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

Groups > sci.physics > #852914

Re: MikeMoroney & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics".

Show all headers | View raw

Dick's DriveIn wrote:

> You (MikeMoroney) replied ( to me ):
>> > 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.
>> Wrong.
> 
> How are my assumptions not useful ?  &

They are provably and proved wrong.  Wrong assumptions are not useful (in 
science).

> How are they not supported by the entire history of science ?

Science is the process of eliminating wrong assumptions through mathematics 
(including logic) and experiment.

>> > > > From our perspective, clocks tick ever-slower the closer
>> > > > they are to the start of the Big Bang
>>
>> General relativity does not claim that.
>> What we observe is an ever increasing relativistic Doppler effect.
> 
> General Relativity has nothing to say about how slow a natural clock would
> tick in an infinitely hot&dense place 13.8 billion light-years away from
> the observer ?!
> 
> You & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics".

LOL.

>> > Locally, at the start of the Big Bang, General Relativity says
>> > (natural) clocks ticked the same as they do here&now, not slower.
>> 
>> Your claim would require infinite speculation.
> 
> General Relativity is a _useful_assumption_ that has never been falsified.

It is much more than just an unfalsified assumption: It is a well-confirmed 
scientific theory.

> You don't even know what it says.

No, *you* do not.

> You failed "Sci.Physics".

LOL.

>> > > > No entropy at the ( infinitely precise ) start of the Big Bang.
>> > > > Precision is artificial, not natural.
>> 
>> So you admit your claim is pseudo-scientific nonsense ?
> 
> " No entropy at the start " is a _widely_accepted_, _useful_, unfalsified
> _assumption_.

You are merely arguing from blissful ignorance.  “No entropy at the start” 
is not even a scientific statement.  A scientific statement would be “the 
initial entropy was zero”; however, both physical intuition and quantum 
mechanics indicate that there could not have been a physical singularity.  
The curvature singularities we get mathematically from applying general 
relativity are instead an indication that general relativity is not 
sufficient a theory in that regard.  (Which is why theoretical physicists 
are looking for a theory of quantum gravity.) 

Again, thermodynamic entropy is defined as

  S = k_B ln Ω,

where k_B is the Boltzmann constant and Ω is the number of microstates.
If there is only one microstate, then

  Ω = 1

and

  S = k_B ln(1) = k_B · 0 = 0.

But if the volume of our universe was not zero, and yet it as filled with 
myriads of particles, then there was not only one possible microstate even 
back then, and the initial entropy of our universe was small (smaller than 
today), but not zero.

> Again, you failed "Sci.Physics".

LOL.

>> > The trend towards increased entropy has not stopped, nor will it ever.
>> > Eventually, Earth will evaporate away; black holes too.
>> 
>> Perhaps, but entropy is a statistical effect.

Entropy is a statistical/thermodynamic _quantity_.

> Nothing is " more useful, more widely accepted & never falsified "
> than the laws of thermodynamics; General Relativity pales in comparison.

It follows from the laws of thermodynamics that you are wrong about entropy 
(and exergy).

> ThomasLahn is unaware of the role entropy plays in Hawking Radiation !

I am aware of it, and you have no clue what you are talking about.

> You failed "Sci.Physics".

LOL.

>> > > > "No Hidden Variables" ( Bell's Theorem ) willfully ignores:
>> > > > We don't know what we don't know.
>> 
>> Bell's Theorem [assumes] that apparent randomness isn't due to
>> hidden variables, unlike [ what Einstein assumes ].
> 
> So ? Bell was a fool;

*You* are a fool:

> Einstein [ the Swiss patent clerk ]

Einstein was not a Swiss patent clerk; he was a theoretical physicist who, 
by contrast to you, had a diploma in (teaching) Physics.  He just happened 
to also work at the Swiss Patent Office for 3 years.

> was the primary founder of modern science.

Among many other people who *you* probably have never heard of.  (Because, 
by contrast to others, including me, you have not actually studied that 
which you are talking about.)

> "eXergy" ( potential entropy ) created/destroys us;
> without it, you couldn't drive to the store.
> 
> "Life" is that videogame playing in your head;
> without it, you're just meat.

I hate to break it to you, but you are probably mentally ill.  You should 
see a psychiatrist to get checked for megalomania.

And you really should get a real name if you want to have a chance to be 
taken seriously here.  (Not that there is much hope of that at this point.)


PointedEars
-- 
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

Back to sci.physics | 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 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-16 09:30 -0700
      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
    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
  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: Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store. Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-05-18 01:56 -0400
          MikeMoroney & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics". "Dick's DriveIn"  <Dicks@Jeff-Relf.Me> - 2022-05-18 13:37 -0700
            Re: MikeMoroney & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics". Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-05-19 00:59 +0200
            Re: MikeMoroney & ThomasLahn failed "Sci.Physics". Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-05-18 19:28 -0400
  Re: A Theory of All Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 08:35 -0700
    Re: A Theory of All Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-05-16 08:46 -0700

csiph-web