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

Groups > sci.physics > #852587 > unrolled thread

A Theory of All

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#852587 — A Theory of All

For the record.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: A Theory of All
Date: 	Mon, 16 May 2022 08:52:34 +0200
From: 	Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>
To: 	hees@itp.uni-frankfurt.de


Beginners questions and other bullshit all over the place, but Jacob 
Barandes and foundations of physics is "overly speculative".

And I could even understand that, sort of: but that you don't allow me 
to reply to Tom Roberts and his filth is simply unforgivable.

You are totally part of the problem and of no solution ever. Be ashamed 
of yourselves, you fucking frauds and enemies of humanity.

Julio


On 14/05/2022 17:14, Hendrik van Hees wrote:
> Unfortunately your posting to sci.physics.research is not appropriate 
> for the newsgroup, because it is not entirely clear what the statement 
> is about and also seems to be overly speculative.
>
> Best regards,
> Hendrik van Hees.
> sci.physics.research co-moderator
>
> On 14/05/2022 15:57, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> This is a spin-off of a discussion in sci.logic.  The mathematical 
>> details should mostly be immaterial here, I am going to discuss a 
>> specific idea and line of reasoning.  Just one caution: I am not in 
>> fact interested in the philosophy of physics, rather in 
>> *foundations*, at which level I'd propose an "operational" 
>> perspective might be all we need.
>>
>> ["Musatov's infinity", with minor amendments to the original:]
>>
>> On Friday, 13 May 2022 at 14:25:06 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> > [...] And here I'd propose that, in a properly infinitary theory
>> > as  ours, there is a first "number" and that is omega, not zero.
>> > As the "fundamental leap" to even get started (indeed, universal
>> > quantifications "built-in").
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/BU608dm8t9o/m/BCzaSw06AgAJ>
>>
>> Now, thinking about "omega first" and what might change:
>>
>> Take this for example (from the "new-Platonic" approach):
>> << Given ontic random variables A and B, pA(a) and pB(b) may be 
>> /incommensurable/, meaning there may not exist a physically accurate 
>> joint probability distribution p(a,b) [...]  If no joint probability 
>> distribution for A and B [exists], then A+B and AB are no longer 
>> random variables! [...]  This is not about ontology, it's a matter of 
>> epistemology! >>
>> <https://youtu.be/OmaSAG4J6nw?t=2205>
>>
>> But we could, and maybe should, given that a complex system is more 
>> than the sum of its parts (!), reason in the opposite direction: a 
>> system in a maximally entangled state simply has no parts.  Namely, 
>> first the system, then the parts!
>>
>> That may be hard to reconcile with our common understanding because 
>> the two electrons whose spin is in the singlet state can in fact be 
>> taken apart and acted upon individually.  But of course a property is 
>> not an object... rather and eventually (I think) the point is that 
>> "non-locality" (in scare quotes as that itself may be upside down, 
>> it's more "glocality", then possibly the subsumption of decoherence 
>> and of the very inside/outside dialectic: and that's where I am not a 
>> Platonist) has to be embraced at a fundamental level: together with 
>> telepathy...
>>
>> A map is not the territory: unless the territory is the map. "On 
>> outperforming meta-goedelization through short-circuiting 
>> self-referentiality".  A *Theory of All* has no no-go theorems, and 
>> that a "theory of everything" does not exist.
>>
>> Anyway, that is my line of research and still a work in progress: 
>> comments, references, questions and corrections are very welcome.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Julio
>>
>> -- 
>> Julio P. Di Egidio
>> http://julio.diegidio.name
>
> -- 
> Hendrik van Hees
> Goethe University (Institute for Theoretical Physics)
> D-60438 Frankfurt am Main
> http://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#852589

Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

> For the record.
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:      Re: A Theory of All
> Date:         Mon, 16 May 2022 08:52:34 +0200
> From:         Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>
> To:   hees@itp.uni-frankfurt.de
> 
> 
> Beginners questions and other bullshit all over the place, but Jacob 
> Barandes and foundations of physics is "overly speculative".
> 
> And I could even understand that, sort of: but that you don't allow me
> to reply to Tom Roberts and his filth is simply unforgivable.
> 
> You are totally part of the problem and of no solution ever. Be ashamed
> of yourselves, you fucking frauds and enemies of humanity.
> 
> Julio
> 
> 
> On 14/05/2022 17:14, Hendrik van Hees wrote:
> > Unfortunately your posting to sci.physics.research is not appropriate
> > for the newsgroup, because it is not entirely clear what the statement
> > is about and also seems to be overly speculative.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Hendrik van Hees.
> > sci.physics.research co-moderator

