|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3830 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Member (Idle past 3830 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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: (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 changeBUZSAW 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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 statementBUZSAW 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024