Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I say the theory of entropy is neither useful nor even true.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I must apologise StellerX if it appeared that I was talking about/to you. I wasnt. However, I do not respond to personal attacks. If you cannot get your point across without attacking/belittling/looking down upon others then you obviously arent mature enough for an adult conversation. I do not fight with children or unarmed oppononts. Unless of coarse you throwing rocks at me means that you like me




posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grock
I must apologise StellerX if it appeared that I was talking about/to you. I wasnt. However, I do not respond to personal attacks.


So you making that angry post to all those stupid ignorants who are reading but not posting? Sorry but i don't buy that....


If you cannot get your point across without attacking/belittling/looking down upon others then you obviously arent mature enough for an adult conversation.


Your the one that are assuming massive ignorant on others part by posting high school material in response to claims that did not come from highschoolers.. If that is the type of contribution your going to make don't get too upset when some don't like your patronizing tone.


I do not fight with children or unarmed oppononts. Unless of coarse you throwing rocks at me means that you like me


I don't like confrontational discussions but they are hard to avoid when your attempting to introduce information that is not widely known or understood; i don't throw rocks but to some new information are clearly a threat and their reaction is the same as if they where under attack.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
hook me up with that whopper of hidden science:/


www.cheniere.org...

I don't know of anyone who summarises it as accurately as he does..


again....you are confusing entropy with good old fashioned ingenuity. why do you say this?


Well you have to say that to defend the notion that that there exists no negentropic processes. Entropy MIGHT be true on a galactic scale but it's effects are negated on all the local scales we are aware of.


let me get this straight> if i take an apple, and cut it in two. use one half for apple cider and the other half for apple slices.
that in of its self proves entropy does not exist? or even that 100% efficiency has been obtained?


I don't know what that proves but it's clearly not related to the present discussion...


thats total BS, you are not listening to what entropy means or even where it is applied.


I am doing my best but your ignoring the fact that you are busy typing up a response on a computer; not exactly something that proves entropy as the dominant force in our lives.


regardless of what you do with your apples they are going to rot. this rotting is entropy.


But your somehow forgetting to mention that the apples GREW in the first place!


its BREAKDOWN; its happens all the time in all corners of the known universe.


Well since you seem to know what no one does you should go ahead and prove that the universe is a closed system where entropy must eventually lead to a heat death.


atomic deterioration is very much relevant to this discussion, the deterioration is synonymous with entropy(they are the same concept). its this concept you obviously are failing to grasp.


Entropy has absolutely nothing to do with atomic 'decay' whatever you mean by that.


i wont deny my hate, but know its ignorance like yours that sets me off


Sure.



simply wrong, ill define what chaosVSorder truly is imagine a ball; half is chaos, the other half is order.


My imagination does not work that extraordinary well and certainly not so counter intuitively.




now spin that ball end over end as fast as your mind can permit.
now take a good look at your ball; "when" can you see a clear moment of chaos or even order?
if you followed my instructions you wont be able to define when one starts and the other ends, the realization you should come to is both chaos and order are happening in the same moment and in the same space.


I am sure you want to prove something with this 'example' but i need my examples to make sense...


then you should ascend to the perspective that arguing chaosVSoder is futile. because its clearly perspective.
but even if you give that fight up, youll still have entropy everywhere.


Now you are just telling me that don't have actual evidence but that you have made up your mind.




in the context it does have to do with negative forces. since entropy is the path of discussion, then its ultimate finality is the positive outcome. any variable that counters that outcome is a negative force.


NO! Negentrophy ( and you could have looked it up) is basically a increase in order where entropy is a 'decrease' leading to equilibrium.


the hordes of fools who stand behind this notion of "negative entropy" believe its a positive outcome, it is the (hypothetical)violation of entropy.


Stellar and galactic formation is a clear violation of the notion of a second law and it's not a fools game at all. Why do you have such a problem with what is clearly observable?


negentropic events are not as prevalent as entropic events.


You are free to believe what you like but i can not prove disprove that claim than you can prove it.


id dare to say for every 1 negentropic event there are 1million entropic(and im being extremely modest).

tom and i addressed this earlier- ill quote>


And once again your free to believe that as long as you do not pretend that there is evidence to support the claim.


you see we get your point but we are smart enough to realize that its so statistically improbable its not worth wasting our time with.


