Dear Philip, Although there are plenty of ideas in your posting, I will limit this reply to addressing just one of them. Especially as this one is often tossed about in the popular media. You state that, "Mention is made of a closed system. Is there any such thing in an infinite universe? I know they mean a "finite system" with no external interference. But such a thing is impossible when considering the universe which is infinite." Infinity is a mathematical concept that has no bearing whatsoever on reality. There is no basis for an "infinite universe," except to make people think that they are cosmically insignificant and that everything is futile and pointless. Besides the scientific argument for dismissing an "infinite universe," there is also the Biblical one that such a thing would be without end and therefore the Creation would not be finished, even now. Best wishes, Neville. Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I guess I should apologise for keeping this going, but in principle the fight for understanding geocentrism is based on the same plane as that of Creation. So much is hidden by science using terms like "there are other expressions of this law" etc. This is not an accusation. It is simply applied science. The second law of Thermodynamics does not need to go very deep when discussing the theory of the carnot cycle, as applied to heat engines. This morning I awoke with a turmoil of thoughts remembered about entropy. Mention is made of a closed system. Is there any such thing in an infinite universe? I know they mean a "finite system" with no external interference. But such a thing is impossible when considering the universe which is infinite. This is an infinite "sink" for energy to flow into. This is an inexcapable external influence. Such is the nature of radiation. During our study of entropy for heat engines (refrigeration), we did take entropy to its fullest conclusion just for interest. At least we thought it was concluded. The first entropy for our thoughts was the equalisation of temperature. Everything ended at the same temperature. Then of course, there is still temperature due to the molecular vibrations. So this must radiate away with 10 to the nth time, till all molecular activity has ceased. This is the second entropy. (any body care to speculate where all that radiated "heat" is going to end up? It certainly cannot be destroyed).Radiation isn't "heat" either till something is "hotted" up by it. Next we have all that electron activity around the atom. According to the law, it should all cease fall into the nucleus and neutralise all the protons till we end up with a whole heap of "neutrons?". and giving out another heap of radiation. Why would the electrons do that? Of course we know that interplanetary space is not frictionless, and so yes orbits will degenerate. But we cannot be sure this principle applies to atomic space. A perfect atom should last forever. Anyway so now we have this enormous MASS of neutral matter, which gravity, (or the aether ? He He) has caused to come together. I miss Alan on this list. He gave me so much confidence to proceed. Anyway, now just what is the nature of this neutron? Or the proton for that matter. I don't think we have reached total entropy yet. Not till all mass is inihilated, and all that is left is pure raw energy of radiation expansion. Big Bang of a different kind. ????? The energy which God gave to His creation He takes back. Even if all this were so, I have to agree with Rob that this does not disprove evolution as a natural order of creation. It is a conceivable hypotheses for there to be new and complex reactions coming out of this inihilation and the energy it creates. That will be my next follow up discussion, whichI hope will be short, and get creation versus evolution off the agenda, and put geocentrism back, Philip. --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!