Summations Only

The links given by Moose establish that what I said was true.Firstly I will point out that the only way to establish your performance in THAT debate is to use your original idea, of an infinite energy source. That you later changed it is irrelevant to the question we are discussing here.Secondly, it is a fact that Jar concentrated on the First Law arguing that an infinite energy source did violate it while you retreated to a technicality. If Jar had argued, as I did in the second thread that an infinite energy source was indistinguishable from the creation of energy and made the First Law moot, he would have had a better point.Thirdly as Dr. Adequate has argued here an infinite energy source does break the Second Law. I made similar argument in the second thread. Your reply that you have adjusted your position implicitly admits the truth of this criticism (although it is far from clear that even your new position is compatible with the 2LoT).In conclusion, it can be said that your original position was fully compatible with neither the First nor the Second law. It can also be said that Jar failed to adequately argue even the first point, and did not touch on the second. These issues WERE raised in the following thread and you could not answer them. Thus it is proven that a stronger opponent could have won. I give the result as a draw since although Jar did not make the most of his argument against you, Jar was still largely correct and your appeal to the technicalities of infinity did not truly refute his point. Nor did you even argue on the Second law in the Great Debate, despite assuming the existence of what amounts to a perpetual motion machine.

If you read the OP his main claim is that he won the debate with Jar, and not just because Jar's arguments were weak. He wants to "prove" this by starting a new debate where he defends a different position, because his original position was shown to be false.You might note a certain tension between the claim that his original position was true and could not have been defeated if he had faced a better opponent and the fact that he admits that he had to change it - and the thing he had to drop (infinite energy) was the very point that Jar was arguing against.Secondly Buz wishes to prove that his opinions are better than mainstream science on the grounds that his views are compatible with thermodynamics and mainstream cosmology is not. The fact that he doesn't fully understand what he is talking about doesn't seem to deter him.

Buz, it seems that you don't actually want to discuss your clarified topic at all. Aside from the fact that the first two posts are mainly about past discussions you have yet to lay to even properly explain your current position, let alone argue for your conclusion.And already you are talking about redefining science because you keep losing arguments ! Without even explaining how you want to redefine it. That's reason enough to call off any debate in the first place (even before we consider the fact that the context suggests that you want to be allowed to invent "facts", ban contrary evidence, and institutionalise bias in favour of your views).

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).

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.

quote:

---

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

---

Of course that's not true. Increases in net entropy are all around us. The sun, just by shining, increases net entropy - radiating huge amounts of energy into empty space. And that is just one of many, many stars. It is the reversible thermodynamic events which do not increase entropy that are the rarity. Your universe, where no increases in net entropy ever occur is not ours.

Obviously it would involve a net increase in entropy.

Buz, instead of being cryptic all the time why don't you explain your point. Are you claiming that your "intelligent designer" can decrease the total entropy of the universe ? Just by doing work ? Indefinitely with only a finite amount of energy ? If not, then what is the point of bringing it up at all ?

But you will notice that he DOESN'T know what he's talking about and a lot of the posts have gone into trying to get him to explain what he means, because he's not being very clear.Some history for you.Buz once managed not to lose a Great Debate, but only because his opponent missed some points which killed Buz's argument. This is his greatest achievement here and he is somewhat obsessed with it.THat argument was over whether his ideas were consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and he argued that with an infinite energy source he could technically avoid breaking the law (although an infinite energy source tramples all over thermodynamics). The problems were raised at the same time as the Great Debate, and perhaps the biggest development in this thread is that Buz has abandoned the idea of an infinite energy source. Which leaves him with his universe breaking the 2nd law.Buz also has a big grudge against modern cosmology. He hates it and reuses to understand it. With his pride over his "victory" of years ago he decides that thermodynamics MUST be an area where his ideas are "better" than real science. Even though his objections to Big Bang cosmology have nothing to do with cosmology (they are also nonsensical and Buz can't defend them but he doesn't let those facts interfere with his faith in himself). And to top it all off he makes nasty comments about "brainwashed sheeple" because nobody is stupid enough to believe his rubbish.So, at present the score on the topic is:Buz's universe is incompatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which he rejects.Buz babbles nonsense about standard cosmology which has nothing to do with thermodynamics.Therefore Buz loses the argument - and never even had a chance of winning. But, pride goes before a fall and Buz has lots of pride.

Chuck, didn't you notice the thread title? Buz is claiming that his ideas are more compatible with thermodynamics than the standard view of physicists. If he has to reject the 2LoT then his view is incompatible, full stop. His right to theorise isn't in question, but he's got no right to make false claims and expect people to agree with them.

1) Infinite energy breaks thermodynamics. In fact infinite energy gives a perpetual motion machine. Any theory which assumes infinite energy is inconsistent with thermodynamics.2) The net entropy of our universe is increasing.3) Given that we have only a finite amount of energy our universe can only go on as it is for a finite period of time before all the energy in it becomes unavailable to do work - heat death.Buz's only answer to this is to assume that his intelligent designer CAN break the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Of course, because the 2nd law rules out any net decrease in entropy, this simply means that the entropy of the surroundings increases by at least as much as the entropy of the system decreases. Only by violating the 2nd law (whether by assuming a perpetual motion machine or simply assuming that a net decrease in entropy is possible) can Buz escape the inevitability of a finite past for the universe as we know it.So, Buz's universe definitely violates the 2nd law.Standard physics on the other hand requires no such violations, nor has Buz raised a reasonable argument that it does. It does not assume any increase in energy or decrease in entropy since the singularity. Whether there even was a "before" the singularity is still an open question - so there is no need to assume that the singularity itself represents a violation of either law either (such a violation would require a prior state - if there is none, there can be no violation).So, as has been obvious for a long time, the universe as depicted by standard physics is compatible with the 3 laws of thermodynamics - and Buz's infinite universe is not.