No you do not get my point as you are still disregarding all evidence to the contrary. The large scale structures of the universe simply does not prove that entropy is the prevailing force and we know that our solar system is a local violation of the second law.



what????? we do not build atoms, we take atoms from our surroundings. the reason we have carbon in our bodies is because carbon was there to be used. one day that carbon will not be here to be used, and either we(life) make the appropriate changes or die off.


What i made expressly clear is that we can transmute atoms of one element in atoms of another; this is another clear violation of the second law yet all living things do it.


we use fusion and fision to make alternate atoms from already present atoms.
we do not make the atoms from scratch.


That's what i believe but it's not what you said earlier. Please make your posts internally consistent.


sir atoms do dissipate.


If you had been more specific, and stated that SOME unstable atomic nuclei decays, then maybe both of us would have made accurate statements....

Lets see if you can come even that close to admitting to being wrong.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Lets see if you can come even that close to admitting to being wrong.

where am i wrong?




Well you have to say that to defend the notion that that there exists no negentropic processes. Entropy MIGHT be true on a galactic scale but it's effects are negated on all the local scales we are aware of.

no i say that because it can be done. it is possible for a system to be given a new task before that system decays completely. in laymen terms it means "salvaging", using all left overs; to waste not.

where are the effects negated ??? on any scale(let alone all)?



I don't know what that proves but it's clearly not related to the present discussion...

o but it is... i used that example to show the "salvaging process", as a counter to your position. i tried to convey that your perspective has no connection(directly) to entropy at all. but merely a confusion of terms.





regardless of what you do with your apples they are going to rot. this rotting is entropy.

But your somehow forgetting to mention that the apples GREW in the first place!

the apples grew out of a degrading process of nutrients. in short the apples are the waste product of the apple tree.



Well since you seem to know what no one does you should go ahead and prove that the universe is a closed system where entropy must eventually lead to a heat death.

look as long as there are atoms> friction will be a real presence(friction is heat; heat is friction), when the atoms fade away there will be no more friction(no more heat). thats the ultimate system, the lesser systems run off of this. however there are many levels of energy transfers before reaching this level.

what you see as negentropic force i see as a "critical mass" situation. the situation creates mass distortion(expansion). an example is a star, it begins its critical mass sequence early in its cycle. growing and becoming hotter; eon after eon. until other systems that are present cant maintain structure. then "pop" a super nova takes place, reducing its grand achievement to a stretching halt.

some how i feel i wasted my time with that one:/



Entropy has absolutely nothing to do with atomic 'decay' whatever you mean by that.

yes it does, its(atoms) the foundation of this reality. all other systems run off of this system. entropy work in other systems because its runs on the atomic level(and most certainly deeper).



NO! Negentrophy ( and you could have looked it up) is basically a increase in order where entropy is a 'decrease' leading to equilibrium.

negentropy is "negative entropy" its basically a violation of entropy(belief). i already went over this earlier in this thread.



Stellar and galactic formation is a clear violation of the notion of a second law

how so? the reason these thing come to be is because other systems are running along side entropy, like GRAVITY, massive quantities of gravity hold these galactic sytems close together. this gravity is a distortion of space, caused by the abundant supply of mass. when this mass ceases to exist the system(galactic) will fall apart.



No you do not get my point as you are still disregarding all evidence to the contrary. The large scale structures of the universe simply does not prove that entropy is the prevailing force and we know that our solar system is a local violation of the second law.

by "we" i hope you mean you and by "know" i hope you mean believe. becuase i dont see how its violating entropy
.

if your referring to orbits; those orbits will deviate at some point in the distant future. because those orbit rely on systems that are dictated by entropy(decay).



What i made expressly clear is that we can transmute atoms of one element in atoms of another; this is another clear violation of the second law yet all living things do it.

but transmutation has nothing to do with this discussion.
wait a damn minute are you confusing "atoms" with "molecules"?




we use fusion and fision to make alternate atoms from already present atoms.
we do not make the atoms from scratch.

That's what i believe but it's not what you said earlier. Please make your posts internally consistent.

i DID NOT say anything counter to this point. i asked you a question, you answered that question with a bunch of stupid; so i corrected you.

here>>>




seriously* do you believe it is possible for humans to create new atoms from scratch?

