Re: Is evolution an example of decreasing entropy?

Navillus wrote:
> Let's put the second law aside for a moment. Like a lot of people on
> the other side tend to do, we're confusing orderliness and a
> thermodynamics property.

I'm not confusing `orderliness' with any thermodynamic
quantity. You do appear to be. I think you should stop.

> The key topic for this forum is the nature of
> disorder, not the thermodynamic property of entropy.

The key topic for this forum is evolution, and whether it is
a process that violates the second law of thermodynamics.

More specifically, my topic was whether the formation
of the sun from a gas cloud, by gravitation, violates the
second law of thermodynamics.

The answer is emphatically: It does not.


> The key claim
> usually made by a creationist is that things do not increase in
> orderliness on their own accord.

Yes, I see creationists making this claim. I don't see them defining
orderliness. Nor do I see you defining it.


> They wrongly point to the second law
> to assert this.

That's true.

>And, like with the second law, there is also a general
> trend in nature to tend towards disorder.

No. There is no general trend in nature towards `disorder.'

I don't accept your assertion. You'll need to define `order,' and
demonstrate for me that any such general trend exists.

> So let's just focus on the
> nature of order and disorder.
>

Fine.

> I see where Mulder is going with this. It's the same thing I was asking
> before. Let's just compare the orderliness of particles held together,
> forming a star, versus those same particles floating around randomly in
> a large empty space. I would argue that the particles forming the star
> are more orderly- they follow more predictable paths, they form an
> object that is capable of providing other objects with usable heat
> energy.
>

The paths of particles forming a star are no more predictable than
the paths of the same particles floating around in a large empty
space. Both are completely unknown to us. We simply lack
sufficient information about their paths to make any useful
predictions in either case.

This is why we resort to the use of thermodynamics and statistical
mechanics to describe such systems in the first place. We lack,
almost completely, any information about the specific positions
and momenta of the particles composing them. Hence we
don't know their paths.

What you've said about predictabilty does not constitute a quantitative
definition of `order.'

> In fact, the particles forming the star operate as a natural machine
> (heater, high radiation emmiter, etc) whereas the particles in a random
> arrangement in a larger space do not.

Why would you say that one arrangement is more `random'
than the other?

What is the quantitative measure of `randomness'?

Is `randomness' supposed to be an antonym for `order'?

> Essentially, it's just a matter
> of getting the particles dense enough--and holding them there. Gravity
> does this without any sort of frictional loss or energy loss of any
> kind, because it's not an actual object holding the components
> together.

Gravity is an attractive force that acts between the atoms of a
gas cloud. Gravity is also a conservative force. If such a cloud
begins to collapse, and it is sufficiently large in size, then
gravity will make it continue to collapse. Opposing the tendency
to collapse is the pressure in the gas that builds up, because
the collapse occurs at first mainly conserving energy, due to
the low density of the initial cloud, which limits the rate of
collisions among its particles. As the gravitational binding
energy of the cloud increases, this binding energy is thus
transformed generally into more rapid motion of the
particles of the gas, that is to say into kinetic energy.
This kinetic energy is what results in pressure and
temperature of the cloud.

Without dissipative forces (friction), and energy loss,
a large gas cloud COULD NOT COLLAPSE under its
own gravity into a star. The whole process of collapse is
critically affected by the ability/inability of the gas to radiate
away excess kinetic energy created by its own collapse.

Radiation occurs because atoms/molecules of a collapsing
cloud smash into eachother more and more frequently
as the cloud gets denser and denser, and these collisions
are not completely elastic, but instead sometimes excite
the atoms/molecules into excited states. The electrons
drop back down to lower states, emitting photons. The
photons are able to carry energy out of the cloud.
This is what makes the whole process of collapse
possible.

If energy couldn't be radiated away, the cloud wouldn't
collapse. It would stabilize at some point, when the kinetic
energy became large enough.

Do you understand?

You cannot neglect friction and energy loss in the
formation of stars.

> It accomplishes the goal of building the natural reactor and
> heat generator without any net system loss. The particles simply come
> together.
>

Nonsense. It is a highly lossy and violent process, the particles
do not `simply come together.'

> So my inquiry becomes whether or not gravity can be used to explain
> natural increases in orderliness without a net increase in disorder.

You'll have to define orderliness/disorderliness in a such a way that
they can be computed, and you can give me a number or a formula
for them. Otherwise to say they have increased has no meaning.

> Gravity pulls elements together to form planets and stars, an increase
> in order.

What is the numerical value of the `order' for the sun before and
after it collapsed? For the earth?


> The star then provides organisms with an energy source to
> jump-start evolution before the predator-prey relationship can exist.
> Initially, life needs to be able to feed off of something other than
> other life. Stars provide that. Additionally, gravity orders the
> particles on a planet's surface into usable groups- water sources,
> rocks, etc and is able to keep them all in an ideal temperature range
> for life.

Look, this is a very nice story, but too full of words and too
wooly-headed.

There is clearly a lot more to describing the dynamics of the earth
which we must consider besides gravity which determines the
distribution of water/rocks/etc.. The earth has a thin solid crust,
which floats on top of its mantle. Go deep into the earth, and you
have molten rock, and eventually molten metal flowing around:
things become stranger and stranger. Much more than gravity
is going on ... there's fluid dynamics and chemistry ...

The temperature regulation is very a complex isssue ... it has to do
with (at least) these three factors.

(1) The solar flux arriving at the top of the atmosphere.
(2) The amount of the solar flux radiated back to space.
(3) The internal heat of the earth, which arises ultimately
from radioactivity.


> I'm going to contend that gravity is a key force and probably
> the FUNDAMENTAL force in the universe that drives increases in
> orderliness, eventually leading to complex life.

Gravity is a key force in driving the collapse of large amounts
of matter into small spaces, given that there was some
initial inhomogeneity in the matter distribution.

However, other forces, especially the electromagnetic
force are equally critical to producing complex life.

Gravitational collapse does not violate the second law
of thermodynamics.

Your `orderliness' seems to be an extremely vague
concept.

David

.

Relevant Pages

  • 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
    ... 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check ... Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. ... but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. ... We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Physics of the WTC on 9/11 Contradicts Official Report
    ... Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check ... but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. ... simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to ... We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: 9/11 Collapse Theory Fails Physics Reality Check
    ... Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed. ... referred to as a "pancake collapse". ... but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. ... We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Latter Day MMX
    ... > Gravity is not like normal forms of radiation such ... It is more like heat being carried by ... > additional energy or any change in energy for it to ... And these particles were all ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does gravity do work on the freely falling body?
    ... In any even one can not conceive of gravity causing an object to ... the sum of momentum of the system is zero on a continuous ... energy of the particles is also zero on a continuous basis. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)