The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by adam warlock
Cause a closed system can exchange energy with the outside. at least that was the definition i've learned.

Was that grade 1 or grade 2?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Was that grade 1 or grade 2?

what are those?

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Yes I suggest that the Sun's energy helped create life. If that is enough or not does not matter to the question at hand. You are using a law of physics to claim abiogenesis and evolution are impossible. We've shown that the law of physics you cite does not apply to these processes. So whatever mechanism we propose for the formation of life on Eart ...[text shortened]... were wrong before. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not preclude evolution or abiogenesis.

In reality, open systems are just as prone to the second law as closed systems. It is simple to prove this is the case, and thus to show you that your claim is all wet.


Originally, entropy was defined in terms of heat, particularly:

dS = dQ/T

where dS is the change in entropy, dQ is the change in heat, and T is temperature.

We can express this definition of entropy in terms of energy instead of heat by noting that heat energy is E = kT (where k is Boltzmann’s constant).

Expressing this as a differential, we trivially obtain:
dE = k dT.

Since k dT = dQ, we can equate dE = dQ.


So it is that by adding energy into a system from the outside (what is meant by the term “open system&rdquo😉, we add heat and the entropy increases; that is, adding energy (dE > 0) means heat is added (dQ > 0), and so, by the definition of entropy (first equation above),
dS > 0.

Thus we see that adding energy into a system does not increase the order (decrease the entropy) but instead, increases the entropy (disorder). In other words, adding energy to a room from the outside, by means of a tornado, for example, increases the entropy (disorder) of the room.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:VMxCD9PDUI4J:www.geocentricity.com/creationism/open_systems_and_entropy.pdf

Originally posted by dj2becker
In reality, open systems are just as prone to the second law as closed systems. It is simple to prove this is the case, and thus to show you that your claim is all wet.


Originally, entropy was defined in terms of heat, particularly:

dS = dQ/T

where dS is the change in entropy, dQ is the change in heat, and T is temperature.

We can express thi ...[text shortened]... the outside, by means of a tornado, for example, increases the entropy (disorder) of the
room.

ok. but then the entropy of the outside decreases and all is back to normal. if you're dealing with open systems you have to deal with from the start to the end.

Originally posted by dj2becker
In reality, open systems are just as prone to the second law as closed systems. It is simple to prove this is the case, and thus to show you that your claim is all wet.


Originally, entropy was defined in terms of heat, particularly:

dS = dQ/T

where dS is the change in entropy, dQ is the change in heat, and T is temperature.

We can express thi ...[text shortened]... the outside, by means of a tornado, for example, increases the entropy (disorder) of the
room.

Where did you copy and paste that from?

Originally posted by adam warlock
ok. but then the entropy of the outside decreases and all is back to normal. if you're dealing with open systems you have to deal with from the start to the end.

So now suddenly the 2nd law applies to open systems? I thought you said that it only applied to closed systems a moment ago?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So now suddenly the 2nd law applies to open systems? I thought you said that it only applied to closed systems a moment ago?

when did i say that now the second law applies to open systems? when i said that you had to deal with open systems from the start to the end i meant your reasoning. and dS=dQ/T has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics. the second law is dS>0 when the system is isolated.
if you don't believe in me go check the landau and lifschitz book. or any other book on thermodynamics

Originally posted by adam warlock
Cause a closed system can exchange energy with the outside. at least that was the definition i've learned.

A closed system implies that there is no interaction with the outside.

Originally posted by dj2becker
A closed system implies that there is no interaction with the outside.

we have three types of systems:
open- everything is exchanged
closed- only energy is exchanged
isolated- nothing is exchanged
and those are the usual denominations. you can have you own of course but that way you won't communicate that well.
if you ever knew this things i can see your forgetting them so please go study them. and i don't say this in a bad way.

Originally posted by adam warlock
we have three types of systems:
open- everything is exchanged
closed- only matter is exchanged
isolated- nothing is exchanged
and those are the usual denominations. you can have you own of course but that way you won't communicate that well.
if you ever knew this things i can see your forgetting them so please go study them. and i don't say this in a bad way.

My response was deleted because I almost swore and the robomod killed it despite the ****s I used. Sorry.

I was about to post this and some other stuff. We've been being non-rigorous, you are right, in our use of system definitions. Should have been saying isolated sometims.

Anyway
DJ: I'm glad to see you finally at least resorting to thermodynamic arguments.

The proof and equality DJ got to in his post only shows that heat energy is equal to heat. (No ****, here's where I got in trouble before). All the math is really there to confuse people I suspect.

Anyway, the reason it doesn't work is that entropy, using the correct rigorous definition, divides by T. The temperature of a system must be in equilbirum for the system (isotropic) for T to be defined. In a non equilbrium system, T is undefined and the math doesn't work. In large systems, like the universe as a whole, we can "fake it" because the overall system is relativly isotropic and on huge scale events the temperature is close enough to constant throughout that it doesn't really hurt us. The temperatures of the Earth are more anisotropic and out of equilbrium than the universe as a whole. Instead of relativly tiny blips like stars (on a universal scale), large percentages of the system are below freezing while others are swealtering. There are always huge temperature differentials on the planet, due largely to uneven imput of energy from the Sun. So the "proof" that the 2nd law applies equally to open systems is wrong because of the definition of entropy.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
My response was deleted because I almost swore and the robomod killed it despite the ****s I used. Sorry.

I was about to post this and some other stuff. We've been being non-rigorous, you are right, in our use of system definitions. Should have been saying isolated sometims.

Anyway
DJ: I'm glad to see you finally at least resorting to thermod ...[text shortened]... differentials on the planet, due largely to unever imput of energy from the Sun.

ok. but the other reason that his prove fails, and this is the bigger one. is that the entropy of the surroundings has to be taken into account too. and if we do that, the entropy of the isolated system, the universe, stays unchanged. if we want to be picky, it actually increases because we have to take into acount friction.
and you are right there's no point in proving that energy and heat are the same thing. thanks to Watt we know that from a long time.

Originally posted by dj2becker
What makes the ocean more complex than an amoeba? The fact that it contains life?

No, you idiot; an ocean without life would be a far more complex system than a one celled animal. However, if it'll help you avoid confusion, substitute "the Sun" for "oceans" in the sentence and explain how the chemical reactions in an amoeba are more complex than the nuclear fusion taking place at the center of the Sun.

Your error is the Man centered view of the Universe that your primitive religion espouses which regards life as something magical and fundamentally different from non-life. This is wrong. There is nothing extraordinary about bacteria (which is composed of the same elements as everything else - as are we) arising on Earth. And since that is what abiogenesis was about i.e. the appearance of very simple "living" things which are less complex than many other non living ones, your argument has a flawed conceptual basis (disregarding its other errors for a moment).

Originally posted by adam warlock
we have three types of systems:
open- everything is exchanged
closed- only energy is exchanged
isolated- nothing is exchanged
and those are the usual denominations. you can have you own of course but that way you won't communicate that well.
if you ever knew this things i can see your forgetting them so please go study them. and i don't say this in a bad way.

So according to this the universe is not a closed system? Tell that to Scotty...😛

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, you idiot; an ocean without life would be a far more complex system than a one celled animal. However, if it'll help you avoid confusion, substitute "the Sun" for "oceans" in the sentence and explain how the chemical reactions in an amoeba are more complex than the nuclear fusion taking place at the center of the Sun.

Your error is the Ma ...[text shortened]... your argument has a flawed conceptual basis (disregarding its other errors for a moment).

Your comparisons are totally idiotic. I could respond and say that a blue whale is far more complex than a spec of dust.

But one thing is certain: a live plant is more complex than a dead one.