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

Groups > sci.physics > #520047 > unrolled thread

Gravity creates Entropy

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Gravity creates Entropy "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 18:22 -0700
    Re: Gravity creates Entropy Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-09 18:52 -0700
      Re: Gravity creates Entropy Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 21:35 -0500
        Re: Gravity creates Entropy "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-09-09 20:19 -0700
      Re: Gravity creates Entropy HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 06:18 -0400
      Re: Gravity creates Entropy "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 09:33 -0700
        Re: Gravity creates Entropy "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-09-10 10:14 -0700
          Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 11:09 -0700
            Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 18:45 +0000
              Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 13:03 -0700
                Re: Gravity creates Entropy "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 14:21 -0700
                  Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 15:05 -0700
                    Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 17:11 -0500
                    Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-11 00:07 +0000
                      Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 18:11 -0700
                        Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-11 05:25 +0000
                          Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 23:44 -0700
                            Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-11 12:37 +0000
                Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-10 22:22 +0000
                  Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 15:31 -0700
                    Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 17:32 -0500
                      Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 16:14 -0700
                        Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 07:50 -0500
                          Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 06:44 -0700
                            Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-11 14:16 +0000
                              Re: Gravity creates Entropy Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 09:40 -0500
                            Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 09:51 -0500
                    Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-11 01:43 +0000
            Re: Gravity creates Entropy HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-10 15:07 -0400
    Re: Gravity creates Entropy "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-09-09 19:10 -0700
    Re: Gravity creates Entropy "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 09:54 -0700
      Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 10:52 -0700
        Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 13:22 -0500
          Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 11:38 -0700
            Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 14:01 -0500
        Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-11 19:08 +0000
          Re: Gravity creates Entropy Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 12:18 -0700
            Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 15:40 -0700
              Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 18:06 -0500
                Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 17:33 -0700
                  Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 20:09 -0500
                    Re: Gravity creates Entropy benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 00:02 -0400
                    Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 07:49 -0700
                      Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-14 05:00 +0000
                        Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 06:20 -0700
                          Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-14 14:04 +0000
                            Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:48 -0700
                              Re: Gravity creates Entropy "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 11:57 -0700
                            Re: Gravity creates Entropy Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-14 13:05 -0700
                              Re: Gravity creates Entropy "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 13:19 -0700
                          Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 11:14 -0500
                      Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:38 -0500
                        Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 08:22 -0700
                          Re: Gravity creates Entropy Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:10 +0200
                            Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 12:37 -0700
                              Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 17:06 -0500
                                Re: Gravity creates Entropy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 02:41 -0700
                                  Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 08:04 -0500
                                  Re: Gravity creates Entropy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-15 14:24 +0000
                          Re: Gravity creates Entropy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 12:57 -0500
    Re: Gravity creates Entropy "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 11:57 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#520432

On 9/11/2015 7:33 PM, john wrote:
> Michael-
> You realize, don't you, that if the
> Universe IS bounded, and the
> neutrinos keep coming around,
> there will be a higher and higher
> density of them?

Why do you think that, John? What makes you think that neutrinos are 
created but never destroyed? Are you under the impression that neutrinos 
never interact with anything? How do you think they were discovered 
experimentally? Have you ever looked up the Nobel prize for neutrino 
discovery?

> That actually shoots the argument you
> appear to be making right in the foot
> :)
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#520444

On 09/11/2015 09:09 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/11/2015 7:33 PM, john wrote:
>> Michael-
>> You realize, don't you, that if the
>> Universe IS bounded, and the
>> neutrinos keep coming around,
>> there will be a higher and higher
>> density of them?
>
> Why do you think that, John? What makes you think that neutrinos are
> created but never destroyed? Are you under the impression that neutrinos
> never interact with anything? How do you think they were discovered
> experimentally? Have you ever looked up the Nobel prize for neutrino
> discovery?
>
>> That actually shoots the argument you
>> appear to be making right in the foot
>> :)

John, Boinker is just a parrot who can only repeat what he's told. Hell, 
I was THERE for the neutrino experiments. And I actually studied under 
Dr. Reines. Anonymous Boinker is like HVAC they pretend to have 
education in science, but really it's Liberal arts. They are just good 
at pretending. So he just keeps calling anyone who can actually discuss 
science rather then parrot politically correct dogma, "kooks". Boinker 
has no more idea what a neutrino is and how to detect it than Herb 
Glazier does.



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#520687

Odd said
" What makes you think that neutrinos are 
created but never destroyed? Are you under the impression that neutrinos 
never interact with anything? How do you think they were discovered 
experimentally? "

Okay, Odd.
Neutrinos DO interact.
But what makes you use the word
"destroyed"?
Why not "employed"?

Here's the pattern I see at galactic
centers , with co-translation to
atomic centers:
neutrinos are RELEASED during fusion,
and they are CAPTURED during fission.

It is actually the availability of a
properly-oriented neutrino that ALLOWS
fission.

So, neutrinos may never be destroyed
at all, or changed in any way. It seems
they are like a subatomic currency-
fissioned products have them, but
release them when they fuse. So
when the BH shreds the old stars,
the subatomic particles join with the
neutrinos, which are particles of SPIN,
and they spin up, becoming jets of
High Energy Particles that are shot out
by the galactic field. 

Just theorizing.

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

#520948

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Just theorizing.

You mean "Just babbling."

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

#521013

Michael
Gravity waves are babble- prove them!
Oh, right- they're spending $ on that

Or?
Perhaps you think they are real?

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

#521021

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael
>Gravity waves are babble- prove them!
>Oh, right- they're spending $ on that

>Or?
>Perhaps you think they are real?

John, unlike your babble, which it seems you simply pulled out of some
body orifice, gravity waves actually come out of Einstein's General
Relativity. GR has been extremely successful so far, so it's not at all
unexpected that it may be successful there as well.  We do, in fact, have
some support that it is correct, such as the co-orbiting pulsars that are
losing orbital energy at the expected rate that gravity wave theory
predicts.  That's how science works, John.  Not about babbling about 
already disproven theories such as LeSage gravitation and declaring by
proclamation that's how the Universe works.

Personally, I expect that GR will get it right once again, but science
is often full of surprises so I won't be surprised or disappointed if
it turns out gravity waves are disproven.

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

#521040

Michael
We're in a scientific dead end.
Big Pharma is making poisons for a
morbid population to dull their pain- not
cure them.
Big Farming is spreading poisons on
all the food, killing off the bacterial ecology.
Big Transportation continues to pour oil
over everything, polluting the environment.
Big Business continues to spread plastic
and Mercury and toxic chemicals
across the land.
And Science is looking for gravity waves
and contemplating BHs and alternate
universes.

Pfft!

Dead-end science for zombies full of lies.

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

#521107

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 7:48:43 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Michael
> We're in a scientific dead end.
> Big Pharma is making poisons for a
> morbid population to dull their pain- not
> cure them.
> Big Farming is spreading poisons on
> all the food, killing off the bacterial ecology.
> Big Transportation continues to pour oil
> over everything, polluting the environment.
> Big Business continues to spread plastic
> and Mercury and toxic chemicals
> across the land.
> And Science is looking for gravity waves
> and contemplating BHs and alternate
> universes.
> 
> Pfft!
> 
> Dead-end science for zombies full of lies.