[snip 'not entirely clear' material]

Yes, this is precisely why sci.physics.research was set up.
It is also the reason why sci.physics.research
does not contain the morasses of junk that you find
in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity

The moderators are doing an excellent job,

Jan

-- 
"We won't let the nutters steal usenet from us" (John Baez)

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852618

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> 
> > For the record.
> >
> >
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > Subject:      Re: A Theory of All
> > Date:         Mon, 16 May 2022 08:52:34 +0200
> > From:         Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>
> > To:   hees@itp.uni-frankfurt.de
> >
> >
> > Beginners questions and other bullshit all over the place, but Jacob
> > Barandes and foundations of physics is "overly speculative".
> >
> > And I could even understand that, sort of: but that you don't allow me
> > to reply to Tom Roberts and his filth is simply unforgivable.
> >
> > You are totally part of the problem and of no solution ever. Be ashamed
> > of yourselves, you fucking frauds and enemies of humanity.
> >
> > Julio
> >
> >
> > On 14/05/2022 17:14, Hendrik van Hees wrote:
> > > Unfortunately your posting to sci.physics.research is not appropriate
> > > for the newsgroup, because it is not entirely clear what the statement
> > > is about and also seems to be overly speculative.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Hendrik van Hees.
> > > sci.physics.research co-moderator
> 
> [snip 'not entirely clear' material]
> 
> Yes, this is precisely why sci.physics.research was set up.
> It is also the reason why sci.physics.research
> does not contain the morasses of junk that you find
> in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity
> 
> The moderators are doing an excellent job,
> 
> Jan

The only good moderator is a dead moderator.


> 
> --
> "We won't let the nutters steal usenet from us" (John Baez)
> 
> 

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852650

On 5/16/2022 11:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The only good moderator is a dead moderator.


:-))

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852735

Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/2022 11:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The only good moderator is a dead moderator.

If the moderators are dead, so is the group,
by the rules of usenet. 
It is not possible to create new ones.

> :-))

Come on, nobody forces you to try posting there.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852649

On 5/16/2022 3:23 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Yes, this is precisely why sci.physics.research was set up.
> It is also the reason why sci.physics.research
> does not contain the morasses of junk that you find
> in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity
> 
> The moderators are doing an excellent job,
> 
> Jan


Ok Mom.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852653

Clutterfreak wrote:
> 
> On 5/16/2022 3:23 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Yes, this is precisely why sci.physics.research was set up.
> > It is also the reason why sci.physics.research
> > does not contain the morasses of junk that you find
> > in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity
> >
> > The moderators are doing an excellent job,
> >
> > Jan
> 
> Ok Mom.

Is your Mom Hot?



> 
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852658

On 5/16/2022 2:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Clutterfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 5/16/2022 3:23 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Yes, this is precisely why sci.physics.research was set up.
>>> It is also the reason why sci.physics.research
>>> does not contain the morasses of junk that you find
>>> in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity
>>>
>>> The moderators are doing an excellent job,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> Ok Mom.
> 
> Is your Mom Hot?
> 
> 
> 

I don't know. I assume "Jan" is a female name, plus what she said sounds 
American female way of reasoning to me. It's the first time I see her 
post in this forum.



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852660

Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/2022 2:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Clutterfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/16/2022 3:23 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Yes, this is precisely why sci.physics.research was set up.
> >>> It is also the reason why sci.physics.research
> >>> does not contain the morasses of junk that you find
> >>> in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity
> >>>
> >>> The moderators are doing an excellent job,
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>
> >> Ok Mom.
> > 
> > Is your Mom Hot?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> I don't know. I assume "Jan" is a female name, plus what she said sounds
> American female way of reasoning to me. It's the first time I see her
> post in this forum.

Sorry about not removing the cross posting,

Jan
(who avoids sci.physics)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852680

On 5/16/2022 3:53 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Jan
> (who avoids sci.physics)


Ahah.. you're familiar with sci.physics then.

How did you get so familiar without interacting with those who frequent 
this forum? Did you, perhaps, did so under another alias?. Are you, 
perhaps, doing it all the time under another alias? :)

Woman, if you were "familiar" with sci.physics you'd be reading my blogs 
here day in and day out! You wouldn't leave me if I paid you.



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852736

Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/2022 3:53 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Jan
> > (who avoids sci.physics)
> 
> 
> Ahah.. you're familiar with sci.physics then.

