Originally posted by dj2beckerThe definition only takes into account the whole system, and completely ignores the component parts.
Unless life was created and is running down as reality indicates.
Why do you say the definition is incorrect? Because your house was never painted so its paint can never wear off?
As for your example, it's clearly stupid. If the definition used by the author is correct, plants wouldn't be able to grow. Neither would you.
Your house would never become painted, because that'd be decreasing entropy - something your author claims can't happen.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour house would never become painted, because that'd be decreasing entropy - something your author claims can't happen.
The definition only takes into account the whole system, and completely ignores the component parts.
As for your example, it's clearly stupid. If the definition used by the author is correct, plants wouldn't be able to grow. Neither would you.
Your house would never become painted, because that'd be decreasing entropy - something your author claims can't happen.
I've personally never seen a house painting itself.
Originally posted by dj2beckerBut did you defy physics and do the impossible when you painted your house. I usually don't struggle that much trying to get the paint onto the wood, if you need divine intervention to do it, I'd say the problem is with you or your paint, not physics.
[b]Your house would never become painted, because that'd be decreasing entropy - something your author claims can't happen.
I've personally never seen a house painting itself.[/b]
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat a dumbazz.
[b]Your house would never become painted, because that'd be decreasing entropy - something your author claims can't happen.
I've personally never seen a house painting itself.[/b]
YOU wouldn't be able to paint your house, if the author's postulates are correct.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowWhere did I say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes it impossible for you to paint your own house?
But did you defy physics and do the impossible when you painted your house. I usually don't struggle that much trying to get the paint onto the wood, if you need divine intervention to do it, I'd say the problem is with you or your paint, not physics.
You actually paint your house because of the second law. If the law didn't work, you would never need to paint it in the first place.
Originally posted by dj2beckerBut by painting it, you are making the system more ordered, something your author seems to think is impossible.
Where did I say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes it impossible for you to paint your own house?
You actually paint your house because of the second law. If the law didn't work, you would never need to paint it in the first place.
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf entropy can't decrease locally, then you could never undo the damage done by entropy.
Where did I say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes it impossible for you to paint your own house?
You actually paint your house because of the second law. If the law didn't work, you would never need to paint it in the first place.
We (Louis, numerous other posters, and every pysicist with a real degree, and I) say entropy can decrease on a small scale, just, by the 2nd law, it must not decrease on the system.
You say entropy cannot decrease, period.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowSecond law of Thermodynamics:
If entropy can't decrease locally, then you could never undo the damage done by entropy.
We (Louis, numerous other posters, and every pysicist with a real degree, and I) say entropy can decrease on a small scale, just, by the 2nd law, it must not decrease on the system.
You say entropy cannot decrease, period.
"Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work. "
You must enjoy putting words in my mouth.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but you've essentially said it multiple times. If that isn't your opinion, and you admit that local decreases in entropy are allowed, than what is the problem with abiogenesis, evolution, big bang, etc.?????
Second law of Thermodynamics:
"Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work. "
You must enjoy putting words in my mouth.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowIf the universe is a closed system, then "local" would apply to the whole universe.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but you've essentially said it multiple times. If that isn't your opinion, and you admit that local decreases in entropy are allowed, than what is the problem with abiogenesis, evolution, big bang, etc.?????
Your definition, by the way, is getting misinterpreted. It does say that the SYSTEM tends to increase in entropy, but says nothing about local changes, we are interpretting it more correctly, probably partly due to a better education in physics.
Here are some better formal ways to state the 2nd law:
"A transformation whose only final result is to convert heat, extracted from a source at constant temperature, into work, is impossible." -- Lord Kelvin
"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." -- Rudolf Clausius
"Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body." -- Rudolf Clausius
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowYour definition, by the way, is getting misinterpreted.
Your definition, by the way, is getting misinterpreted. It does say that the SYSTEM tends to increase in entropy, but says nothing about local changes, we are interpretting it more correctly, probably partly due to a better education in physics.
Here are some better formal ways to state the 2nd law:
"A transformation whose only final result is t ...[text shortened]... lausius
"Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body." -- Rudolf Clausius
And you are the one doing the misinterpretation.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat is exactly the opposite of what we mean by local. We are talking about changes on a smaller scale which do not effect the entire universe. e.g. Earth may decrease in entropy, while some spot halfway across the Milky Way increases. These changes are local, and can happen with no net change to the overall entropy of the universe.
If the universe is a closed system, then "local" would apply to the whole universe.