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

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
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.

your dream world will not happen. and if you were to try to make it happen a group of people would defy just to "defy".

your utopia would require a police state. you want your order to prevail:/



human behaviour is constructive ...

this is entirely perspective, what you see as constructive i could and probably would see as a pre-system for disaster. list 5 things that humans have done that can be considered constructive to the universe? these five things cannot impede on another existence, otherwise its destrucive.

humans detached from nature long ago, and i see no attempt(collectively) to go back to the truth.



Cold fusion is by it's very nature a negentropic....

how?? it does not prevent entropy in any way. fusion is an action that can be utilized in this known universe, how do you see this action standing its ground against what is already a course of action greater than its self?

let me ask you why do your chickens/plants use cold fusion? becuase if they they dont they would die much sooner, neither the chicken nor the plant believe they have prevented their finality. they merely have done what is necessary to survive a while longer.

if you want to argue that survival is your negentropic event say so, ill dissect it further.



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.

Ditto



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

have you got the answer to that?? becuase i far as a scientifically sound position it still undetermined.

now we walk into the realm of theory.

you "could" accept the graviton as your answer(till a better explanation comes around). this is the ejecta i speak of, EMF waves propagate from its paths. the(MY) theory is space is made of this particle, anything that "occupies" space is made of this particle(atoms). i go further and suggest that these atoms will decay to gravitons.

the reason i suggest this is becuase of the appallingly clear presence of entropy.

"As it is above, so shall it be below" or the inverse




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.

you know what i want to say becuase youve pegged me pretty damn good as a nihilist.



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.

human activity HAS been futile, we have not freed our selves(collectively) from the trappings of a perpetual slave minded existence. what have we achieved? im not looking at the negative side of humanity, im struggling to see the positive side of humanity.




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.

but i pegged you as well. you want to play god, and thats the very reason humanity is a scorn in this world. when people like you get together they wage wars, they fight for there dreams to come true. regardless of the encroachment onto other lives, they will selfishly continue to push.


"the road to hell was paved with good intentions"

the reason you dont want entropy in your mind is becuase it takes so much power out of your hands. it make you feel weak and helpless. it give you a chill you cant shake. im sure you got it all figured out huh? just as long as people were like you this world would be better. everyone thinks like this(everyone). the problem is no one sticks up for the guy who doesnt push for his dream.

to me entropy is a god send, i can live in this wonderful world and not worry about maintaining it, becuase its been set in place.

hopefully that resonates a bit with you.

topics like this always get personnal:/ sometime we monkeys catch wind of things much bigger than ourselves, and we freak out over it:/ in truth im not a nihilist. its true i dont have much faith in the collective, but as individuals we can achieve the impossible. its laws like entropy that allow such things possible.

[edit on 3/9/07 by Glyph_D]




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
your dream world will not happen. and if you were to try to make it happen a group of people would defy just to "defy".


Well i presume they must defy as otherwise you would be fresh out of arguments. What's with the consistent baseless circular reasoning?


your utopia would require a police state. you want your order to prevail:/


Why would it require a police state and since when does police states lead to utopia? Please explain to me how on earth you arrive at the conclusions you do.


this is entirely perspective, what you see as constructive i could and probably would see as a pre-system for disaster.


Because all you see is disaster... My perspective is my perspective and if you want to tell me what your opinions just do so without trying to invent logical connections that you never have managed to make.


list 5 things that humans have done that can be considered constructive to the universe?


We build, we grow, we give birth, we plan and we build communities. The fact that you poses this question exposes the fact that you should probably find another planet and race as you clearly are not happy with being human.


these five things cannot impede on another existence, otherwise its destrucive.


Interaction can not always go smoothly and to suggest that this is somehow evidence of some inherent flaw in humanity is just sickening.


humans detached from nature long ago, and i see no attempt(collectively) to go back to the truth.


Nature do not care one bit for us and there is no reason we should not bend it to our will while maintaining what we require for the health and growth of human civilization.


how?? it does not prevent entropy in any way.


BECAUSE LIVING ORGANISMS EMPLOYS COLD FUSION TO GROW AND MULTIPLY! Why are you avoiding the truth with your inane banter and avoidance of what is plainly obvious? Are you still holding out on the hope that i am going to leave you to spread your particular brand of nonsense?


fusion is an action that can be utilized in this known universe, how do you see this action standing its ground against what is already a course of action greater than its self?


