Hi CTD
You don't get to change laws of science.
Nor would I want to. I just wish that some others here would learn what they actually say and follow them.
Get real. If any law only applied in a closed system, it wouldn't be a law because there are no closed systems.
The universe is, as far as we can tell, a closed system.
As far as you choose to
assume.
But no law has ever been derived from observing the entire universe, has it? Although I think the universe is probably closed, I don't think it's something one should take as anything more than an assumption.
OK so you don’t know what 2LoT says. As I said earlier, ignorance is not a sin, just ask and there are many here who’ll help you overcome it.
Okay, so you want to talk down to me? You who followed me here from another forum now tell me how many knowledgeable people are present, and how willing they are to help overcome this ignorance you have chosen to assert.
You, who caution me against circular definitions, only to turn around and publish one yourself. You, who chose not to remedy your mistake, but instead slander the one whose guest you are on this forum, hoping nobody would have enough sense to scroll up.
It seems to me, I couldn't find a much worse source for advice. If one is present, it's probably the
very first one you'd recommend.
Anyhow...
Get real. If any law only applied in a closed system, it wouldn't be a law because there are no closed systems.The universe is, as far as we can tell, a closed system.
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
Lame. 'Isolated' and 'closed' both have specific meanings in thermodynamics. They're not the same.
The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
This statement is the best-known phrasing of the second law. Moreover, owing to the general broadness of the terminology used here, e.g. universe, as well as lack of specific conditions, e.g. open, closed, or isolated, to which this statement applies, many people take this simple statement to mean that the second law of thermodynamics applies virtually to every subject imaginable. This, of course, is not true; this statement is only a simplified version of a more complex description.
Trying to pass off 'isolated' as 'closed'. For shame!
Posting a link which debunks the attempt. For cryin' out loud!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamicsThis whole line is just another old evomyth. Work requires a mechanism.Sure and chemistry provides us with literally thousands and thousands of known ‘mechanisms’ that can do work without life. Just look up inorganic chemistry and read through some of them
Redox reactions
Redox reactions are prevalent for the transition elements. Two classes of redox reaction are considered: atom-transfer reactions, such as oxidative addition/reductive elimination, and electron-transfer. A fundamental redox reaction is "self-exchange", which involves the degenerate reaction between an oxidant and a reductant. For example, permanganate and its one-electron reduced relative manganate exchange one electron:
[MnO4]? + [Mn*O4]2? ? [MnO4]2? + [Mn*O4]?
Each of those steps is work being done without life in line with 2LoT.
Don't waste my time. Chemicals obey the natural laws; they don't break them. Twisting words won't change this, and I pity anyone foolish enough to believe it will.
'Work' also has been defined as it relates to thermodynamics. Scientists don't just apply the term to
any event.
The second law traces its origin to French physicist Sadi Carnot's 1824 paper Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire, which presented the view that motive power (work) is due to the fall of caloric (heat) from a hot to cold body (working substance). In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.
And Heat = Entropy is a false equation. At least try to keep that straight.In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.
There is more to it than just heat as you can see but heat is the most obvious and easily measured part of it.
But you have it
backwards. The closer things are to equilibrium, the higher their entropy. How selectively you must have read your own source!
Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.
Informally, "Heat doesn't flow from cold to hot (without work input)", which is obviously true from everyday experience. For example in a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when aided by an external agent, i.e. the compressor. Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This is allowable in a non-isolated system, however only if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing, as required by the second law. For example, the electrical energy going into a refrigerator is converted to heat and goes out the back, representing a net increase in entropy.
and
Energy dispersal
The second law of thermodynamics is an axiom of thermodynamics concerning heat, entropy, and the direction in which thermodynamic processes can occur. For example, the second law implies that heat does not spontaneously flow from a cold material to a hot material, but it allows heat to flow from a hot material to a cold material. Roughly speaking, the second law says that in an isolated system, concentrated energy disperses over time, and consequently less concentrated energy is available to do useful work. Energy dispersal also means that differences in temperature, pressure, and density even out. Again roughly speaking, thermodynamic entropy is a measure of energy dispersal, and so the second law is closely connected with the concept of entropy.
and
In a general sense, the second law says that temperature differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out and that work can be obtained from these non-equilibrium differences, but that loss of heat occurs, in the form of entropy, when work is done.[3] Pressure differences, density differences, and particularly temperature differences, all tend to equalize if given the opportunity. This means that an isolated system will eventually come to have a uniform temperature. A heat engine is a mechanical device that provides useful work from the difference in temperature of two bodies:
Thus the cooling of the universe
does not result in less entropy, does not result in "order"/"information". Entropy is increasing - not decreasing.
Everyone know this if they know what entropy even is!
* The wiki isn't the best source on this. They (or their sources) have inserted a lot of 'isolated' talk that simply isn't justified. Open systems aren't immune from natural laws. Heat, entropy, and work, all behave just the same in every respect, but the math & modeling are more complex if you try to account for where every single calorie goes. In the real world, it is just practical to model things as if they're not open.
The second law of thermodynamics says in closed systems entropy will always increase but entropy will reduce locally in open systems.
No it doesn't.
OK Poorly worded. 2LoT says that, in an open system with energy flowing in and out work will be done and local entropy may decrease at the expense of entropy elsewhere. This has, obviously, been observed to occur so it’s hardly controversial, have you ever seen a snowflake form for example?
Still wrong, and unlikely to be an accident. There is no requirement for work to occur. Where there is no mechanism, there will be no work.
At this point, you're making no sense at all. Nothing you say is in keeping with physical laws, even allowing
tons of leeway for screwball evosickness-inspired definitions.
