Summations Only

Your link, relative to the 2nd law begins thus:

quote:

---

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system

---

Notice that the tendency of entropy is to increase until equilibrium is reached. That is the tendency. Tendency does not require inevitability necessarily. That tendency can be reversed via open systems within the Universe, thus prolonging the state of equilibrium.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.There is ample corroborative observable evidence supportive to the hypothesis that this entity exists, thus, the EvC evolution vs creation debate as to which is more thermodynamically compatible, the BB evolution model or the Buzsaw Biblical model.Both models have unknowns. Neither has absolute proof. Nobody has observed the genesis of the Universe or of life. We have vastly more observable physical evidence of claims in the Biblical record than we do of the BB and biogenesis of life.

quote:

---

There is dispute over whether or not an expanding universe can approach maximal entropy; it has been proposed that in an expanding universe, the value of maximum entropy increases faster than the universe gains entropy, causing the universe to move progressively further away from heat death.[citation needed] (See Ludwig Boltzmann#The Second Law as a law of disorder)

---

The above is just one example of disputes about entropy, etc. No it doesn't. It calls for decreases within the system capable of management via work, compatible with the 2nd law and observable evidence within the system.

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. 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.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.

---

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. 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. 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. I won't, so long as you keep on keeping on touting your falsified position, ever so anxious to close the case.

Rrhain, have you been reading? Read, carefully and thoughtfully, my responses to Straggler relative to the above. 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. You've chosen to ignored their relevancy to this debate. Again; never has been my position. I'm not asking you to. All I'm asking is for you to read, more carefully what I say before responding.

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

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

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.

My bad. I posted this without thinking that it is only the total energy of the system does not change.

The ID entity, engineering (compatible to the 2nd Law) system) effects a fluctuation of the net entropy of the system, the net change in the system's energy remaining at zero as per the first law of thermodynamics .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Buzsaw, : strike out "net"

Oh. So you've observed entropy increasing uniformity for the 1st 13 1/2 BYA? What did the Universe look like 4 1/2 BYA? How about 5 BYA? You've observed all that exists, beyond the range of our telescopes, etc? You've observed chaos and disorder advancing all of the way up to the order and complexity that we have, including the primordial stuff forming into orderly stars, planets, etc,? You've observed primordial soup coming to life all the way to now? You've observed what set off a submicroscopic hot chaotic speck suddenly appearing to expand into all of the order and wonderment observed?You're an amazing person to observe all of that magic, Straggler. Was that in your other life? If ever increasing entropy can do all of that naturally, who should want an engineered decrease in entropy?Edited by Buzsaw, : Change punctuation and eliminate word

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that nobody has seen a net increase in entropy since the alleged singularity.

Malcolm, I said this in response to Dr. Adequate's statement:

quote:

---

The fact is that nobody has seen a net increase in entropy since the alleged singularity.

---

Malcolm, I ask you the same question. Have you seen a net increase in entropy since the alleged singularity?

Yes. Thanks for asking. The process is wonderful. One of my sons has cameras and techy which shows them forming in slow motion. There are physical observable magnifying techy which blows up the image to any desirable extent. Likely, if you recall, you've seen them also. We can watch it happen regularly. we have absolute proof of the before, present and after of the rain drop.On the other hand, you, Cavediver, none of us human-kind have ever seen anything having no evidence of a before, outside of, timeless, space-less, etc. event such as the magical myth of the alleged singularity and BB which has been indoctrinated into the impressionable minds of the sheeple science students of our educational institutions.

First let me ask you this, Straggler. Would the engineering work processes (relative to 2LoT) of creating the cup all the way from natural material to the intelligent designing and creation of the cup which you lifted be more indicative of an increase or decrease of entropy?

Which is more physically observable, Hooah? The alleged space-less, timeless, singularity having no outside of or area in which to expand, etc. or the return of Jews and re-instated nation of Israel after 1900 plus years of global dispersion as per the Biblical prophecies?

Mmm, Thanks, Jar. I'll add that to my list of impossibilities relative to the alleged singularity.

If you or other like-minded sheeple, can think of other impossibilities or un-observables which could be added to my list, I'd like to be apprised of them also, so as to expand the list of expansion impossibilities. Mmm, given the singularity was all of the above, including no object from which anything could emerge, you sheeple really do believe in magic, don't you?What's you problem with it: not magical enough for you to buy into?