Because neither you or the science establishment have proved or even established any reason for anyone to believe in this universal force called 'entropy'. You are abusing the theory in the most reckless way possible and it's a good thing there is at least someone around here to tell you how wrong you are for believing something so devoid of reason.


let me ask you why do your chickens/plants use cold fusion? becuase if they they dont they would die much sooner, neither the chicken nor the plant believe they have prevented their finality.


SO THE HELL WHAT? Is inane banter all you are left with?


they merely have done what is necessary to survive a while longer.


They do it to survive at all; to say nothing of procreation and continuation of the species!


if you want to argue that survival is your negentropic event say so, ill dissect it further.


As if reason and logic could prevent you from going on endlessly.


have you got the answer to that?? becuase i far as a scientifically sound position it still undetermined.now we walk into the realm of theory.


I have provided you with a answer already and it at very least corresponds to observed reality. The science establishment does have a accepted truth about that but it's a obvious fallacy that they maintain just to have something to defend against logic and observation.


you "could" accept the graviton as your answer(till a better explanation comes around). this is the ejecta i speak of, EMF waves propagate from its paths.


Please refer me to at least some properly sourced claims; i have not wasted your time with pointless speculation of my own and have referenced my appeals to scientific theories and observations.


the(MY) theory is space is made of this particle, anything that "occupies" space is made of this particle(atoms). i go further and suggest that these atoms will decay to gravitons.


Considering your beliefs about entropy i really would like something more proper than your opinion.


the reason i suggest this is becuase of the appallingly clear presence of entropy.


Where? More circular reasoning? "Entropy must be primary force because i refuse to observe any other?"


"As it is above, so shall it be below" or the inverse


Whatever! This is clearly just about wasting my time and distracting sane people from sane endeavours. Do you have anything of merit to add or is typing something randomly inane good enough for you?


you know what i want to say becuase youve pegged me pretty damn good as a nihilist.


A nihilist who is doing his best to ignore all evidence to the contrary.


human activity HAS been futile, we have not freed our selves(collectively) from the trappings of a perpetual slave minded existence.


Slave minded existence? Who are the slave drivers and why have average people been fighting them since time immemorial?


what have we achieved? im not looking at the negative side of humanity, im struggling to see the positive side of humanity.


Your have never looked and i am very disappointed that you feel confident enough in your vast ignorance to bring such a notion before audience. What speaks more to the humanity of humanity in general than their consistent struggle against tyranny and power?


but i pegged you as well. you want to play god, and thats the very reason humanity is a scorn in this world.


Please look up the word 'scorn' and consider if you wished to use the word ' scourge' instead. I can now see that you are defending the notion of entropy because you live in a world you are too much of a coward to try change by your own actions; the fact that you are willing to wait a few billion years to see your lunacy realised speaks volumes about your commitment to the cause of eradicating humanity.

I do not wish to play god and change humanity faster than knowledge of their world will but i am quite sure that you will act on your violently impulses if given any power.


when people like you get together they wage wars, they fight for there dreams to come true.


Sure we do and people just like me have made the world a far better place in just the last hundred years while people like you were following their nihilistic death cults and giving us two world wars, starvation and poverty. You sir are the problem and your probably wishing for 1944 and Nazi/fascists concentration camps everywhere.


regardless of the encroachment onto other lives, they will selfishly continue to push.


It is the rich and powerful that undermine the possibility of a good life for everyone else and they are NOT doing it because they are good natured or looking out for anyone but themselves. You are standing history on it's head and if this is not just ignorance on your part it's something far worse and inhuman.


"the road to hell was paved with good intentions"


Hell is what nihilist such as yourself wish to create for humanity right here on Earth because you reject all that is good in favour of selfish pursuits that you can defend based on the notion that there are no choices to be made in the first place.


the reason you dont want entropy in your mind is becuase it takes so much power out of your hands.


I do not want entropy to have the final say but at least i am providing the evidence that proves my point; all you have done is tell us what you wish to believe while appealing to physical laws you do not even begin to understand. My bias might be obvious but god knows at least my bias is not towards your chaos and destruction.


it make you feel weak and helpless.


People such as yourself sometimes makes me feel weak and helpless as i am not sure how i can change such horribly twisted products of elitist propaganda and social engineering. If you would put yourself out of your clear misery you would be doing humanity a great favour but nihilist such as yourself are always the first to claim that it's all pointless while desperately clinging to life and avoiding all common human struggles to make it better.


it give you a chill you cant shake. im sure you got it all figured out huh?


If entropy was in fact true on a universal scale that would mean we have many billions of years left to affect a understanding of this universe and how to bend it to our will and while i do not have it all figured out i am hoping that we someday will. As entropy is not meaningful on this planet it certainly does not bother me.


just as long as people were like you this world would be better. everyone thinks like this(everyone). the problem is no one sticks up for the guy who doesnt push for his dream.


The problem is not that people do not dream of stand up for those that do but that that those who dream and stand up for dreamers are persecuted and destroyed by that exceedingly small minority that is controlling this planet.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

to me entropy is a god send, i can live in this wonderful world and not worry about maintaining it, becuase its been set in place.


It's always nice to pick whatever dumb theory that serves your particular self interested view of the world.


hopefully that resonates a bit with you.


Not really.


topics like this always get personnal:/ sometime we monkeys catch wind of things much bigger than ourselves,


Topics like these get personal because one of the participants defends his position by appealing to things and information that is not real or accurate. When you start supporting your views with something other than your opinions this conservation could get a whole lot less personal.


and we freak out over it:/ in truth im not a nihilist. its true i dont have much faith in the collective, but as individuals we can achieve the impossible.


So you just like typing up a bunch of nonsense then? Do you find some particular pleasure in wasting other people's time?


its laws like entropy that allow such things possible.


More circular reasoning without end. Can you please learn what circular reasoning is and how to avoid it?

Stellar



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
first off thanks for the good laugh, your rhetoric is top notch




More circular reasoning without end. Can you please learn what circular reasoning is and how to avoid it?

as i understand it> it means choosing a view and finding reasons to support/justify that view.

this is hardly the case, but it may be your problem. look into it.

i wont dig into this because its clearly off topic but i will say this> my conclusions are coincidental not convenient.



Why would it require a police state and since when does police states lead to utopia?

becuase you would have to control those that would defy your dream reality. 2 your right a police state would not get you what you want. thats my point your dream world is just that A GOD DAMNED DREAM.



The fact that you poses this question exposes the fact that you should probably find another planet and race as you clearly are not happy with being human.

perhaps




We build, we grow, we give birth, we plan and we build communities.

sound much like the nature of a virus; consume and dominate:/



Interaction can not always go smoothly and to suggest that this is somehow evidence of some inherent flaw in humanity is just sickening.

in other words; who gives a rats ass to those we trample apon. sickening indeed




Nature do not care one bit for us and there is no reason we should not bend it to our will while maintaining what we require for the health and growth of human civilization.

so your one of those destroy nature folks huh? sad. we do not need much to sustain a workable society, what you want is overkill.



Why are you avoiding the truth with your inane banter and avoidance of what is plainly obvious? Are you still holding out on the hope that i am going to leave you to spread your particular brand of nonsense?

back at ya:lol
mg im laughing to hard :/

stop projecting, it doesnt suit your agenda.



Considering your beliefs about entropy i really would like something more proper than your opinion.

to be quite honest i never wanted to state my theory on the matter, i came to this topic with a clear point; ive stated that point. you deny its presence so further explanation was given(to my regret:/).



Do you have anything of merit to add or is typing something randomly inane good enough for you?

within this thread the truth has been written, if you continue to deny this truth so be it. the continuation of this thread is solely up to you, im simple having an obscure discussion with a loon:/



Slave minded existence? Who are the slave drivers and why have average people been fighting them since time immemorial?

those crazy scientists that are hiding the truth.




What speaks more to the humanity of humanity in general than their consistent struggle against tyranny and power?

compassion, fairness, honesty just to name a few. what you fail to see is these tyrants think just like you, resorting to ad hominid speech.

some of your postings are way off base and clearly your running out of options. using catchy terms such as nazi and camps to sway the reader to your side. if you continue to deny what many have come to accept, i wont stop you.

have you readers and cherish your victory
, i dont need them. if you all want to live in a fantasy, i dont give a damn.



Please look up the word 'scorn'

when i typed that i knew someone(you) would jump on it. i intended to use scorn however my order of speech was off. what i should have written was "thats the very reason humanity has been scorned by this world."



the fact that you are willing to wait a few billion years to see your lunacy realised speaks volumes about your commitment to the cause of eradicating humanity.

i have no desire to eradicate any life forms of any nature. lunacy or not, if its going to happen then its going to happen. and seeing as thats the case, then entropy is very real. regardless of the time frame it will take place.

my point on this is> this is the course our reality subscribes to, and every natural system within this reality is not going to violate this path.



If entropy was in fact true on a universal scale that would mean we have many billions of years left to affect a understanding of this universe and how to bend it to our will and while i do not have it all figured out i am hoping that we someday will. As entropy is not meaningful on this planet it certainly does not bother me.

ahhh thats it find the silver lining
yes its true the scale is so vast that you will never see its end, however the end is there.

in addition- entropy is very meaningful to this planet, because its a system of large proportions, and all systems will reflect its mechanics. we will continue to see the small interactions of this reality adhere to entropy.

the value of this is to make appropriate plans for such outcomes.

"hope for the best, plan for the worst" and "always be prepared"



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Wow! It is certainly heated in here.....

I like entropy, it looks after all of my stuff


I remember a similar debate whilst I was at school, with regards to the most stable state of matter in the universe.

Hopefully one of you guys can explain it to me in simple terms.

Here come my simple questions.

If everything is breaking down, what causes the stars and planets to be formed? Shouldnt everything be going back to sub atomic particles?

If this is the case, what it the energy source for the creation of planets and stars? Is it a kind of entropy vs gravity thing?

I seem to remember my teacher saying that everything wants to become iron because that has the lowest energy level, is this true or was I just being fobbed off?

Do my questions make any sense or have I been up for too long?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
We are in the middle of a thriving universe and it won't be for at least 100 billion years until it suffers heat death. The only thing left will be left-over hawking radiation left over from the last black hole as it evaporates into the void. The Universe as we see it now is still probably very young and even though there has been lots of death and rebirth, these processes happen in a generational manner, so using this piece of knowledge we can then look at the stars that are close to us to see what generation stars are around us and how much available fuel there is left to power future star birth. Once all the fusionable material is exausted the age of the black hole will take over and this will last a very long time. No one knows how long, but it will end and when it's all said and done with all there will be left is radiation and maybe a bit of background light still left over from some long dead galactic cluster. I know I rambled a bit, but I hope it explains it a bit better, I gotta go to sleep now lol



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeepCoverUK
Wow! It is certainly heated in here.....

I like entropy, it looks after all of my stuff


It will only get hotter but other than that i am not sure how entropy is looking after you...


I remember a similar debate whilst I was at school, with regards to the most stable state of matter in the universe.
Hopefully one of you guys can explain it to me in simple terms.
Here come my simple questions.If everything is breaking down, what causes the stars and planets to be formed?


Good question and the formal 'official' answer to the question is that uniform heat or the lack of concentrations of energy might not in fact be the lowest energy state; well it goes something like that...


Shouldnt everything be going back to sub atomic particles?

If this is the case, what it the energy source for the creation of planets and stars? Is it a kind of entropy vs gravity thing?

According to the official doctrine sub atomic particles is not 'required' for a heat death and as far as my knowledge goes there is no observed process by which means atoms/molecules could be broken down in that way.


I seem to remember my teacher saying that everything wants to become iron because that has the lowest energy level, is this true or was I just being fobbed off?


Well you must remember that they are just telling you what they were told to so don't expect miracles. As i understand it is a question of the ever increasing stability of the nuclei which might be officially sold as a decrease in it's potential energy.


Do my questions make any sense or have I been up for too long?


As long as your asking questions and not making statements you can't go far wrong. If someone does not see it that way you know where to find me...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner but as you well know ATS is filled with distractions.


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


I have no wish to obscure anything as my initial comment was accurate as you seemed to be suggesting that gravitational potential energy can be dissipated with respect to all other bodies in the universe; a claim that is patently false.


Stellarx: "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.


All i did was type gravity instead of gravitational potential energy and i would still like you to explain how you think the dissipation with respect to one body is very meaningful in a universe as large as this one. Should we not rather ask what gravity is and what allows dissipation of potential in respect to one body while increasing it in respect to another? Sounds like a violation of a few conservation of energy laws to me but what do i know after all.



OP's first post was that entropy did not exist at ALL, which you applauded


I did not applaud it.

.

It's quite obvious it does, which you have admitted to.


On a universal scale it might very well but neither of us can prove that based on what is in peer reviewed journals.


It's obvious that small scale negentropy exists, but only at the expense of more entropy in the larger system around it.


Which you assume to be so without any evidence. Why MUST you presume entropy without having evidence?


ME: 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...


No answer?


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


It's used for heating but as you might or might not know heating up air requires energy electricity and the bills have been reduced by 30% which is not surprising given the fact that the system puts out 130% more than input. This is not a 'free energy' system per se but it does prove that you can get far more out than you put in.


Other than from Bearden, where do you get this?


Why can't you find it anywhere? I mean are you listening or reading at all?


This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...



