Summations Only

how about showing how you define entropy. That might be a start to show where you are going wrong.

As per my hypothesis, how does that equate to the definition of entropy on the Free Online Dictionary?

quote:

---

entropy (ntr-p)
n. pl. entropies
1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

---

Edited by Buzsaw, : edit colored

Perhaps if you can answer my question to Straggler in Message 257 you can figure out the answer to your question.Of course the finite amount of energy which is capable of being worked/engineered by my engineer Jehovah, the Biblical god amounts to all of the energy existing in the infinite unbounded space & infinite time of the Universe/system. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by Buzsaw, : edit gold color

There it be in Message 257, Theodoric. Go for a falsifying response to my hypothesis relative to the definition.

the second law of thermodynamics is about thermodynamics, therefore definition #2 is not relevant to this discussion.

As per the Online Free Dictionary definition of entropy, it is only a measurement of the amount of "thermal energy not available to do work" and the amount of "disorder or randomness" in the system.It does not specify that the entropy of the system must always increase. That is an assumption based on Cavedivers/your conventional science uniformitarion expansion. theory which defies logic and violates these basic laws of science
theory. .

quote:

---

1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buz, you really should stop tinkering with science unless you are willing to learn something about it first.First, you have no talent for it.Second, your approach is the exact opposite of real science. You are not looking for answers, you are trying to force your religious beliefs into a scientific framework. They don't fit.Third, for those of who do know something about various fields of science it is very painful to watch you floundering about.Fourth, you're not convincing anyone. You're just making yourself and your cause look foolish.======

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.

​

― Thomas Aquinas

This is a corollary of something known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you may have heard of it. Link.

No, that is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If in the name of your "Infinite ID Universe" you wish to deny that this is the case, then your ideas are not "3LoT Compatible", what with them involving a denial of one of the three laws.

Buz, old bean, you have proven your ability to copy and paste text from online dictionaries. However, what you have failed to do (quite miserably, I might add) is display a working knowledge of the words with which you copy/paste said definitions of. It is easy to "know" a word and have no actual clue as to how to accurately, or even effectively, use it in proper discussion. It would be seen as almost heroic if you admitted that you don't actually understand these words and asked for help in getting a working definition. It has become tiresome reading your posts in which you slop a bunch of smart sounding words together that make the sentence they appear in altogether unintelligible.I say all that to say this: it is increasingly apparent that you've not the foggiest idea what entropy means in the sense you are attempting to use it and the sense the rest of us recognize as being pertinent to this discussion.

The 2LoT may be expressed in different ways, one of the most prominent being
the Clausius Statement, It depends on the processes of the system.According to the Clausius Statement, if the sole purpose of the process is to transfer heat to a higher temperature from a lower temperature, that would be impossible. That would be applicable if the process is spontaneous. In my system the transfer of heat is not spontaneous. It is intelligently designed by a working engineer.So far as I am aware, 2LoT does not specify that the system must be a spontaneous system.

Just stay aboard, Hooah. Keep your keys cool unless you have something substantive to contribute. Perhaps, even ole man Buz can teach you something edifying.

This is the Freeforall Forum, Coyote. the only place I can do science of any nature, until I get around to getting up a thread on the nature of science. As I understand it some tinkering is permissible in this forum. My approach involves a lot of what I read about from esteemed sources and cite links on, pertaining to 2LoT. If that's not real science, members should refrain from citing some of it themselves. No?Who's forces their science on who, here at EvC, Coyote? It's my stuff that has been the most restricted, moderated, censored or outright banned. . Well, man, nobody's forcing you to read it. I appreciate your input when it's something besides demeaning the person. How would you know if I'm not convincing anyone, Coyote? Only God knows what goes on in the minds of guests and members who do not express an opinion.

The second law doesn't make exceptions for engineers. On the contrary. It says that such a system can't exist. Therefore, an engineer can't make one.

I counted eight members debating Buz on JUST the last two pages alone. Eight.For someone who apperantly doesn't know jack squat about what even the Lots mean he sure garners much attention. Keep it up boys. When you think you have someone down don't let up. It's what all the best debaters do, well, not really but it sure is amusing to watch.