LIGO puts big bucks in Mafia GOPers deep pockets Lead in veggies,and fruit gives lead poison and cancer to children.More $$$$$ in GOPers pockets. TreBert

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

#521123

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 7:04:52 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Michael
> >Gravity waves are babble- prove them!
> >Oh, right- they're spending $ on that
> 
> >Or?
> >Perhaps you think they are real?
> 
> John, unlike your babble, which it seems you simply pulled out of some
> body orifice, gravity waves actually come out of Einstein's General
> Relativity. GR has been extremely successful so far, so it's not at all
> unexpected that it may be successful there as well.  We do, in fact, have
> some support that it is correct, such as the co-orbiting pulsars that are
> losing orbital energy at the expected rate that gravity wave theory
> predicts.  That's how science works, John.  Not about babbling about 
> already disproven theories such as LeSage gravitation and declaring by
> proclamation that's how the Universe works.
> 
> Personally, I expect that GR will get it right once again, but science
> is often full of surprises so I won't be surprised or disappointed if
> it turns out gravity waves are disproven.


Can anyone come up with any Einstein quotation affirming the existence of gravitational waves?

Double-A

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

#521126

On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 1:05:24 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 7:04:52 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > >Michael
> > >Gravity waves are babble- prove them!
> > >Oh, right- they're spending $ on that
> > 
> > >Or?
> > >Perhaps you think they are real?
> > 
> > John, unlike your babble, which it seems you simply pulled out of some
> > body orifice, gravity waves actually come out of Einstein's General
> > Relativity. GR has been extremely successful so far, so it's not at all
> > unexpected that it may be successful there as well.  We do, in fact, have
> > some support that it is correct, such as the co-orbiting pulsars that are
> > losing orbital energy at the expected rate that gravity wave theory
> > predicts.  That's how science works, John.  Not about babbling about 
> > already disproven theories such as LeSage gravitation and declaring by
> > proclamation that's how the Universe works.
> > 
> > Personally, I expect that GR will get it right once again, but science
> > is often full of surprises so I won't be surprised or disappointed if
> > it turns out gravity waves are disproven.
> 
> 
> Can anyone come up with any Einstein quotation affirming the existence of gravitational waves?
> 
> Double-A

AA Einstein never used waves.His thinking was curving of space.He would not like the source of gravity coming out of QM. Those that think gravity works like EM force give gravity attraction created by waves.LIGO is money all the way into the deep pockets of GOPers. I love those aliening space mirrors.They have out done Rube Goldbergs best comic engineering. TrerBert

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

#521064

On 9/14/2015 8:20 AM, john wrote:
> Michael
> Gravity waves are babble- prove them!
> Oh, right- they're spending $ on that
>
> Or?
> Perhaps you think they are real?
>

Binary star systems have been measured to radiate energy away at 
precisely the rate predicted ahead of time by gravitation waves. So if 
gravitational waves are not real, then you'd have two things to explain. 
(1) What's the reason for the obvious loss of energy from the system, if 
not gravitational radiation? and (2) why is the amount exactly what it 
is, if not gravitational radiation?

I'll just remind you, John, that if someone has a model of a process and 
predicts over and over and over again exactly the RIGHT AMOUNT of an 
observation, it's awfully hard to dismiss the model as being obviously 
wrong. It's not obviously wrong if it gets the numbers right again and 
again and again.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#521036

On 9/13/2015 9:49 AM, john wrote:
> Odd said
> " What makes you think that neutrinos are
> created but never destroyed? Are you under the impression that neutrinos
> never interact with anything? How do you think they were discovered
> experimentally? "
>
> Okay, Odd.
> Neutrinos DO interact.
> But what makes you use the word
> "destroyed"?
> Why not "employed"?

Because the neutrinos do not appear in the final state.

This is also consistent with a conservation law of lepton number.
When a neutrino interacts with a neutron, for example, an electron is 
emitted. The neutrino carries a lepton number of 1 and an electron also 
has a lepton number of 1. If the neutrino were "employed" rather than 
destroyed, you'd have an initial state of lepton number 1 and a final 
state with lepton number 2. We know this never happens (by other 
experimental evidence).

