ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dualism , thermodynamics

Reply
Old 31st October 2010, 09:20 PM   #1
BenRayfield
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Church Of Thermodynamics



The laws of thermodynamics contradict themselves unless dualism is true, some kind of dualism in physics.

When calculated on mass and energy alone, the laws of thermodynamics (which most scientists accept as facts) are accurate, but when calculated on everything we have observed, they contradict themselves, and anything that has at least 1 contradiction can not be a "law" of physics.
Mod WarningBreach of rule 4 removed. Do not copy and paste material from other sites.
Posted By:Cuddles

Last edited by Cuddles; 1st November 2010 at 04:06 AM.
BenRayfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2010, 09:26 PM   #2
Normal Dude
Space Shuttle Door Gunner
 
Normal Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,966
Cool story, bro.
__________________
"At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity

And I dont care if your name is Norm or Jack, Or Dick. I dont see why you have to post your name everytime you make a comment./ its IRRELIVANT -Rwalsh
Normal Dude is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2010, 09:37 PM   #3
Fnord
Metasyntactic Variable
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
Ya canna chenge tha laws o'physics!

But you can set them to music.
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory;
Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things;
and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things.
Belief itself proves nothing.
Fnord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2010, 09:46 PM   #4
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,749
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
The laws of thermodynamics contradict themselves unless dualism is true, some kind of dualism in physics.
What do you mean by this?

Quote:
(1) Some kind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism exists in physics
That description is so vague as to be meaningless. There's a link to wave-particle duality, but that's standard physics.

Quote:
which would make the laws of thermodynamics a religion instead of science
Yeah, not so much.

Quote:
Physics means how the universe works.

If there is no dualism in physics, then by definition, there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe.
This is such a trivial definition of "dualism" that it's obviously true of physics as it stands today.

Quote:
Mass and energy are interchangible if you do certain things
But linear momentum and energy are not. Angular momentum and energy are not. Charge and energy are not. All of those things need to be conserved independently of each other. So obviously there isn't "only 1 kind of thing in the universe."

Quote:
Its a common idea that everything is made of vibrating strings or surfaces or other equations.
String theory is as of yet untested. It is, at this point, a purely mathematical theory, with no connection to any experiment, and so should not be considered a physics theory.

Quote:
The "big bang theory" says the "laws of physics" changed during the first fraction of a second of the big bang, or that is where they formed into what they are now.
Not exactly. Rather, the big bang theory cannot predict what happens at the singularity. We don't know if any laws changed.

Quote:
There is also speculation about the laws of physics changing or not working the same way in some parts of black holes or when enough particles simultaneously hit each other at near the speed of light.
No. That is a mischaracterization of our expectations. Physicists don't expect that the laws actually change, they expect our current theories to become inadequate. But the laws of physics are whatever they are, regardless of the circumstance.

Perhaps an example would help illuminate the difference. Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics give two different equations for the momentum of a moving object. We know that Special Relativity is more accurate, at all speeds. But at low enough speeds, Newtonian mechanics still provides an excellent approximation to the special relativity equations. It's not that physics changes as you go to high speeds, it's that the old theory becomes inaccurate at speeds close to c. Note that accurate vs. inaccurate is different than right vs. wrong: the Newtonian equations are wrong at all speeds, but it's accurate at low speeds. Similarly, our current theories are accurate where we can currently test them, but under extreme conditions which we cannot yet test, they may become inaccurate.

Quote:
Thermodynamics says disorder increases over time
No it doesn't. It says entropy does. I know how to define and calculate entropy rigorously. I do not know how to define "disorder" rigorously.

Quote:
and eventually spreads evenly through the whole universe
Nope, doesn't need to do that.

Quote:
But the third law of thermodynamics says very accurately what the universe will become and continue to be forever after that. It says heat will spread out evenly to everything and forever approach some constant minimum heat.
If you want to talk about thermodynamics, especially if you're going to be making bold claims like it being possibly wrong, you need to be precise. And you are NOT being precise. In fact, you are using the term "heat" completely wrong.

Heat is NOT thermal energy, and it is NOT temperature. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. If the universe experiences "heat death", it will approach some uniform temperature, but heat will go to zero.

Quote:
That is a very well defined and accurate pattern, which contradicts the claim of thermodynamics that patterns will become disorder.
Again, we have the problem that thermodynamics doesn't describe disorder, it describes entropy. And a uniform temperature IS a maximum for entropy. It's rather easy to demonstrate this with statistical mechanics.

Quote:
I did not take thermodynamics out of context.
You just took it wrongly.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2010, 09:47 PM   #5
BenRayfield
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Fnord, do you really expect me to believe the arbitrary-appearing numbers in the physics equations have to be those exact numbers for some logical reason? What is that reason?
BenRayfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2010, 10:54 PM   #6
bobhope2112
Thinker
 
bobhope2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 190
Dang, I thought this might turn into an interesting sort of exchange wherein someone's peculiar notions would be addressed by a more conventional perspective, and then subsequently defended by the original claimant; a sort of casual debate of ideas.

