Donnadogsoth Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Newton's universe was eternal. He knew nothing about entropy which came up in the 19th century. I fail to see how Carnot engines work when entropy is wrong. Newton wrote that his mathematics convey the impression the universe is winding down like a mechanical clock. That there are phases of entropy isn't the point, the point is that the universe itself is negentropic, and eternal, as Newton's universe was outside of his choice of mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torero Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Donna, I see you love to derail your own topic, but claims like "the Universe is..." are ridiculous. We don't know what and how the Universe is. Science is searching and trying, not claiming and carving in stone. We have models of the Universe, and models are by definition never 100% correct. The Einstein theoretical physics "religion" is not empirical science but it's also not your own religion. Your magical mix of cherrypicking some science but on other terrains pushing your own religious thoughts is completely incoherent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Donna, I see you love to derail your own topic, but claims like "the Universe is..." are ridiculous. We don't know what and how the Universe is. Science is searching and trying, not claiming and carving in stone. We have models of the Universe, and models are by definition never 100% correct. The Einstein theoretical physics "religion" is not empirical science but it's also not your own religion. Your magical mix of cherrypicking some science but on other terrains pushing your own religious thoughts is completely incoherent. The thread topic wasn't exactly boiling, so I see no trouble in expanding on a tangent, especially one that relates both to a child's education and to the economy in which that child will find itself. The astrophysical world, the microphysical world, to my knowledge, display a geometry characteristic of life. That is the astrophysical, the microphysical, and the biotic are all characteristically negentropic in their geometries. That is as much proof as we need to infer that the universe is primarily negentropic, only secondarily entropic. As Newton said, the clockwinding universe is an absurd model deriving not from empirical experiment but from choice of mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torero Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The thread topic wasn't exactly boiling, so I see no trouble in expanding on a tangent, especially one that relates both to a child's education and to the economy in which that child will find itself. The astrophysical world, the microphysical world, to my knowledge, display a geometry characteristic of life. That is the astrophysical, the microphysical, and the biotic are all characteristically negentropic in their geometries. That is as much proof as we need to infer that the universe is primarily negentropic, only secondarily entropic. As Newton said, the clockwinding universe is an absurd model deriving not from empirical experiment but from choice of mathematics. Ok, fine, new topics to discuss. Reading some introductory wikis however it's said the contradiction of negentropy with entropy or the increase of it by the 2nd law of thermodynamics you propose is not there. And I am still surprised how you tie your thoughts together. As I remember (e.g. here), you advocate creationism over evolution as the mechanism creating the biodiversity we see around us, am I right? Then the following page Entropy and life becomes a bit difficult to understand, as its basic principle is evolution. On this page, sourced by Kenneth Denbigh, in his 1955 book The Principles of Chemical Equilibrium, it is said: In this direction, although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of second law, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase, it does not in any way conflict or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave. Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law.[6] The problem of organization in living systems increasing despite the second law is known as the Schrödinger paradox. It makes sense if you take the following thought experiment where I use force instead of heat (thermodynamics): Imagine you have a box full of objects. All these objects have characteristics; mass, electromagnetic properties, density. You are in an imaginary room without forces; no gravity, no pressure, no electromagnetics. You empty the box full of objects into the room and the objects are chaotically ("entropy") 'positioned' (I cannot find a better word for it; position already involves organisation, so that's not right, but ok) in that room. In a second room, where the forces gravity, pressure and electromagnetics are present you empty the same box. Here the objects will fall (gravity), be attracted (electromagnetics) and pushed (pressure) in a certain configuration ("negentropy") according to their respective properties: mass (gravity), electromagnetics (em) and density (pressure). The difference in outcome between the rooms is based on the forces, while the objects are the same. The 1st room in "adiabatic" condition will show chaos/entropy/lack of organisation and the 2nd room in "non-closed condition" will show patterns/negentropy/organisation. There's no contradiction here? What is contradictory still is mixing religion (creationism, your other ideas on religion expressed in the various topics) with natural science: Where does 1 stop and the other begin? And on what basis do you make those divisions? "Until here religion is valid and there science begins"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Newton wrote that his mathematics convey the impression the universe is winding down like a mechanical clock. Where does Newton write that? This metaphor means that the universe is regular like a mechanical clock. Nowhere does Newton have the idea of entropy as developed by Boltzmann and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Where does Newton write that? This metaphor means that the universe is regular like a mechanical clock. Nowhere does Newton have the idea of entropy as developed by Boltzmann and others. Take a look at this: pg 31, "Thus, Newton was correct in blaming his choice of Cartesian algebraic mathematics for the "clock-winder" fallacy "hereditarily" embedded within his Principia as a whole." etc. It doesn't source the quote but refers to the quote. As I consider Fidelio more reliable than the typical mainstream news provider I have faith that the quote is true. http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fidelio_archive/1992/fidv01n03-1992Fa/fidv01n03-1992Fa_016-on_the_subject_of_metaphor-lar.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 Ok, fine, new topics to discuss. Reading some introductory wikis however it's said the contradiction of negentropy with entropy or the increase of it by the 2nd law of thermodynamics you propose is not there. And I am still surprised how you tie your thoughts together. As I remember (e.g. here), you advocate creationism over evolution as the mechanism creating the biodiversity we see around us, am I right? Then the following page Entropy and life becomes a bit difficult to understand, as its basic principle is evolution. On this page, sourced by Kenneth Denbigh, in his 1955 book The Principles of Chemical Equilibrium, it is said: It makes sense if you take the following thought experiment where I use force instead of heat (thermodynamics): Imagine you have a box full of objects. All these objects have characteristics; mass, electromagnetic properties, density. You are in an imaginary room without forces; no gravity, no pressure, no electromagnetics. You empty the box full of objects into the room and the objects are chaotically ("entropy") 'positioned' (I cannot find a better word for it; position already involves organisation, so that's not right, but ok) in that room. In a second room, where the forces gravity, pressure and electromagnetics are present you empty the same box. Here the objects will fall (gravity), be attracted (electromagnetics) and pushed (pressure) in a certain configuration ("negentropy") according to their respective properties: mass (gravity), electromagnetics (em) and density (pressure). The difference in outcome between the rooms is based on the forces, while the objects are the same. The 1st room in "adiabatic" condition will show chaos/entropy/lack of organisation and the 2nd room in "non-closed condition" will show patterns/negentropy/organisation. There's no contradiction here? What is contradictory still is mixing religion (creationism, your other ideas on religion expressed in the various topics) with natural science: Where does 1 stop and the other begin? And on what basis do you make those divisions? "Until here religion is valid and there science begins"? I hold God as the Creator but His method with regards life is evolution. Evolution is how God creates new species. So I think you may have misread me on that count. On negentropy the question is the grandest possible: the destiny of the Universe. According to modern, accepted classroom physics, the Universe, being a closed system, is subject to entropy and will eventually "die" in a "heat death" some trillions or quadrillions of years in the future, at which point all usable energy will be depleted and scattered throughout the cosmos. I disagree with this understanding of the Universe and hold that the Universe is negentropic, in the sense that it will continually give rise to new and higher forms of complexity with no principled limit. Merely rearranging the items in a box is not negentropy in that sense; evolving vision, is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torero Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I hold God as the Creator but His method with regards life is evolution. Evolution is how God creates new species. So I think you may have misread me on that count. Ok, clear. On negentropy the question is the grandest possible: the destiny of the Universe. According to modern, accepted classroom physics, the Universe, being a closed system, is subject to entropy and will eventually "die" in a "heat death" some trillions or quadrillions of years in the future, at which point all usable energy will be depleted and scattered throughout the cosmos. I disagree with this understanding of the Universe and hold that the Universe is negentropic, in the sense that it will continually give rise to new and higher forms of complexity with no principled limit. Merely rearranging the items in a box is not negentropy in that sense; evolving vision, is. The "destiny" of the Universe is pretty unsure. Just like everything about the Universe. We are so extremely tiny in that huge system of unimaginable forces... And how can you claim "the Universe" as a "closed system"? Its boundaries are impossible to know. If you consider the Universe as negentropic then it is by definition an open system so the two statements become contradictory. Not rearranging "things in a box", it's a thought experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 Ok, clear. The "destiny" of