universe isn't just a "simple sphere" where we are all moving.


No i can't and i am not trying to deny possibilities! What i am doing is telling all of you to stop presuming to understand scientific theories that are based on presumptions about entirely or largely unproven theories.


Will do! I'll get back to this one.


Right...


Give me one good reason, with proof, why something uncontrollable like nature wouldn't chose to act on a more energy sufficient way?


A more energy efficient way you mean? Why presume that nature makes any decisions? I mean where on Earth did you get the impression that nature thinks or considers anything? I am not arguing against the clear logic of heat and energy dissipation but against the argument that there are no possible processes that reverses or negates such dissipative processes.


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.


Please stop being so patronizing when it's so very clear that you are the one that could do with a few dozen more physics text books! Nature does not WANT to do ANYTHING! Nature does not care about resources or their 'efficient' usage! Where you asleep during your high school physics lessons?


Why would nature use more energy than it needs to complete something?


Who says it 'uses' more energy than it 'needs' to 'complete' something? How is this a scientific argument?


That was not evidence for entropy! That was evidence for why nature always choses the minimum amount of energy for anything it does.


Nature makes no choices and it does not 'manage' energy in any objective way. Given magnetism, electric fields and broken symmetry:


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...


So we have dipoles and dipoles are certainly not evidence for entropy!


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.


Lol.. What does that MEAN!


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.


LOL. So you will disregard what happens on a planetary scale to keep your precious theory intact?


What is negentropic energy?


Intelligently applied energy in the human contact and organizing energy in the natural sense.


You just dug your own grave!

I'll continue laters...


Not the first time i have heard someone say that! Since i have been wrong before it's bound to happen again and since i do strive to become more informed i am not worried.


Stellar

[edit on 5-10-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jim_w
Life, growth an so are do not 'violate' the second law of thermodynamics.


No need to discuss it then! Thanks for settling the issue!


All those processes take in energy in one form and (wastefully) convert it to other forms -


Wastefully to who or what? Who makes this value judgement?


they follow the second law nicely.


Presuming that there are a limited amount of energy and that a sun expends itself in the process!


No known process violates this law, otherwise it wouldn't have the status it does.


Circular reasoning! What's with all the circular reasoning these days?

Stellar



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 03:07 AM
link   
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.


But diamonds last forever!


No they don't. Entropy will eventually send a strom of abrasive paper on them.


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.


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.


Wastefully to who or what? Who makes this value judgement?


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?


Presuming that there are a limited amount of energy and that a sun expends itself in the process!


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?

[edit on 6-10-2007 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
I am busy right now so I will not be able to respond often.


As i said before i do not care and do not presume anything when you do not respond quickly or at all. I do not consider it 'evidence' that i am right or wrong when people do not respond! Take your time and make it as accurate and truthful as you can.


I have came up a way to prove your "diamonds last forever" -theory wrong.


I quoted the popular media slogan and never intended the claim to mean 'forever' as in hundreds of billions of years.


Your thesis is that diamonds can't be destroyed.


Not by heat dissipation but i never suggest, claimed or alluded to the possibility that they can not be destroyed by intelligently applied force or erosion of other types. That would be stupid and i am not stupid or that ignorant.


And if we know dump your sci-fi ways of making negentropy you have to admit that you are wrong.


You do not 'make negentrophy' as it is what happens when matter and energy becomes more organized( or more accurately, less dissipated) than it used to be for a variety of reasons.


When we find diamonds they aren't as beautiful as those in the shops. To be honest they are quite ugly.


Once again i am stunned that you believe me so ignorant. I come from SOUTH AFRICA where diamonds and their processing is not exactly a well kept secret! Do you know how much of the worlds diamonds comes from here?


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.


Please stop buying into hype and consider some scientific 'facts'! Since diamonds are brittle ( crystalline structures) they will shatter if hit with a hammer. Since nature does not have any hammers or hammer wielders that's pretty unlikely thought even if stellar processes may contribute.


www.didyouknow.cd...


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.


But that is not a natural process and involves intelligently applied energy! Sure diamonds may suffer the same fate given the correct erosive ( is that a word?) forces but that is NOT entropy and simply heat, or rather energy, dissipation at work.


So, your theory isn't flawless.


It would have been pretty close if you did not presume so much and instead considered my response in full instead of taking one line and misrepresenting my intent.


No they don't. Entropy will eventually send a strom of abrasive paper on them.


Entropy is not intelligent and have no particular motive or agenda so it wont eventually do ANYTHING as specific as destroying all diamonds!


There will always be those who think differently.


Possibly but certainly not a fact.



Scientists who claim tha Big Bang never happend usually want free press by stating "something unordianry".


You do not get any press, and certainly no 'good' press, for going against the media created consensus.


It's an old trick and one would think that you would know how to filter crap from real stuff.


I do my best but as you can see even the most ignorant of people in the world seem to think they 'know' about the big bang because the scientific media created consensus tells them they do.