In physics, the Poynting vector can be thought of as representing the energy flux (W/m2) of an electromagnetic field. It is named after its inventor John Henry Poynting. Oliver Heaviside independently co-discovered the Poynting vector. Usually, it is defined as

where E is the electric field, H the magnetic field strength, B the magnetic flux density, µ0 the permeability of vacuum, and µr the dimensionless relative permeability of the surrounding medium. (All bold letters represent vectors.)

For example, the Poynting vector within the dielectric insulator of a coaxial cable is nearly parallel to the wire axis (assuming no fields outside the cable) - so electric energy is flowing through the dielectric between the conductors. If the core conductor was replaced by a wire having significant resistance, then the Poynting vector would become tilted toward that wire, indicating that energy flows from the e/m field into the wire, producing resistive Joule heating in the wire.

en.wikipedia.org...



Objection 3: although some books say that you have to have a complete conducting loop before acurrent can exist, that is just another misconception. Electrons do not travel across the insulating gap in a capacitor nor do they jump across the space between the primary and secondary windingsof a transformer. This is so even when the energy source is a battery; I have constructed circuits likethose in figure 2 that show that the lamp lights up briefly when the switch is closed. No matter howthe energy travels in those examples, it must be able to get through empty space. (It is true that ifyou want to maintain a steady current in a circuit, then a continuous conducting loop is required.)

science.uniserve.edu.au...


So clearly what is powering the load flows from outside the circuit and is thus 'guided' , as i understand, by the induced current ( terminals) towards the load. How can the electricity that is powering the load come from outside the circuit and fall into it everywhere? What mechanism in classical accept electrodynamics explains 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.


But the electrons do not flow fast enough to do what classical electrodynamics tells us it is!


Electric currents in solid matter are typically very slow flows. For example, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm², carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is of the order of a millimetre per second. To take a different example, in the near-vacuum inside a cathode ray tube, the electrons travel in near-straight lines ("ballistically") at about a tenth of the speed of light.

However, we know that electrical signals are electromagnetic waves which propagate at very high speed outside the surface of the conductor (moving at the speed of light, as can be deduced from Maxwell's Equations). For example, in AC power lines, the waves of electromagnetic energy propagate rapidly through the space between the wires, moving from a source to a distant load, even though the electrons in the wires only move back and forth over a tiny distance. Although the velocity of the flowing charges is quite low, the associated electromagnetic energy travels at the speed of light.

The nature of these three velocities can be clarified by analogy with the three similar velocities associated with gases. The low drift velocity of charge carriers is analogous to air motions; to wind. The large signal velocity is roughly analogous to the rapid propagation of sound waves, while the large random motion of charges is analogous to heat; to the high thermal velocity of randomly vibrating gas particles.

en.wikipedia.org...



I have discussed this fallacy in detail in the proceedings of a previous workshop (Sefton, 2002) so
I will give only a short explanation here. The idea that an electric current, or the electrons which
constitute the current in a wire, pick up energy from a source and carry it along wires to some
load such a light globe is an attractive one but it is clearly wrong. It’s wrong because the
electrons don’t actually get far enough fast enough. In an alternating current the electrons don’t
go anywhere at all, they just jiggle about and in a direct current they just drift along very slowly
indeed. In view of these well-known ideas, it is a surprise to me that writers of school-level texts
can still get away with perpetuating this fallacy.
The origin of the fallacy may be traced to a common but spurious derivation about the power
(VI) delivered by a battery. The argument involves following a charged particle from one
terminal of a battery to the other and calculating the change in PE of that particle. That is fallacy
1 (above)! The particle does not own the PE – the whole system does. The derivation is also
spurious because, as already pointed out, charges in circuits don’t behave like that. (Nevertheless,
P = VI is a valid equation; it’s just the common derivation that is a fudge.)

science.uniserve.edu.au...


Continued



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

I have discussed this fallacy in detail in the proceedings of a previous workshop (Sefton, 2002) so
I will give only a short explanation here. The idea that an electric current, or the electrons which
constitute the current in a wire, pick up energy from a source and carry it along wires to some
load such a light globe is an attractive one but it is clearly wrong. It’s wrong because the
electrons don’t actually get far enough fast enough. In an alternating current the electrons don’t
go anywhere at all, they just jiggle about and in a direct current they just drift along very slowly
indeed. In view of these well-known ideas, it is a surprise to me that writers of school-level texts
can still get away with perpetuating this fallacy.
The origin of the fallacy may be traced to a common but spurious derivation about the power
(VI) delivered by a battery. The argument involves following a charged particle from one
terminal of a battery to the other and calculating the change in PE of that particle. That is fallacy
1 (above)! The particle does not own the PE – the whole system does. The derivation is also
spurious because, as already pointed out, charges in circuits don’t behave like that. (Nevertheless,
P = VI is a valid equation; it’s just the common derivation that is a fudge.)

science.uniserve.edu.au...



