From: nedlatham@internode.on.net   
      
   Gregor Scholten wrote:   
   > Ned Latham wrote:   
   > >   
   > > Entropy and gravity work antagonistically (so to speak). The one works   
   > > to disperse energy/matter; the other to consolidate it/them.   
   >   
   > That's wrong.   
      
   If yoy examone it with your eyes open, you'll see otherwise.   
      
   Yout ideal gas in a bottle analogy is neither relevant nor apt.   
      
   ----snip----   
      
   > An extreme case would be that all matter of the universe were compressed   
   > in black holes. According to Bekensteoin-Hawking entropy of black holes,   
   > the total entropy of the universe would then be much higher than in the   
   > case of equal distribution of all matter particles.   
      
   You're arguing postulate as fact. It ain't.   
      
   > So, your statement that star formation could continue forever, since the   
   > entropy of the universe could remain constant   
      
   I didn't say it would remain constant.   
      
   > because gravity neutralized the grow of entropy,   
      
   Nor did I say that gravity "neutralises" entropy.   
   I saud that the two are antagonistic.   
      
   > is wrong.   
      
   My statement that star formation will continue forever *might* turn   
   out to be wrong, but it won't be for reasons such as you have given.   
      
   > > We can regard the universe as a closed system, but unlike the Second   
   > > Law, we cannot ignore gravity.   
   >   
   > The Second Law of thermodynamics does NOT ignore gravity. Only some of   
   > its applications, like an ideal gas in a bottle, do. Other applications   
   > do not.   
      
   Feel free to show something you think might pass as evidence of that.   
   Be sure to check that you're evidencing the "Law" itself, not some   
   "application" of it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)