The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Hah.

A degree in Math does not mean you will automatically know what the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is.

Maths and Science are different fields of study, but Math might help you to do some of the calculations in Science.

Originally posted by buffalobill
Prove it.

It is a Law of Physics. More specifically the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Ever heard of it?

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]It might surprise you that Science and Mathematics are totally unrelated.

What???? do you define maths as the pursuit of counting how many fingers one has?😕[/b]

What???? do you define maths as the pursuit of counting how many fingers one has?😕

Mathematics would certainly help you to do that, however, there are quite a few better uses of Mathematics than that.

Originally posted by buffalobill
Well, I'm also surprised.

I bet you must have gone to the school where they do the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics theorem in Mathematics...

Originally posted by dj2becker
I bet you must have gone to the school where they do the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics theorem in Mathematics...

The second law is most precisely stated mathematically.

Originally posted by GregM
The second law is most precisely stated mathematically.

Indeed. But a degee in Maths will not warrant an understanding of the Physics and Chemistry involved in the 2nd law, as twithead has so accurately demonstrated.

Originally posted by dj2becker
It might surprise you that Science and Mathematics are totally unrelated.

That would surprise anyone with the capacity to actually form coherent thoughts.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]An external source [b]CAN cause an increase in order.[/b]

Momentarily, yes. I agree. But the overall NET order of the universe is still decreasing, according to the 2nd Law. Do you dispute that?

And your claims that have been proved wrong? "No chemical left to itself will form a more complex chemical."

I'll type this slowly and hope ...[text shortened]... ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex."[/b]

Complexity and order are polar opposites. Let me illustrate.

Imagine a large table with coins from different countries and different denominations all mixed up together. This system is very complex. You could describe it mathematically, but it'd be hard.

Imagine someone comes along and sorts those coins into piles based upon their country of origin and denomination. The system is less complex, and more orderly. Our brains can process the piles of coins much more easily, because things are more ordered, and less complex. This requires an input of energy to sort the coins out, but leads to a more ordered, but less complex system, with lower entropy.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
I am correct in my assertion. I too could whip out my 'qualifications', but, it sounds awfully like a penis size competition to me. Traditionally I haven't done so well in these and tend to avoid them.

dj2becker asked what my qualifications were and I told him. I think his intention was to claim that he is better qualified and therefore correct, which is a sign that he really doesn't understand how science works.

Ever play Jenga? A molecule is like a Jenga puzzle game tower with a couple of blocks removed. It wants to fall down(or be reduced to its smallest stable component) and will do so with appropriate environmental pressures.
A molecule is actually in a state of lower potential energy than the individual atoms when separated. So your analogy to a jenga tower where the tower is in a state of higher potential energy than when fallen down is clearly false.

Even in the abscence of elevated temperature, oxygen, pressure or a host of other variables, the molecule/element will be subject to arbitrarily small disturbance that will cause a nuclear decay event.
I didn't think we were talking about nuclear decay but rather chemical compounds breaking up. Do you have any reference to back up your claim that all elements are radioactive?

Add infinity to the closed system and you will, ultimately, you will end up with a uniform, slightly radioactive system.
That is wrong and you should know it. Any closed system has an element of gravity and the matter will tend to cluster in a bunch.

Originally posted by dj2becker
It might surprise you that Science and Mathematics are totally unrelated.

It might surprise you then that I was in the school of natural sciences and that some physics courses were part of the mathematics degree.
It also might surprise you to know that you cannot hope to learn science without understanding some basic mathematics.

Anyway all that is besides the point and probably just another of your attempts to avoid admitting you are wrong. What my qualifications are is irrelevant as I have provided sufficient evidence to show that some of your claims are false and it is up to you to either admit it or provide an alternative explanation for my evidence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
And these statements are wrong why exactly?

I have already explained most of them as you well know but choose to ignore. I will go through them again.

I agree that No1 may not be a false statement and I oppologise for incorrectly saying it was so. I was wrong.

Now

2.
Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
I went through this before but if as you claim "empirical observation" shows that "things tend towards disorder" then we would be observing increased disorder over time. Can you show that the world is more disordered than it was last year?
Also you state that the theory of evolution claims that "precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began".
The theory makes no claims about what has happened before life began nor does it make any claims about a closed system (the whole universe) and as such makes no claims that the second law can correctly be applied to.

3.
Originally posted by dj2becker
A localised decrease in entropy still requires a complex intelligent mechanism.
I have already shown that gravity alone can result in a localised decrease in entropy. Do you deny this or do you claim that gravity is an intelligent mechanism?

4.
Originally posted by dj2becker
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
The break up of a water molecule is endothermic and requires an input of energy. Do you deny this or do you claim that the law of conservation of energy is incorrect?

5.
Originally posted by dj2becker
Carbon dioxide is never formed by the random collision of Carbon and Oxygen, as you would want to have it.
That is exactly how it is formed.(In some instances) Do you have any alternative explanation for the combustion of carbon in oxygen?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Complexity and order are polar opposites. Let me illustrate.

Imagine a large table with coins from different countries and different denominations all mixed up together. This system is very complex. You could describe it mathematically, but it'd be hard.

Imagine someone comes along and sorts those coins into piles based upon their country of or ...[text shortened]... o sort the coins out, but leads to a more ordered, but less complex system, with lower entropy.

And your point is what?

That an intelligent sorting mechanism is required to create order from chaos?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have already explained most of them as you well know but choose to ignore. I will go through them again.

I agree that No1 may not be a false statement and I oppologise for incorrectly saying it was so. I was wrong.



2.
Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly underst instances) Do you have any alternative explanation for the combustion of carbon in oxygen?

I went through this before but if as you claim "empirical observation" shows that "things tend towards disorder" then we would be observing increased disorder over time. Can you show that the world is more disordered than it was last year?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust. Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.

Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092, 1981), p. 18.

I have already shown that gravity alone can result in a localised decrease in entropy. Do you deny this or do you claim that gravity is an intelligent mechanism?

What? Gravity causes an increase in entropy. Jump down a cliff and you will surely find it out the hard way. Your body will be less ordered than it was before gravity took effect.

My reference to an intelligent mechanism still stands. Any utilization of energy to form order from chaos requires some intelligent sorting mechanism.

The break up of a water molecule is endothermic and requires an input of energy. Do you deny this or do you claim that the law of conservation of energy is incorrect?

When a water molecule is broken up there is a decrease in order.

That is exactly how it is formed.(In some instances) Do you have any alternative explanation for the combustion of carbon in oxygen?

Combustion requires an input of energy. Carbon and oxygen don't just randomly collide to form CO2.

Originally posted by dj2becker
And your point is what?

That an intelligent sorting mechanism is required to create order from chaos?

No, just that a sorting mechanism is required. Also that energy is required.

And, of course, to put paid to your silly notions that a non-rusty car door is less complex than a rusty car door.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, just that a sorting mechanism is required. Also that energy is required.

And, of course, to put paid to your silly notions that a non-rusty car door is less complex than a rusty car door.

Let me know when you find a non-intelligent sorting mechanism that creates order from chaos.

And let me know when you find a rusty car door that does not decay because of the rust.