The generator moves an electric current, but does not create electric charge, which is already present in the conductive wire of its windings. It is somewhat analogous to a water pump, which creates a flow of water but does not create the water inside. Other types of electrical generators exist, based on other electrical phenomena such as piezoelectricity, and magnetohydrodynamics. The construction of a dynamo is similar to that of an electric motor, and all common types of dynamos could work as motors.

en.wikipedia.org...


So clearly the only energy that can supposedly be moved can clearly not be moved fast enough hence my interest in your explaining why light bulbs go on almost instantaneously! What source is providing the power and how does it get there so fast?


Miraculously, every circuit will dissipate exactly the energy put into making the potential. It's as if the universe worked that way.


They are designed to do that but there is no physical reason why they should:


This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

sites.huji.ac.il...



Yet you cite him constantly, although unattributed, and even quoted him during the thread as an authority.


He is that and his claim did serve as the basis for my INTEREST in solving this problem.


Further, it's rare that I see you say anything that's not from either Bearden or the "electric universe" sites.


I have only mentioned the electric universe notion/fact idea in this thread so please find accusations that are at least partly true.


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.


I just have a book on my desk; no shrine and no worshipping and frankly i think he is arrogant enough to do without any 'followers'.



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.


Well i will await your response as we have never really went head to head with facts being presented. If you can 'explain' to me how the established views above are somehow wrong that would be great as i do not really wish to live in a world were free energy has been suppressed for a hundred years leading to the pointless deaths of Hundreds of millions.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
where am i wrong?


About cold fusion ( to mention only one of the numerous things) and the fact that things , contrary to the entropy, grow and become more organized.


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.


Plants need to be organized to grow and neither do any other life forms. Homes once built do not simply collapse and machines which are effectively designed can run without trouble for very long times.


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


The Earth is such a system and for all we know the Universe might be too.


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.


Anyone who understands, like you seem to, entropy to mean a uniform effect happening everywhere on any scale in the universe clearly has no scientific background hence my current trouble in educating you.


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


So now food and humans , who grew in the same general way, are 'waste products'? This is why people like you disgust me.


ook as long as there are atoms> friction will be a real presence(friction is heat; heat is friction),


No it's not but i suppose your still trying to find a way to force entropy on the universe...


when the atoms fade away there will be no more friction(no more heat).


There is no known process by which they will..


thats the ultimate system, the lesser systems run off of this.


Please make it expressly clear when you are giving us your opinions. We do NOT know this and unless you present the reasoning and science behind it you have no business introducing it as fact.


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.


And this is clearly all about how you wish to turn the universe into the system that best suits your beliefs...


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.


Which shows once again that do you do not seem to understand stellar formation or evolution.


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


It helps to read a few books on a given topic before commenting.


yes it does, its(atoms) the foundation of this reality.


We don't know that and i suppose there must be a reason for subatomic particles to exist.


all other systems run off of this system. entropy work in other systems because its runs on the atomic level(and most certainly deeper).


Please explain what science you involved in this 'deductive' 'reasoning' of sorts.


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


It's NOT a violation of entropy as entropy is not universal to start with. When are you going to accept this fact and why do you wish to force entropy on systems where it's clearly not in evidence?


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.


Gravity is not a physical thing and it can have no quantities. Please study the terms you are employing.


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.


We do not know that gravity in fact distorts space, it's a theory thought, and mass can not cease to exist as that violates all the laws you have chosen to defend. Do you have any background in physics?


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


Then you need to study some physics text books as that is not how solar formation is viewed by scientist in general.


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).


Once again circular reasoning assuming entropy; you do not know but since it must be true it can serve as 'evidence', somehow.


but transmutation has nothing to do with this discussion.


And it can't be because it contradicts your beliefs i suppose? How can elements being transmuted with MICRO VOLTS not be a violation of most of the theories you have chosen to defend here? Just how do you avoid logic and truth so diligently?


wait a damn minute are you confusing "atoms" with "molecules"?


So now you are showing us that you do not even understand the difference between atoms and molecules?


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.