We already do in low energy nuclear reactios and biological entities have been doing since life got going.

i can understand if your confusing atoms and molecules, because that actually make your response somewhat intelligent, however if you swear you are indeed speaking of atoms> you sir are wrong.

transmute in reactors "yes", build from scratch "no"

ughh i walked way from my pc and lost interest in continuing this post:/ hope i covered everything


by the entropy wins
had to



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Stellar:

I am curious as to where you're getting this "living things make atoms" idea - they most certainly do not.

The only proponent for that I've seen on ATS is esecallum - I hesitate to associate the two of you on an intellectual level.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Nope. It will be so much easier if you go back and follow your own argument, if not, I can repost each and every comment along this line. Starting just before the point where you make the non-sequitur that "gravity can't be dissipated".


So i guess i will make it simpler; in respect to which body in the universe is gravity 'dissipated'?


The heat is re-emitted as light, so in a sense yes.


Yes, believe it or not, your human too.


Dissipation is dissipation. The energy of infall is eventually radiated away.


And the coal, oil and everything else? The Earth is a open system and it and the fact that life thrives here shows that the Earth as system is not subject to overall dissipation.


When I say "waste heat" I'm not making a value judgement - it's a thermodynamics term. If you have enough infall, the star may ignite, then you have a lot more waste heat.


In physics it may not be used as a value judgement but it's pretty clear how the science establishment and lay people use it.


But if it doesn't, all you have is the energy of infall, and eventually a cold wad of hydrogen, trace gases and dust.


Right...


And as I'm sure I've already stated in this thread - it powers local reversals of entropy, but the energy required to do it is more than that tied up in the entropic reversal. See also: Carnot limit.


This is assumed; not proven. We do not know if the universe is a isolated or open system thus making all assumptions of universal entropy entirely moot. On all observable levels ( galactic clusters, galaxies, star clusters, solar systems, planets ) we observe entire regions where negentropy reigns and the rest is at best speculation and a worse propaganda.


It will run out eventually whether you conserve it or not. That's the way entropy works.


You are assuming a isolated system and we have no conclusive evidence that that is the case. Since your entire argument of entropy rests on that assumption you must excuse the fact i wont accept your doom and gloom proclamations.


Chaos will win.


The fact that i am typing this response in my opinion proves you wrong.
Why do you believe in a theory you have absolutely no way of proving?

Stellar



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So i guess i will make it simpler; in respect to which body in the universe is gravity 'dissipated'?


It isn't - you don't dissipate gravity, and that was my point. Gravity is a condition of mass. Unless the mass is going away, gravity just IS. What is dissipated is gravitational potential energy, which was my reply to your non-sequitur.





And the coal, oil and everything else?


Was produced from fusion energy radiated away from the Sun in the form of sunlight. It took more energy input to make the coal than the coal/oil/everything stored. And in the end, the chemical energy in those materials will be dissipated as well.




This is assumed; not proven.


Really, no, I invite you to find me a system that can exceed Carnot's limit.



We do not know if the universe is a isolated or open system thus making all assumptions of universal entropy entirely moot.


I await your demonstration of where energy is being input to the universe from outside it.



On all observable levels ( galactic clusters, galaxies, star clusters, solar systems, planets ) we observe entire regions where negentropy reigns...


Only as a smaller system powered by a larger entropy.


Since your entire argument of entropy rests on that assumption you must excuse the fact i wont accept your doom and gloom proclamations.


Unless Bearden tells you to, I really don't expect you to accept anything I say.

I'm speaking more to the other ATS'ers who might have read your interestingly inaccurate post(s).


[edit on 28-8-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Stellar: I am curious as to where you're getting this "living things make atoms" idea - they most certainly do not.


Well i claimed that living things can transmute elements; not make them. I guess Glyph needed a straw man or two.



The only proponent for that I've seen on ATS is esecallum - I hesitate to associate the two of you on an intellectual level.


Since i have strong opinions about your intellectual abilities it's just fair that you have some about me. All i ask is that you actually READ what i say before judging.



Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It isn't - you don't dissipate gravity, and that was my point. Gravity is a condition of mass. Unless the mass is going away, gravity just IS. What is dissipated is gravitational potential energy, which was my reply to your non-sequitur.


