Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #585481

Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store.

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

PointedEars imagined:
> Corrections of [my] false assumptions

That the speed of light is a constant, 
regardless of the frame of reference,
is a _useful_ assumption that has never been falsified.

Likewise, my assumptions are _useful_ & have never been falsified.
In fact, the entire history of science supports my assertions.

> > "No Hidden Variables" ( Bell's Theorem ) willfully ignores:
> > We don't know what we don't know.
> 
> educate yourself.

Are you claiming that you know what you don't know ?!
Such arrogance has no place in the science community.
 
> > A better scientist _assumes_ that entropy has no limits, past or present.
> 
> The entropy of an isolated system approaches a maximum.

"Approaching" is not the same thing as "Has Arrived".
The cosmos is transforming from infinitely  hot/dense to infinitely  cold/sparse.

> > Hollywood, religions & governments make the _opposite_ assumption.
> 
> As you can see, it is not merely an assumption, 
> but follows logically from the definitions.

The trend towards increased entropy has not stopped, nor will it ever.
Eventually, Earth will evaporate away; black holes too.
 
> > Empirically, there's nothing "constant" about the Hubble constant.
> 
> Astrophysicists/cosmologists are well aware of this.

The (eternal) consumption of "eXergy" ( potential entropy ) 
is the source of the accelerating expansion.

> > "eXergy" ( potential entropy ) creates/destroys us.
> 
> Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store.

> > No entropy at the ( infinitely precise ) start of the Big Bang.
> 
> “infinitely precise” is pseudo-scientific nonsense 

Precision is artificial, not natural.

"Life" is that videogame playing in your head;
without it, you're just meat.

> maximum entropy...

...is notional, not real.

> >     From our perspective, clocks tick ever-slower the closer
> >     they are to the start of the Big Bang
> 
> How did you get that idea?

General Relativity; check it out sometime, if you can.

You didn't know that we _observe_ that (natural) clocks tick slower
the closer they are to the start of the Big Bang ?

> >     but, locally, they tick normally, as they do here.
> 
> Clocks as we know them did not exist back then yet.

Time existed "back then"; we measure it ( using natural clocks ).

Locally, at the start of the Big Bang, General Relativity says
(natural) clocks ticked the same as they do here&now, not slower.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

A Theory of All Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-05-16 08:58 +0200
  Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-16 10:23 +0200
    Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 14:01 -0500
      Re: A Theory of All The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-16 12:38 -0700
        Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 15:18 -0500
          Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-16 22:53 +0200
            Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 17:28 -0500
              Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-17 13:05 +0200
                Re: A Theory of All The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-17 12:14 -0700
                Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-17 22:08 +0200
                Re: A Theory of All The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-17 13:50 -0700
          Re: A Theory of All The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-16 14:45 -0700
            Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 17:34 -0500
    Re: A Theory of All Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 14:02 -0500
      Re: A Theory of All nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-05-17 13:05 +0200
  These assumptions cover a lot of ground. "Dick's DriveIn"  <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2022-05-16 01:38 -0700
    Corrections of false assumptions (was: These assumptions cover a lot of ground.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-05-17 01:10 +0200
      Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store. "Dick's DriveIn"  <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2022-05-16 19:17 -0700
        Re: Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-05-17 20:36 +0200
        Re: Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-05-17 20:50 +0200
    Re: These assumptions cover a lot of ground. patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-05-16 17:38 -0700

csiph-web