Syntropy vs Entropy

[Electrodynamic]

http://syntropyenergetics.com/Syntropy_vs._Entropy.html

In the cyclical nature of the Universe there are two opposing principals, Entropy and Syntropy. To understand syntropy, it is useful to understand its opposing force, entropy.

The Principle of Entropy has effects that are easy to understand and observe. According to this Principle, all organized forms of matter require more energy than those that are less organized. These organized forms will loose their order and initial energy, unless they are constantly nourished by energy. Plants need water and sunlight to grow (energy); when that is deprived they begin to breakdown. A new car will fall apart unless energy is applied to maintain it, and a business that doesn’t put energy into maintaining itself will close its doors. As life forms age their systems lose energy becoming less efficient allowing for disease and illness to set in. The tendency of nature, systems, and organisms to loss energy and become disorganized over time, essentially the law of death is entropy.

Entropy’s opposing force however, is Syntropy. This Principle is much harder to notice, the best example of which, is life itself. It is the law of order and organization, finality and differentiation, the ability to attract, evolve and bring together ever-increasing complex forms creating something new. A new galaxy forming from the ruins of an older galaxy, building a business, and the bringing together of individual cells to create an organism are all examples of the syntropic nature of the Universe. Consciousness focusing energy to create and maintain a system, the law of life is Syntropy.

Thought I would add a little balance to the conversation

[Electrodynamic]

As we can see above the notion that Entropy is the dominant process is in fact a false narrative. If Entropy were the dominant process then the universe would be a lifeless uniform soup of dispersed material and it is not therefore the Entropy or dying universe narrative is false.

In the real world that which is dispersed by Entropy is at some point concentrated by Syntropy. If radiation is Entropy then gravity is Syntropy, if an exploding star is Entropy then the pieces gravitating towards other bodies is Syntropy.

I also find it very strange why so many talk of the conservation of energy as if they believe it then proclaim they believe the universe can only expand into nothingness despite the equal and opposite force of gravity pulling everything back together. Why exactly would they choose to just completely ignore the other side of the equation?. There is no scientific basis for this so I would have to assume it relates to some non-scientific belief clouding their judgement. An Entropic end of times if you will which as we all know has no basis in science or reality. If Entropy represents an end then we must also recognize that Syntropy represents a beginning, equal yet opposite.

As one philosopher put it... mankind would seem to be obsessed with a death cult mentality which never quite comes to pass. As if to say the end is always just around the corner as we continue to come full circle.

[Sci-Phy]

I have an idea why entropy can't decrease.
Entropy defined through number of micro-states of physical system.
Modern science introduced new properties almost every day - strangeness, color, etc.
Each introduction of new property lead to increasing the number of micro-states and hence entropy.
So, they knew it from very beginning.

To be serious the entropy is fallacy.
Historically the term was introduced at a time when science was trying to understand the phenomenon of heat.
It's attempt to connect absorbed heat with temperature.
The concept failed right away when we are at phase transition where heat capacity equals to infinity and entropy could be any value you want.
Statistical definition of entropy is fallacy inside fallacy. To define the number of so-called micro-states we should define at first which one of those "states" is important for nature. What if nature is color blind? Then the color is not counting as a state, etc.
The definition of entropy though Carnot cycle is completely useless. Carnot cycle assumes that heat transferred "isothermally" ie when temperature of heater equals to one of working body. On the other hand Newton's law of cooling telling us that the heat transferred at equal temperatures is zero. So Carnot cycle is theoretical cycle with zero energy transfer. I was always wondering why they describe combustion engines in term of Carnot cycle? It is not a cycle at all. Each time new portion of gasoline involved.

There are not even one phenomenon of physics explained with the term of entropy.
The first laws of thermodynamic, which is energy conservation not holds in the presence of aether.
The aether could interact with matter and part of energy could be transferred to/from aether.
From the prospective of modern science the aether not exist and energy just disappeared.

Since entropy has zero meaning, what is the meaning of your concept opposite to it?

Cheers.

[nick c]

My thought is that the proposition that Entropy would cause the disassembling of the Universe assumes an electrical neutrality.
The Universe is Plasma...the primary state of matter. Plasmas are self assembling, currents flow, matter is gathered together (z pinch). It is a dynamic situation. They are life like - that is why Langmuir coined the name "plasma"
From our present perspective (state of knowledge and understanding) there is no scientific reason to contemplate a universal beginning or end.

[Webbman]

Self assembly is the key. Ensures cycles rather than an equilibrium.

[Electrodynamic]

Sci-Phy

Since entropy has zero meaning, what is the meaning of your concept opposite to it?

