Re: Lizard engines and rat engines


"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:davmfp$1ee5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > The revolution in the paradigm here requires a restatement of
> > the second law, although there are also many proponents of articulating a
> > fourth law. The difference is subtle in my estimation, but also profound.
> > Rather than having a second law that merely limits the scope of potential
> > outcome of a dynamic process to those that do not decrease the entropy of a
> > closed system (IMHO this is code for the universe as a whole), many
> > physicists are coming to appreciate a law that favors the emergence of
> > systems that increase the RATE of entropy gain in closed systems through
> > self-organization.
>
> First, according to the thermodynamics textbooks, a "closed system" smaller
> than the universe as a whole is not only possible, it is an essential concept
> in the idea structure. Thermodynamics textbooks are not written in code.
>
> Second, you seem to misunderstand what the standard second law DOES say. It
> doesn't say that the entropy of a closed system must not decrease. Put some
> water in a bottle, stopper the bottle, and put the bottle in your freezer.
> The contents of the bottle constitute a closed system, and the entropy of
> this closed system decreases and the water cools and then freezes. (But
> perhaps you don't think that the bottle of water constitutes a closed
> system. Guy, I have to say that this kind of denial of the standard
> definitions reminds me of Edser's methodology.)

Remember how Edser recently found three definitions of linkage equilibrium
on the web, and one of them was completely wrong? Well, I decided to check
what the web has to say about "closed systems" and the 2nd law. So I did
a Google web search using this search string:
"closed system" "isolated system" entropy thermodynamics

I got 1600 hits. The top ones were all tutorials on thermodynamics. So
I started reading them to find graphic evidence that you (Guy) are wrong.
The results were shocking.

Of the first six hits, only one (Wikipedia) got it right. The rest seem to
agree with you that the second law says that entropy is non-decreasing in
a CLOSED system. Further down the list, sanity begins to prevail. By the
time I got to the 19th hit, my side in the dispute had a clear majority
with 10 sites getting it right, 7 getting it wrong, and 2 not defining a
"closed system". It seemed like a good place to stop the experiment, since
the 20th site offers a "psychedelic viewpoint" on the question. Check it out!
http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000689.html

Also worth a look is this site which discusses two candidate formulations
for a "4th law". (It didn't define a "closed system").
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov2000/973893769.Ch.r.html

I continue to maintain that a thermodynamic "closed system" is one which
can exchange energy (but not matter) with its surroundings. An "isolated
system" is one which exchanges neither matter nor energy. One formulation
of the 2nd law is that the entropy of an ISOLATED system cannot decrease.
I will continue to maintain that this is the standard terminology in
thermodynamics until someone quotes at least one textbook or reputable
encyclopedia article that contradicts me. (Textbooks on general systems
theory, cybernetics, or complex systems don't count. Those are distinct
disciplines with the right to formulate their own terminology.)

Just as a sanity check, I would request that any sbe poster who has any kind
of credentials in thermodynamics (Larry?) correct me if I am wrong, or confirm
that I am right.

So who are the idiotic web authors who got it wrong? College professors mostly.
These were online lecture notes. Some of them, using the correct definition
of "closed", even provided "proofs" that the second law forbids the decrease
of entropy in a closed system. Bizarre!

I also note that the creationist sites (there were several) mostly got it
right. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.


.

Relevant Pages