Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 196 of 304 (643820)
12-12-2011 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
12-09-2011 10:19 PM


Re: BB Model Case Re-opened
Buz writes:
Notice that the tendency of entropy is to increase until equilibrium is reached.
Buz - Do you think that the universe as observed is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium?
wiki on thermodynamic equilibrium writes:
In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there are no net flows of matter or of energy, no phase changes, and no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces), within the system.
In other words no useful work can be done. In other words a state of maximum entropy. If the universe is not expanding and has existed for eternity it would indeed be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It would be. But it isn’t. So you are demonstrably wrong.
Buz writes:
That is the tendency. Tendency does not require inevitability necessarily.
The entire point of the second law of thermodynamics is that an overall increase in entropy is exactly that — Inevitable.
Buz writes:
That tendency can be reversed via open systems within the Universe, thus prolonging the state of equilibrium.
No. Open systems within the Universe (e.g. the Earth) only ever result in an increase of the total entropy of the universe as a whole. That is the entire point of the second law of thermodynamics. You can (for example) decrease the entropy in a room by switching on the air conditioning. But using that air conditioner will necessarily result in an overall increase in the entropy within the universe as a whole.
Buz writes:
The Buzsaw Biblical Universe model has the source of the energy of the system being the managing entity, i.e. Jehovah, capable, within the system to apply work so as to eternally prolong a state of equilibrium.
But the universe isn’t in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. If it were it would be in state of Heat Death.
Buz writes:
To answer both questions, the total (I say total) amount remains constant, the managing source of energy existing within Universe; the Universe itself being the only existing perpetual machine, i.e. eternal, if you will.
If your manager is thermodynamically a perpetual motion machine of some sort then your model is blatantly not compatible with the laws of thermodynamics.
Hawking writes:
In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time.
Link
The case remains closed. You just haven't realised it. And probably never will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 12-09-2011 10:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2011 8:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 304 (643907)
12-12-2011 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Straggler
12-12-2011 6:29 AM


Re: BB Model Case Re-opened
Straggler writes:
Buz writes:
Notice that the tendency of entropy is to increase until equilibrium is reached.
Buz - Do you think that the universe as observed is in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium?
No. Why? Because, as observed, the state of equilibrium has not been reached. I have no quarrels with your Wiki quote which attests to that.
wiki on thermodynamic equilibrium writes:
In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there are no net flows of matter or of energy, no phase changes, and no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces), within the system.
Straggler writes:
In other words no useful work can be done. In other words a state of maximum entropy. If the universe is not expanding and has existed for eternity it would indeed be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It would be. But it isn’t. So you are demonstrably wrong.
You're spinning what the 2nd law says, as per the Wiki quote. Since the Universe is not in a state of equilibrium, driving forces within the system are operative.
Straggler writes:
Buz writes:
That is the tendency. Tendency does not require inevitability necessarily.
The entire point of the second law of thermodynamics is that an overall increase in entropy is exactly that — Inevitable.
That's not what it says. The definition of tendency, as per the the Merriam Webster Dictionary:
quote:
Definition of TENDENCY
1a : direction or approach toward a place, object, effect, or limit b : a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action
2a : the purposeful trend of something written or said : aim b : deliberate but indirect advocacy
See tendency defined for English-language learners
See tendency defined for kids
Examples of TENDENCY
The economy has shown a general tendency toward inflation.
Straggler writes:
Buz writes:
That tendency can be reversed via open systems within the Universe, thus prolonging the state of equilibrium.
No. Open systems within the Universe (e.g. the Earth) only ever result in an increase of the total entropy of the universe as a whole. That is the entire point of the second law of thermodynamics. You can (for example) decrease the entropy in a room by switching on the air conditioning. But using that air conditioner will necessarily result in an overall increase in the entropy within the universe as a whole.
You're leading us into circles here, Straggler, repeating what I've already refuted.
According to your former link the tendency of the entire system is for entropy to increase, so long as it is not in a state of equilibrium.
Buz writes:
The Buzsaw Biblical Universe model has the source of the energy of the system being the managing entity, i.e. Jehovah, capable, within the system to apply work so as to eternally prolong a state of equilibrium.
But the universe isn’t in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. If it were it would be in state of Heat Death.
To clarify what I meant to say is that reaching a state of entropy would be eternally prolonged. In other words, the eternal ID managing entity, capable of managing the energy of the system, as per the Biblical record, would not allow a state of equilibrium to be reached.
Straggler writes:
Buz writes:
To answer both questions, the total (I say total) amount remains constant, the managing source of energy existing within Universe; the Universe itself being the only existing perpetual machine, i.e. eternal, if you will.
If your manager is thermodynamically a perpetual motion machine of some sort then your model is blatantly not compatible with the laws of thermodynamics.
So far, you have failed to falsify it as per my messages. Of course, Hawking's opinion does not factor in all of the above. As he states, it would be difficult, which does not imply inevitability.
Straggler writes:
The case remains closed. You just haven't realised it. And probably never will.
I won't, so long as you keep on keeping on touting your falsified position, ever so anxious to close the case.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 12-12-2011 6:29 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2011 7:55 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 304 (643917)
12-13-2011 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Rrhain
12-12-2011 2:52 AM