Entropy: lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Entropy generally relates to a transformation, for example the burning of a hydrocarbon, which is seen as irreversible or takes energy to be reversed leading to a greater amount of disorder. However they completely ignored Syntropy whereby plants take the products of combustion, CO2 and H2O, and recombine them back into a hydrocarbon using energy from the Sun.

From this biased and superficial perspective they then claimed the whole universe must work in a similar way leading to more and more disorder. It was basically an argument from ignorance which chose to ignore Syntropy and the conservation of energy for unknown reasons. It should have been obvious that radiation (Entropy) is balanced by gravitation and Coulomb forces (Syntropy).

So, Entropy does have meaning which is well defined in the literature as it happens Syntropy is not so well defined or even known. In many respects business and industry have a vested interest in keeping Entropy on the back burner. I mean if people understood how to increase order and assemble Energy and Matter like a 3D printer then who needs them?. Solar Panels are a good example, they take expanding radiant disordered energy from the Sun and concentrate/transform that Energy as a force to move electrons in a wire producing an electric current.

I suspect many people are frightened that there services will simply not be needed in the future with AI, automation and Syntropic self-assembly providing all our individual energy and material needs. It's funny how people in the fossil fuel industry pretend to be strong and confident however when I talk to them there scared to death of the future they have no place in.

[crawler]

Enthaltropy......... is a combination of the Enthalpy & Entropy of a system that haz no microstates nor macrostates & is never isolated, yet is not thermodynamic & is not enclosed, but ideally is in irreversible equilibrium. Theze kinds of systems hav been ignored in science & math for decades, but no more, they are now back in the game. Enthaltropy aint intensive nor extensive, it is inextensive. The standard unit is Joules per Avocado.

Wikileaks for Entropy........In statistical mechanics, entropy is an extensive property of a thermodynamic system. It is closely related to the number Ω of microscopic configurations (known as microstates) that are consistent with the macroscopic quantities that characterize the system (such as its volume, pressure and temperature). Under the assumption that each microstate is equally probable, the entropy S is the natural logarithm of the number of microstates, multiplied by the Boltzmann constant kB. Formally (assuming equiprobable microstates), [EQUATION MISSING HERE] Macroscopic systems typically have a very large number Ω of possible microscopic configurations. For example, the entropy of an ideal gas is proportional to the number of gas molecules N. The number of molecules in twenty liters of gas at room temperature and atmospheric pressure is roughly N ≈ 6×1023 (the Avogadro number). At equilibrium, each of the Ω ≈ eN configurations can be regarded as random and equally likely.[citation needed]

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases over time. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy. Non-isolated systems may lose entropy, provided their environment's entropy increases by at least that amount so that the total entropy increases. Entropy is a function of the state of the system, so the change in entropy of a system is determined by its initial and final states. In the idealization that a process is reversible, the entropy does not change, while irreversible processes always increase the total entropy.

Wikileaks......... Enthalpy /ˈɛnθəlpi/, a property of a thermodynamic system, is equal to the system's internal energy plus the product of its pressure and volume.[1][2] In a system enclosed so as to prevent mass transfer, for processes at constant pressure, the heat absorbed or released equals the change in enthalpy.

The unit of measurement for enthalpy in the International System of Units (SI) is the joule. Other historical conventional units still in use include the British thermal unit (BTU) and the calorie.

Enthalpy comprises a system's internal energy, which is the energy required to create the system, plus the amount of work required to make room for it by displacing its environment and establishing its volume and pressure.[3]

Enthalpy is defined as a state function that depends only on the prevailing equilibrium state identified by the system's internal energy, pressure, and volume. It is an extensive quantity.

[Sci-Phy]

Entropy: lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Just take a look at the entropy formula for ideal gas.
It only depend on temperature.
Order, huh? You should be extremely specific with the definition of "order".(be careful what you wish for)
If you are moving that means disorder. It does not matter how you are moving, alone or within a group, sleepwalking or dancing - the entropy will be the same. The color of molecules (one color on the left, another on the right or mixed) does not matter, just the motion.
If you don't move or in grave then the entropy will be zero. Look at snowflake - is it order? The answer is - NO. Position of molecules are not included in the formula.

And entropy is not a force. It exactly same force as temperature is, since it's a function of temperature.

Cheers.

[crawler]

I wonder whetehr the equations for Enthalpy & Entropy & Syntropy violate the rules for intensive & extensive units.

Stephen Crothers explains "intensive" and "extensive" for the layman?
.............It's actually rather simple; but too difficult for the astronomers and cosmologists: hence why they violate thermodynamics all the time. Consider a uniform solid sphere at thermal equilibrium. It this state the temperature is the same throughout and the material is the same throughout. Now divide the sphere into two equal spheres. Everything that does not change in the division is intensive and everything that changes by half is extensive.
Temperature, density, pressure, for example, are intensive.
Volume, mass, entropy, and internal energy, for example, are extensive.

Those properties that change but not by half are neither intensive nor extensive; for example surface area and radius.

Would it not be a violation of physical reality if in dividing the said sphere into two equal spheres the temperature changed with the change in the mass? Of course it is - a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. But what does Hawking do? He equates temperature, which is always intensive, to a collection of terms that is not intensive. Bekenstein and Hawking equate entropy, which is extensive, to a collection of terms that is not extensive.

No astronomer, astrophysicist, or cosmologist understands basic physics, which is precisely why they violate the laws of physics all the time. Astrophysics is supposed to be the application of the laws of physics to the study of the stars. Yet the astronomers and cosmologists violate the laws of physics in their theories; so their theories are hogwash. On top of that, they routinely violate the rules of pure mathematics as well. So they're doubly hogwash, assuming hogwash can be doubled.

[Sci-Phy]

I wonder whetehr the equations for Enthalpy & Entropy & Syntropy violate the rules for intensive & extensive units.

No, there are no violation.
In fact, the function for entropy was derived specifically to be extensive.
Thermodynamic formulas connecting entropy, entalpy, heat, internal energy and temperature.
Only one, the temperature could be measured.
You could easily change any formula, lets say entropy. Then heat and internal energy will have different values compare to current theory. But the theory remain the same - all laws and conservation still hold.

Cheers.

[Electrodynamic]

Sci-Phy

Just take a look at the entropy formula for ideal gas.
It only depend on temperature.

From the standpoint of thermodynamics I would agree it is dependent on temperate... Thermo: From Greek thermē heat from thermos warm, hot. However from the standpoint of electrodynamics a HF, HV alternating field can be applied to conductive particulate matter inducing repulsive fields causing Entropy or disorderly expansion from a source point. There is very little heat generated certainly nothing compared to the gas laws thus your assertion is false. Understand, thermodynamics was based on simplistic thinking straight out of the dark ages and we have learned a few things since then. The term... electricity comes to mind.

Order, huh? You should be extremely specific with the definition of "order".(be careful what you wish for)
If you are moving that means disorder. It does not matter how you are moving, alone or within a group, sleepwalking or dancing - the entropy will be the same. The color of molecules (one color on the left, another on the right or mixed) does not matter, just the motion.
If you don't move or in grave then the entropy will be zero. Look at snowflake - is it order? The answer is - NO. Position of molecules are not included in the formula.

A tree moves water and nutrients inward to the trunk while also moving CO2 inward combining it with O2 to form hydrocarbons which is the material of the tree and it expels O2. Now if as you say motion means disorder then how exactly did all those randomly moving molecules of H2O and CO2 in the environment move inward to forms more complex and ordered geometries to form a tree?.

Likewise there is lots of stuff randomly moving about in space and then gravity pulls all this stuff inward towards a common point forming more complex forms. If what your implying is true then all the life and ecosystems and complexity we see on Earth due to Syntropy are no different than a soup of randomly moving particles in space... interesting perspective you have. Understand I could give you examples all day long proving your wrong however it's probably easier if you go outside and take a good look around at all the stuff all around you.

And entropy is not a force. It exactly same force as temperature is, since it's a function of temperature.

Entropy: lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Fair enough, if however entropy is not a force then where did the impetus come from which caused something to move towards greater disorder?. The conservation of energy is explicit in that a force is required to change the motion of something. So if the motion tends towards order or disorder then what changed it's motion?... obviously a force did. Thus as a matter of logic and reason Entropy is or includes a force if motion is involved as defined by the conservation of energy.

Let's go deeper... If we suppose that Entropy were a universal truth or frame of reference then logically everything must always tend towards more and more disorder. As such from the beginning or if no beginning a steady state then everything must tend towards more disorder. If this is true then you cannot exist and we cannot be having this conversation because we cannot exist according to your own assertion. This solar system, the Sun, the Earth and everything on it could not have come to be because as you say everything must tend towards more disorder. In effect your in denial regarding the only reason you could exist according to the conservation of energy and mass.

Psychologically I'm not even sure what this means, a denial of one's own existence or the only logical reason one could exist?... means what exactly?. Do you know what the most brilliant minds who contributed the most to science, technology and mankind did?... they walked around barefoot in the grass just thinking about stuff. They did this because we can believe whatever starts our tractor but at the end of the day nature will do whatever the hell it wants despite our beliefs. We don't decide how nature works we can only interpret how we think it might work based on logic, reason and the facts.