But no, it seems like you're more interested in firing of more aspersions without having to backup what you've last twittered on about. Bummer.
bobhope2112 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2010, 11:11 PM   #7
BenRayfield
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Ziggurat, I mean "dualism" in a very general way. Some people think there is a dualism between an afterlife and physical reality. Before more accurate equations were found, most scientists thought there was a dualism between mass and energy. Dualism simply means there are 2 or more kinds of thing and there is no way to convert 1 to the other, no way to rotate or fractally zoom it or merge it to be the other.

My theory of everything is: The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

I am not a dualist. When I see things that appear separate in physics, that does not contradict my theory because it says they all exist simultaneously. Its most similar to this theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multive...imate_Ensemble I've offered no proof of this theory, but its important for there to be a consistent possibility where thermodynamics is not completely true, which tips the scale against any assumptions people made about thermodynamics just because they could not think of any other way it could be. For example, I will not assume space and time are anything more than statistical patterns that happen in this part of the universe.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
No. That is a mischaracterization of our expectations. Physicists don't expect that the laws actually change, they expect our current theories to become inadequate. But the laws of physics are whatever they are, regardless of the circumstance.

Perhaps an example would help illuminate the difference. Special Relativity and Newtonian mechanics give two different equations for the momentum of a moving object. We know that Special Relativity is more accurate, at all speeds. But at low enough speeds, Newtonian mechanics still provides an excellent approximation to the special relativity equations. It's not that physics changes as you go to high speeds, it's that the old theory becomes inaccurate at speeds close to c. Note that accurate vs. inaccurate is different than right vs. wrong: the Newtonian equations are wrong at all speeds, but it's accurate at low speeds. Similarly, our current theories are accurate where we can currently test them, but under extreme conditions which we cannot yet test, they may become inaccurate.
If the laws of physics are exactly "The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0" then the laws of physics would never change but could appear to become any equations. I simply think the laws of physics are more general than most scientists think is possible. I can easily write the same thing without saying the laws of physics change. Instead, the laws of physics are the things that calculate new equations that would be written in physics books.

I'm agreeing with you. I'm proposing that the next step in physics (like from Newton to Einstein) is using thermodynamics in a fractal way instead of completely linear. It appears linear locally but for the whole universe is curved into a fractal.

I wrote:
Instead of it staying that way forever, which is a very linear view, I think our reality slowly changes from mass/energy/space/time/etc to such a pattern (predicted by the third law), and that pattern becomes part of a new "laws of physics", so its a rotation or a fractal zooming instead of the end of time. I think thermodynamics is a linear view of something that should be viewed as a fractal.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
But linear momentum and energy are not. Angular momentum and energy are not. Charge and energy are not. All of those things need to be conserved independently of each other. So obviously there isn't "only 1 kind of thing in the universe."
Things appear separate until a common pattern is found. I think that pattern is "The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0". You're saying there is a dualism between those things that are conserved separately. I'm not disputing what has been observed in experiments, but I am disputing the assumption that it should be fit to the simplest linear equation that works.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
If you want to talk about thermodynamics, especially if you're going to be making bold claims like it being possibly wrong, you need to be precise. And you are NOT being precise. In fact, you are using the term "heat" completely wrong.

Heat is NOT thermal energy, and it is NOT temperature. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. If the universe experiences "heat death", it will approach some uniform temperature, but heat will go to zero.
I was thinking the right thing. I just used the word for its derivative instead of its magnitude.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Again, we have the problem that thermodynamics doesn't describe disorder, it describes entropy. And a uniform temperature IS a maximum for entropy. It's rather easy to demonstrate this with statistical mechanics.
You're ignoring what I said about thermodynamics applying equally to physics and energy. When its applied to energy, it describes entropy. When its applied to the laws of physics, or the patterns of physics that generate them over time, or the patterns that generate those... (up to "The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0"), then it describes any patterns of any complexity level, which includes "disorder". Entropy of the equations of physics is disorder of the things those equations calculate.

I've described 2 theories in this thread: 1 about thermodynamics, which I gave logical reasons for, and an other ("The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0") which I offered no proof of. Please keep the debate between them separate.
BenRayfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2010, 11:37 PM   #8
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,749
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
Ziggurat, I mean "dualism" in a very general way.
That's not a very useful descriptor, then.

Quote:
Dualism simply means there are 2 or more kinds of thing and there is no way to convert 1 to the other, no way to rotate or fractally zoom it or merge it to be the other.
In which case, there's still a dualism between charge and energy, linear momentum and energy, angular momentum and energy, and even lepton number and energy.

Quote:
My theory of everything is: The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0.
And what does that mean? That there's only one possible way the universe could be? Perhaps, but 1) that's not a useful theory, whereas thermodynamics is, and 2) it's fundamentally unscientific. There's nothing testable about it. It is at best philosophy.

Quote:
I am not a dualist. When I see things that appear separate in physics, that does not contradict my theory because it says they all exist simultaneously.
Indeed, that doesn't contradict your theory. In fact, nothing can contradict your theory. Your theory is unfalsifiable, and is therefore unscientific.