Re: Same Ole.
Rrhain writes:
Your insistence that somehow the entropy of the universe decreases is a direct violation of the second law.
Rrhain, have you been reading? Read, carefully and thoughtfully, my responses to Straggler relative to the above.
Rrhain writes:
First, the universe isn't open. That's the entire point.
Rrhain, this is just one example of why, often, my time is wasted responding to you. You're just repeating what has been addressed. I've never alleged that the Universe is an open system. You should know that by now, if you've been paying attention.
All systems within the Universe are open. That's my position.
Rrhain writes:
Second, open systems within the universe are irrelevant.
You've chosen to ignored their relevancy to this debate.
Rrhain writes:
And then there's that "prolong the state of equilibrium" nonsense.
Again; never has been my position.
Rrhain writes:
We can't read your mind.
I'm not asking you to. All I'm asking is for you to read, more carefully what I say before responding.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Rrhain, posted 12-12-2011 2:52 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 199 of 304 (643935)
12-13-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
12-12-2011 8:12 PM


Re: BB Model Case Re-opened
Buz writes:
Since the Universe is not in a state of equilibrium, driving forces within the system are operative.
Exactly. Which means that your non-expanding universe cannot have existed for eternity because the second law of dynamics tells us that such a universe would inevitably be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium if it had.
After an eternity of increasing entropy a state of equilibrium would inevitably have been reached. That is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us.
Buz writes:
The definition of tendency, as per the the Merriam Webster Dictionary:...
You are basing your entire argument on the the Merriam Webster Dictionary definition of "tendency"?
Wiki writes:
For isolated systems, entropy never decreases. This fact has several important consequences in science: first, it prohibits "perpetual motion" machines; and second, it implies the arrow of entropy has the same directionality as the arrow of time.
Wiki writes:
As time progresses, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. Hence, from this perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock.
Buz writes:
Where did I say the entropy of the entire universe only ever increases?
You haven't said that. But the second law of thermodynamics does say that. That is the problem with your model. It contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.
Case closed. Still.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 12-12-2011 8:12 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Son, posted 12-13-2011 9:47 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 203 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2011 10:32 PM Straggler has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 200 of 304 (643942)
12-13-2011 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Straggler
12-13-2011 7:55 AM


Re: BB Model Case Re-opened
Actually, I think the word "tendency" is sometime used for entropy because there's a small probability that for a short period of time, in a small closed system, the entropy could decrease. Entropy is about probability, it's just that over a long period of time in a big closed space, the law of great numbers will make an increase in entropy inevitable. If I'm incorrect, someone who knows more about it could correct me.
Otherwise, what you said is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2011 7:55 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2011 10:35 AM Son has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 201 of 304 (643948)
12-13-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Son
12-13-2011 9:47 AM


Re: BB Model Case Re-opened
The effect you are talking about is only relevant to microscopic fluctuations.
Wiki writes:
Statistically it is possible for a system to achieve moments of non-equilibrium. In such statistically unlikely events where hot particles "steal" the energy of cold particles enough that the cold side gets colder and the hot side gets hotter, for an instant. Such events have been observed at a small enough scale where the likelihood of such a thing happening is significant.[15] The physics involved in such an event is described by the fluctuation theorem.
Wiki writes:
Note that the FT does not state that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong or invalid. The second law of thermodynamics is a statement about macroscopic systems. The FT is more general. It can be applied to both microscopic and macroscopic systems. When applied to macroscopic systems, the FT is equivalent to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Even BUz isn't going to claim that the universe is a microscopic system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Son, posted 12-13-2011 9:47 AM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Son, posted 12-13-2011 10:42 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 202 of 304 (643951)
12-13-2011 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Straggler
12-13-2011 10:35 AM


Re: BB Model Case Re-opened
Thanks for reminding me of that. What I meant is that there's still a (very) low probability that for an instant, entropy decreases in small system (the probability being lower the larger the system considered). The way I understand it, the probability of such a thing happening even on a macrocospic scale is never 0 but it's so low it isn't taken into account for practical purposes. However, because there's still an infetisimal chance, you see the word "tendency" being used to be more accurate even though it could be misleading to someone scientifically illiterate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2011 10:35 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Son Goku, posted 12-14-2011 6:46 AM Son has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 304 (643997)
12-13-2011 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Straggler
12-13-2011 7:55 AM


Re: BB Model Case Closed
Straggler writes:
Buz writes:
Since the Universe is not in a state of equilibrium, driving forces within the system are operative.
Exactly. Which means that your non-expanding universe cannot have existed for eternity because the second law of dynamics tells us that such a universe would inevitably be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium if it had.
I've been doing some reading up on Wiki's Second Law Of Thermodynamics relative to the application of useful work, as follows:
quote:
Available useful workSee also: Available useful work (thermodynamics)
An important and revealing idealized special case is to consider applying the Second Law to the scenario of an isolated system (called the total system or universe), made up of two parts: a sub-system of interest, and the sub-system's surroundings. These surroundings are imagined to be so large that they can be considered as an unlimited heat reservoir at temperature TR and pressure PR so that no matter how much heat is transferred to (or from) the sub-system, the temperature of the surroundings will remain TR; and no matter how much the volume of the sub-system expands (or contracts), the pressure of the surroundings will remain PR.
Whatever changes to dS and dSR occur in the entropies of the sub-system and the surroundings individually, according to the Second Law the entropy Stot of the isolated total system must not decrease:
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, the change dU in the internal energy of the sub-system is the sum of the heat q added to the sub-system, less any work w done by the sub-system, plus any net chemical energy entering the sub-system d iRNi, so that:
where iR are the chemical potentials of chemical species in the external surroundings.
Now the heat leaving the reservoir and entering the sub-system is
where we have first used the definition of entropy in classical thermodynamics (alternatively, in statistical thermodynamics, the relation between entropy change, temperature and absorbed heat can be derived); and then the Second Law inequality from above.
It therefore follows that any net work w done by the sub-system must obey
It is useful to separate the work w done by the subsystem into the useful work wu that can be done by the sub-system, over and beyond the work pR dV done merely by the sub-system expanding against the surrounding external pressure, giving the following relation for the useful work that can be done:
It is convenient to define the right-hand-side as the exact derivative of a thermodynamic potential, called the availability or exergy X of the subsystem,
The Second Law therefore implies that for any process which can be considered as divided simply into a subsystem, and an unlimited temperature and pressure reservoir with which it is in contact,
i.e. the change in the subsystem's exergy plus the useful work done by the subsystem (or, the change in the subsystem's exergy less any work, additional to that done by the pressure reservoir, done on the system) must be less than or equal to zero.
In sum, if a proper infinite-reservoir-like reference state is chosen as the system surroundings in the real world, then the Second Law predicts a decrease in X for an irreversible process and no change for a reversible process.
Is equivalent to
This expression together with the associated reference state permits a design engineer working at the macroscopic scale (above the thermodynamic limit) to utilize the Second Law without directly measuring or considering entropy change in a total isolated system. (Also, see process engineer).
Those changes have already been considered by the assumption that the system under consideration can reach equilibrium with the reference state without altering the reference state. An efficiency for a process or collection of processes that compares it to the reversible ideal may also be found (See second law efficiency.)
This approach to the Second Law is widely utilized in engineering practice, environmental accounting, systems ecology, and other disciplines.to the formal energy created may not be supportive but it can be created from one form to another form ..it can be also called as conservation of energy .,
(Color mine for emphasis)
The above entropy scenario is descriptive of the working eternal engineer/entity within the Universe capable of effecting the conservation of energy within the Universe system. There is a zero net change in the total entropy of the closed system (Universe), thus satisfying compatibility to the 1st Law Of Thermodynamics.
I've emphasized the term, classical thermodynamics so as to make a point that the application of the 2nd law as you state it in your response above depicts the common application of the law, assuming no intelligent designing(ID) manager/engineer eternally at work.
This eternal application of work would prevent the Universe from reaching a state of equilibrium, as per Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Phrase change