The fact remains that most of the scientists working on this problem are of the same opinion.


Since when have majority decisions or claims about nature been accurate in predicting the truth?Rarely or ever?


If you are wondering about the proof just ask and I'll tell you how they have came to the conclusion.


Then lets as i can destroy the big bang as scientific fact.


Perhaps , you should not always seek for revolutionary facts.


And you should not seek security in consensus without merit.


As I see it you always support theorys which prove well known theorys wrong.


I do not but it would seem that way to people who always believe that what they were taught is in fact the truth.



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.


What sci-fi?


We are. Humans see what nature wants by empirical ways of research. That does not put us in a Godlike position however.


What is god like about negentrophic processes? Why do you consider intelligently applied human potential energy ( muscle's and brains) 'sci-fi'?


Einstein was interested in God. He found a way to see God in nature, and he succeeded. Or was Einstein wrong?


Einstein wife may not have been all that wrong but the conclusions him and the establishment derived from the stolen work in large part is and i don't know why relativity could ever be employed to prove 'god'.


It's not really persuming is it?


What would you call it then and why?


How can there not be a limited ammount of energy.


A billion trillion universes all interconnected and exchanging energy across boundaries? A universe that is being 'fueled' from the outside by a intelligent designer/operator? A universe that is leaching off another universe or universes? That's just a few i could come up with in one minute but i presume a dedicated cosmologist could probably do far better.


And don't start with "we can't know" because that's bogus.


If i said we 'can't' ( too lazy to check ) know i apologise as i believe we may eventually know that and much more if not everything.


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?


Oh i follow but your not leading anywhere worth going! Of all the nonsensical arguments!
We do NOT know if the universe started or when it did if it did so lets not pretend otherwise until we have better information on the issue.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


ughhh.. why on earth:/

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 its impossible for a theory(of incomplete information) to ever be accurate? cant luck be a factor?>isnt your negentropic events entirely based on luck?(yes)

i dont 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 down into 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 your nature doesnt think or choose statement. ill let you presume that nature is a mindless zombie, however nature does have 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 toward a motionless state, we say the micro must behave the same. now becuase 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), 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:/

[edit on 6/10/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

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...


Someone understands!


Nothing anyone has said is evidence against the second law, while every physical process we know about is evidence for it.


Is there ANY chance that you are going to be a bit more specific or are you happy just telling me what the consensus happens to be at this time?


The laws of thermodynamics are as universal as any laws we know


Why and based on what?


there isn't a single example of a process disobeying these laws.


Anything that grows ( life) for any amount of time is evidence that the second law can is violated on at least local scales.


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...


As is clear from the above ( and you can bring other definitions of entropy as there are many) universal entropy presumes a isolated system which has NOT been proven.

Please be more specific when you make claims as telling us about these 'certainties' without providing substance is based on the presumption that we , and more specifically I, did not know or believe this in past. Please do not presume such ignorance where it's just not in evidence.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jim_w
How does growth break the second law?


It employs sunlight, water and matter in general and turn it into what becomes sustenance for human beings and other life forms. That is NOT entropic if only just local reversal of a possible more general rule. How is it that growth ,with energy that would otherwise be entirely dissipated, can be called entropic and dissipative?


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.


How is it wasteful when it's absence would have resulted in ALL the sun's energy being 'wasted'? How on Earth can you just deny what is right in front of you? How can you call yourself a entropic process? Talk about indoctrination!


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.


I don't accept having to prove wrong a law that is obviously wrong and easily observed to be so. If you wish to deny it keep on doing so while i keep on telling you that i disagree.


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.


I just did but you will just say that it does not! I suppose that's that's the sum of the knowledge the indoctrination left you with!


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.


Dipoles ( ever charge in the universe) violates the second law so basically we have no reason to consider a second law on any scale.


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.


LOL! Here's a few!

James L. Griggs

www.rexresearch.com...
www.freepatentsonline.com...

Minato

www.freepatentsonline.com...
www.rexresearch.com...

Bearden

USPO

www.rexresearch.com...
peswiki.com...:MEG

Alfred Hubbard

USPO Hubbard

www.rexresearch.com...

John Huston

USPO

www.rexresearch.com... Houston
www.rexresearch.com...

Meyers

www.rexresearch.com...
www.rexresearch.com... No us patent

T Henry Moray

www.rexresearch.com...
peswiki.com...:Thomas_Henry_Moray
www.linux-host.org...

Kawai

USPO

Tesla

USPO

freepatentsonline.com...
USPO

Joseph W. Newman

www.rexresearch.com...
v3.espacenet.com...

James H. Rogers

USPO

958,829, Method and Apparatus for Producing High Frequency Oscillating Currents. J. Filed Jan. 20, 1910.
www.rexresearch.com...

This stuff is not unknown but it is being dilligently denied by the likes of you.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jim_w
The second law of thermodynamics states that heat will not flow from a hot body to a cooler body.


You got it backwards but other than that it's ONE of the generalized claims made about entropy. (with the more) EDIT I don't remember where i intended to go with that line so i will leave it at that.


How does a plant growing contradict that?


If you can not comprehend how you or your dog are more complex and organized than what you consist of ( the elements and energy) then i am not sure how to proceed and make it any clearer.


Maybe you aren't as complex as me hence your faith in entropy? All i can do is ask that you speak for yourself only while i do my best to bring you to considering the implications the second law should long ago have had on the organized and negentropic systems that we call 'life'!

Stellar

[edit on 7-10-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
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...



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jim_w
Oops! That's what I get for replying after booze.


Thanks for taking this discussion so very seriously.


Of course a human is more complex that the parts he's made of.


Right...


How does that disprove the second law of thermodynamics?


If you can not comprehend how that undermines the second law then maybe you should go look at the other definitions!


No heat is moving from a cooler body to a hotter one...


So the plankton that Whales feed on does not constitute a energy flow from 'cool' ( less potential) to warm? This must rank as a bad example but there it is.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
(note that it's 11pm here so please excuse minor errors ;-)

I think it would help this discussion if you exactly state the definition of the second law which you're using. A lot of people have confused ideas about the second law meaning that complex systems always turn into less complex systems or things like that, but that's not what the second law says. Any valid formulation of the second law is completely equivalent to saying that no heat flows from cooler to hotter regions. (I got it right this time!)



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
quote]Originally posted by Glyph_D
reply to post by StellarX
 


ughhh.. why on earth:/

You can stop anytime but i just wont.



so your whole argument is "im stupid, your stupid; lets bake a cake"?

and you say im wasting your time


Well i KNOW your wasting my time and that's why i am only responding to your drivel every other week.



why do you hold the notion that is impossible for a theory(of incomplete information) to every be accurate?


I hold the notion that we do not know and that our local scale disproves entropy as guiding principle.


cant luck be a factor?>isnt your negentropic events entirely based on luck?(yes)


How was your choosing to type up your ignorant responses on this forum due to luck ( bad luck for me) on your side? Are you are aren't you intelligent enough to understand you are in fact not a entropic force?


i do not need to be god to know how some things work.


But you do need to be knowledgeable which you do not seem to be.


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.


But for that you will need to intelligent apply energy or wait for forces inside the Earth to break it apart and it will surely take more energy to destroy it than it did to create it.



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)).


Atoms do not break down due to entropy and you have so far not shown why you think they do.


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.


If you wish that argue that nature thinks or chooses that is your business but i am AMAZED that have you the audacity to one the one hand defend convention while on the other throw it out the _ It's probably just your vast ignorance of physics that's coming into play but if you really believe that nature makes decisions in the formal way you should not point fingers about ignorance or anything similar.



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.


We do not know that the universe will suffer a contraction and as far as scientific consensus goes they thin the expansion of the universe if accelerating too fast for a eventual contraction to be possible.


WHY?? becuase through observation it was discovered that heat of all things creates movement(without it, your not moveing(think ZERO KELVIN).


LOL! It's just so striking how little you know and how much your trying to make of it....


becuase we see in the macro verse that ALL objects move to a motionless state,


The expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating and as it does the chances for gravity to ever slow it down becomes ever less plausible.


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


The second law is admitted being violated on very small scales.


(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...


So please stop saying it's a make believe term and start blaming the right person for your vast ignorance!


but time is not on our side when it comes to analyzing this venture.


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.


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.


What's so cruel about it and what do you know about science that you can teach me?


your beef is not with entropy, your beef is with the thought process of science.


And you have made it clear that you do not understand the thought processes or knowledge that you are pretending to advocate. What you are doing is entirely self serving and much less related to science than anything i have considered doing so far.


i suggest you find your self a religion, a girl, and start makeing a family, becuase youll just get in the way:/


Thanks for the 'advice' but i plan to get in the way of your ignorance for some time to come.


Stellar

PS: ETA for next response is 10-14 days so feel free to rush yours as if your very life depended on it.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

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.


i did not say we couldnt obtain these achievements, what im saying is we havent. if you wish we can wait till we(humans) obtain that level, then we can continue this discussion. im not going to argue about the future; which isnt much more than a pipe dream to begin with:/



the majority of scientific discovery is obtained through hindsight.

with that knowledge- it would be a childs leaps to understand that we wont truely know the depths and follys of our universe(becuase of its sheer size and shelflife). however we can make educated guesses, and entropy is one of those guesses(its fairly accurate as well).

2. your negentropy is pseudoscience. your peter-pan existence needs ideas like this to thrive.

from my perspective your the one with very little understanding of the world which you live "within". my(your) mind, body,and spirit are all dictated by entropy. to say otherwise is a failure in understanding of life in general.

[edit on 10/10/07 by Glyph_D]





new topics
 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join