Originally posted by whirlysplat
Oh Why not shred your last argumentThe Laws of Thermodynamics are considered part of the bedrock of physics. But there are two problems.
The first is essentially a clarification. The Laws of Physics (including specifically the Laws of Thermodynamics) are, in reality, not laws of nature, but instead man-made theories or informed guesses of how man believes nature works and how she apparently limits herself. They are a theory, and no amount of propaganda or public relations will convert them magically into fundamental laws which cannot be breached. It takes, as a matter of fact, only one contrary example to shake the most basic bedrock of theory. And the current problem is that we’re all living in an earthquake zone!
The most noteworthy example of physics undergoing a forced revision of physical laws concerns the Law of Conservation of Energy, and prior to the time of Einstein’s famous E=mc2 equation, the Law of Conservation of Mass (aka matter, material). Both of these “laws” stated that in a closed system, the total amount of Energy (or Mass) could not change. Period.
Each of the two conservation laws (energy and mass) were independent, prior to Einstein. But with the recognition that mass was a form of energy, the situation changed. Suddenly, the Law of Conservation of Mass went out-of-fashion, and was very quietly left to die alone and in callous disrepute -- like an unwanted relative down on his luck. The resulting Law of Conservation of Energy -- as modified by Einstein and including mass as a form of energy -- was once again sacrosanct. Unfortunately, the lesson of the “fundamental law” needing a fundamental rewrite was lost on several generations of scientists, economists, and the world at large.
The revised Law of the Conservation of Energy, also became known in physics as the First Law of Thermodynamics. It was as if a modification was needed in order to keep the dignity of the laws intact, and simultaneously, try to forget about the unfortunate incident with mass. (As if Mass had not been victimized enough, there is considerable evidence now to suggest that mass doesn’t exist at all! It might not matter to you, but matter itself may be an illusion.)
The second problem with the Law of Conservation of Energy (aka the First Law of Thermodynamics) is that one of the Assumptions on which it is based is often neglected in the mathematical treatment of the law and the results which are derived from it. No rational physicist would argue that fundamental to the Law of Conservation of Energy is the restraint or assumption that we are dealing with a closed system! If the system is not closed, then the law is not strictly applicable, and thus there is no violation of the law.
The same need for a closed system exists in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which basically states that the “order of a system must always decrease” -- or alternatively, Entropy, physics’ measure of disorder, must always increase. The difficulty is that most systems -- even when they are believed to be a closed system -- are quite the contrary. Physicists who assume they can achieve a closed system in their experiments are simply wrong. The ideal, closed system is much harder to achieve than one might imagine. In fact, Quantum Physics -- notably Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle -- states that the very act of observation of an experiment is an intrusion into the system, and effectively alters the experiment.
Furthermore, if as the world’s philosophical and spiritual traditions claim (i.e. theorize) that we live in a connected universe, then there are no closed systems except for one of universal size. (And that might be invalid as well, if parallel or Multiple Universes exist!)
The Fifth Element and Zero-Point Energy suggest that everything in the universe is in fact connected. On the one hand, Mach’s Principle claims inertia is due to the interaction of all masses in the universe, while more recently it has been demonstrated mathematically in the arena of Zero-Point Energy, that all electric charges in the universe interact. The Fifth Element theory goes on to show that there are no limits to the energy that might be conveyed from one entity to another. In all respects there are no closed systems, only approximations.
Back at the physics ranch, the Laws of Thermodynamics must then be viewed as useful tools in which we can accomplish all manner of conjecture and ultimately achieve an effective technology. But these Laws are always approximations, and can in principle never be used to eliminate alternative possible scenarios. The great danger is that we forget the limitations of the laws, and assume them to be without exception. However, the laws are correct only in a closed system, but in as much as there are no closed systems in the universe, the laws cannot always be used to disprove other more radical theories.
Bummer! I know. But think of the possibilities: No limits! Chaos Theory may now reign (or just mist slightly), but remember that the Chinese glyph for chaos is also the sign of opportunity. And lucky us! We live in the Universe of Opportunity! And Choices.
You look silly still oh yes and it can be either epistomology or epsitemology but thats the thing about choice you have options. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistomology
You still look very silly 😮
😮 😮 😮
😆 😆 😆
And now, a revelation.
Did you really come up with all of that yourself?
I think not. It’s very similar to the information on this page. In fact, it’s a precise match.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward144.htm
Tsk, tsk… All plagiarism. You’re deceiving people to make yourself seem more intelligent than you truly are. You even have Galactic Storm believing that you’re an intelligent individual, when you’re actually just a liar who claims the work of others as your own. Shame. 😮
And you’re still wrong.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
Law: a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that is invariable under the given conditions.
