|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 7, 2011 17:25:56 GMT 1
.
Brain Greene and others do not agree with you. Or are you going to suggest that a person who has written books and lectures on the subject is talking total bollocks?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 7, 2011 17:32:38 GMT 1
But we are not talking about average entropy here but a complete, absolute state of entropy. Do come along!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 7, 2011 19:29:26 GMT 1
Quote Brian Greene, and we can discuss it. But these blanket statements are just daft -- and even dafter when we remember that another one of your supposed criticisms was that physicists were too unwilling to challenge acepeted dogma. Except now you want to claimn that disagreeing with TV scientists or pop-sci authors is bad..............
LOTS of physicists disagree with Brian Greene, and lots disagree with lots of other physicists who also write books and lectures. You seem to think giving lectures on physics is something restricted to some unquestionable elite, whereas in actual fact, it is something that almost everyone finds they can't get out of totally.
So, what is your POINT about entropy? I don't think you actually know, because so far you've shown little evidence of actually understanding any of it........................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 7, 2011 20:20:39 GMT 1
Quote Brian Greene, and we can discuss it. But these blanket statements are just daft -- and even dafter when we remember that another one of your supposed criticisms was that physicists were too unwilling to challenge accepted dogma. Except now you want to claimn that disagreeing with TV scientists or pop-sci authors is bad.............. LOTS of physicists disagree with Brian Greene, and lots disagree with lots of other physicists who also write books and lectures. You seem to think giving lectures on physics is something restricted to some unquestionable elite, whereas in actual fact, it is something that almost everyone finds they can't get out of totally. So, what is your POINT about entropy? I don't think you actually know, because so far you've shown little evidence of actually understanding any of it........................ Which all goes to show that your opinion is not necessarily correct. The point about entropy is that given matter reduces to it, what gave rise to our universe, since everything that came before had to do the same thing thus providing no energy for anything to follow. Hence, God exists!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 7, 2011 21:53:39 GMT 1
And what is that supposed to mean?
The point about our universe is that if the total energy of the universe is zero (positive energy of matter and radiation cancelled out by negative energy of curved spacetime), then finding the energy to make a universe isn't necessarily the problem.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 7, 2011 21:58:27 GMT 1
Why not?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 7, 2011 22:06:11 GMT 1
Because zero energy quantum fluctuations can be long-lived without violating Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, hence give us the possibility of an uncaused universe, that just WAS.
Why do you think entropy is a problem?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 7, 2011 22:21:26 GMT 1
Because zero energy quantum fluctuations can be long-lived without violating Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, hence give us the possibility of an uncaused universe, that just WAS. Why do you think entropy is a problem? Ah, now you're in the realm of fantasy, aren't you? We've already been through this. An uncaused universe is no longer considered a serious proposition by those who really count. Why don't you keep up with current ideas you demonic woman? You see, you can't just say that something can come from nothing. There has to be some kind of pre-existing state that has the ability to give rise to a universe such as ours. We have been through this before and to propose that what you call 'quantum fluctuations' can 'appear', as if by magic, is equivalent to acceding to the 'Genesis' version of reality. Now, to take this a stage further, if the 2nd. law of thermodynamics is true then how could have any pre-existing states have survived long enough to give rise to our universe? So either the law is in error or it only applies to our particular universe, but you can see the contradiction, can't you? It means it is not truly a universal law across different kinds of universes and so becomes meaningless. The only rational solution is to accept God and His works. STA, it's ok if you wish to believe in magic but please don't pedal it as science.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 0:06:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 8, 2011 8:24:35 GMT 1
And I had to laugh at the TellyDon presenter sitting by a calving glacier, explaining that the water molecules could somehow jump up out of the sea and organise themselves into lumps of ice ready to fall off again .. but that it was improbable. But, that is PRECISELY what the water molecules had done, and were going to carry on doing it! How does he think they got there in the first place? And what is stopping them repeating the process? AGW? True Then, his sandcastle analogy found me getting a bit annoyed. That 'Nature' could actually arrange sand-grains into a castle shape, was being demonstrated in front of our very eyes! Yes, if the 'arrow of time' is the progression from order to disorder as the good professor maintained, then there are multitudinous examples of the arrow reversing, even if the overall trend is toward increasing entropy. The existence of life itself is a progression from disorder - the random aggregation of atoms- to order - the combination of those atoms into organised structures Verdict on the programme? 0/10. Nothing new. It would have been more entertaining to show the programme's project acccounts. ;D And on his 'Arrow of Time' thing .. here is an interesting thought experiment; Point a real arrow head first at a mirror. Check the time taken for the light from the real arrow's head, and the real arrow's rear flight feather, to reach your eye. Now compare them with the same time taken for the light from the mirror image's tip and tail to get to your eye. Is the reflection going backwards ? Is time in the reflection going backwards, too? I have difficulty here The time difference for the light from the arrow head and tail to reach your eye is proportional to the length of the arrow - say s'. Now the light from the head goes to the mirror, is reflected and reaches your eye. This is followed by the light from the tail delayed by a factor proportional to s', that is again reflected and returned to your eye. The time difference remains the same, proportional to s' Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 8, 2011 8:52:15 GMT 1
How could a big crunch happen if there is no energy left to drive it? The universe will simply disperse to nothingness. Quite A contraction of the universe after it has reached a complete state of entropy is impossible - all the energy is distributed uniformly and uselessly amongst the universe Unless, of course, there is a supernatural force that comes into play to over-ride the 'natural' forces Could be STA is trying to convert you to a religious interpretation of the universe! Resist the temptation of the Siren! ;D
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 13:08:55 GMT 1
Nope, if the show fits.............
Or if people behave idiotically, they might expect to get called an idiot.
Your real problem is that when someone corrects you, you seem to take it as an insult that someone dares to suggest you have got it wrong or misunderstood. You hence ignore it.
When you REPEAT the error, that is idiotic, hence then you'll get called an idiot.
And we have a prime example in this thread, where correcting a gross error was described as nit-picking, with some truely stupid suggestion that we should ignore the glaring inaccuracy, and instead comment on the elegance of the language.
If someone persist in coming out with such nonsense, then calling them an idiot isn't an insult, but a judgement strongly supported by facts.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 8, 2011 13:22:14 GMT 1
A "complete state of entropy' is meaningless twaddle. Contraction could be possible, because iti ISN'T contraction or expansion that causes entropy to increase -- as I said earlier, the CMB shifts frequency in order to keep the CMB entropy CONSTANT, hence could just as well contract as expand. Someone seems to think (mistakenly), that it's the decreasing energy density of an expanding universe that causes entropy increase, which is just plain WRONG. Also, you have to admit the possibility of more than one arrow of time, hence we have direction of increasing entropy (thermodynamic arrow of time). then we have the cosmological arrow of time (direction of expansion). And so on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#The_thermodynamic_arrow_of_timeNone of which says you can't have contraction because entropy won't allow it.................... m ijnd you, to understand ANY of this, you have to understand what entropy is first, which is where you are still stuck.................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 8, 2011 13:27:06 GMT 1
A "complete state of entropy' is meaningless twaddle. Contraction could be possible, because iti ISN'T contraction or expansion that causes entropy to increase -- as I said earlier, the CMB shifts frequency in order to keep the CMB entropy CONSTANT, hence could just as well contract as expand. Someone seems to think (mistakenly), that it's the decreasing energy density of an expanding universe that causes entropy increase, which is just plain WRONG. Also, you have to admit the possibility of more than one arrow of time, hence we have direction of increasing entropy (thermodynamic arrow of time). then we have the cosmological arrow of time (direction of expansion). And so on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#The_thermodynamic_arrow_of_timeNone of which says you can't have contraction because entropy won't allow it.................... m ijnd you, to understand ANY of this, you have to understand what entropy is first, which is where you are still stuck................. ;D The innumerate buffoon is ranting once more!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Mar 8, 2011 13:36:29 GMT 1
A "complete state of entropy' is meaningless twaddle. Contraction could be possible, because iti ISN'T contraction or expansion that causes entropy to increase -- as I said earlier, the CMB shifts frequency in order to keep the CMB entropy CONSTANT, hence could just as well contract as expand. Someone seems to think (mistakenly), that it's the decreasing energy density of an expanding universe that causes entropy increase, which is just plain WRONG. Also, you have to admit the possibility of more than one arrow of time, hence we have direction of increasing entropy (thermodynamic arrow of time). then we have the cosmological arrow of time (direction of expansion). And so on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#The_thermodynamic_arrow_of_timeNone of which says you can't have contraction because entropy won't allow it.................... m ijnd you, to understand ANY of this, you have to understand what entropy is first, which is where you are still stuck................. Nope, didn't understand a word of that. If you were as eloquent as Brain Cox (who BTW is a professor - are you a professor?) then we might have a much more fruitful exchange. Alas, STA, you are not. I have a sneaking feeling that you couch you posts in obtuse language so as to avoid being shown up by the glaring fallacies in your arguments. If nobody knows what the hell you are talking about how can they reply?
|
|