Quote:
I'm agreeing with you. I'm proposing that the next step in physics (like from Newton to Einstein) is using thermodynamics in a fractal way instead of completely linear. It appears linear locally but for the whole universe is curved into a fractal.
That makes no sense. It's word salad. Your grammar is correct, the words you use are English, but they don't combine to create anything that actually has real meaning. You are making statements using terminology which you have invented without defining, and which I suspect you cannot define in any definite way.

Quote:
Things appear separate until a common pattern is found. I think that pattern is "The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0". You're saying there is a dualism between those things that are conserved separately. I'm not disputing what has been observed in experiments, but I am disputing the assumption that it should be fit to the simplest linear equation that works.
Why not? You think Occam's Razor is a bad approach? It's an eminently sensible one. But let's set it aside anyways. You don't want to use the simplest equations which work (don't use the term "linear": it has a technical meaning which doesn't apply here). What, then, do you want to use? What equations should take their place? Because your theory offers nothing to replace them with.

Quote:
You're ignoring what I said about thermodynamics applying equally to physics and energy. When its applied to energy, it describes entropy.
Nope. Energy doesn't enter into thermodynamics until you talk about temperature. Entropy is defined independently of energy.

Quote:
When its applied to the laws of physics,
But it doesn't apply to the laws of physics. That doesn't even make sense. That's like trying to use French grammar rules to calculate poker odds. It's not applicable.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 31st October 2010 at 11:39 PM.
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 12:06 AM   #9
BenRayfield
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
In which case, there's still a dualism between charge and energy, linear momentum and energy, angular momentum and energy, and even lepton number and energy.
Then we agree. There is at least 1 dualism, or thermodynamics is only an approximation that can't be used to predict things as long-term as heat death of the universe. You chose dualism, and I can't disprove it. Its a philosophy question.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
And what does that mean? That there's only one possible way the universe could be? Perhaps, but 1) that's not a useful theory, whereas thermodynamics is, and 2) it's fundamentally unscientific. There's nothing testable about it. It is at best philosophy.
It means, as many eastern philosophies speculate, that the universe is balanced in an infinite number of ways, that anything you can write in math exists somewhere, and when viewed together, all sums to zero, so technically the universe would not exist on average, if its kolmogorov complexity is 0. Kolmogorov complexity is the technical phrase for how much total information is in something. Example: "All the integers" contains less information than "all the integers except 37 and 50" because its shorter to write. It means the universe would fit in a 0 byte zip file, if it could be represented in a computer, which it can't except for an empty file.

That's my theory of everything which I offer no proof of, but I do plan to test it, in a very indirect way using a software I will build. Its described at this thread, but theres no proof it will work or not until I build it. I've got my reasons for thinking it will work, but its hard to explain. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=180216

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Indeed, that doesn't contradict your theory. In fact, nothing can contradict your theory. Your theory is unfalsifiable, and is therefore unscientific.
It can be statistically falsified, with more certainty of it being false with each experiment that fails, by using statistics software the way I described in that link I just gave. If we don't see patterns where current physics equations say they won't be, then I would be wrong. But there is already evidence of the connection between quantum quality "random" number generators and people's state of mind, as researched by http://noosphere.princeton.edu which is similar to what I'm planning in that thread.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
That makes no sense. It's word salad. Your grammar is correct, the words you use are English, but they don't combine to create anything that actually has real meaning. You are making statements using terminology which you have invented without defining, and which I suspect you cannot define in any definite way.
If I'm right then the limits of the "Incompleteness Theorem" apply to the laws of physics and inexact words are the best we can do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Why not? You think Occam's Razor is a bad approach? It's an eminently sensible one. But let's set it aside anyways. You don't want to use the simplest equations which work (don't use the term "linear": it has a technical meaning which doesn't apply here). What, then, do you want to use? What equations should take their place? Because your theory offers nothing to replace them with.
That strategy is good for finding approximations, but it is also called "greedy search" which usually gets stuck on local maximums of whatever you're searching for (in this case its accuracy of physics equations). Occam's Razor is a bad strategy for finding the best solution. This is the part where you give up and say we should do the best we can and not try for perfection. We've done that. Now lets do both.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Nope. Energy doesn't enter into thermodynamics until you talk about temperature. Entropy is defined independently of energy.
Energy can be rotated, bent, whatever... to become mass. Is it also defined independently of mass?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
But it doesn't apply to the laws of physics. That doesn't even make sense. That's like trying to use French grammar rules to calculate poker odds. It's not applicable.
I predicted that response in my first post. You are a dualist therefore you think the laws of physics apply to some things but not other things, depending on if those things are written in a physics book or are the atoms that the book is made of. You're agreeing with me. I said its dualism or incorrect thermodynamics. You're choosing dualism.

Last edited by BenRayfield; 1st November 2010 at 12:08 AM.
BenRayfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 12:55 AM   #10
Slimething
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,790
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
Its a philosophy question.

It means, as many eastern philosophies speculate,...
Classic fail. This should be in fantasy, not science.
Slimething is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 01:34 AM   #11
BenRayfield
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Slimething the thing I said is a philosophy question is which of 2 things must be true. That's why the subject of this thread is that 1 of those 2 must be true, but I offered no proof of which it is.