Any "law" that can be factually disputed isn’t a Law, plain and simple. Until you, or any other scientist, (if you are truly a scientist, and that isn’t a lie,) can produce factual (not hypothetical, or theoretical,) evidence or a scenario wherein a law is directly defied, you are wrong.
Scientists, (such as yourself, 😖hifty: 😆 ) can hypothesize that a Law is wrong all they like. If there is no factual evidence to prove their claim, it’s merely a hypothesis. I never agreed with you. I implied that new Laws can be discovered, so long as they do not contradict existing Laws. Try to keep up. 😄
The truth about you is that you’re a bigot, and in of your egotistic belligerence, you feel the need to parade about the forum, posting links to this thread, criticizing me. It’s perhaps the most immature conduct I’ve ever seen on this forum. You’re attempting to defame my character and intelligence, and all the while, you are the one lacking integrity.
😄
Never claimed it was mine Cubist.
However its all true hey what about the Epistomology bit?
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Did you really come up with all of that yourself?I think not. It’s very similar to the information on this page. In fact, it’s a precise match.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward144.htmTsk, tsk… All plagiarism. You’re deceiving people to make yourself seem more intelligent than you truly are. You even have Galactic Storm believing that you’re an intelligent individual, when you’re actually just a liar who claims the work of others as your own. Shame. 😮
And you’re still wrong.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
Law: a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that is invariable under the given conditions.
Any "law" that can be factually disputed isn’t a Law, plain and simple. Until you, or any other scientist, (if you are truly a scientist, and that isn’t a lie,) can produce factual (not hypothetical, or theoretical,) evidence or a scenario wherein a law is directly defied, you are wrong.
Scientists, (such as yourself, 😖hifty: 😆 ) can hypothesize that a Law is wrong all they like. If there is no factual evidence to prove their claim, it’s merely a hypothesis. I never agreed with you. I implied that new Laws can be discovered, so long as they do not contradict existing Laws. Try to keep up. 😄
The truth about you is that you’re a bigot, and in of your egotistic belligerence, you feel the need to parade about the forum, posting links to this thread, criticizing me. It’s perhaps the most immature conduct I’ve ever seen on this forum. You’re attempting to defame my character and intelligence, and all the while, you are the one lacking integrity.
😄
Oh and as for the scientist bit I have an HND in Apllied Biology from Notts Poly, A BSc hons from Southbank, A postgrad cert in integrated Science from Goldsmiths and A PGCE in Science also from Goldsmiths College University of London.
You'd know if you had a degree using others research is not plagurism
Hey and how about that crazy revision of the laws of thermodymanics shit.
and that crazy two ways of spelling epistomology.
Guess getting my facts right does make me a bigot
Originally posted by whirlysplat😄
Never claimed it was mine Cubist.However its all true hey what about the Epistomology bit?
Oh and as for the scientist bit I have an HND in Apllied Biology from Notts Poly, A BSc hons from Southbank, A postgrad cert in integrated Science from Goldsmiths and A PGCE in Science also from Goldsmiths College University of London.You'd know if you had a degree using others research is not plagurism
Hey and how about that crazy revision of the laws of thermodymanics shit.
and that crazy two ways of spelling epistomology.
Guess getting my facts right does make me a bigot
You may be rather intelligent, and you may be able to debate moderately well, but you're still an ass about it.
Oh and in cubists defence in most closed Newtonian Systems he is completely correct. Unfortunately we live in the string theory, quantum crazy universe which just refuses to obey laws.
His assumption black holes are just a theory is true as well, however, were about to get a picture of ones shadow next year.
Crazy huh 😄
Originally posted by whirlysplatIf you had a degree, I think you'd know that the word is spelled plagiarism, (perhaps it too has a dual spelling.) I would also imagine that a highly educated man such as yourself would know the definition of the word ‘plagiarism.’
Oh and as for the scientist bit I have an HND in Apllied Biology from Notts Poly, A BSc hons from Southbank, A postgrad cert in integrated Science from Goldsmiths and A PGCE in Science also from Goldsmiths College University of London.You'd know if you had a degree using others research is not plagurism
Hey and how about that crazy revision of the laws of thermodymanics shit.
and that crazy two ways of spelling epistomology.
Guess getting my facts right does make me a bigot
😄
“The act of plagiarizing; using someone else's words or ideas as if they were your own.”
Notwithstanding my lack of a degree, I still believe that what you did qualifies. 😮
If you weren't implying that the argument was your own, why wouldn't you cite it like the other articles you posted, or at least provide a hyperlink to the web page? That’s because you weren't. You were attempting to deceive myself and the other members into thinking that those were your own words. I caught you in the act of plagiarism.
'Chin up.' 😄
You're a bigot because of your expressed narrow-minded views and your apparent superiority complex. Your arrogant, immature practice on this forum speaks volumes of your character. In truth, I pity you.
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Oh and in cubists defence in most closed Newtonian Systems he is completely correct. Unfortunately we live in the string theory, quantum crazy universe which just refuses to obey laws.His assumption black holes are just a theory is true as well, however, were about to get a picture of ones shadow next year.
Crazy huh 😄
Theory after theory. You musn't understand that theory does not override a law. If you honestly believe that the universe itself changes every time a physicist comes up with a new hypothesis, you're one confused bugger. 😄
I've made no assumptions; I've stated facts. Have black holes been proven to exist? Let me answer that for you; no, they haven't. Hence, they exist in theory, or “a plausible explanation for phenomena.” ‘Try to keep up.’ 😄
Originally posted by whirlysplat
Damn that Cubist his a Square, never responds to my IM's when I ask if his having a good day and takes everything so personally. Its a shame. 😆
Hey so I made a spelling mistake, like Einstein I have a specific learning difficulty called Dyslexia. Which means I find spelling quite hard 🙂 All the more amazing I have done so well in education. So who looks silly now and no I never imply that a basic Epistomological argument was my own. Its just common sense. You still look silly CC.
Oh and the only reason I am on the boad so much is I am in bed with flu🙁
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
If you had a degree, I think you'd know that the word is spelled plagiarism, (perhaps it too has a dual spelling.) I would also imagine that a highly educated man such as yourself would know the definition of the word ‘plagiarism.’“The act of plagiarizing; using someone else's words or ideas as if they were your own.”
Notwithstanding my lack of a degree, I still believe that what you did qualifies. 😮
If you weren't implying that the argument was your own, why wouldn't you cite it like the other articles you posted, or at least provide a hyperlink to the web page? That’s because you weren't. You were attempting to deceive myself and the other members into thinking that those were your own words. I caught you in the act of plagiarism.
'Chin up.' 😄
You're a bigot because of your expressed narrow-minded views and your apparent superiority complex. Your arrogant, immature practice on this forum speaks volumes of your character. In truth, I pity you.
Theory after theory. You musn't understand that theory does not override a law. If you honestly believe that the universe itself changes every time a physicist comes up with a new hypothesis, you're one confused bugger. 😄
I've made no assumptions; I've stated facts. Have black holes been proven to exist? Let me answer that for you; no, they haven't. Hence, they exist in theory, or “a plausible explanation for phenomena.” ‘Try to keep up.’ 😄
I don't have the time to reply to your incessantly senseless Personal Messages. Life exists outside the Killer Movies Community Forum. Well, at least in my case, it does.
Hey S 😄 😄
Oh and on black holes you are quite right they are theoris but as I state
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/news/home99/dec99/shadow.htmld they will be very concrete very soon.
this one is especially interesting
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/headlines-1.html
and like I said before CC
we live in a crazy universe open to change
as ever I look forward to reading you reply and hearing more of your fascinating intellect. Hey you seem quite a bright guy, how come you never got a degree. I've met loads of Americans with them🙂
PS I love the way you always pick up on spelling🙂 Thats a sign of a certain kind of learning style, fascinating.
Have a nice day 😄
Ok I dont care who has what degree and who has graduated from which school. I have a degree and I could care less if all of you do or do not. You all are so far off subject that it is retarded. You all dont sound like educated people at all... you all sound like little kids on a playground saying..."My dad can beat up your dad!" ... "nuh uh... my dad and mom will beat up you and your whole family!"
In comics logical answers are not always there. If you don't realize that then you need to stop buying them and sign off the KMC Forums.
Originally posted by Jason8200
Ok I dont care who has what degree and who has graduated from which school. I have a degree and I could care less if all of you do or do not. You all are so far off subject that it is retarded. You all dont sound like educated people at all... you all sound like little kids on a playground saying..."My dad can beat up your dad!" ... "nuh uh... my dad and mom will beat up you and your whole family!"In comics logical answers are not always there. If you don't realize that then you need to stop buying them and sign off the KMC Forums.
😄 Cool