Sin, chaos, and entropy

[Josheb]

You just got a D- in thermodynamics.

The facts of entropy applied to refrigerators prove otherwise. So, too, do the laws of thermodynamics.

And I will leave it at that.

I doubt that because the opportunity to do exactly so passed many posts ago.

 

[JIM]

The facts of entropy applied to refrigerators prove otherwise. So, too, do the laws of thermodynamics.

Entropy applies to every instance of energy transfer in any system, whether closed or not. In the case of a closed system, it is always nonnegative. In the case of an open system, it can be negative, zero, or positive.

 

[makesends]

You just got a D- in thermodynamics. And I will leave it at that.

So you've stopped the conversation. What was your problem with what he said? This? "The fridge takes the energy input and transfers it to a cooling effect that also causes the simultaneous release of heat (in its motor)"? Should he have been more complete and mentioned, besides the motor inefficiency that the majority of heat released was through the condenser radiator? If he's wrong, saying he's wrong does nothing. Show where he's wrong.

 

[JIM]

So you've stopped the conversation. What was your problem with what he said? This? "The fridge takes the energy input and transfers it to a cooling effect that also causes the simultaneous release of heat (in its motor)"? Should he have been more complete and mentioned, besides the motor inefficiency that the majority of heat released was through the condenser radiator? If he's wrong, saying he's wrong does nothing. Show where he's wrong.

He asserted that entropy was not applicable to open systems. The refrigerator is an open system. That open system alters the temperature of anything placed inside it to be consistent with the set temperature of the refrigerator. Normally that means that the temperature is reduced. In doing so the entropy is decreased. In an open system, the entropy may decrease, increase or remain unchanged. In a closed system, the entropy will either remain unchanged or will increase. It will not decrease.

Entropy is applicable to every system in which there is an energy transfer, open or closed. That is fundamental.

 

[Josheb]

I will leave it at that.

Entropy applies...

nt

 

[makesends]

He asserted that entropy was not applicable to open systems. The refrigerator is an open system. That open system alters the temperature of anything placed inside it to be consistent with the set temperature of the refrigerator. Normally that means that the temperature is reduced. In doing so the entropy is decreased. In an open system, the entropy may decrease, increase or remain unchanged. In a closed system, the entropy will either remain unchanged or will increase. It will not decrease.

Entropy is applicable to every system in which there is an energy transfer, open or closed. That is fundamental.

Well, maybe you have a point. I should think that would depend on just where you draw the line at just what is a system, but oh, well. I apologize for correcting you..

 

[EarlyActs]

Over the years, I have encountered a few Christians who relate entropy to sin and chaos. Is this justified?

I don't think so, at least not scientifically.

Given a system (e.g., a room, the planet, the universe), its entropy measures its thermodynamic state in units of J/K. When a system exists, its entropy exists and is theoretically measurable. Joules relates to dynamic energy; Kelvin relates to thermo temperature.

The second law of thermodynamics states that a system's entropy increases over time. No external physical force acts upon the closed system; it is just the nature of atoms and molecules residing inside the system.

Technically, entropy is not a force, and it does not measure the level of chaos either.

How do we understand the ratio J/K? What is this per Kelvin degree?

Given a system at any given time, its absolute entropy H is extremely difficult to calculate accurately. In solving practical problems, scientists often calculate ΔH, the change of entropy of the system over 2 instances of time, temperatures K1 at time 1 and K2 at time 2. When the temperature changes by 1 unit, Kevin, how much of the thermodynamic energy has changed? This is the unit J⋅K−1.

There is God who one day will put a stop to the current chaos and sin we observe on planet Earth. Still, the scientific measure of entropy may still continue. It measures the thermodynamic state of a closed system. It does not technically measure the amount of chaos or sin in the system.

Tony, I'm not allowed to mention my journal, but I think you would appreciate what it is trying to say about creation. I believe that the biblical phrase 'spreading out' (Job, Psalms, Isaiah), has to do with a mass explosion before Day 1. This is what gives the distant universe its lifeless, random feature. I can support this with details about Gen 1:2 and the vocab of the entire chapter. I still regard the creation week as found; I'm referring to pre-conditions.

I even have the exact celestial mechanical problem remaining to solve, and perhaps you can help. If 'illumination' arriving Day 1 is starlight, or at least the visual confirmation of Centauri, our nearest neighbor, so that a person would know 24 hours past (not that there were people yet), then that is, in normal LYs, 4 years prior to Day 1. Then the question is what amount of time passed between the said explosion and Centauri's locating 'here' near a water-covered fragment now called earth? Not much I think.

Factors: explosions have sharp declines in energy immediately.

Upside: those who believe in a BB are often convinced that there had to be a Cause (God). But the rigid and rote treatment of Gen 1 cannot reach them. I hope this view will.

As Dr. Lennox says, the text clearly starts each day with God's spoken order for the day. That means the conditions described in 1:2 are before that, in an indefinite amount time.

 

[EarlyActs]

Just about anything, but particularly the fields of natural science.

Yes, and this is why I started my journal, which I am not allowed to name here. There is something unnatural, magical, overly miraculous about how Gen 1 is usually handled and it pushes STEM people away.

I am in correspondence with Creation Research Society, but they only allow STEM scientists to vote, and I am not. My background is in language and literature. I believe apologetics must spend more time on the actually vocab of the text, and its custody, and its structure. Too many times it is treated as only a quick 'punchlist' type of transcript to view quickly for a quick yes-no answer on any given question. As soon as I mention a little lifeless random features that exist before Day 1 they press alarm bells about sin and death being there before creation, because they have been told that one answer over and over (it does apply to their question, not my scenario!).

 

[JIM]

nt

????