I think it was quite obvious that i intended to argue the fact that gravitational potential in respect to all other masses in the universe or solar system is not dissipated; the matter/energy that is radiated or part of the sun still has gravitational potential energy.


Was produced from fusion energy radiated away from the Sun in the form of sunlight. It took more energy input to make the coal than the coal/oil/everything stored.


Assuming the sun 'works' as you think it does. I still do not understand why you think entropic processes in or on the Sun PROVES universal entropy? Why should i draw my line where you have decided to draw yours? What or where is that massive amount of missing mass physicists are currently employing to make their models work? How can we argue for entropy when we don't even know where 95% of the universes mass/energy is? What we do know for a certainty is that the Earth is negentropic locality and that things are ordered and that there is more and more of it.


And in the end, the chemical energy in those materials will be dissipated as well.


Well it's supposedly been there for a few hundred million years and unless we use it or it is subducted deeply enough it's going to be there for a few billion more yet; if you think the sun works as they say it does...


Really, no, I invite you to find me a system that can exceed Carnot's limit.


I have in the past given you at least a dozen examples but since this guy is powering state buildings, and you can go check it out, maybe this will be enough.

James L. Griggs

www.rexresearch.com...

www.freepatentsonline.com...

There mere fact that we can observe the energy that is diverged into a circuit flowing in ALL directions from the battery/ generator terminals should tell you a whole damn lot.


I await your demonstration of where energy is being input to the universe from outside it.


Why presume it's coming from the outside? Maybe the missing mass/energy i pointed to earlier is merely unobservable but now integrated and made so by dipoles; magnets if you will?


Only as a smaller system powered by a larger entropy.


The larger entropy you assume to exist without any conclusive evidence.


Unless Bearden tells you to, I really don't expect you to accept anything I say.


I accept what makes sense and what you are attempting to tell me contradicts my observations; Tom Bearden is not involved...


I'm speaking more to the other ATS'ers who might have read your interestingly inaccurate post(s).


Lying to the ATS community is not exactly a service you should expect to be thanked for...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Well i claimed that living things can transmute elements; not make them. I guess Glyph needed a straw man or two.



if thats what your going to claim, then you sir are still wrong. biological entities dont transmute elements, we dont have the capability to start fusion/fission reactions with atoms.

that is of'course without the assistance of reactors and what not.

and you did say we make them



do you believe it is possible... to create... atoms... ?

We already do...


either i cant read or your a liar:/



Lying to the ATS community is not exactly a service you should expect to be thanked for...


Tom is not lying and i thank him for his position.


good day sir

[edit on 1/9/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I think it was quite obvious that i intended to argue the fact that gravitational potential in respect to all other masses in the universe or solar system is not dissipated; the matter/energy that is radiated or part of the sun still has gravitational potential energy.


Sort of flailing there. Since you want to obscure the comment, let's go back to the first one:

"It supposedly only takes gravity to make a star and unless you wish to explain how gravity is 'dissipated' in stellar formation you should probably go with another example."

And down that trail we went, with me pointing out that the potential energy of infall was what heated it up, and you trying to dodge it by redefining what you were saying.




Assuming the sun 'works' as you think it does. I still do not understand why you think entropic processes in or on the Sun PROVES universal entropy?


OP's first post was that entropy did not exist at ALL, which you applauded. It's quite obvious it does, which you have admitted to. It's obvious that small scale negentropy exists, but only at the expense of more entropy in the larger system around it.


And in the end, the chemical energy in those materials will be dissipated as well.


Well it's supposedly been there for a few hundred million years and unless we use it or it is subducted deeply enough it's going to be there for a few billion more yet; if you think the sun works as they say it does...



I have in the past given you at least a dozen examples but since this guy is powering state buildings, and you can go check it out, maybe this will be enough.



He's not "powering state buildings" at all. It's being used for heating purposes, and not with zero energy input either.



There mere fact that we can observe the energy that is diverged into a circuit flowing in ALL directions from the battery/ generator terminals should tell you a whole damn lot.


Other than from Bearden, where do you get this? What we observe is the field flowing along the conductors, and causing a flow of electrons through a load with a potential across it. Miraculously, every circuit will dissipate exactly the energy put into making the potential. It's as if the universe worked that way.



I accept what makes sense and what you are attempting to tell me contradicts my observations; Tom Bearden is not involved...


