Hi Russell and everyone I appreciate the comments in the thread such as those on entropy vs universe dynamics which reveal the fact that I may be somewhat old school re physics. In the blog discussion I pointed to in my earlier post I do cover many points. For example at definition #3, I discuss closed systems. I hypothetically designate our solar system as essentially closed for the purposes of the blog post. Over the duration of my posting on this list I have presented a collection of models regarding how the Everything can allow and implement dynamic universes at least as viewed by life entities inside those universes. I am currently interested in several aspects of the results of the observation of life in our local life system, how the observational results can be understood, and what impact do the resulting conclusions have on models of the Everything and humanities [Homo Sapiens Sapiens] continued existence or perhaps imposed life style changes. In the blog post I am trying to explain why numerous warnings of impending socio-economic disaster have been, by prior trials, largely ignored. I would like to refine the blog [or even abandon it if it is shown to be unrealistic] so I would deeply appreciate comments on it. Hal Ruhl On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:28:15 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44:17PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > > Yes, I think that's what Carl Sagan said about the possibility of life > > existing indefinitely, too. The entropy ceiling goes up indefinitely, > but > > the energy remaining goes down, and ultimately I would imagine it ends > up > > at the noise level. Since entropy is an emergent concept I'm not sure > where > > the rising ceiling gets us in the long run, although it certainly helps > in > > the "short" term (the big bang was near equilibrium, yet we're now far > from > > it). > > > > It's not as clear cut as that. In a Friedman universe, gravity > eventually slows the expansion of the universe, (whether open or > closed) so the entropy ceiling slows down in being raised. This would > imply that eventually that dissipative process will eventually > assymptotically consume the available free energy. > > (Apparently, in a closed Friedman universe, it is possible to obtain > energy from the big crunch - Tipler's Omega point, so I probably > haven't got this quite right for closed universes. Something to do > with reversing the direction of the second law, I suppose.) > > But it now appears that the universe's expansion is accelerating due > to dark energy. This would entail that free energy will forever be > created faster than the dissipative processes can consume it. > > Again, consider this to all be revised again in our lifetimes. > > Cheers > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected]<javascript:> > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