You just avoided the issue by resorting to the fallacious claim that i am confusing atoms and molecules when that was not the case. I suppose lies is all you are left with when you must defend something you wish to believe in without having the type of evidence that would make it observably true.


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.


I am speaking of atoms and we have created 'new' one's by creating elements that do not naturally form.


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


We have never managed high energy fusion in a fusion reactor so we could not have created anything that way. Building from 'scratch' is something you added later to counter the fact that we do in fact create new elements.


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

by the entropy wins
quote]

Well you made sure that it's more obvious than before that you will defend this entropy 'thing ( you clearly don't understand what it entails) to the death whatever the truth.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
first off thanks for the good laugh, your rhetoric is top notch


My pleasure.


as i understand it> it means choosing a view and finding reasons to support/justify that view.


en.wikipedia.org...

Read, learn and stop wasting my time by confusing, or deliberately, presuming conclusions.


this is hardly the case, but it may be your problem. look into it.
i wont dig into this because its clearly off topic but i will say this> my conclusions are coincidental not convenient.


Coincidental huh? Just your luck i suppose?


becuase you would have to control those that would defy your dream reality.


Why would i have to do that? Would those in the utopia not naturally 'take care' of the problem people all by themselves?


2 your right a police state would not get you what you want. thats my point your dream world is just that A GOD DAMNED DREAM.


And pretending that i suggest a police state as solution is disingenuous at best and more probably intended to disrupt.


perhaps


The fact that you presume that people need to be controlled by a centralized authority makes you the tyrant and liar.


sound much like the nature of a virus; consume and dominate:/


So know your a biologist as well as a physicist and cosmologist? What in human behaviour do you find comparable to a virus and is that tendencies in your opinion 'natural' or due to social conditioning?


in other words; who gives a rats ass to those we trample apon. sickening indeed


In tribal situations blood is rarely spilt as the loss of a member means more work and risk for everyone else. It takes centralized authority and a horrendously flawed economic system to make people redundant and thus 'expendable' in wars and whatever else. It is not natural and if you studied REAL history this would become apparent.


so your one of those destroy nature folks huh? sad. we do not need much to sustain a workable society, what you want is overkill.


Nature do not have to be destroyed to serve us and i do not see why you you are always throwing yourself off one mountain of a fallacy or another. Can we have some moderation in thinking or does your particularly twisted view of the world require such black and white nonsensical presumptions?


back at ya:lol
mg im laughing to hard :/
stop projecting, it doesnt suit your agenda.


My agenda is to make you think strait and consider some actual obserable facts.


to be quite honest i never wanted to state my theory on the matter, i came to this topic with a clear point; ive stated that point. you deny its presence so further explanation was given(to my regret:/).


It's interesting that whenever pressed you refuse to defend the supposed science that allow for your conclusions. Is that also coincidental or shall i just continue to presume that your making up the facts to maintain your conclusions?


within this thread the truth has been written, if you continue to deny this truth so be it.


I tend to deny all varieties of nonsense and i will go on doing so.


the continuation of this thread is solely up to you, im simple having an obscure discussion with a loon:/


So i guess we will continue then.



those crazy scientists that are hiding the truth.


Well some are hiding it but the majority are just blissfully unaware due to their very effective indoctrination/education.


compassion, fairness, honesty just to name a few. what you fail to see is these tyrants think just like you, resorting to ad hominid speech.


Tyrants believe that there is not enough for everyone while i believe there is more than any of us could ever use up. I could never be a tyrant as unlike you i do not believe humans are a 'virus' on this planet or 'waste products' as you so eloquently stated'.


some of your postings are way off base and clearly your running out of options. using catchy terms such as nazi and camps to sway the reader to your side.


I don't think the readers need swaying but it's hard to discuss any given topic when the other party refuses to cite any facts in defense of beliefs.


if you continue to deny what many have come to accept, i wont stop you.


Thank you and does that mean you will stop typing all this nonsensical rubbish?


have you readers and cherish your victory
, i dont need them. if you all want to live in a fantasy, i dont give a damn.


Well if you don't need anyone i will once against suggest how we could all benefit by you finding another species and planet. I could never consider this particular discussion a 'victory' as i did not overcome your ignorance and failed to bring you any closer to the truth.


when i typed that i knew someone(you) would jump on it.


Prescient as well then; you must fill a page with 'credentials'!


i intended to use scorn however my order of speech was off. what i should have written was "thats the very reason humanity has been scorned by this world."


I had no idea that planet was sentient and could scorn anything or anyone? Can you provide me with some sources about what the planet intends to do, a 'battle plan' if you like? Fascinating stuff....


i have no desire to eradicate any life forms of any nature. lunacy or not, if its going to happen then its going to happen.