Yet you cite him constantly, although unattributed, and even quoted him during the thread as an authority. Further, it's rare that I see you say anything that's not from either Bearden or the "electric universe" sites. He may not be involved but it's like you've got a photo of him somewhere with little candles by it in a shrine.





Lying to the ATS community is not exactly a service you should expect to be thanked for...


I'd say you were calling the kettle black, but in your case I don't think you actually understand enough of what you're talking about to actually say it's a lie when you're inaccurate.



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
if thats what your going to claim, then you sir are still wrong. biological entities dont transmute elements, we dont have the capability to start fusion/fission reactions with atoms.


YES, low energy nuclear reactions; cold fusion?

www.alternativescience.com...

www.wired.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

www.loe.org...

epw.senate.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

lenr-canr.org...

I am quite convinced that going trough that should convince you of the reality of cold fusion.


that is of'course without the assistance of reactors and what not.
and you did say we make them either i cant read or your a liar:/


I did apparently claim that we can make 'new' atoms, but then managed to forget both the comment and what i wanted to say, and if one looks at the Periodic table i guess that's what i were talking about.


Tom is not lying and i thank him for his position.
good day sir


Anyone who agrees must after all be 'right'.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
cold fusion?


well the theoretical reality of cold fusion i can "imagine", however im speaking of actual working systems. to date i have not gotten wind of it being achieved (altho i have been out of that loop for sometime now).

admittingly i did not read all of your links, but the first few were "what if" articles.


regardless of "if" it can be done or not it will still adhere to laws of entropy.

the point of my comment on the creation of atoms is as follows> if you cannot create new atoms; then you cannot replace the atoms that deplete completely. as time progresses less matter will be present in this "verse". aka all will be lost(entropy)

your transmutations are neither here nor there. tho i could be wrong, but im certain fusion/fission do not increase an atoms shelf life; meaning it does not escape entropy. its decay "stays the course"



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
well the theoretical reality of cold fusion i can "imagine", however im speaking of actual working systems. to date i have not gotten wind of it being achieved (altho i have been out of that loop for sometime now).

admittingly i did not read all of your links, but the first few were "what if" articles.


So you have been out of the loop since 1987? Why stop reading before you get to what could do nothing other than prove it?


regardless of "if" it can be done or not it will still adhere to laws of entropy.


Circular reasoning if every saw some.
Why do you believe the laws of entropy plays any part in a process you claim you do not understand?


the point of my comment on the creation of atoms is as follows> if you cannot create new atoms;


But we can and if one takes transmutation to mean the creation of new atoms ( instead of just atoms being changed) then we do not require additional proof.


then you cannot replace the atoms that deplete completely.


Which atoms deplete completely and where does that happen?


as time progresses less matter will be present in this "verse". aka all will be lost(entropy)


NO! The conservation of energy law tells us that energy/matter is CONSERVED; the universe can not lose mass unless it's open in which case arguments for entropy becomes even more speculative.


your transmutations are neither here nor there. tho i could be wrong, but im certain fusion/fission do not increase an atoms shelf life;


Did i not point out that only some atoms are decaying and then just to more stable forms?


meaning it does not escape entropy. its decay "stays the course"



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So you have been out of the loop since 1987? Why stop reading before you get to what could do nothing other than prove it?

why must cold fusion be proven??? it doesnt matter. cold fusion wont escape entropy, why you may ask? becuase the material the device is made of will decay and break, regardless if output > input is obtained.

why are you trying to derail this topic with zero point energy?




regardless of "if" it can be done or not it will still adhere to laws of entropy.

Circular reasoning if every saw some.
Why do you believe the laws of entropy plays any part in a process you claim you do not understand?

i did not claim i dont understand cold fusion, what i said was it hasnt been proven YET.



... if one takes transmutation to mean the creation of new atoms ( instead of just atoms being changed) then we do not require additional proof.

why would i purposely use the term transmutation inaccurately? i will not start to redefine terms just to fit my "agenda"; as to make things that dont fit appear to fit.

EDIT: i forgot to mention that whether you transmute or not those particles are/will decay at a given rate. transmute all you want, but they will decay till you cant transmute no more.



Which atoms deplete completely and where does that happen?

all atoms, everywhere.



