Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
quote]Originally posted by Glyph_D
reply to post by StellarX
 



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.


Stellar X, I am a bit confused in regards to the diamond analogy. Are you implying that it is fairly difficult or requires a large amount of energy to destroy a diamond?


[edit on 11-10-2007 by AugustusMasonicus]




posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
i did not say we couldnt obtain these achievements, what im saying is we havent.


We have gone to the moon and we have had the technology to go to nearby stars since the mid 60's. According to conventional theory our sun will pretty much go on doing what it's doing now (sustaining life as we know it) for a additional four billion years and i wondering why you think we can't colonize at least a few galaxies in that space of time or for that matter why you think we have not started!


if you wish we can wait till we(humans) obtain that level, then we can continue this discussion.


We have long ago obtained the level of technology and the political willpower as evidence by the moon landings so we should continue this discussion.


im not going to argue about the future; which isnt much more than a pipe dream to begin with:/


When you argue about the effects of entropy you ARE arguing about the future as what it might entail in entirely theoretical and then predicated on a whole bunch of facts not in evidence.


the majority of scientific discovery is obtained through hindsight.


The majority of scientific discovery comes from investigating the contradictions contained in that era's scientific 'truths'. Many breakthroughs may be rediscovered but then overwhelmingly so due to the establishment nature of hiding what conflicts with it's agenda and destroying the reputations of those scientist involved in the initial discoveries.


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).


And yet you have already given up hope on the future of the universe and humanities place in it?


however we can make educated guesses, and entropy is one of those guesses(its fairly accurate as well).


So you keep telling me without having provided any more evidence than you initially refused to.
If this theory is so well established and 'true' why can't you just start properly sourcing the theories you have derived from it?


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


Negentropy is not a pseudo-science as evidence by the source you just , once again, refused to address! Sure you can argue the implications but the fact that you entirely ignore the same type of establishment 'facts' that claim to defend is quite extraordinary...


from my perspective your the one with very little understanding of the world which you live "within".


And that might be the case but for now lets focus on this specific area?


my(your) mind, body,and spirit are all dictated by entropy. to say otherwise is a failure in understanding of life in general.


I do not see how the reversal of entropy that is the human thought process ( and lets not forget the dams otter brains seems to result in ) that leads to the initiation of so much organization can be called entropy and i have yet to see you provide the scientific basis for claiming that life in general , and human beings in particular, are anything but a reversal of entropy on at least the local scale.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jim_w
(note that it's 11pm here so please excuse minor errors ;-)


Please don't type if your not sober or it's 'too late' for you to accurately put thoughts to keyboard...


I think it would help this discussion if you exactly state the definition of the second law which you're using.


I think since i am using the most common on ( and lets pretend that's not in fact the most accurate one) you get to go first and tell us which definition you have chosen to employ. Besides, it will give you a chance to prove that you know how to source claims!


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.


That may be a 'confused idea' but it also happens to be one of the more commonly used definitions.


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!)


To be honest i am not well informed enough, or as i would like to think, crazy, to understand how this relates to stellar formation, life, or for that matter galaxies and galactic clusters! In my lay view that's clearly not instances of heat flowing in the logical supposedly logic directions...

Stellar



posted on Oct, 24 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I really think you should read a thermodynamics textbook... All this is really very basic. I can explain it if you want, but a book would do a better job.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Otter dams. Priceless.


You’re trying to take entropy as meaning things always tend toward a lower energy state. This is true. But inside of a system you’ll see plenty of ups and downs even though the sum total in the end is a down.

So us humans, and other life on Earth… we’re a heck of an up.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
I enjoyed this post very much (didn't read ALL of it... but a lot) and just wanted to ask my questions, to somebody out there who understands entropy:

Although I certainly see the action of entropy within bodies and "isolated physical systems", and do agree with the direction of time and irreversibility,
What about dark matter and the unknown mass of the universe? If we don't know for sure the mass of the universe, and we therefore don't know for sure if it will expand forever OR one day fall back in on itself and allow mass to collect again, HOW CAN WE KNOW that the universe is really going to continue to dissipate its warmth into entropy?

And how do we actually know that the universe is a closed system? What if there are wormholes to other universes? Did people really measure the entire universe and how did they do that, when it was only last year they focused a telescope on blackness and found millions more galaxies, such that the night sky would be bright as day if we could see them all with the naked eye? and doesn't that imply the universe really is infinite?

edit on 15-10-2011 by speck999999999 because: forgot a word



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   


Pretty good way to hear the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Probably a little off-topic.






top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join