Is the law of conservation of energy right?

The second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, should also be considered.

So do you think that the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is true or false?

You will have to state the exact wording of that one before I could answer it. The wording has changed at least 5 times since it was first proposed. Maxwell blew away the original pretty quickly over 140 years ago, but they kept preaching it as their new religion. Since then they keep changing the wording to try to make it into something that is coherent with science evidence.

Sp which version are you asking about? :sunglasses:

We alraedy had this subject in my “Universe and Time” thread:

More:

This one is no longer about the theory, nor the discussion, nor philosophy. It is about the wording. You must state the exact wording for logic to be properly applied toward sensible conclusion.

Exactly state the proposed “law”.

What seems infinite to us may not be to something else. This planet may seem infinite to an insect, but it is not infinite to us. Micro to macro, as above so below.

Energy never ceases to exist, it changes. Evolution perhaps.

Let’s take this statement:

And maybe we can take this in order to answer the question what entropy is:

That is absolutely false.

That is also false. Entropy is not a causal agency, thus cannot “account for” anything. Entropy is merely a measure of what is present, not why it is that way.

That is also false. Entropy is not defined by the state of energy, but of pattern or distribution in space (of anything). An example from Wiki:

An example of the failing of such a law would be what happens to a large spherical chamber of mixed gases out in space over time. Over time, the gases will separate with the heavier gases in the center of the chamber. The end steady state situation is less random than it began - lower entropy.

Both gravity and life (among others) defeats the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”. It is actually not a “law”, but rather a natural propensity. “Maxwell’s Demon” was an abstract concept used to show how it wasn’t a law very long ago. My own “KD project” more physically proved it back in 1972. There have been a variety of systems that over-come randomness, “trapping systems”, and also increase energy state when energy is allowed to randomly enter the system. Subatomic particles defeat the law when first growing and resist the law while maintaining. Objects in space can gradually collect over time due to gravitational migration, becoming less random - lower entropy.

“Yes, Virginia. There really is such a thing as Anti-entropy and Anentropy.”

Did you notice that my quote was a “Wiki” quote?

Thus “Wiki” wrote:

Yeah, but they are merely telling of what the law states. They cannot testify as to whether it is really true. The greatest error is merely in calling it a “law”.

in German it is not called “Gesetz” (“law”) but merely “Hauptsatz” (“main clause” => “main theorem”). :wink:

But do they keep preaching it to be a true theorem?? Or more of a often-true consequence?

Just out of curiosity, how does nature distinguish between ordered and less ordered? Surely it would see different patterns, and randomness as one of them.

It sounds a little strange, but actually “nature distinguishes” (whatever that means) order from disorder by virtue of speed. That which is ordered merely remains closer to as it was for a longer time, thus establishing a “fixed pattern” (for at least a short duration) and thus an “order” to be discerned by a mind, labeled, and used for prediction.

The very first/lowest “order in nature” is that of a sphere of dense EMR noise, known as a “subatomic particle”. Its enduring shape allows for all higher ordered structures to form (atoms, molecules,…). The sphere only forms due to the traffic jam of noise retarding any change in the over all cluster.

Those of the physicists I personally know want it to be a true theorem.

But this noise is not the “subatomic particle” itself.

The cluster (gathering) of the noise is the particle. A crowd is not people, but rather a gathering of people. A human body is not chemicals, but rather a gathering of chemicals (in a particular order).

I rewrite your analogy as follows:

If a particle is the cluster (gathering) of the noise, and the crowd is - rather (!) - a gathering of people and the human body - rather (!) a gathering of chemicals (in a particular order), then a particle must - rather (!) - be like a human body or like a crowd, whereas the noise must - rather (!) - be like chemicals (in a particular order) or like people.

Well…
Umm…
Okay…

:laughing: