[Fis] Fwd: [External Email] Energy and Entropy

[Stanley N Salthe]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stanley N Salthe <ssalthe en binghamton.edu>
Date: Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [External Email] Energy and Entropy
To: Marcus Abundis <55mrcs en gmail.com>


Since Marcus has ignored Pedro’s request to keep entropy discussion
offline, I will answer Marcus online Following his example:

Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:57 AM Marcus Abundis <55mrcs en gmail.com> wrote:

Marcus – I am sorry if my notes still seem unclear to you. I was attempting
a more civil tone in my replies, something better than your 'Your statement
concerning "typify" is nonsense.' Perhaps this weakened my point. For
example, if you go to Scholarpedia and search entropy you will find seven
types of entropy listed – entropy is 'typified' in (at least) seven
different ways. Your note 'Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the
same way.', even as something 'formal only' is actually nonsense, failing
to recognize the current state of affairs.

       S: You have misread me. Your many “different types of entropy” are
different manifestations of the same natural tendency/phenomenon in
different systems. The formal structure of that tendency could be said to
be ‘scatter’ or ‘dispersion’. This manifests differently in different kinds
of systems that may be of great interest to the specialists in those
systems.

Marcus -- Further, entropy is always 'driven' by something, making
force-energy a directly related concept.

       S: Yes, a general term for this is ‘work’, the utilization of energy
gradient

Marcus -- Thus, *just in physics* (ignoring other areas of research) with
the uncertain nature of force-energy entropy is equally uncertain. Your
assertion on physics equally failed to recognize the current state of
affairs in physics.

        S: If any of these specializations fail to be based on the
underlying process of energy loss during work, I should like to be advised
about it.

STAN


On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:22 AM Marcus Abundis <55mrcs en gmail.com> wrote:

> Karl – it was no rhetorical embellishment . . .
> If you go to Wikipedia and search 'energy' you will find 12 forms listed
> there. At other times I have seen as many as 16 listed, this listing
> changes from time to time. If you go to Scholarpedia and search energy, you
> will find NO entries. Scholarpedia is more rigorous in reviewing and
> admitting material. If you go to the US Energy Information Agency (aie.gov)
> you will see 9 forms listed. Most sites make vague references to 'many
> forms of energy exist, some of which are . . . ' Still, this means there is
> no firm scientific framing for 'energy'.
>
> Stan – I am sorry if my notes still seem unclear to you. I was attempting
> a more civil tone in my replies, something better than your 'Your statement
> concerning "typify" is nonsense.' Perhaps this weakened my point. For
> example, if you go to Scholarpedia and search entropy you will find seven
> types of entropy listed – entropy is 'typified' in (at least) seven
> different ways. Your note 'Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the
> same way.', even as something 'formal only' is actually nonsense, failing
> to recognize the current state of affairs.
>
> Further, entropy is always 'driven' by something, making force-energy a
> directly related concept. Thus, *just in physics* (ignoring other areas of
> research) with the uncertain nature of force-energy entropy is equally
> uncertain. Your assertion on physics equally failed to recognize the
> current state of affairs in physics.
>
> That said, I still hope to see more notes from our featured New Year's
> speaker . . .
>
> Marcus
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20210113/8d2ffcb7/attachment.html>