NO! The conservation of energy law tells us that energy/matter is CONSERVED; the universe can not lose mass unless it's open in which case arguments for entropy becomes even more speculative.

wrong again... that law deals with "energy" not mass. you have just tried to pull a fast one and got busted. to write "energy/matter" is just wrong, the two are not grouped together as such. learn more physics plz.



Did i not point out that only some atoms are decaying and then just to more stable forms?

im not sure if you did or not? where did you point that out? either way your still wrong. "only" all atoms decay, those that are stable and those that are not.



What i can't figure out is why you are so desperately trying to see entropy everywhere.

im not desperately trying to "see" anything. its just there, like day and night.


[edit on 2/9/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
why must cold fusion be proven??? it doesnt matter. cold fusion wont escape entropy,


That is a circular argument once again assuming entropy as true for everything on any scale.


why you may ask? becuase the material the device is made of will decay and break, regardless if output > input is obtained.


Unless it's maintained by the intelligent application of energy; something humans are quite capable of. You are assuming NO negentropic effects anywhere when this is a obvious lie.


why are you trying to derail this topic with zero point energy?


I have not said anything about ZPE so please stop burning straw men.


i did not claim i dont understand cold fusion, what i said was it hasnt been proven YET.


And that is a bald faced lie at worse and ignorance of reality at best. We KNOW plants do it and we know it's been validated in many hundreds of experiments all over the world; it's real but you wont accept it because you do nothing but slavishly follow whatever is said to be the norm.


why would i purposely use the term transmutation inaccurately?


Because it suits your agenda of further propagating the 'truth' of entropy as basis for human reality.


i will not start to redefine terms just to fit my "agenda"; as to make things that dont fit appear to fit.


Fact is atoms are changed by fusion of either the 'hot or 'cold' kind and that is transmutation by another name. Until you can start accepting the realities that contradicts yours there is not much hope for a settlement in this discussion.


EDIT: i forgot to mention that whether you transmute or not those particles are/will decay at a given rate. transmute all you want, but they will decay till you cant transmute no more.


What decay? Please provide me with the scientific reasoning you are employing here as i am unaware of this 'decay'. Once again you are employing reasoning of a very circular nature by saying what you must to arrive at the conclusion that entropy must be true; somehow.


all atoms, everywhere.


How?


wrong again... that law deals with "energy" not mass.


It's the same thing and i am becoming very disappointed with your ignorance on such fundamentals of physics.


you have just tried to pull a fast one and got busted. to write "energy/matter" is just wrong, the two are not grouped together as such. learn more physics plz.


Ditto. Energy and matter is in fact interchangeable and you should read whatever additional books you must to get on board here.


im not sure if you did or not? where did you point that out? either way your still wrong. "only" all atoms decay, those that are stable and those that are not.


Please provide me with evidence of this decay as i am simply not aware of what your speaking of. I have provided you with a link in the past but maybe this is more specific:


If a nucleus has too few or too many neutrons it may be unstable, and will decay after some period of time. For example, nitrogen-16 atoms (7 protons, 9 neutrons) beta decay to oxygen-16 atoms (8 protons, 8 neutrons) within a few seconds of being created. In this decay a neutron in the nitrogen nucleus is turned into a proton and an electron by the weak nuclear force. The element of the atom changes because while it previously had seven protons (which makes it nitrogen) it now has eight (which makes it oxygen). Many elements have multiple isotopes which are stable for weeks, years, or even billions of years.

en.wikipedia.org...


So decay is not a perpetual thing and it may decay towards stability whenever it nuclear is unstable. This is apparently not the case for a stable nucleus so please clarify of which decay you are referring to.


im not desperately trying to "see" anything. its just there, like day and night.


I have repeatedly shown you that you are looking ONLY at one set of facts and that there is a large volume of information that shows the exact opposite. Every charge and dipole in the universe is observed to have fields and potentials but so far our science establishment have simply said that these are inherent properties of some subatomic particles without presenting any evidence as to the source of the energy that is dissipated in these processes... Entropy is easily observable but so is the apparent spontaneous transfer of energy from a currently unobservable domain ( that 90% of missing mass/energy?) to our visible and observable universe.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And that is a bald faced lie at worse and ignorance of reality at best. We KNOW plants do it and we know it's been validated in many hundreds of experiments all over the world; it's real but you wont accept it because you do nothing but slavishly follow whatever is said to be the norm.


