Syntropy vs Entropy

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:47 am
Location: Canada

Re: Syntropy vs Entropy

Unread post by Sci-Phy » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:36 am

Entropy is not the order of the system. Even mainstream starting to admit that. Wikipedia mentioned Difficulties with the term "disorder". ... _disorder)

The term Entropy was introduced for ideal gas. The definition of the term "ideal" does not only mean the molecules are in perfect elastic collision, it also mean that there are nothing more except collisions. No charges, no fields, no potential energy, nothing but collision.
The formula for the entropy of ideal gas is known as Sackur–Tetrode equation–Tetrode_equation
As we could see the entropy depends only on temperature, volume and the number of molecules. This makes expression “...that Entropy cannot happen...” is equivalent to the expression “Temperature cannot happen”. Or I could say that temperature does not exist without “semperature”.
The concept of entropy is flawed in many ways.
1. The entropy defined as follow: Entropy change equals to heat change over temperature. dS=dQ/T. The temperature in the formula is not differential. The problem here is when you supply heat to the system, the temperature will also be changed. Which temperature should one use? Initial temperature or final temperature? There is no answer on that anywhere.
2. The entropy often defined as: “the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work”.
Imagine some body at room temperature and I am supplying additional heat dQ to this body. The entropy change will be dQ/300. And such change according to the definition will be unavailable for doing work. Now if I cooled the body back to room temperature then dQ/300 is unavailable for retrieving, which makes 299*dQ/300 available. The efficiency of my thermal machine will be 99.7% just according to such entropy definition. Where are such machines?
3. The second law of thermodynamic also follows directly from the definition of entropy. I am also will be using some volume of gas surrounded by thermal isolation. My first step will be adding some amount of heat dQ to the gas. Then I am going to reverse the process and reducing the amount of heat by exactly same amount. When the heat was added the gas was at some cold temperature Tc and entropy increased by dQ/Tc. When the heat was withdrawn, the temperature was higher – Th and entropy reduction was dQ/Th. Since Th greater that Tc, the change in entropy is positive. Repeating above process for a long time will bring entropy to infinity. If I was using battery along with Peltier element for heat transfer – does that mean that entropy of my battery/Peltier goes to minus infinity?


Miles Mathis on entropy:

Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Syntropy vs Entropy

Unread post by Electrodynamic » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:27 pm


In my opinion your post was mostly "filler" leading up to what you really wanted to say which was this.
3. The second law of thermodynamic also follows directly from the definition of entropy. I am also will be using some volume of gas surrounded by thermal isolation.
Why not just cut to the chase and say the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time?. However few do because there circular form of reasoning starts breaking down. Entropy in an expanding system cannot decrease>>the system is always expanding>>from what?... big bang, creation ergo theism.

However in an alternate system outside the notions of closed created systems based on the conservation of energy the system must always balance... Entropy = Syntropy.

I like to put it this way... show me concrete evidence that the universe was created or that it has a beginning or end, then we can have a rational debate. Understand the method of science is not perfect and if we only theorize and do experiments which agree with us that is not science. Real science is also about theorizing and doing all the other experiments which would prove us wrong. It's all about balance which seems to be lacking in this day and age.

Unlike all the winners and other stable geniuses out there I would love to be proven wrong because being wrong is an integral part of the learning process. Show me a man who thinks he cannot be wrong about anything and I will show you a fool who will never learn anything of substance.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests