Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
There was a Mxyzptlk vs Q thread a while ago but nobody was really into it. For A) he's not a comic I don't think, and B) He's pretty much like Beyonder before he was retconned. Not much you can put him up against with jazz like that.
True enough, do star trek comics count?
Actually, you look silly. Very silly. All you’ve done is further prove of my point. 😄
Laws of Thermodynamics
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be changed from one form to another. The total amount of energy and matter in the universe remains constant. Any energy lost by a system must be gained by its surroundings.
The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction. No energy conversion is 100% efficient; some energy is lost as heat. The entropy [disorder] of an isolated system increases with time.
If all thermal energy [molecular kinetic energy or heat] can be removed from a system, a state of absolute zero will occur. Absolute zero results in a temperature of 0 Kelvin or -273.15° Celsius.”
Einstein himself says, “The basic structure of the phase space must yield to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” You do know what it means to yield, don’t you? 😕
“The insertion of the constant violated the second law of thermodynamics which shows ever increasing entropy.” You clearly misread the article. The author says that the insertion of the constant violates the second law of thermodynamics, meaning that it the constant, not the law, is unsound. If a theory violates the laws of thermodynamics, it is discarded. Any scientist worth his salt knows this. 😄 If the article proves anything, it proves that Einstein’s theory was wrong. Considering the fact that Albert Einstein died 50 years ago, any "revisions" he had made to the laws would be widely known today. But they aren’t, are they? 😄
Laws of Motion
"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Did you even read the book you’re citing? 😱 “The momentum of an isolated system is not conserved, and the usual theorem for center-of-mass motion of any system does not hold.” It seems that you’re having a hard time differentiating a law from a theorem. You’re actually implying that theory is more tentative than law. 😆
That’s actually Epistemology, ‘mate.’🙄 You’re shifting from physics to philosophy. Try focusing on one topic for a change. 😄
Sincerest apologies if I’ve made you feel like a complete idiot. 😮 😉
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
Cosmic Cube, what if somebody finds out it works a different way and that law ends up wrong?
Laws state facts, such as, "all matter is composed of atoms."
Theories state a fortified hypothesis, such as, "all organisms are composed of cells."
If it wasn't proven, it wouldn't be a law. An unproven "law" is a theory.
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Laws state facts, such as, "all matter is composed of atoms."Theories state a fortified hypothesis, such as, "all organisms are composed of cells."
If it wasn't proven, it wouldn't be a law. An unproven "law" is a theory.
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
But what if a law is proven to be wrong as science advances? Obviously some won't change but some might.
None of the laws are that flexible. For example, atoms have been proven to exist. Unless reality itself somehow changes this fact, the law will remain intact. Theorem are built around laws.
Oh dear poor old Cosmic Cube had to return this time with an even more confused post. He needs to look up the word epistomology till he does every post makes him look more silly. because he is now in complete conflict with his original statement that laws are "indesputable".
He is now agreeing but trying to make out he did all along.
Bless him.
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
None of the laws are that flexible. For example, atoms have been proven to exist. Unless reality itself somehow changes this fact, the law will remain intact. Theorem are built around laws.
My original post and expansion
5th d is still better science than dividing space/time
well space and time are one they cannot be divided this is part of the special theory of relativity.
We live in a 3 d universe 4 if you include time. A being from a higher plane could basically do what he wants here in the way you can on a 2 d sheet of paper so hotdogs and walking buildings are a kind of extreme (and extemely silly) extension of this.
his flawed repy
The theory of relativity. Not the law of relativity.
It is theorized that different dimensions could exist in the spaces between subatomic particles at different frequencys. This theory has nothing to do with the geometric dimensions (length, width, depth.) Time is not a dimension. Paper isn't two dimensional. Black holes haven't even been proven to exist. They are theoretical.
The Laws of Thermodynamics/Conservation of Mass/etc. is indisputable, except by God. But you'd have to actually know the laws to know whether they're disputable of not.
My explanation of why he is wrong with evidence
Originally posted by whirlysplat
I am afraid you are wrong here is an example of a law being revised
http://physics.about.com/cs/alterna...cation_rk_2.htm
I rest my case
And the use of the word "tends" by Newton in the first law of motion should have got you wise to things anyway
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/...ewton3laws.html
heres the clincher
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...&db_key=AST
Milgroms "revision" of Newtons laws where he looks at the problem of momentum in isolated systems not beind conserved as Newtons law states it must be.
Oh and finally heres Einsteins violation of the second law of thermodynamics bottom of the page because it didn't fit with his superior model of the universe:
http://physics.about.com/cs/alterna...cation_rk_3.htm
All these ideas are open to change!
Sorry mate you look even sillier now
😆
Oh Dear CC is at it again
It can be spelt either epistomology or epistemolgy see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistomology
My statement was Laws are theories open to revision all you have done is change your position to agree with me.
Anyone reading back will see all I offered was examples of revisions of Laws under specified conditions. You said Laws were not open to change or revision, you now say they are.
Going into detail on the Laws changes nothing they are altered to fit conditions where further knowledge means they do not work they are only theories. Which is why we are making better models of the universe which will lead to newer Laws based on the old ones in part.
You still look as silly today, nothing has changed
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube😄
Actually, you look silly. Very silly. All you’ve done is further prove of my point.Laws of Thermodynamics
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be changed from one form to another. The total amount of energy and matter in the universe remains constant. Any energy lost by a system must be gained by its surroundings.
The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction. No energy conversion is 100% efficient; some energy is lost as heat. The entropy [disorder] of an isolated system increases with time.
If all thermal energy [molecular kinetic energy or heat] can be removed from a system, a state of absolute zero will occur. Absolute zero results in a temperature of 0 Kelvin or -273.15° Celsius.”
Einstein himself says, “The basic structure of the phase space must yield to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” You do know what it means to yield, don’t you? 😕
“The insertion of the constant violated the second law of thermodynamics which shows ever increasing entropy.” You clearly misread the article. The author says that the insertion of the constant violates the second law of thermodynamics, meaning that it the constant, not the law, is unsound. If a theory violates the laws of thermodynamics, it is discarded. Any scientist worth his salt knows this. 😄 If the article proves anything, it proves that Einstein’s theory was wrong. Considering the fact that Albert Einstein died 50 years ago, any "revisions" he had made to the laws would be widely known today. But they aren’t, are they? 😄
Laws of Motion
"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Did you even read the book you’re citing? 😱 “The momentum of an isolated system is not conserved, and the usual [b]theorem
for center-of-mass motion of any system does not hold.” It seems that you’re having a hard time differentiating a law from a theorem. You’re actually implying that theory is more tentative than law. 😆That’s actually Epistemology, ‘mate.’🙄 You’re shifting from physics to philosophy. Try focusing on one topic for a change. 😄
Sincerest apologies if I’ve made you feel like a complete idiot. 😮 😉 [/B]
Oh Why not shred your last argument
The 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 😮
😮 😮 😮
Oh Why not shred your last argument
The 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
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Actually, you look silly. Very silly. All you’ve done is further prove of my point. 😄Laws of Thermodynamics
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be changed from one form to another. The total amount of energy and matter in the universe remains constant. Any energy lost by a system must be gained by its surroundings.
The energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction. No energy conversion is 100% efficient; some energy is lost as heat. The entropy [disorder] of an isolated system increases with time.
If all thermal energy [molecular kinetic energy or heat] can be removed from a system, a state of absolute zero will occur. Absolute zero results in a temperature of 0 Kelvin or -273.15° Celsius.”
Einstein himself says, “The basic structure of the phase space must yield to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” You do know what it means to yield, don’t you? 😕
“The insertion of the constant violated the second law of thermodynamics which shows ever increasing entropy.” You clearly misread the article. The author says that the insertion of the constant violates the second law of thermodynamics, meaning that it the constant, not the law, is unsound. If a theory violates the laws of thermodynamics, it is discarded. Any scientist worth his salt knows this. 😄 If the article proves anything, it proves that Einstein’s theory was wrong. Considering the fact that Albert Einstein died 50 years ago, any "revisions" he had made to the laws would be widely known today. But they aren’t, are they? 😄
Laws of Motion
"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Did you even read the book you’re citing? 😱 “The momentum of an isolated system is not conserved, and the usual [b]theorem
for center-of-mass motion of any system does not hold.” It seems that you’re having a hard time differentiating a law from a theorem. You’re actually implying that theory is more tentative than law. 😆That’s actually Epistemology, ‘mate.’🙄 You’re shifting from physics to philosophy. Try focusing on one topic for a change. 😄
Sincerest apologies if I’ve made you feel like a complete idiot. 😮 😉 [/B]
Oh Why not shred your last argument
The 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
A few links on the duel spelling of epistomology for you cc
http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofrhetoric/rhetoricaltheory/epistomology.org/
http://members.tripod.com/Mary_Duffy/BIBepistomology.html
http://www.frontlist.com/detail/0631192581
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-5971_Quantum_Epistomology.html
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/03/11/112328.HTM
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~janknegt/r0156.html
http://www.superior-termpapers.com/show/philosophy/an_analysis_of_reliability_in_epistomology.shtml
http://www.writeapaper.com/show/philosophy/an_analysis_of_reliability_in_epistomology.shtml
I believe their is a minor distinction somewhere, to do with process and methodology and knowledge. Epistemology stresses process. Epistemology stresses knowledge.
but for my purposes the words were interchangable.
you still look silly cc
Originally posted by whirlysplat
A few links on the duel spelling of epistomology for you cchttp://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofrhetoric/rhetoricaltheory/epistomology.org/
http://members.tripod.com/Mary_Duffy/BIBepistomology.html
http://www.frontlist.com/detail/0631192581
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-5971_Quantum_Epistomology.html
http://www.welchco.com/sd/08/00101/02/00/03/11/112328.HTM
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~janknegt/r0156.html
http://www.superior-termpapers.com/show/philosophy/an_analysis_of_reliability_in_epistomology.shtml
http://www.writeapaper.com/show/philosophy/an_analysis_of_reliability_in_epistomology.shtml
I believe their is a minor distinction somewhere, to do with process and methodology and knowledge. Epistomology stresses process. Epistemology stresses knowledge.
but for my purposes the words were interchangable.
you still look silly cc
LORD GOD!!! That was some gd research. Very interesting. This thread has changed into a science lesson and it is quite clear who the victor is. People just get back to the topic of this thread or move on. We all hav our strengths on this forum Swankys is humour, Draco's is DC, Mine the Xmen. Whirlys is physics. There are no contenders people leave well alone!!! 😛