Where are you getting this from? I'm sincerely asking - other than some Russian guy saying chickens made calcium through nuclear reactions I'm not sure I've ever heard this plant transmutation thing except from you in this thread.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Where are you getting this from?


Reading and generally doing what you should be doing? Observing reality in general?


I'm sincerely asking - other than some Russian guy saying chickens made calcium through nuclear reactions I'm not sure I've ever heard this plant transmutation thing except from you in this thread.


So how many people on a thread such as this will actually present novel but validated facts?


Here are some of those who experimented and saw the 'impossible' taking place.

Louis_Kervran

en.wikipedia.org...

www.lasarcyk.de...

experts.about.com...

www.rexresearch.com...

www.cheniere.org...

Hisatoki Komaki

www.papimi.gr...

V.I. VYSOTSKII1

www.lenr-canr.org...

Solomon Goldfein

www.rexresearch.com...

Albrecht von Herzeele

bak.spc.org...

And here is some general information.

www.alternativescience.com...

www.wired.com...

www.csmonitor.com...

www.loe.org...

epw.senate.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...

lenr-canr.org...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Where are you getting this from?


Reading and generally doing what you should be doing? Observing reality in general?


Wow - you can actually observe transmutation taking place directly? You have me beaten, then, I don't have a sense that allows that.

I'll check out the links - seriously other than that papimi.gr horse poop and the Russian guy with the chickens, I've never heard this one.

edit: and I see where the Russian guy was getting it on the first link out of the list. Interesting.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Unless it's maintained by the intelligent application of energy; something humans are quite capable of. You are assuming NO negentropic effects anywhere when this is a obvious lie.

i dont understand your point here. i do not deny the possibility of negative entropy, i only state that the probability is in the positives' favor.

define "intelligent application of energy" please.



Fact is atoms are changed by fusion of either the 'hot or 'cold' kind and that is transmutation by another name. Until you can start accepting the realities that contradicts yours there is not much hope for a settlement in this discussion.

look i think cold fusion is/would be great, its presence would solve alot of energy problems. what i dont get is> why on earth this has anything to do with entropy?

cold fusion is not a negentropic event, no matter how much you want it to be. its an alternative to hot fusion; fusion of particles that enforce patterns of entropy.



What decay? Please provide me with the scientific reasoning you are employing here as i am unaware of this 'decay'. Once again you are employing reasoning of a very circular nature by saying what you must to arrive at the conclusion that entropy must be true; somehow.

if am repeating myself it becuase you are refusing to see what im saying.

the entropy i speak of is the ramifications of the ejecta(decay) that is emitted from atoms(and there particles). if the content of the atoms is dissipated into the environment, that variable is depleted. when its(particle) depletion is completed the particle is no more.

what happens when you split an atom?

that force is released naturally over a vary large span of time.

i understand the scientific community doesnt use "decay" as i do. however using the scientific usage, entropy is realized as well. when radioactive decay takes place the atoms drops to a lower state(moveing from a higher state). this natural transmutation is apparently random(from our perspective), being influenced by temperature, and can be accelerated by gamma bombardment.

what you assume is "stability" is infinite.




... that law deals with "energy" not mass.

It's the same thing and i am becoming very disappointed with your ignorance on such fundamentals of physics...Energy and matter is in fact interchangeable...

if your understanding of energy is restricted to atoms then yes.

in the realm of physics the two are not the same. matter is a substance, and many forms of energy are NOT considered matter, ie waves.

indeed...if they were the same thing there would be no need to have separate forms of text. the terms are here because they are used in different ways. which means they are not interchangeable(within the realm of physics).

my point was> your improper use of a law that is not applicable to this discussion. and you had to insert(deviously) the term mass/matter to make it(the law) relevant.



I have repeatedly shown you that you are looking ONLY at one set of facts and that there is a large volume of information that shows the exact opposite.

really?? the exact opposite??

you havent shown me why i should abandon entropy. everything in my life and even your life proves entropy is very relevant to the human experience. if your going to say its not i say show me the alternative, show me the alternative understanding to aging, exhaustion/fatigue, arthritis, loss of vision, death, ect...

[edit on 3/9/07 by Glyph_D]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
i dont understand your point here. i do not deny the possibility of negative entropy, i only state that the probability is in the positives' favor.


