From: goldenfieldquaternions@gmail.com   
      
   I think Latham might be partially right if the universe were static. Of   
   course the tiniest of perturbation will remove the universe from that   
   condition. It will then either collapse or expand.   
      
   General relativity with quantum mechanics does not permit our standard   
   idea of equilibrium. A black hole of mass M that emits or absorbs a tiny   
   unit of mass m will by temperature T = 1/8pi M increase or decrease   
   temperature respectively. This means in a model setting with a black   
   hole in a background of the same temperature this is not   
   equilibrium. While the temperatures are equal, the black hole will be   
   statistical fluctuations either increase or decrease its temperature and   
   respectively evaporate or grow. We do not have quite the same physical   
   meaning to equilibrium.   
      
   Just as this is the case for black holes the same holds for a model   
   cosmology that is static. Even a quantum fluctuation will push the   
   system away from this stationary configuration. The physical universe is   
   expanding and doing so in an accelerated fashion. This means there is   
   and will be more phase space in which entropy can be dumped. This will   
   limit the future possibility of the world as we observe it. Galaxies   
   will be almost entirely populated by red dwarf stars in a few 10s of   
   billions of years and in around a few 10s of trillions of years those   
   stars will wink out as the last sparks or embers of the stellate period   
   we observe.   
      
   LC   
      
   On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 7:46:58 AM UTC-5, 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.   
   >   
   > In fact, it's the other way round: if YOU examine it with your eyes   
   > open, you'll see otherwise (than you described).   
   >   
   >   
   >> Yout ideal gas in a bottle analogy is neither relevant nor apt.   
   >   
   > Indeed, and due to that, your statement that the 2nd Law would tend to   
   > disperse matter (i.e. prefer an equal distribution) which is based on   
   > considering an ideal gas isn't relevant, too.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Just as you do.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > You said, star formation would continue forever. To facilitate that,   
   > entropy at least must not grow over long time periods.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> because gravity neutralized the grow of entropy,   
   >>   
   >> Nor did I say that gravity "neutralises" entropy.   
   >> I saud that the two are antagonistic.   
   >   
   > What can only mean that you want to say that gravity tends to lower   
   > entropy. Or in other ways: tends to neutralize the grow of entropy.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Yes, it will be. Your statement is wrong.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > The only way to evidence a law is by evidencing its applications. So,   
   > requiring to evidende a law without evidencing some its applications   
   > does not make sense.   
   >   
   > For the 2nd Law, there are e.g. the following three applications:   
   >   
   > 1) A gas in a bottle, with attractive forces between the gas particles   
   > being weak enough to be neglected. In this application, it turns out   
   > that the 2nd Law tends to disperse that gas particles, i.e. prefers a   
   > state of equal distribution. And in this application, we ignore gravity   
   > (by considering attractive forces as weak enough to be neglected).   
   >   
   > 2) A gas in a bottle, with attractive, but non-gravitational forces   
   > between the gas particles as so strong that we have to take them into   
   > account. In this application, it turns out that for high temperatures,   
   > the 2nd Law still tends to disperse the particles, whereas for low   
   > temperatures, prefers a liquid state with the particles being close to   
   > each other and not equally distributed. And in this application, we   
   > still ignore gravity (the attractive forces are non-gravitational).   
   >   
   > 3) A cosmic medium with attractive gravitational forces. In this   
   > application, the 2nd Law does not prefer a state of equal distribution.   
   > i.e. does not tend to disperse matter, but prefers a clumpy distribution   
   > of matter. And in this application, we do not ignore gravity.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)