Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 184:
Line 184: + + + +
Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics (view source)
Revision as of 03:34, June 14, 2012
, 03:34, June 14, 2012→My answers to Randall7: This doesn't illustrate the basic truth that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
:::::::::: Considering we're talking about physics the definition used by physicists should take precedent. But fine, often "a measure of disorder in a system" is used to define entropy for the layman. However, under this definition the entropy ''still'' increases when ice melts since the structure becomes less ordered. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:15, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::: Considering we're talking about physics the definition used by physicists should take precedent. But fine, often "a measure of disorder in a system" is used to define entropy for the layman. However, under this definition the entropy ''still'' increases when ice melts since the structure becomes less ordered. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:15, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::: The melting of ice is simply a phase change to reflect the temperature. Refreeze the water and it's back to where it started. Observing water rather than ice is logically the same as observing the temperature on a nearby thermometer. This doesn't illustrate the basic truth that a [[perpetual motion machine]] is impossible. Do you think a perpetual motion machine -- one that that moves forever in a consistent manner without intelligent intervention -- may be possible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 13 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::