Entropy

[Chai Wallah]

hello everyone,

first i am in no way anything academic

but for ages i have been perplexed about what is entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics,caused by people like prof Brian Cox and others speaking(authoritatively) about entropy as being disorder and quotes like -desks get untidy(IMO someone made it that way) and ice falls of icebergs and not the other way around
( IMO ice followed a path to become ice in the first place- water evaporated and froze and became ice again , following a natural cycle)

i think 'Entropy' gets the same glib treatment as cosmology does from the 'mainstream'

yup, i have a thing about the fallacy of 'Entropy'- when it is wrongly called 'disorder'.
I think that is a (perhaps subconscious)tool by atheists/pseudo-skeptics to try and convince themselves and others -that IF there is such a thing as Disorder in the universe,then there can be no absolute intelligence(god)behind it.- which would be true- then there would be god and something outside of god.therefor god would not be absolute. but that just IMO

but there is nothing that does not follow the law of cause and effect- right ..

then after almost giving up and thinking no one actually knew and that skeptics just accepted it, like they usually do when they can't think for themselves.

..then voilå - i came across a savior in the form of Professor Frank Lambert who has a web site which is to Entropy as what the electric universe is to cosmology, sort of thing

i will quote from prof Frank Lambert:

Entropy change is the measure of dispersal of energy: how much or how widely spread out it is in a particular process (AT A SPECIFIC TEMPERATURE)

now I am an admirer of professor Lambert, who has been responsible for removing from textbooks references to entropy as disorder. someone should tell all those learned ignoramuses on our tv screens.

to quote him:

"What are the dimensions of "disorder" ? Malarkeys per minute or some such nonsense ?
The scientific dimensions of entropy change are joules/Kelvin. "




http://entropysimple.oxy.edu

http://secondlaw.oxy.edu/

good old frank

[Raspberry-Special]

I do not know if you got the hang of it, but I agree, the common explenation of Entropy as dissorder or chaos is quite ignorant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I wrote, I do not know if you got the hang of it, but I can explain my understanding of it for you...

To Entropify (Just invented the word ^-^), is to use energy stored in one spot and spread it uniformly with the rest of the universe. This is what we do when we burn charcoal for electricity. This is what you do when you fission or fuse materials closer and closer to iron.
Entropy is realy the equivalent to 0 when it comes to differences in the energy concentrations of the universe the universe.
Entropy is uniformity in the universe, while the oposite is when you have more energy in one place than another. If you have more energy in one place than a nother, and allso got the know how, you can turn the natural neutralization in to usefull energy for your self.

The natural neutralization is how all energy in a closed system will allaways move towards perfect Entropy in the long run. In other words; The Second Law of Thermodynamics. It says that what ever you do, it will still form more and more Entropy, because...
1: Entropical energy can not be concentrated in to one spot, because Entropical energy is unusable energy.
2: All energy convertion is nonperfect. How ever you try to turn any form in to stored energy (the oposite to Entropy), you will lose energy to Entropy. In other words, 100% usefull energy convertion is impossible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is allso a word which you should know; Negentropy. Negentropy is the oposite to Entropy, which allso is a more important word than Entropy. It is easier to talk about 0 Negentropy, than to do something similare but with the use of the word Entropy, to explain a system with Negentropy.
The world is a combination of "Neg", as in "Negative", and "Entropy"; Negative-Entropy. Which is quite counterintuitive, judding on how Entropy is not a possitive term in it self, but a term symbolizing neutality. It is closer related to anything negative than possitive, because what so ever, the ununiformity/Negentropy will never reach bellow 0. In nature, negatives do not exist, it is just a human perspective.
What I mean is, lets say we have a hypothetical senario with -5 Negentropy. Adding Negentropy would allso increase the Entropy. But because sucha senario isn't possible, moving towards entropy, can only be a negative action.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now when we have that sorted out. Personaly I am not sure if I completly agree with The Second Law of Thermodynamics. The reason for that is how perfect Entropy universe demands to be a universe with out fluctuations. I can't see how entropy will ever take away the existence of light, particles, gravity and so fourth.

My personal theory is:
The motion towards Entropy goes (in a nuttshell), like a exponential curve, down towards 0 with the time (in this case, 0 is "perfect entropy"). In this curve, X equals time and Y equals Negentropy. The higher X get, the further in to time you will get. Like I wrote earlier, the closer Y gets to 0, the closer you get to perfect Entropy. The higher Y gets, the higher the negentropy. The shape of the curve is "=1/X" or "Y=X^−1", and symbolizes the slower and slower evolving towards entropy. Like I wrote; "In a nuttshell", meaning that it is a oversimplification, only to make a point.
If you do not know how such a exponential curver looks like, here is a link: http://www.freemathhelp.com/images/lessons/graph1.gif

The curve will with time move closer and closer towards entropy, but never reach 0. Because how it will move slower and slower towards entropy, with how it gets closer and closer, showing a exponential patern here as well.
There is allso a K in this calculation, which symbolizes the forces of nature (allso in a nuttshell). The curve looks something like: Y=1/X+K. If K=0, the curve will move closer and closer to 0, but never reach 0. If K=1, the curve will move closer and closer to 1, but never reach 1.
In my theory, 0=K is not possible, because with out forces there is no energy. Dealing with how energy is the pure motion of forces.
This theory says that there will be a point, when the forces are working against perfect entropy, which the evolvment towards entropy will never pass. This point; K, is the competence of the forces of our universe. I define the competence of a force by its complexity, strength and abundance in the universe.

Now to aply this hypothesis to reality...
In the Big Bang/Gravity Univers, the forces haves a low competence, hence K will equal 1: K=1.
In the Electric Universe, the forces have higher competence, hence the K will be higher than 1: K>1.

When the Entropy the same as the K value of the universe, it will have reached what I would call " The Force Entropical Equalibrium". In a universe like the Electric Universe, where the value of K is quite high. The Force Entropical Equalibrium migh be high enough for humans to live in. We might be in The Force Entropic Equalibrium right now.
The universe will never reach K, un less it have allways been at the entropy level of K.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What My theory does is to open up for the possebilities for a eternal universe, asuming that the universe is much more competent than what the mainstream physics community believe.

Answer me with anything if you want, opinions, questions, feedback or what ever
... Un less you are breaking the rules, then I do not know what to do with it OoO!

Allso, excuse any bad spelling or grammar problems, I am usualy not the best at it.

[D_Archer]

Miles Mathis on Entropy: http://milesmathis.com/ent.html

Things move into open spaces because open spaces are open. It is a tautology. It is definitional. Things are less likely to move into less-open spaces because in less-open spaces they are more like to be resisted. Things don’t go as easily into partitioned spaces because the partitions resist them. They don’t go as easily into crowded spaces because the other objects resist them. Things go where they can go and don’t go where they can’t go. There is no mystery to be solved.

Regards,
Daniel

[danwinter]

generalized phase conjugation origins of negentropy Re: Entropy

www.fractalfield.com/negentropicfields

[Raspberry-Special]

I was allso thinking about Big Bang, the first and the second law of thermodynamics. The Big Bangers often mentions the second law of thermodynamics as one of their greatest evidence for a finite universe. But, in the other hand we have the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can't pop in or out of existence. This means that a universe that is finite in it's age, can't exist with out breaking against one of the most fundemental theories we have, the first law of thermodynamics. The reason for is because a finite universe demands either a creating or destroying of energy.

You could postulate that both the age of the universe and the earliest negentropy is infinite in line with one and a nother. But then you need to asume that the instability of the negentropy doesn't increase exponentialy with the increase in negentropy. If so, the curve would never pass a certain point along the X axis (a certain point in time). If that is the case, the first law and the second law is in straight contradiction with one and a nother, forming a paradox.

I can only see two ways to settle this then, and that would be...
1: Asume that the first law is wrong and the universe is quite new.
2: Asume that the second law is wrong, my theory is right, the universe is infinitly old and will keep on the conservation for ever.
If you ask me, the first law is the strongest of them, not only talking about how it builds up one of the foundations for physics as a whole.