I will come back and comment more coherently, relating to your post, to read it and the thread as a whole etc., but I can comment right now on:
quote:
What this has to do with entropy, which is probably so simple it isn't one of the things you were thinking of at all, is that if gravity were a force it would act unevenly, resulting in a "feeling" of acceleration like that we get when firing a rocket or riding in Einstein's elevator (rather than fee-fall that is). This force would eventually have to run out, entropize into nothing, whereas we can expect gravitation to continue as long as the mass continues to exist and distort the space in the same way.
because before reading about the problems with Prigogine's ideas that Georgi Gladyshev (http://
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine? -->
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine?) solidified in my thinking
quote:
At that time, the most fashionable theory was probably the one formulated by Ilya R. Prigogine and his colleagues. It maintained that open natural biological systems are far from equilibrium. This seemed to imply that they (such systems) can be formed and exist only as a result of the formation of ?live? dissipative structures. I would like to note that under dramatic changes of the environment?s parameters (I call such changes revolutionary, as opposed to evolutionary), individual biological systems function in conditions that are far from equilibriums. In such conditions one can, indeed, observe the emergence of dissipative (dynamic) structures. However, the role of these structures in the evolutionary development of living objects is not determinative. In my view, Prigogine?s theory was a dead end in terms of thermodynamics or, at best, in Roger Penrose?s terms, a trial one. Still, many researchers remain faithful to these views, although, as applied to evolutionary biological processes, there is not a single even semi-quantitative argument in favor of Prigogine?s theory. Also, delusions in the area of thermodynamics of biological evolution are promoted, as before, by the serious errors arising from a mistaken idea of entropy and interpretation of the second law. Because of these errors, inflated by visionaries-cum-dilettantes, many biophysicists neglect the works of Gibbs and the other classics. The fathers of ?postnonclassical? science (which, in my view, is hardly related to science at all) have most probably made no serious study of physical chemistry and other fundamental works. Following in the steps of Kenneth Denbigh, I have recently devoted several publications to these matters.
, I HAD considered the possibility, I think, you referenced.
Imagine, gravity clinematic differences ( g-force can interact
with torque on cell contents differentially if the size is larger than bacteria) in a dissipative system. If gravity is dissipatively active over(beyond) themal effects then the "elevator effect" could interact physiologically with actual physical chemical movements that DO contribute to entropy!! This is the kind of thing I mention if I must compare my own ideas of what is going on inside a cell with Behe's Jonny-come-later approach seems to garner preferntially to my comments. My thinking has a become less ugly than this however.
Thanks for responding. I dont have more time this morning, more later.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-20-2006 12:43 PM
™ Version 4.2