No, not really. It is not a group I subscribe to,
so all I may see is the occasional cross-post,
(which shouldn't exist)

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852760

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 5/16/2022 3:53 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Jan
> > > (who avoids sci.physics)
> >
> >
> > Ahah.. you're familiar with sci.physics then.
> 
> No, not really. It is not a group I subscribe to,
> so all I may see is the occasional cross-post,
> (which shouldn't exist)
> 
> Jan


(which shouldn't exist)???? How stupid can you be...Jan? LOOK, OBSERVE...Your Newsreader, it reads:


Newsgroups:


There is a letter s at the end of the word...Newgroups.

Meaning, More than One newgroup. You add an s and it means more than one.


(which shouldn't exist)???? shouldn't, couldn't wouldn't but does exist.

Take a course in Reality, J. La dee da


its gonna take a Lodder love 
to change the way things are


so if you look in my direction
and we dont see eye to eye,

its gonna take a Lodder love 
its gonna take a Lodder love 
its gonna take a Lodder love 



NewsgroupS:



The world revolves around Jan.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852775

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[Follow-Up to sci.physics]

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > 
> > Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 5/16/2022 3:53 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Jan
> > > > (who avoids sci.physics)
> > >
> > >
> > > Ahah.. you're familiar with sci.physics then.
> > 
> > No, not really. It is not a group I subscribe to,
> > so all I may see is the occasional cross-post,
> > (which shouldn't exist)
> > 
> > Jan
> 
> 
> (which shouldn't exist)???? How stupid can you be...Jan? LOOK,
> OBSERVE...Your Newsreader, it reads:
> 
> 
> Newsgroups:
> 
> 
> There is a letter s at the end of the word...Newgroups.
> 
> Meaning, More than One newgroup. You add an s and it means more than one.

Quite simple, dear Newby.
If there is a general newsgroup, like sci.physics,
with a specialised subgroup, like sci.physics.relativity,
then it is bad netiquette to crosspost between the two.
If you feel you must do it nevertheless you should set a Follow-Up to:

Excessive cross-posting is a misplaced shout for too much attention,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852778

Everything You Wanted To Know About Cross-Posting But Were Afraid To Ask

Sometimes, you'll have an issue you think should be discussed in more
than one newsgroup. Rather than posting individual messages in each
group, you can post the same message in several groups at once, through
a process known as cross-posting.


Say you want to start a discussion about the political ramifications of
importing rare tropical fish from Brazil. People who read rec.aquaria
might have something to say. So might people who read
alt.politics.animals and talk.politics.misc.


Cross-posting is easy. It also should mean that people on other systems
who subscribe to several newsgroups will see your message only once,
rather than several times -- news-reading software can cancel out the
other copies once a person has read the message. When you get ready to
post a message , you'll be asked in which newsgroups. Type the names of
the various groups, separated by a comma, but no space, for example:


rec.aquaria,alt.politics.animals,talk.politics.misc


and hit enter. The message will be posted in the various groups (unless
one of the groups is moderated, in which case the message goes to the
moderator, who decides whether to make it public).


It's considered bad form to post to an excessive number of newsgroups,
or inappropriate newsgroups. Probably, you don't really have to post
something in 20 different places. And while you may think your
particular political issue is vitally important to the fate of the
world, chances are the readers of rec.arts.comics will not, or at least
not important enough to impose on them. You'll get a lot of nasty e-mail
messages demanding you restrict your messages to the "appropriate"
newsgroups.
--
___________________ * _-_
\==============_=_/ ____.---'---`---.____ *
\_ \ \----._________.----/
* \ \ / / `-_-' *
* __,--`.`-'..'-_
/____ || *
`--.____,-' ...to boldly go where no man has gone
before!


Expand your mind, expand your universe, experience new things and ideas,
...with cross-posting.
The Starmaker


"A posting that is cross-posted (i.e. lists multiple newsgroups on the
Newsgroups: header line) to a few appropriate newsgroups is fine..."
--from Google Groups


"If you do post to multiple newsgroups, don't post to each group
separately. Instead, specify all the groups on a single copy of the
message. This reduces network overhead and lets people who subscribe to
more than one group see the message once instead of having to wade
through each copy. -- from Google Groups