the Universe is pretty unsure. Just like everything about the Universe. We are so extremely tiny in that huge system of unimaginable forces... And how can you claim "the Universe" as a "closed system"? Its boundaries are impossible to know. If you consider the Universe as negentropic then it is by definition an open system so the two statements become contradictory. Not rearranging "things in a box", it's a thought experiment. I'm not claiming the Universe is a closed system in the sense that the "heat death" believers would have it. It is certainly "open" to new complexities. (I'm not sure I understand the thought experiment. In Room 1 we have no laws of physics and a collection of objects that just sit there. In Room 2 the objects clatter to the floor. Neither are expressed negentropy as I understand it, there is a kind of order to their existence in either room but the second room could as easily be termed the high-entropy one as work is being performed that accomplishes no higher complexity.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torero Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I'm not claiming the Universe is a closed system in the sense that the "heat death" believers would have it. It is certainly "open" to new complexities. OK, I agree with that. Among "science" there's quite some "I know it all" religious thinking. Some call it "scientism", I just call it "intrinsically anti-scientific". The very basis of science is philosophy. And that philosophy in essence says "we don't know it, but let's find out". Once a scientist claims "the truth", it becomes anti-scientific. Science is an eternal search for furniture, not the claim to have found the perfect comfortable chair. (I'm not sure I understand the thought experiment. In Room 1 we have no laws of physics and a collection of objects that just sit there. In Room 2 the objects clatter to the floor. Neither are expressed negentropy as I understand it, there is a kind of order to their existence in either room but the second room could as easily be termed the high-entropy one as work is being performed that accomplishes no higher complexity.) I didn't describe it as "no laws of physics", yet as "no [external] forces present". But I see how you reached that wording. And no, the second room is towards less entropy ("chaos"), so towards organisation (so "negentropy"); the properties of the objects define the organisation. If we assume a room where there's no organisation (room 1), then entropy (or "chaos") is "preferred". Still the same objects, yet the external forces (or in thermodynamics; a closed "entropy-maximisation" system) are different. So to put it in even simpler words: Room 1 tends to show no crystal lineation; (ice) crystals are entropy-driven; so not showing patterns. Room 2 tends to be organised (the forces define which organisation will be present) so (ice) crystals are showing patterns. Room 1 is exemplary for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Room 2 is exemplary for the observed patterns in evolution, crystallography, microscopic physics and megamacroscopic astrophysics. No contradiction (as both rooms have the same box with objects), yet two different and uncomparable systems. This is, in my own words and understanding, what that wiki page says about the lack of contradiction you came up with between the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the observations we do on microscopic and astrophysic scales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 OK, I agree with that. Among "science" there's quite some "I know it all" religious thinking. Some call it "scientism", I just call it "intrinsically anti-scientific". The very basis of science is philosophy. And that philosophy in essence says "we don't know it, but let's find out". Once a scientist claims "the truth", it becomes anti-scientific. Science is an eternal search for furniture, not the claim to have found the perfect comfortable chair. I didn't describe it as "no laws of physics", yet as "no [external] forces present". But I see how you reached that wording. And no, the second room is towards less entropy ("chaos"), so towards organisation (so "negentropy"); the properties of the objects define the organisation. If we assume a room where there's no organisation (room 1), then entropy (or "chaos") is "preferred". Still the same objects, yet the external forces (or in thermodynamics; a closed "entropy-maximisation" system) are different. So to put it in even simpler words: Room 1 tends to show no crystal lineation; (ice) crystals are entropy-driven; so not showing patterns. Room 2 tends to be organised (the forces define which organisation will be present) so (ice) crystals are showing patterns. Room 1 is exemplary for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Room 2 is exemplary for the observed patterns in evolution, crystallography, microscopic physics and megamacroscopic astrophysics. No contradiction (as both rooms have the same box with objects), yet two different and uncomparable systems. This is, in my own words and understanding, what that wiki page says about the lack of contradiction you came up with between the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the observations we do on microscopic and astrophysic scales. Colour me thick but I don't understand how room 1 is relevant if it contains conditions that never obtain. The negentropic processes (birth, growth) alternate with entropic ones (death, decay). My point is the Universe is primarily characterised by the former and only secondarily by the latter, unlike modern classroom physics