Entropic Death of the Universe or of Scientific Rationality?



 Science > Physics > Entropic Death of the Universe or of Scientific Rationality?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Pentcho Valev"
Date: 12 Mar 2006 01:37:35 AM
Object: Entropic Death of the Universe or of Scientific Rationality?
For 150 years a series of idiocies, all related to the concept of
entropy which is an additionally confused version of Aristotelian
entelechy, have systematically destroyed scientific rationality. Some
of them: Environmental heat cannot be converted into work because
businessmen have not extracted money from such a process yet and
because heat always flows spontaneously from hot to cold. Entropy is a
state function. Entropy always increases. The universe is heading for
heat death. According to Newtonian mechanics processes are reversible
but thermodynamics says they are not and this needs further studies. A
stone thrown in the pond never comes back spontaneously and this is a
great puzzle in science. The system manages to produce part of the
entropy internally but has to suck the rest from the environment. Our
world is a fluctuation in some superuniverse which must have reached
its heat death already. Order is disorder. Chaos is order. Entropy is
lack of information. Entropy is not disorder; it is dispersal of
energy. Entropy is logarithm of probability. Life is negentropy.
Enzymes cannot shift chemical equilibrium although almost all metabolic
reactions are unidirectional; if they could, the second law of
thermodynamics would be violated and the concept of free energy would
become quite silly. Sugar dissolves in water because the entropy
increases and the free energy dereases; if the entropy decreased and
the free energy increased, sugar would not dissolve in water.
Pentcho Valev
.

User: ""

Title: Re: Entropic Death of the Universe or of Scientific Rationality? 12 Mar 2006 06:13:50 PM
Pentcho Valev wrote:

For 150 years a series of idiocies, all related to the concept of
entropy which is an additionally confused version of Aristotelian
entelechy, have systematically destroyed scientific rationality. Some
of them: Environmental heat cannot be converted into work because
businessmen have not extracted money from such a process yet and
because heat always flows spontaneously from hot to cold. Entropy is a
state function. Entropy always increases. The universe is heading for
heat death. According to Newtonian mechanics processes are reversible
but thermodynamics says they are not and this needs further studies. A
stone thrown in the pond never comes back spontaneously and this is a
great puzzle in science. The system manages to produce part of the
entropy internally but has to suck the rest from the environment. Our
world is a fluctuation in some superuniverse which must have reached
its heat death already. Order is disorder. Chaos is order. Entropy is
lack of information. Entropy is not disorder; it is dispersal of
energy. Entropy is logarithm of probability. Life is negentropy.
Enzymes cannot shift chemical equilibrium although almost all metabolic
reactions are unidirectional; if they could, the second law of
thermodynamics would be violated and the concept of free energy would
become quite silly. Sugar dissolves in water because the entropy
increases and the free energy dereases; if the entropy decreased and
the free energy increased, sugar would not dissolve in water.

Pentcho Valev

xxein: No structure would form at all if it weren't for the chaos
involved in entropic situations themselves. Iow, nothing is perfect
while entropy is performing its function - just the same as air popped
from a balloon (in a vacuum) would interfere with itself to make such a
chaos.
So we have to go one step above that and consider where the air came
from. How did it form "air"?
Some wish a BB and others think that the universe (and beyond) just
precipitated out of infinite space through an entropy. But the simple
question still arises. Where did it all progenerate from?
I am the last to give credit to a divinity as we seem to know it, but I
always consider that if there is no end, there need be no beginning.
As you see, getting slightly off tangent is not the problem. The
problem is deciding what is tangent and why. We want to bottle the
genie and use it only for specific purposes or beliefs. That may be
fine in a cultural aspect, but it cannot be applied for what pre-exists
in the physical realm of things.
We may define entropy as a form of comfort. In both our consideration
and for the universe, it is a temporary settlement of affairs. Neither
considers it final. It is dynamic and only has relative value of
comfort. But neither does it satisfy ALL of us in the same way. Chaos
again. But an orderly chaos. And locally assumed.
Just because we haven't put a mind-print on all of this, doesn't mean
that there is no order. While we see (recognise) order almost
everywhere, we see disorder also. What do we do to fathom this? Do we
just declare chaos in somebody else's backyard? We are so naive and
selfish that we do.
By a selfish choice, we conduct the human genome project (not
derogatory) and yet fail to apply the same type of resource to truly
understand our universal physics. Aside from scale, they are of the
same magnitude of scalable comprehension.
I think that we are institutionally acceptable of scratcthing a god's
leg, while, at the same time, afraid of poking GOD in the eye. We let
belief dictate our fears and visa versa. This is a circular belief
structure that feeds upon uncertainty (take note of politics in the
U.S.).
We do not experience what an earth or star experiences. Our belief is
primative, and we still have remnants of it (I speak of the masses that
inhabit such an earth). Regardless of our science, it is still tainted
to a primative belief. We can more readily concieve of our universe as
an expanding balloon of no boundary rather than a particular source,
among many, that might interact with each other. But we see similar
functions in colliding galaxies.
Conjectures are aplenty. They even make a science. But I think that a
science without such belief conjectures is still available through a
simple logic devoid of any preconcieved conjecture (belief). That's
the way the universe does it --- why can't we?
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER