No A.sphere, my points are that both the open and the closed system universe theories are assumptions,
that the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t dependant on either because entropy is a fact where we are with what we have, that it is fully understandable where we are with what we have.
It can approximate open systems above the thermodynamic limit and it exactly predicts it for idealized isolated systems.
I am arguing that in a system that is very open such as a star forming region we do not expect to see entropy curves that are consistent with the 2LoT because so much energy is allowed to flow from outside our region. The 2LoT tells us that as we turn down energy input our entropy curves will increase. But as we turn up our energy input our curves will start to deviate from the predicted curves and once we are under the thermodynamic limit we can even get an increasing curve. The 2LoT isn't violated at all.
And, that your attempt to argue them out of our intellectual league is a pipe dream.
I'm sorry that you think that I am trying to do this. This isn't how I see myself coming off.
I keep repeating my self because you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand that we can fully understand entropy here, but any postulates concerning where we have not been, are assumptions.
I never said we couldn't understand entropy here. We do understand entropy for simple systems and we have a good idea about its generalized behavior for complex systems. Entropy does not equal the 2LoT. The 2LoT tells us how entropy behaves for the extreme case when there is no energy input into our system - this extreme case allows us to approximate cases that are nearly isolated and is very useful in science and engineering.
You said the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is defined for a closed system.
It is. If you look at the mathematical formulation of the 2LoT the E_ext term is equal to zero. When E_ext is different from zero the entropic behavior can still be approximated by the 2LoT and works well to low order.
But that is only opinion, not fact.
It is simply in every single thermodynamic and statistical mechanics textbook I have ever seen - but whatever.
The fact is the Laws of Entropy, just like the Laws of Mathematics, the Law of Gravity (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) preceded us, we didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t invent them we discovered them.
I think we have two different perspectives here. To me laws of science are developing theories as to repetivive behavior that we observe in the natural world. The behavior can be understood in simple idealized systems very well but becomes quickly complicated as the systems we are considering increase in variables. The behavior was born along with the universe - the human attempt to explain these behaviors are incomplete and those explanations are created by humans.
Also, misusing grammar just because those you wish to emulate do so, is none the less incorrect.
Wow - so you don't use shop talk? You must be a blast to hang out with.
Evolution doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t predict anything, nor does evolution do anything.
Nature doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t predict anything, nor does it do anything.
Rivers flow to the sea via the path of least resistance and gravity.
Rocks roll down hill via the path of least resistance and gravity.
The ToE allows scientists to make predictions about observations that have been made or should be made. In the biz it is common shop talk to say that the ToE predicts. Of course you knew that - as did everyone else. You just brought it up in attempt to chip away at me. But if the ToE is correct at explaining the evolution of species then surely you must admit that the processes involved in evolution certainly do something?
I never said nature predicts something. Natural processes certainly do things.
When rocks roll down hills the gravitational force from the earth is DOING work on the rock. Do is a verb that expresses existence, action, or occurence. It obviously does not require sentience.
The atheistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s god of Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â are just words that they attempt to breath sentience into by repetitive and rote learning. If you say it loud enough and long enough, someone will believe it I suppose.
Your the one that thinks only sentient beings can DO anything. All action is caused by sentient beings - isn't that what led the greeks to believe that gods made lightning?