Re: Islam's claim about the 360 joints in the human body was proven to be true!

Well I didn't mean litterly "view", thought you would know that.

Temperature may be considered as how much heat a given object contains. That's a macroscopic "view".

However microscopicly it can "viewed" as the average kinetic energy of the particles.

That's the "difference". I know it's a little vague, but maybe you get the picture now.

Instead of giving a full explaination I'll make it short:

2. Law of Thermodynamics:

"Any large system in equilibrium will be found in the macrostate with the greatest multiplicity (aside from fluctuations that are normally too small to measure).

Another way to say it is simply:

Multiplicity tends to increase." - [Shroeder, p 74]

Multiplicity of a macrostate is the number of microstates available to the state given that macrostate. For example if you throw 2 coins, then getting a head and a tail is a macrostate, the number of possible ways getting that is 2 (HT and TH). HT is a microstate, so is TH. The multiplicity of the macrostate (a head and a tail) is 2.

Now imagine this with a system of particles. The multiplicity for all particles having the same velocity is obviously lower than than the mulplicity for the macrostate were (an arbitrary) half the particles have a given velocity, while the other half have another given velocity.

Now entropy is defined as S = k*ln[ multiplicity of the system ], k being the Boltzmann constant. You'll get the expression (under the same assumptions that lead to it), by using the more general definition of entropy, the so-called "informationentropy", which is the average value of "information-amount".

By this you get to one you refered to "Entropy tends to increase".

Now ofcourse this is completly utterly irrelevant, but the thing is, you just showed that it's more likely that you're here to debate for the sake of debate and being in opposition, seing how you (and Sepulchrave) immidiatly assumed I was wrong.

I see no point in continueing this discussion, seeing how we now know it was based on some article that was even trying to show that the statement made in 1. post was wrong.

Originally posted by

**THHuxley**View PostTemperature may be considered as how much heat a given object contains. That's a macroscopic "view".

However microscopicly it can "viewed" as the average kinetic energy of the particles.

That's the "difference". I know it's a little vague, but maybe you get the picture now.

Instead of giving a full explaination I'll make it short:

2. Law of Thermodynamics:

"Any large system in equilibrium will be found in the macrostate with the greatest multiplicity (aside from fluctuations that are normally too small to measure).

Another way to say it is simply:

Multiplicity tends to increase." - [Shroeder, p 74]

Multiplicity of a macrostate is the number of microstates available to the state given that macrostate. For example if you throw 2 coins, then getting a head and a tail is a macrostate, the number of possible ways getting that is 2 (HT and TH). HT is a microstate, so is TH. The multiplicity of the macrostate (a head and a tail) is 2.

Now imagine this with a system of particles. The multiplicity for all particles having the same velocity is obviously lower than than the mulplicity for the macrostate were (an arbitrary) half the particles have a given velocity, while the other half have another given velocity.

Now entropy is defined as S = k*ln[ multiplicity of the system ], k being the Boltzmann constant. You'll get the expression (under the same assumptions that lead to it), by using the more general definition of entropy, the so-called "informationentropy", which is the average value of "information-amount".

By this you get to one you refered to "Entropy tends to increase".

Now ofcourse this is completly utterly irrelevant, but the thing is, you just showed that it's more likely that you're here to debate for the sake of debate and being in opposition, seing how you (and Sepulchrave) immidiatly assumed I was wrong.

I see no point in continueing this discussion, seeing how we now know it was based on some article that was even trying to show that the statement made in 1. post was wrong.

## Comment