>
> Here's the pattern I see at galactic
> centers , with co-translation to
> atomic centers:
> neutrinos are RELEASED during fusion,
> and they are CAPTURED during fission.
>
> It is actually the availability of a
> properly-oriented neutrino that ALLOWS
> fission.
>
> So, neutrinos may never be destroyed
> at all, or changed in any way. It seems
> they are like a subatomic currency-
> fissioned products have them, but
> release them when they fuse. So
> when the BH shreds the old stars,
> the subatomic particles join with the
> neutrinos, which are particles of SPIN,
> and they spin up, becoming jets of
> High Energy Particles that are shot out
> by the galactic field.
>
> Just theorizing.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#521049

Odd
Tell me more about a neutron and
neutrino interacting -
when the electron leaves, what remains?

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

#521060

On 09/14/2015 05:22 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Tell me more about a neutron and
> neutrino interacting -
> when the electron leaves, what remains?
> 

I guess Google has stopped to speak with you
so you have to ask.

Forced neutron beta decay.

n + ny_e  --> p+ + e-

spontaneous free neutron beta decay

n --> p+ + e- + anti_ny_e

where ny_e stands for an electron neutrino.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

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

#521118

Hi Poutnik
Google has never stopped to speak to
me, but Google Earth took three
pictures of me as they drove by. They
didn't stop to do it, though  :)

I asked the question- of Odd- but 
anyone can tell me- because I
wanted to understand the lepton
number argument:
if a neutrino enters with lepton number 1,
and combines with a neutron,
and kicks out an electron with lepton
number 1, the electron leaves.
How, exactly, are there too many lepton
numbers, now? In the system?

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

#521158

On 9/14/2015 2:37 PM, john wrote:
> Hi Poutnik
> Google has never stopped to speak to
> me, but Google Earth took three
> pictures of me as they drove by. They
> didn't stop to do it, though  :)
>
> I asked the question- of Odd- but
> anyone can tell me- because I
> wanted to understand the lepton
> number argument:
> if a neutrino enters with lepton number 1,
> and combines with a neutron,
> and kicks out an electron with lepton
> number 1, the electron leaves.
> How, exactly, are there too many lepton
> numbers, now? In the system?
>

Here you go
In the "neutrino gets destroyed model"
             nu + n -> e + p
lepton #:    1 + 0 -> 1 + 0

In the "neutrino gets employed model"
             nu + n -> e + p + nu (because the neutrino nu still exists 
and gets recycled somewhere)
lepton #:    1 + 0 -> 1 + 0 + 1

Second one doesn't work

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#521239

Odd
Yes, I thought that you meant that.

But if the neutrino is needed for fission
and given off in fusion, it is remaining
with one of the fissioned products;
captured by them. So, instead of
being destroyed, it is being substituted
for the electron.
How would that work?

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

#521253

On 9/15/2015 4:41 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Yes, I thought that you meant that.
>
> But if the neutrino is needed for fission

I don't think it is needed for fission. Neutrons are, not neutrinos.

> and given off in fusion, it is remaining
> with one of the fissioned products;

I don't understand why you say it is remaining with one of the fissioned 
products.

> captured by them. So, instead of
> being destroyed, it is being substituted
> for the electron.

I don't understand this statement at all, either.

> How would that work?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#521270

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>But if the neutrino is needed for fission

It isn't.  Are you thinking of the neutron?

>and given off in fusion,

It technically isn't.  It is given off by beta decay.  However some
forms of fusion essentially have immediate beta decay (such as
p + p -> D + e+ + ve).   Other forms of fusion involve no neutrinos
(D + T -> He4 + n) or produce radioactive stuff that beta decays
(producing a neutrino) later.

> it is remaining
>with one of the fissioned products;
>captured by them. So, instead of
>being destroyed, it is being substituted
>for the electron.
>How would that work?

It doesn't.

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

#521084

On 9/14/2015 10:22 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Tell me more about a neutron and
> neutrino interacting -
> when the electron leaves, what remains?
>

A proton. nu + n -> e + p.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web