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2011 7:55 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by PaulK, posted 12-14-2011 1:50 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 211 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2011 8:32 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 204 of 304 (644000)
12-14-2011 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Buzsaw
12-13-2011 10:32 PM


Infinite energy again
quote:
The above entropy scenario is descriptive of the working eternal engineer/entity within the Universe capable of effecting the conservation of energy within the Universe system. There is a zero net change in the total entropy of the closed system (Universe), thus satisfying compatibility to the 1st Law Of Thermodynamics.
Of course, because your system - unlike those described in the article - is infinitely old - you require a genuinely infinite energy source in the "surroundings". So you've gone back to insisting on an infinite energy source again (i.e. a perpetual motion machine).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Buzsaw, posted 12-13-2011 10:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Buzsaw, posted 12-14-2011 7:35 AM PaulK has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 304 (644012)
12-14-2011 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Son
12-13-2011 10:42 AM


Re: BB Model Case Re-opened
You are correct, entropy is a statistical quantity used in statistical mechanics. Hence it is possible, no matter how large the system is, for there to be fluctuations where the entropy decreases.
The larger the system the smaller the fluctuations, so unless the system is very small these fluctuations are extremely rare and ignoring them is an excellent approximation (the second best approximation in science). Usually we make the mathematical approximation of making the systems infinitely large, in that limit entropy always increases. So we usually work with this infinite volume limit of statistical mechanics, which is thermodynamics. So in thermodynamics entropy always increases, but in statistical mechanics one only has a (very strong) tendency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Son, posted 12-13-2011 10:42 AM Son has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 304 (644020)
12-14-2011 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by PaulK
12-14-2011 1:50 AM


Re: Infinite energy again
PaulK writes:
Of course, because your system - unlike those described in the article - is infinitely old - you require a genuinely infinite energy source in the "surroundings". So you've gone back to insisting on an infinite energy source again (i.e. a perpetual motion machine).
The difference in my system and a perpetual motion machine would be that in any machine there is friction. In my reading I noticed that this friction would be the difference , in some cases, between the possibility of a perpetual motion machine and no possibility, relative to the work factor of the 2nd law stated in the Wiki link.
ABE: In my perpetual engineered work system, there would be no friction in that it is not a perpetual machine, perse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Buzsaw, : Add statement

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by PaulK, posted 12-14-2011 1:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 7:44 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 12-14-2011 8:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 207 of 304 (644021)
12-14-2011 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Buzsaw
12-14-2011 7:35 AM


Re: Infinite energy again
The difference in my system and a perpetual motion machine would be that in any machine there is friction.
Your system includes the universe. There is friction in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Buzsaw, posted 12-14-2011 7:35 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Larni, posted 12-14-2011 8:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 210 by Buzsaw, posted 12-14-2011 8:22 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 208 of 304 (644022)
12-14-2011 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2011 7:44 AM


Re: Infinite energy again
Your system includes the universe. There is friction in the universe.
Not if you use magic to remove it. I think that is what Buz (unfortunately) means.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 7:44 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 209 of 304 (644023)
12-14-2011 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Buzsaw
12-14-2011 7:35 AM


Re: Infinite energy again
quote:
The difference in my system and a perpetual motion machine would be that in any machine there is friction. In my reading I noticed that this friction would be the difference , in some cases, between the possibility of a perpetual motion machine and no possibility, relative to the work factor of the 2nd law stated in the Wiki link.
No, that is not the difference. An infinite energy source is a perpetual motion machine and that is what you need. If you have infinite energy friction is not a concern. If you do not, then you have failed to address the problem.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Buzsaw, posted 12-14-2011 7:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 304 (644025)
12-14-2011 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Dr Adequate
12-14-2011 7:44 AM


Re: Infinite energy again
Dr Adequate writes:
Your system includes the universe. There is friction in the universe.
But in my system there is no friction effected between the transfer of energy from the sub-system, i.e. engineer/working ID entity to the sub-system's surroundings.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2011 7:44 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2011 8:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024