which is sitting in its comfortable (entropic) chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torero Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Colour me thick but I don't understand how room 1 is relevant if it contains conditions that never obtain. That is the whole idea of a thought experiment, Donna... If it would be a testable environment, we wouldn't need a thought experiment. Just like: "adiabatic conditions" The adiabatic process provides a rigorous conceptual basis for the theory used to expound the first law of thermodynamics, and as such it is a key concept in thermodynamics. and "ideal gases" An ideal gas is a theoretical gas composed of many randomly moving point particles that do not interact except when they collide elastically. are thought experiments; theoretical/conceptual in nature. Do you agree? The negentropic processes (birth, growth) alternate with entropic ones (death, decay). On what basis do you call "death" and "decay" "entropic"? The decay process is creating new life (so in your world "negentropic") for the decay bacteria, insects, etc. From the ashes of a cremated person new plants can grow. Star dust from dying stars is forming new stellar systems, planets and moons, etc. etc. The circle of life. Would you disagree with that? My point is the Universe is... Donna, if you just jump back to a previous statement which is impossible to make (unless you're some kind of "god"), I'd say the discussion is over. If you really think that you know "what the Universe is...", I suggest you call some astrophysicists and quantum mechanics scientists to tell them that they can stop their scientific search, because you know "what the Universe is...". And please post you're publication here, it would be awesome if FDR would have the first "I know what the Universe is..." scientific publication in the world. I am sure Stefan and Mike will invite you to the show and talk about it. primarily characterised by the former and only secondarily by the latter, unlike modern classroom physics which is sitting in its comfortable (entropic) chair. The same comment for you throwing around words like "primarily" and "secondarily". You make statements, do not back them up with proof or thought experiments, do no effort in quantifiying your statements on "primarily" or "A is more common than B", you keep mixing up religion with science and you do not address the arguments I put forward. I await the "Truth about the Universe" with Donna Dogsoth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 It doesn't source the quote but refers to the quote. As I consider Fidelio more reliable than the typical mainstream news provider I have faith that the quote is true. If La Rouche (or one of the authors) had actually read Newton, they would realized that Newton does not use Déscartes at all. All of the Principia Mathematica is based on Euclid's geometry. Entropy was used to describe the behaviour of gases and flux of heated air. Newton wrote nothing about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 That is the whole idea of a thought experiment, Donna... If it would be a testable environment, we wouldn't need a thought experiment. Just like: "adiabatic conditions" and "ideal gases" are thought experiments; theoretical/conceptual in nature. Do you agree? On what basis do you call "death" and "decay" "entropic"? The decay process is creating new life (so in your world "negentropic") for the decay bacteria, insects, etc. From the ashes of a cremated person new plants can grow. Star dust from dying stars is forming new stellar systems, planets and moons, etc. etc. The circle of life. Would you disagree with that? Donna, if you just jump back to a previous statement which is impossible to make (unless you're some kind of "god"), I'd say the discussion is over. If you really think that you know "what the Universe is...", I suggest you call some astrophysicists and quantum mechanics scientists to tell them that they can stop their scientific search, because you know "what the Universe is...". And please post you're publication here, it would be awesome if FDR would have the first "I know what the Universe is..." scientific publication in the world. I am sure Stefan and Mike will invite you to the show and talk about it. The same comment for you throwing around words like "primarily" and "secondarily". You make statements, do not back them up with proof or thought experiments, do no effort in quantifiying your statements on "primarily" or "A is more common than B", you keep mixing up religion with science and you do not address the arguments I put forward. I await the "Truth about the Universe" with Donna Dogsoth. My idea of a thought experiment is Einstein throwing a ball on a moving train. That's something that could actually happen in the real world, but which is difficult to arrange or measure in the real world. Rooms with no laws of physics aren't what I would call valid thought experiments. Life as a whole is negentropic, but the death of an individual is entropic, or else entropy has no meaning. Yes, energy can be recycled, but a dead body is less creative than a live one, less in accord with the Golden Section. The remains of a live body can be exploited by other live bodies, but a world of dead bodies will not exploit anything but simply return to dust. I would direct astrophysicists and quantum mechanic scientists to the Schiller Institute as they know and can explain these things better than I. Do you believe science can discover anything, or is just an endless, farcical quest for non-knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts