alexander Posted July 22, 2004 Report Posted July 22, 2004 Ok, I've been perplexed about this for a fairly long time but, people say that nothing is impossible, and that means that the impossibility itself is not impossible therefore there is somthing that is impossible, but that contradicts the first statement no?
Uncle Martin Posted July 23, 2004 Report Posted July 23, 2004 It is impossible for pi to be anything other than 3.14........ It is impossible to destroy energy.... It is impossible for you to know what I ate for lunch on 3- 25- 1988.....etc....etc... Therefore I assert that some things are impossible.
erKa Posted July 23, 2004 Report Posted July 23, 2004 Obviously. Positive entropy is out of our Universe, but it is matter of Faith. Johannes stated about it in Apocalypses. (..the deads will be called to another life and their flesh and bones shall be restored..) But a camel will pass thru the hollow head of a needle before a rich man will be allowed in the Eden. Consequently there are a lot of things defined possible/impossible but only few or them are Phisically, Geometrically, Logically impossible. And the other kind of possibility/impossibility?
Uncle Martin Posted July 23, 2004 Report Posted July 23, 2004 Originally posted by: erKaObviously. Positive entropy is out of our Universe, but it is matter of Faith. Johannes stated about it in Apocalypses. (..the deads will be called to another life and their flesh and bones shall be restored..) But a camel will pass thru the hollow head of a needle before a rich man will be allowed in the Eden. Consequently there are a lot of things defined possible/impossible but only few or them are Phisically, Geometrically, Logically impossible. And the other kind of possibility/impossibility?HUH?,...."positive" entropy?.... "out of our universe?.....FAITH?...... Then some bible mumbo jumbo,....what are you trying to say? Nothing in your post is "obvious"!!!
TeleMad Posted July 24, 2004 Report Posted July 24, 2004 I think you might be paraphrasing the actual statement, which FreeThinker brought up in another thread. It goes something like...in an infinite universe, anything with a non-zero probability of occuring there will not only have occurred, but will have done so an infinite number of times. But even in such an infinite universe, 1 = 2 is impossible.
erKa Posted July 24, 2004 Report Posted July 24, 2004 Dear Uncle, enthropy means that a good food will be reduced in shits, gasoline in heat, iron in rust, bright stars in neutron masses and so on . The meaning of enthropy is in the shown evidence (axiom= every man can assume it it in the same manner) that "Universe is burning" from fire to smoke & powders, from pure energy to exhausted debris. The contrary is out of known Physical Order. But there is also a Metaphysical order (the order in which my soul is involved) in which the contrary of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is a possible statement...aufklarung?
Uncle Martin Posted July 24, 2004 Report Posted July 24, 2004 I am aware of the definition of entropy. I've not heard of "positive" entropy, which implies negative entropy. I also don't see what faith has to do with it. But I see you are using the 2nd law argument, yes, that does explain a few things. That has been discussed to death and I'll let someone else go that route should they wish.
Tim_Lou Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Originally posted by: erKaDear Uncle, enthropy means that a good food will be reduced in shits, gasoline in heat, iron in rust, bright stars in neutron masses and so on . The meaning of enthropy is in the shown evidence (axiom= every man can assume it it in the same manner) that "Universe is burning" from fire to smoke & powders, from pure energy to exhausted debris. The contrary is out of known Physical Order. But there is also a Metaphysical order (the order in which my soul is involved) in which the contrary of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is a possible statement...aufklarung? hey, but what about the formation of nitrogen oxide, formation of poly-organic molecules.... (a decrease in entropy) entropy is not always the rule here,it should be a relationship between enthalpy and entropy... : )
TeleMad Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Entropy does increase in every reaction - including the formation of polymers - if one considers the total entropy of the Universe. That is, if a particular system undergoes a decrease in entropy there must be a larger increase in entropy in its surroundings. The overall affect is that the entroup of the Universe always increases for any process/reaction that occurs. So one could say that entropy increasing is the rule, and one could also say that entropy increasing is not the rule (depends on what one is considering). When looking at just free monomers joining to form a polymer, the entropy does decrease. Here, as Tim_Lou pointed out, one must consider both the change in entropy and the change in enthalpy. The general "equation" for spontaneity involved here is: [delta]G = [delta]H - T[delta]S where delta G is the change in Gibb's free energy, delta H is the change in enthalpy, T is the temperature in kelvins, and S is the change in entropy. If the two factors (enthalpy and entropy) indicate opposition directions (spontaneous vs. non-spontaneous, or non-spontaneous vs. spontaneous), which one dominates is determined by their magnitudes: if the magnitude of [delta]H is greater than the magnitude of T[delta]S, then the enthalpy will determine whether or not the process is sponateous; if the magnitude of [gelta]H is less than the magnitude of T[delta]S, then entropy will dominate.
Recommended Posts