[Webbman]

even disorder can cause order if your base material has the ability to change its shape in response to the disorder or even at random.

what is disorder but the wild dispersal of energy, heat, where order is the controlled alignment of energy, electricity.

[Sci-Phy]

Entropy: lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Probably I was not clear enough.
I was talking about entropy of ideal gases, nothing else.
The formula for entropy of gases depend on nothing, but temperature.
No order involved.
I don't know when science turned and started to apply gas property to anything else.
Please provide link for my education.
The science should not depend on our perception, so the definition of term "order" is absolutely necessary.
Also wondering how to calculate the entropy of a tree.
https://www.science20.com/train_thought ... rder-75081

Cheers.

[Electrodynamic]

SciPhy

Probably I was not clear enough.
I was talking about entropy of ideal gases, nothing else.
The formula for entropy of gases depend on nothing, but temperature.
No order involved.

I was going to say we agree that Entropy may only apply to the limited case of ideal gasses however even then I find disagreement. Even with an ideal gas large electrodynamic forces can cause expansion/contraction due to coulomb forces outside the context of "temperature" thus your assertion is still false.

Consider the fact that the addition of energy which causes a change in molecular motion or Heat may qualify as entropy because the internal oscillatory motion of the gasses is expanding outward which is also an expanding range of motion. Now with electrodynamic forces the forces are imparted to the particles themselves within the gasses which can then act inward or outward causing compression or expansion.

The reason none of this makes sense to most is because they assume a "lumped sum" model always works and in fact it does not. You have to use infinite element analysis to come to the right conclusions whereby wave functions cause discrete packets or regions of particles to become attracted towards one another causing Syntropy. Thus energy can be added to a system such as a gas whereby the volume contracts versus expanding which is often the case. Explosion vs Implosion... and as you may know any fool can cause an explosion but an implosion is a very different beast altogether.

It's no different than the fact that anyone can easily double the horsepower of an engine however when you ask them to double the mileage they tend to look like a deer in headlights. Double the mileage?... uhm, what do you mean?, uhm I don't know, uhm can you do that?. Well of course it could be done however first one would have to have the inclination and foresight to "think" about how it could be done which seems to be a problem... thinking that is.

Understand nature does it all the time and obviously a 200 foot tree does not lift hundreds of gallons of water to it's peak each day by means of thermodynamic entropy, that's just ridiculous. Which begs the question... how do you suppose a tree lifts hundreds of gallons of water without generating heat?. My guess is you have no idea and in fact no idea where to even begin so I will give you the opportunity to respond and in my next post I will tell you exactly how it's done.

Think about it... Syntropy not Entropy. A contractive inward acting force leading to a unidirectional motion which is Syntropy versus an expansive outward acting force which is Entropy... equal yet opposite. You seem to have the Yin down so let's see how you do with the Yang.

[Electrodynamic]

https://www.science20.com/train_thought ... rder-75081

The Big Picture
So that brings us to the universe as a whole. This is very problematic. At the time of the Big Bang, there were no molecules. Is it really appropriate to talk about entropy, temperature and heat at this level? Does undifferentiated plasma have kinetic energy? What about the universe today? What is the temperature of the universe? What is the temperature of any system that is not homogeneous and not at thermal equilibrium? These are not trivial questions. The temperature and entropy of a system is only well defined for systems that are homogeneous and in thermal equilibrium. The easier way to answer the entropy of the universe question is to accept the 2nd law of thermodynamics and extrapolate backwards. The 2nd law says entropy is always increasing in the universe, so the entropy of the universe at the time of the Big Bang must have been much less that the entropy of the universe now.

I thought this was interesting and explains the fundamental flaws relating to Entropy without Syntropy.

"The 2nd law says entropy is always increasing in the universe, so the entropy of the universe at the time of the Big Bang must have been much less that the entropy of the universe now." Yes, and if the big bang represents Entropy then what came before the big bang?. It must have been Syntropy because the universe could not expand unless it was first compressed... so what compressed it?. It would seem to me that there is a great deal of cherry picking scenario's and ignoring facts to substantiate the claim for universal Entropy.

The fact remains that Entropy cannot happen unless Syntropy happens first otherwise were speaking of a reaction without an initial action. Not unlike thinking an egg could just magically appear from nothing without a chicken appearing first. In my opinion Universal Entropy without Syntropy falls under the same category as overunity and other pseudoscience thinking something can magically come from nothing.