Probability does not include the actions of intelligence; if there were enough sufficiently advanced races or entities we could likely change the universe as we saw fit.


define "intelligent application of energy" please.


When you fix your car, grow food, build a dam and otherwise act in generally non random manner; human behaviour is constructive even when such constructs are sometimes employed for destruction and the creation of disorder.


look i think cold fusion is/would be great, its presence would solve alot of energy problems. what i dont get is> why on earth this has anything to do with entropy?


Well that's good news as it is real and have been happening since life started in the universe.


cold fusion is not a negentropic event, no matter how much you want it to be. its an alternative to hot fusion; fusion of particles that enforce patterns of entropy.


Cold fusion is by it's very nature a negentropic event as biological entities employ the process to transform some of the elements they do not need into those they can not do without. I do not see how entropy is enforced when order is being imposed.


if am repeating myself it becuase you are refusing to see what im saying.


Ditto.


the entropy i speak of is the ramifications of the ejecta(decay) that is emitted from atoms(and there particles). if the content of the atoms is dissipated into the environment, that variable is depleted. when its(particle) depletion is completed the particle is no more.


Please provide me with the physical process behind this! Are you referring to the fact that atoms have charges and fields in general and that they must decay due to it? PLEASE source your claim with more than what you think...


what happens when you split an atom?
that force is released naturally over a vary large span of time.


Atoms are not naturally split and they are instead normally fused into more 'complex' elements.


i understand the scientific community doesnt use "decay" as i do. however using the scientific usage, entropy is realized as well. when radioactive decay takes place the atoms drops to a lower state(moveing from a higher state).


Only for unstable atomic nuclei and even then it only decays into stability; it's not a inherent process in all nuclei and it's certainly not indicative of entropy on the whole. If the science establishment is not using the word as you do that normally spells trouble and you will have to decide if you wish to employ their credibility and stick to their rules or go your own course and defend each principle on your own terms. You can not have it both ways and i will press on the issue if you try to.


this natural transmutation is apparently random(from our perspective), being influenced by temperature, and can be accelerated by gamma bombardment.


This natural transmutation is directed in biological entities for their own survival and is thus not a random process "being influenced by temperature or gamma bombardment" ( whatever that means).


what you assume is "stability" is infinite.


I do not presume stability and have indicated that there seems to be a constant flux as energy is gated into and out of the observable realms by dipoles.


if your understanding of energy is restricted to atoms then yes.

in the realm of physics the two are not the same. matter is a substance, and many forms of energy are NOT considered matter, ie waves.


My understanding is obviously restricted , i would argue less than yours but it's still a little knowledge in a big badly understood universe, but in the realm of physics it is understood that with proper accounting one can see mass as compressed energy and the other way round; there is no as far as i am aware any reason to make it more complex than that.


indeed...if they were the same thing there would be no need to have separate forms of text. the terms are here because they are used in different ways. which means they are not interchangeable(within the realm of physics).


Before they knew better there was reason for separation but that not been required since Einstein gave us that nice formula.


my point was> your improper use of a law that is not applicable to this discussion. and you had to insert(deviously) the term mass/matter to make it(the law) relevant.


I don't see any reason for such a conclusion but you have so far proved that your going to believe what you like.


really?? the exact opposite??


Yes... What allows for the electric/magnetic fields that surrounds charges and dipoles in general? What is being dissipated?


you havent shown me why i should abandon entropy. everything in my life and even your life proves entropy is very relevant to the human experience.


Some things do but your focusing exclusively on the negative and have done your utmost to ignore human civilization and progress in general. I can not take people seriously who ignore all constructive and ordering human activities while loudly pointing out how things decay and break when their usage is not regulated and intelligently maintained.

You are basically telling us that all human activity is entirely futile, because we are somehow causing entropy elsewhere, and that we have achieved nothing on this planet.


if your going to say its not i say show me the alternative, show me the alternative understanding to aging, exhaustion/fatigue, arthritis, loss of vision, death, ect...


I say you are misrepresenting the issue because you ignore Growth, rest/recuperation, the fact that not everyone gets arthritis, good vision and the organization and negentropy that is Birth and life. You sir are in my opinion a nihilist who wants to distract those who see in humanity a great potential for managing and organizing this universe to make all dreams reality.

Stellar






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join