When I said "as many eastern philosophies speculate" that was extra information and is not part of the logical explanation. For a few parts of what I wrote, I told which groups of people agree with it to avoid trivial responses like "rediculous, nobody thinks that is possible".



About thermodynamics experiments in general, there has never been any experiments done on a closed system, so if we're going by experimental data only (and things derived from it), then thermodynamics is about open systems. A bank vault appears closed, but quantum entanglement and the sun's radiation and waves of curved spacetime easily pass through its walls.

As long as a thermodynamics experiment is inside space and time, its deeply connected to other parts of the universe, therefore I can not count it as a closed system or an approximation of one. It's mostly an open system.

The only closed system I know of is the whole universe, because universe means everything that exists.

Therefore I hereby invalidate all physics theories that apply to closed systems and are based on experimental data. The experiments were not done in closed systems or approximations of closed systems. Garbage in. Garbage out.
BenRayfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 02:13 AM   #12
Thabiguy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 804
Ooh, I want to play too! Let's see if I can pull off the same kind of fallacious argumentation...!

I'll show that either 1) mathematics is a religion, or 2) it is not true that 1+1=2.

First, there must be only 1 kind of thing in mathematics, otherwise there would be dualism in mathematics, and that would mean mathematics is a religion.

Now, let's take the statement: 1+1=2, or "one added to one is two".

If there's only 1 kind of thing in mathematics, then any statement must apply to anything. But if we union one set with one set, the result is only one set, so the statement 1+1=2 is not true.

And if you claim that you can't apply such arithmetic to sets, then you're claiming there is more than 1 kind of thing in mathematics, therefore you're a dualist, therefore your mathematics is a religion and must not be taught in schools.

Ta-da!

Did I get the nonsense right?
Thabiguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 02:51 AM   #13
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,855
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
Then we agree. There is at least 1 dualism, or thermodynamics is only an approximation that can't be used to predict things as long-term as heat death of the universe. You chose dualism, and I can't disprove it. Its a philosophy question.
You and Ziggurat appear to be using different meanings of the word dualism here.
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 03:30 AM   #14
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,743
Re: Church Of Thermodynamics

Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
Ya canna chenge tha laws o'physics!

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 1st November 2010 at 03:31 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 04:51 AM   #15
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Um, the laws of thermodynamics are approximate models of how the universe behaves, there are no "Laws of Physics", there are approximate models and as data is gathered they change.

Now the universe seems to behave rather consistently, there are forces we label as 'gravitation' and we have a model of how gravitation works, but that does not mean that the Law of Gravitation is immutable. The way we model is likely to change.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 06:01 AM   #16
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,923
Is BenReyfield actually Bishadi?
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 06:33 AM   #17
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,859
The so-called 'Laws of Physics' are not 'made' of anything, they are conceptual.

Last edited by dlorde; 1st November 2010 at 06:34 AM.
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 06:52 AM   #18
Fnord
Metasyntactic Variable
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
Fnord, do you really expect me to believe the arbitrary-appearing numbers in the physics equations have to be those exact numbers for some logical reason? What is that reason?
No, I expect you to continue to post inane comments that make my inane comments look profound.
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory;
Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things;
and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things.
Belief itself proves nothing.
Fnord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 06:58 AM   #19
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,859
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
It means, as many eastern philosophies speculate, that the universe is balanced in an infinite number of ways, that anything you can write in math exists somewhere, and when viewed together, all sums to zero, so technically the universe would not exist on average, if its kolmogorov complexity is 0. Kolmogorov complexity is the technical phrase for how much total information is in something. Example: "All the integers" contains less information than "all the integers except 37 and 50" because its shorter to write. It means the universe would fit in a 0 byte zip file, if it could be represented in a computer, which it can't except for an empty file.
AIUI, the Kolmogorov Complexity defines the minimum amount of information required to specify or fully describe something - for a random string it will be the information in the string, for the Mandelbrot Set it will be the smallest algorithm that can produce it. For the universe it will be the minimal amount of information required to specify it - regardless of what attributes in the universe sum to zero. It seems to that all you've said by asserting that the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is zero is that in your theory the universe doesn't exist.
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 10:45 AM   #20
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,131
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
Is BenReyfield actually Bishadi?
Nope. The writing is clear. It appears to be meaningless, however.
__________________
45 es un titere
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 11:32 AM   #21
Raze
Thinker
 
Raze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 238
How to be a crank:

(1) Fail to be trained in physics or to educate yourself to the level of someone trained in physics.

(2) Misunderstand some aspect of modern physics as a result of (1).

(3) Read some popular literature on cutting edge physics, misunderstand it as a result of (1).

(4) Formulate a visual representation of the misunderstanding (3) that correlates with a predetermined philosophical or religious idea about the universe.

(5) Believe that modern physics is self-contradictory in some way, or contradictory to the universe in some way.

(6) Use this misunderstood physics to "prove" your ideas on a forum where actual physicists post (as opposed to publishing them in a peer reviewed journal).

(7) Fail to understand the rebuttals from actual physicists, and as a result fail to understand that your "theory" is at best non-applicable to science or at worst simply wrong.

(8) Back peddle, then deny you have back peddled, all the while being a Google Warrior when your idea is challenged, desperately trying to understand why the posters refuted your idea, while sweating profusely whenever a response is very mean and loaded with insults about your intelligence.

(9) Learn enough about the technical aspects of the rebuttal given to you to further misinterpret physics and make more of a fool of yourself in the eyes of trained physicists.

(10) At some point, choose to simply continue believing as you believe, deciding that mainstream physics is too "biased" for your ideas, or that you simply don't believe them anyway, so you ask yourself, "Why learn what they have to teach in the first place?"

(11) Repeat steps 6-10 on a different forum, and repeat steps 1-10 on a different subject.



ETA- JREF staff: the above is 100% original. No copy/pasting here.

Last edited by Raze; 1st November 2010 at 11:33 AM.
Raze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 11:33 AM   #22
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,749
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
Then we agree. There is at least 1 dualism, or thermodynamics is only an approximation that can't be used to predict things as long-term as heat death of the universe.
Thermodynamics alone doesn't predict the heat death of the universe. You need to specify your cosmology too, and that's general relativity. In a cosmology with a big crunch, there's no heat death.

But I'm not sure why you think something being an approximation means it can't predict something long-term. Thermodynamics is not an approximation (or at least, no more so than every other theory and less so than most). One must frequently USE approximations in order to apply thermodynamics, but that's not the same thing.

Quote:
It means, as many eastern philosophies speculate, that the universe is balanced in an infinite number of ways, that anything you can write in math exists somewhere, and when viewed together, all sums to zero, so technically the universe would not exist on average, if its kolmogorov complexity is 0.
Yeah, um, no. That's not what it means at all. First off, the universe not existing "on average" doesn't mean anything. It DOES exist. Whether or not various properties average to zero, the existence of the universe is obvious and self-evident. Whether or not everything that can exist does exist is both unscientific and irrelevant: the part of the universe we can interact with (even in-principle interactions) is finite, and does NOT include everything. And lastly, that's not what a Kolmogorov complexity of zero would mean.

Quote:
Kolmogorov complexity is the technical phrase for how much total information is in something.
No it's not. It's a technical phrase for how much information is needed to describe something, but that's always with respect to some given language. Saying that it's zero means that once you specify the language, you don't need to describe the object: the language uniquely specifies the object. Which would mean that there's only one possible way the universe could be. While this could be true, it's not scientific, and furthermore, whatever this one way the universe could be doesn't need to be infinite either.

Quote:
That's my theory of everything which I offer no proof of, but I do plan to test it, in a very indirect way using a software I will build. Its described at this thread, but theres no proof it will work or not until I build it.
I guarantee your "test" won't really test it after you build it either. Nothing you've described in this thread requires that any significant correlations show up in the data you're proposing to take.

Quote:
If I'm right then the limits of the "Incompleteness Theorem" apply to the laws of physics and inexact words are the best we can do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness_theorem
You've seriously misconstrued the incompleteness theorem. Inexact words have ambiguous meaning. Incompleteness means mathematical statements with definite meaning have uncertain truth. There's a fundamental difference, and that's why theories of physics will continue to be written in the language of math, even though the Incompleteness Theorem applies.

Quote:
That strategy is good for finding approximations
Unless you're God, that's the best you can ever hope to do, regardless of what strategy you pick for determining the laws of physics.

Quote:
Energy can be rotated, bent, whatever... to become mass. Is it also defined independently of mass?
That has no relevance to my statement. Entropy is defined independently of mass too, so whatever equivalence you want to set up between energy and mass, entropy still remains defined independently of it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 11:43 AM   #23
DSo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
That's my theory of everything which I offer no proof of, but I do plan to test it, in a very indirect way using a software I will build.
Best sentence of all time!

BTW - what are you going to do after lunch?
DSo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 11:54 AM   #24
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 17,379
Church Of Thermodynamics ?

I want to join, just to watch the Sacraments. Must be AWESOME funeral pyres !

Hmmm, I wonder what they do for weddings? Other sacrifices?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 02:05 PM   #25
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,877
Dualism?

__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 05:12 PM   #26
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
The only closed system I know of is the whole universe, because universe means everything that exists. Therefore I hereby invalidate all physics theories that apply to closed systems and are based on experimental data. The experiments were not done in closed systems or approximations of closed systems. Garbage in. Garbage out.
You can't absolutely prove that energy is conserved, because you didn't do an energy-conservation experiment in my teakettle this morning. If you did, you did it only on the left side of the kettle and not on the right, and you did it this morning and not the morning before.

You can't absolutely prove that tritium is unstable, because you only ever looked at a statistical sub-sample of tritium atoms.

You can't call it "Kepler's Law" because for all you know the planets all popped into existence yesterday, along with false memories of them and a complete fictional history of astronomy, all generated by The Matrix.

That's all exactly as stupid as "you can't claim to know thermodynamics because you haven't done a Universe-spanning experiment." That's not how science or knowledge work.

Here's how science works. Do you have an alternate theory of statistical thermodynamics? Apply that theory to a (small, lab-scale) experiment of my choosing. Does your theory correctly predict what I should see? Does the current mainstream theory correctly predict what I should see? According to the your theory's predictions: will the mainstream theory/experiment disagreement, if any, get better or worse if the system gets bigger, or better-isolated?
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 05:54 PM   #27
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
You can't absolutely prove that energy is conserved, because you didn't do an energy-conservation experiment in my teakettle this morning. If you did, you did it only on the left side of the kettle and not on the right, and you did it this morning and not the morning before.

You can't absolutely prove that tritium is unstable, because you only ever looked at a statistical sub-sample of tritium atoms.
The funny thing is, if you could prove any of those things, they'd be trivial and useless. What makes science powerful and useful is precisely that it might be wrong.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 04:05 PM   #28
BenRayfield
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Link to what I copy/pasted

Rule 4 says you're allowed to copy/paste your own stuff but nobody else's. I did not violate rule 4. But since its still edited in the first post, here is a link to what should be there.

http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfie...Thermodynamics
BenRayfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 04:31 PM   #29
SeanDamnit
Thinker
 
SeanDamnit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Raze View Post
How to be a crank:

(1) Fail to be trained in physics or to educate yourself to the level of someone trained in physics.

(2) Misunderstand some aspect of modern physics as a result of (1).

(3) Read some popular literature on cutting edge physics, misunderstand it as a result of (1).

(4) Formulate a visual representation of the misunderstanding (3) that correlates with a predetermined philosophical or religious idea about the universe.

(5) Believe that modern physics is self-contradictory in some way, or contradictory to the universe in some way.

(6) Use this misunderstood physics to "prove" your ideas on a forum where actual physicists post (as opposed to publishing them in a peer reviewed journal).

(7) Fail to understand the rebuttals from actual physicists, and as a result fail to understand that your "theory" is at best non-applicable to science or at worst simply wrong.

(8) Back peddle, then deny you have back peddled, all the while being a Google Warrior when your idea is challenged, desperately trying to understand why the posters refuted your idea, while sweating profusely whenever a response is very mean and loaded with insults about your intelligence.

(9) Learn enough about the technical aspects of the rebuttal given to you to further misinterpret physics and make more of a fool of yourself in the eyes of trained physicists.

(10) At some point, choose to simply continue believing as you believe, deciding that mainstream physics is too "biased" for your ideas, or that you simply don't believe them anyway, so you ask yourself, "Why learn what they have to teach in the first place?"

(11) Repeat steps 6-10 on a different forum, and repeat steps 1-10 on a different subject.



ETA- JREF staff: the above is 100% original. No copy/pasting here.

There needs to be something in there about Big Science trying to squelch your theory because it's too radical and the public would revolt or something.

I vote that the next time someone posts Crank stuff on this forum that instead of arguing with this person, we immediately all agree with and praise that poster for his/her significant contribution to science. We encourage him/her to put his/her thoughts together and try to get published in a peer reviewed journal.
Then we see what happens...
__________________
Irregardless, he supposebly knows alot.

I'm not being lazy, I'm helping to slow down the endless march of entropy and delay the eventual heat death of the universe.
SeanDamnit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 04:34 PM   #30
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
Rule 4 says you're allowed to copy/paste your own stuff but nobody else's. I did not violate rule 4. But since its still edited in the first post, here is a link to what should be there.

http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfie...Thermodynamics
Rule 4 ..."do not post large amounts of material available from other sites."...
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 05:55 PM   #31
BenRayfield
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Dancing David,

Quoted from the details of Rule 4 at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...95#post5669795 which you can get to by clicking the "E2" at the end of Rule 4 when you click "Forum Rules" in the menu.

Quote:
Authors of copyrighted material may post their own work, provided they hold publishing rights to the material.

SeanDamnit,

if you have something specific to say against my theory that thermodynamics applies to the laws-of-physics the same way it applies to mass/energy, then say it. All you've done so far is name calling etc.
BenRayfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 06:36 PM   #32
BenRayfield
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by dlorde
AIUI, the Kolmogorov Complexity defines the minimum amount of information required to specify or fully describe something - for a random string it will be the information in the string, for the Mandelbrot Set it will be the smallest algorithm that can produce it. For the universe it will be the minimal amount of information required to specify it - regardless of what attributes in the universe sum to zero. It seems to that all you've said by asserting that the Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is zero is that in your theory the universe doesn't exist.
My theory "The kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0." is separate from the theory about thermodynamics. I only told that theory here to give 1 possible case which allows my variation of thermodynamics to be true.

You're correct that if that theory is true then the universe does not exist, but you left out that any part of the universe individually does exist because its kolmogorov-complexity is more than 0.

Originally Posted by Raze
(4) Formulate a visual representation of the misunderstanding (3) that correlates with a predetermined philosophical or religious idea about the universe.
I have my reasons for thinking certain philosophy ideas are true, and unlike most religous people, I do not have different definitions for "believe x" and "think x is true". For reasons that are too long to get into in this thread, I think the kolmogorov-complexity of the universe is 0, therefore I combine that with other things I know about physics.

Originally Posted by Raze
(5) Believe that modern physics is self-contradictory in some way, or contradictory to the universe in some way.
I didn't go that far. I said that thermodynamics is a local approximation and should not be used to predict what the universe will become an infinite time in the future or however long time lasts.

Originally Posted by Raze
as opposed to publishing them in a peer reviewed journal
All theories should be written informally before doing experiments and publishing results in such journals.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Thermodynamics alone doesn't predict the heat death of the universe. You need to specify your cosmology too, and that's general relativity. In a cosmology with a big crunch, there's no heat death.
I do not expect the entire universe to be crunched into a point, and I do not expect heat death.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
But I'm not sure why you think something being an approximation means it can't predict something long-term. Thermodynamics is not an approximation (or at least, no more so than every other theory and less so than most). One must frequently USE approximations in order to apply thermodynamics, but that's not the same thing.
Approximations can predict things after a long time, but not an infinite time. What I've read of thermodynamics exactly says what the universe will be after an infinite time.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Yeah, um, no. That's not what it means at all. First off, the universe not existing "on average" doesn't mean anything. It DOES exist. Whether or not various properties average to zero, the existence of the universe is obvious and self-evident. Whether or not everything that can exist does exist is both unscientific and irrelevant: the part of the universe we can interact with (even in-principle interactions) is finite, and does NOT include everything. And lastly, that's not what a Kolmogorov complexity of zero would mean.
Any subset of the universe other than the whole universe has a kolmogorov complexity more than 0, so it exists, but together the kolmogorov complexity of 0 does not exist.

It has never been proven that we interact with only a finite part of the universe, and there is no way you can prove it, therefore it is not a scientific theory.

Kolmogorov complexity 0 means nonexistance. What do you think it means?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
Unless you're God, that's the best you can ever hope to do, regardless of what strategy you pick for determining the laws of physics.
I'm not a dualist, therefore if I thought God existed, then I would also have to think there is some way I could learn to do the same things God does. "God" is a word people made up to explain a lot of things they didn't understand.

Originally Posted by casebro
Church Of Thermodynamics ?

I want to join, just to watch the Sacraments. Must be AWESOME funeral pyres !

Hmmm, I wonder what they do for weddings? Other sacrifices?
Most people at this forum are already members of the Church Of Thermodynamics. If you think there should be sacrifices, its your religion. Do whatever you think Thermodynamics wants you to. And don't forget to drop some entropy in the collection plate.

Originally Posted by ben_m
You can't absolutely prove that energy is conserved, because you didn't do an energy-conservation experiment in my teakettle this morning. If you did, you did it only on the left side of the kettle and not on the right, and you did it this morning and not the morning before.

You can't absolutely prove that tritium is unstable, because you only ever looked at a statistical sub-sample of tritium atoms.

You can't call it "Kepler's Law" because for all you know the planets all popped into existence yesterday, along with false memories of them and a complete fictional history of astronomy, all generated by The Matrix.

That's all exactly as stupid as "you can't claim to know thermodynamics because you haven't done a Universe-spanning experiment." That's not how science or knowledge work.

Here's how science works. Do you have an alternate theory of statistical thermodynamics? Apply that theory to a (small, lab-scale) experiment of my choosing. Does your theory correctly predict what I should see? Does the current mainstream theory correctly predict what I should see? According to the your theory's predictions: will the mainstream theory/experiment disagreement, if any, get better or worse if the system gets bigger, or better-isolated?
Approximations can be used to test most parts of physics, but how do you know there aren't parts of physics that can only be tested on much bigger sizes, maybe as big as the whole universe? If the universe is a fractal (and I think it is), then whole universe size experiments aren't as hard as most people think.

Originally Posted by sol_invictus
The funny thing is, if you could prove any of those things, they'd be trivial and useless. What makes science powerful and useful is precisely that it might be wrong.
Almost. What makes science powerful is that it might be wrong BEFORE its proven right or wrong, but if its never proven right or wrong, it's a religion unless you say "I don't know". Welcome to the Church Of Thermodynamics.
BenRayfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 06:54 PM   #33
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
Dancing David,

Quoted from the details of Rule 4 at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...95#post5669795 which you can get to by clicking the "E2" at the end of Rule 4 when you click "Forum Rules" in the menu.
BenRayfield,
You missed Dancing David's point and what the rule states.
The rule is that you cannot post large anounts of text from other sites. This is nothing to do with copyright. Even if you are the author, the site rules do not allow you to post your entire web site in a single post!

Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
SeanDamnit,

if you have something specific to say against my theory that thermodynamics applies to the laws-of-physics the same way it applies to mass/energy, then say it.
Well that is easy
Thermodynamics
Quote:
Thermodynamics is the science of energy conversion involving heat and other forms of energy, most notably mechanical work. It studies and interrelates the macroscopic variables, such as temperature, volume and pressure, which describe physical, thermodynamic systems.
Laws of physics
Quote:
A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behaviour (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing observable patterns. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science. These terms are not used the same way by all authors. Some philosophers e.g. Norman Swartz use "physical law" to mean what others mean by "natural law"/"law of nature".[2]

Laws of physics are not described by thermodynamics. Thus your theory is wrong.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 07:00 PM   #34
BenRayfield
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 128
Those are not the exact definitions I was using. I'll give an example to make the difference clear:

My theory says that the 4 forces will decay into some other patterns of forces the same way mass/energy decays as described by thermodynamics.
BenRayfield is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 07:08 PM   #35
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,554
Originally Posted by Raze View Post
How to be a crank:

(1) Fail to be trained in physics or to educate yourself to the level of someone trained in physics.

(2) Misunderstand some aspect of modern physics as a result of (1).

(3) Read some popular literature on cutting edge physics, misunderstand it as a result of (1).

(4) Formulate a visual representation of the misunderstanding (3) that correlates with a predetermined philosophical or religious idea about the universe.

(5) Believe that modern physics is self-contradictory in some way, or contradictory to the universe in some way.

(6) Use this misunderstood physics to "prove" your ideas on a forum where actual physicists post (as opposed to publishing them in a peer reviewed journal).

(7) Fail to understand the rebuttals from actual physicists, and as a result fail to understand that your "theory" is at best non-applicable to science or at worst simply wrong.

(8) Back peddle, then deny you have back peddled, all the while being a Google Warrior when your idea is challenged, desperately trying to understand why the posters refuted your idea, while sweating profusely whenever a response is very mean and loaded with insults about your intelligence.

(9) Learn enough about the technical aspects of the rebuttal given to you to further misinterpret physics and make more of a fool of yourself in the eyes of trained physicists.

(10) At some point, choose to simply continue believing as you believe, deciding that mainstream physics is too "biased" for your ideas, or that you simply don't believe them anyway, so you ask yourself, "Why learn what they have to teach in the first place?"

(11) Repeat steps 6-10 on a different forum, and repeat steps 1-10 on a different subject.



ETA- JREF staff: the above is 100% original. No copy/pasting here.
Excellent! Fits several people here perfectly (will not mention names, since this is, apparantly, disallowed). Also, replace 'physics' with some other science discipline, and it works for that, too.

Very good work.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 07:13 PM   #36
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,554
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
Those are not the exact definitions I was using. I'll give an example to make the difference clear:

My theory says that the 4 forces will decay into some other patterns of forces the same way mass/energy decays as described by thermodynamics.
Unless you can show how this predicts something observable, I'm afraid you cannot call it a 'theory', but at best a thesis. However, a more realistic term is 'speculation'.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 07:56 PM   #37
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
Those are not the exact definitions I was using.
Those are definitions of Thermodynamics and Laws of physics.
If your theory is about neither then you have to start by defining them.

Originally Posted by BenRayfield View Post
My theory says that the 4 forces will decay into some other patterns of forces the same way mass/energy decays as described by thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics does not say the mass or energy or "mass/energy" decays. Thus your theory is still wrong.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 07:59 PM   #38
Eligbak
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by BenRayfield
Thermodynamics says disorder increases over time
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No it doesn't. It says entropy does. I know how to define and calculate entropy rigorously. I do not know how to define "disorder" rigorously.
... a uniform temperature IS a maximum for entropy.
... Energy doesn't enter into thermodynamics until you talk about temperature. Entropy is defined independently of energy..
Most definitions of entropy for non-physicists (like me) are a bit, er, misleading. Or simply incomprehensible. Including the one on Wikipedia.
Entropy is a thermodynamic property that is a measure of the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process. ... In the microscopic interpretation of statistical mechanics, entropy expresses the disorder or randomness of the constituents of a thermodynamic system or, analogously, the availability of accessible quantum mechanical states. A closed system always tends towards achieving a state with a maximum of entropy.

From a thermodynamic point of view, machines are energy conversion devices. Thus, such devices can only be driven by convertible energy.
"Disorder" is a frequently used synonym for entropy, but as I (not? mis?)understand the concept, it seems rather like too much order, similarity, to me - an equilibrium, a melange, like coffee and cream totally mixed into one indistinguishable light brown brew. Order is reliable, unchanging, frequently boring. Disorder means action, violent clashes, shaking up things in everyday language.

Perhaps I should turn my liberal attitutes around for the sake of the cause and take the 1950's view:

picture disorder as little bleeding demonstrators who've beaten each other up so thorougly that they've all had enough, and everyone has drawn back into his little comfort zone where he will not disturb or influence anyone else. Or rather, they don't even dare to bleed.

While order is represented by a stack of wood (energy), the flow of oil, the sun (hot) vis-a-vis cold space... possibilities for exchange.

I've tried to explain order and disorder, so maybe Ziggurat can explain entropy to me.

Thanks for making the Kolmogorov Complexity seem a bit less esoteric, dlorde. On a related subject - randomness - can "real randomness" as it applies to information theory even be achieved by a computer, by itself, without someone to wriggle the mouse for "extra randomness"?

Last edited by Eligbak; 9th November 2010 at 08:11 PM.
Eligbak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 08:54 PM   #39
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Just a point about thermodynamics, BenRayfield: you do realize that the "laws" of thermodynamics are not necessarily fundamental, right? What are commonly referred to as the "laws" of thermodynamics are actually the result of the most probable outcome of large numbers of interacting particles within a system, also known as statistical mechanics.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2010, 08:55 PM   #40
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
I don't want to dig through all the posts right now, so can anyone here tell me whether or not BenRayfield has any math to back up his/her claims?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.