J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [Follow-Up to sci.physics]
> 
> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 5/16/2022 3:53 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Jan
> > > > > (who avoids sci.physics)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ahah.. you're familiar with sci.physics then.
> > >
> > > No, not really. It is not a group I subscribe to,
> > > so all I may see is the occasional cross-post,
> > > (which shouldn't exist)
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> >
> > (which shouldn't exist)???? How stupid can you be...Jan? LOOK,
> > OBSERVE...Your Newsreader, it reads:
> >
> >
> > Newsgroups:
> >
> >
> > There is a letter s at the end of the word...Newgroups.
> >
> > Meaning, More than One newgroup. You add an s and it means more than one.
> 
> Quite simple, dear Newby.
> If there is a general newsgroup, like sci.physics,
> with a specialised subgroup, like sci.physics.relativity,
> then it is bad netiquette to crosspost between the two.
> If you feel you must do it nevertheless you should set a Follow-Up to:
> 
> Excessive cross-posting is a misplaced shout for too much attention,
> 
> Jan

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852671

Clutterfreak wrote:
> 
> On 5/16/2022 2:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Clutterfreak wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/16/2022 3:23 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Yes, this is precisely why sci.physics.research was set up.
> >>> It is also the reason why sci.physics.research
> >>> does not contain the morasses of junk that you find
> >>> in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity
> >>>
> >>> The moderators are doing an excellent job,
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>
> >> Ok Mom.
> >
> > Is your Mom Hot?
> >
> >
> >
> 
> I don't know. I assume "Jan" is a female name, plus what she said sounds
> American female way of reasoning to me. It's the first time I see her
> post in this forum.



What's a female?



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852682

On 5/16/2022 4:45 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Clutterfreak wrote:
>>
>> On 5/16/2022 2:38 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Clutterfreak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2022 3:23 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Yes, this is precisely why sci.physics.research was set up.
>>>>> It is also the reason why sci.physics.research
>>>>> does not contain the morasses of junk that you find
>>>>> in sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity
>>>>>
>>>>> The moderators are doing an excellent job,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> Ok Mom.
>>>
>>> Is your Mom Hot?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't know. I assume "Jan" is a female name, plus what she said sounds
>> American female way of reasoning to me. It's the first time I see her
>> post in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> What's a female?
> 
> 
> 


It's a question that made Turing develop his famous test.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852590 — These assumptions cover a lot of ground.

Re: "Tom Roberts and his filth" & "A Theory of All"

Tom Roberts isn't the most polished "Instagrammer"; still, he's OK.

These assumptions cover a lot of ground:

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

A better scientist _assumes_ that entropy has no limits, past or present.
Hollywood, religions & governments make the _opposite_ assumption.

Empirically, there's nothing "constant" about the Hubble constant.
"eXergy" ( potential entropy ) creates/destroys us.
No entropy at the ( infinitely precise ) start of the Big Bang. 

    From our perspective, clocks tick ever-slower the closer
    they are to the start of the Big Bang but, locally, 
    they tick normally, as they do here.

"God" (nature) programmed us to consume residual eXergy as 
the cosmos goes from infinitely  hot/dense to infinitely  cold/sparse.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852689 — Corrections of false assumptions (was: These assumptions cover a lot of ground.)

Dick's DriveIn wrote:

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

You should watch <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs> (and the more 
detailed video referred there) to educate yourself about what you are 
talking about *before* you are talking about it.
 
> A better scientist _assumes_ that entropy has no limits, past or present.

One can *prove*, though, that the entropy of an isolated system with 
irreversible processes approaches a maximum, and that in this state that 
system is in thermal (and therefore thermodynamic) equilibrium:

Let an isolated system be divided into the parts A and B with total energies 
E_A and E_B, respectively, so the total energy of the system is
E = E_A + E_B.  Furthermore, the parts A and B shall have the fixed volumes 
V_A and V_B, respectively, and contain the fixed numbers of particles N_A 
and N_B, respectively.  The parts are allowed to exchange energy with each 
other, which means in this case that they are only allowed to exchange heat 
(but not work or particles).

The number of states that section A can be in is given by the partition 
function Ω_A(E_A, V_A, N_A) and the number of states that section B can be 
in is given by the partition function Ω_B(E_B, V_B, N_B).

Then the maximum probability that the system assumes a state with a 
particular energy is given by

  P = Ω_A Ω_B/Ω,

where Ω is a measure of the number of all possible states of the system.  
Then

    ln P = ln(Ω_A Ω_B/Ω) = ln Ω_A + ln Ω_B − ln Ω
⇔ k ln P = k ln Ω_A + k ln Ω_B − k ln Ω
⇔      S = S_A + S_B − const.,

where k is the Boltzmann constant, S is the entropy of the system,
and S_A and S_B are the entropies in each part of the system, respectively.

The system reaches its maximum entropy, if that, if

  ∂S/∂E_A = 0 = ∂S_A/∂E_A + ∂S_B/∂E_A − 0
⇔           0 = ∂S_A/∂E_A + ∂S_B/∂E_B ∂E_B/∂E_A
              = ∂S_A/∂E_A + ∂S_B/∂E_B ∂(E − E_A)/∂E_A
              = ∂S_A/∂E_A + ∂S_B/∂E_B (∂E/∂E_A − ∂E_A/∂E_A)
              = ∂S_A/∂E_A + ∂S_B/∂E_B (0 − 1)
⇔           0 = ∂S_A/∂E_A − ∂S_B/∂E_B
⇔   ∂S_A/∂E_A = ∂S_B/∂E_B.   (1)

From the First Law of Thermodynamics (look up its derivation),

  dE = δQ + δW + μ dN = T dS − p dV + μ dN,

for example, we have

  (∂S/∂E)_{V,N} = 1/T,

so eq. (1) is equivalent to

        1/T_A = 1/T_B
⇔         T_A = T_B.  (thermal/thermodynamic equilibrium) ∎

And we know empirically that if we mix e.g. two substances with different 
initial temperatures (say, icecubes in a drink), if we do not allow energy 
flow out of or into the system, it will approach thermal equilibrium and 
have a mixing temperature that is between the initial temperatures (e.g. the 
ice cubes will melt, taking up heat from the beverage, and the beverage’s 
temperature will be lower than before).

ISTM the proof above covers all bases.  It shows:

1. The entropy of an isolated system with irreversible processes (such as
   mixing substances) always increases (the natural logarithm is a
   monotonically increasing function).

2. The entropy of an isolated system approaches a maximum.

3. When the isolated system has reached maximum entropy, it is in thermal
   equilibrium.

> Hollywood, religions & governments make the _opposite_ assumption.

As you can see, it is not merely an assumption, but follows logically from 
the definitions.
 
> Empirically, there's nothing "constant" about the Hubble constant.

Empirically we have no reasonable way of comparison to earlier times; in 
Carl Sagan’s words (paraphrased): “Humanity occupies only the last second of 
the last day of the cosmic calendar”.  (Our universe is estimated to be 
≈ 13.8 billion (10⁹) years old; we know of the expansion of our universe 
since less than 100 years, which is ≈ 7 billionth of the estimated age of 
our universe.)

However, deep-space observations (type-Ⅰa supernovae; see the Nobel Prize in 
Physics 2011) which allow us to observe the universe as it was in the past, 
strongly indicate that the Hubble parameter is not constant, but 
asymptotically decreasing with time (which means that the speed with which 
the scale factor of our universe is increasing is increasing itself – it is 
an accelerated expansion), and the Hubble constant must just be understood 
as the value of the Hubble parameter at the current time:

  H₀ = H(t₀),

where

  H(t) = ȧ(t)/a(t).

    [̇H = (ä a − ȧ²)/a² = −ȧ² (1 − ä a/ȧ²)/a² = −ȧ²/a² (1 + q)
       = −H² (1 + q) < 0 if q > −1.]

Astrophysicists/cosmologists are well aware of this.  But you are apparently 
not aware of their knowledge; you are merely arguing from your own 
ignorance.

> "eXergy" ( potential entropy ) creates/destroys us.

Such a nonsense, it is not even wrong.

> No entropy at the ( infinitely precise ) start of the Big Bang.

First of all, “infinitely precise” is just more pseudo-scientific nonsense 
from you.

Second, the low-entropy state _close to_ the Big Bang event is an 
assumption, and it is substantiated by the observations of the CMB which is 
the most perfect example of black-body radiation yet.

However, Roger Penrose argues in his Cyclic Cosmology model that a low-
entropy state of a singular universe can be the result of the conformal 
mapping of a previous, infinitely large universe with maximum entropy –
the same state that can reasonably be assumed in the distant future of
the universe as we know it.
 
>     From our perspective, clocks tick ever-slower the closer
>     they are to the start of the Big Bang

How did you get that idea?

>     but, locally, they tick normally, as they do here.

Clocks are just thought-experiment substitutes for the elapsed proper time 
on a worldline.  Obviously clocks as we know them did not exist back then 
yet.


PointedEars
-- 
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. 
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" 
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852719 — Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#852754 — Re: Empirically, you need eXergy to drive to the store.

Dick's DriveIn wrote:

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

Nobody debated that.

> Likewise, my assumptions are _useful_ & have never been falsified.

Apparently it has escaped your attention that I had just falsified several 
of them.

> In fact, the entire history of science supports my assertions.

Only that it does not.  And claiming otherwise does not change that.
 

PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web