And it looks like you will be standing around shrugging your shoulders while it all takes place! Thanks...


and seeing as thats the case, then entropy is very real. regardless of the time frame it will take place.


Here we go again with the crazed circular reasoning.



my point on this is> this is the course our reality subscribes to, and every natural system within this reality is not going to violate this path.


Every naturally system already violates the 'laws' the scientific establishment wishes to indoctrinate us with; obviously some minds are easier swayed than others.


ahhh thats it find the silver lining
yes its true the scale is so vast that you will never see its end, however the end is there.


Because you wish to believe it's there! I hope your place in heaven has not long ago entropied away as your clearly a man with plenty of faith in some things.



in addition- entropy is very meaningful to this planet, because its a system of large proportions, and all systems will reflect its mechanics.


But it does not so why say that it does? Why is there still life on Earth four billion years after it first started here? When is entropy going to set in and kill us all? Logic is clearly dead in some minds.


we will continue to see the small interactions of this reality adhere to entropy.


Where? When?


the value of this is to make appropriate plans for such outcomes.
"hope for the best, plan for the worst" and "always be prepared"


As if i am going to take advice from someone who loves doom so much that he worries about how well the universe will be doing in another five billion years. Thanks but i could spend my time defying your notions of gravity on a perpetual basis.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Homes once built do not simply collapse and machines which are effectively designed can run without trouble for very long times.

you know what the hell we are saying, the above proves this. "for a very long time" or another way for this to be expressed is "at some point it will shut down". this basic of basic ideas is entropy.



So now food and humans , who grew in the same general way, are 'waste products'? This is why people like you disgust me.

look i get no joy when one discovers his existence is a byproduct. but thats the way it is, that being of course when trying to avoiding long winded speeches to convey an alternative so its more harmonious to the ear:/



Please make it expressly clear when you are giving us your opinions. We do NOT know this and unless you present the reasoning and science behind it you have no business introducing it as fact.

your absolutely right. but we mere mortals have only but underdeveloped brains and a horrible sense of belonging in our world:/

short point is> im NOT the authority here, if i was it would be my name youd be reading in your wiki links.



Building from 'scratch' is something you added later to counter the fact that we do in fact create new elements.

no actually this has been my point from the get go.

to create atoms from scratch has the implications of creating a new universe. if you trust the theory of entropy you would see that our reality is falling apart, if we could "create" atoms we could then violate entropy from reaching its finality. restore that which has been exhausted, however "because" we can not achieve this feat, our fate is sealed.



The fact that you presume that people need to be controlled by a centralized authority makes you the tyrant and liar.

Tyrants believe that there is not enough for everyone while i believe there is more than any of us could ever use up.

im trying to get a better understanding of how your mind sways but sometimes :/.... i do not want to control anyone for any amount of time. my point was(as youve failed to grasp agian:/) that poeple are not easily controlled they wont allow a complete shift, your dream world wont happen becuase they will stop you. and should you ever try to obtain your dream you would have to use force to get any progress.

some people want to be stupid, sorry they do.(im sure you claim im one of those eh??)

we may indeed have more than enough, i never said we had a small supply. economics is not my way of life, but we live in a society where it is. ???for what its worth.



In tribal situations blood is rarely spilt as the loss of a member means more work and risk for everyone else. It takes centralized authority and a horrendously flawed economic system to make people redundant and thus 'expendable' in wars and whatever else. It is not natural and if you studied REAL history this would become apparent.

im no history buff but i will say this> we havent been part of a tribal society for a very long time, and unless you pull a monkey out your arse we aint going back to it either. we are where we are, moving forward is all we can do.



Can we have some moderation in thinking

yeah.... cant we just accept that entropy is here and move on?



It's interesting that whenever pressed you refuse to defend the supposed science that allow for your conclusions. Is that also coincidental or shall i just continue to presume that your making up the facts to maintain your conclusions?

this made me laugh
, at this particular moment it is indeed coincidence, what "kind" of evidence are you looking for??? every day you deal with systems of entropy, we dont need science to see it. i would love very much to give you the book that has all the answers you want and even the ones you dont want, but i have misplaced that book when i was cleaning
sorry

how about this since youve revived this thread(negentropicly), how about you tell us your perspective and not a view that can be linked. heres why im asking you obviously have read enough to convince you of your position, but does that position have any merit? from my perspective no, you say entropy is false and then try to prove it with unrelated(technically it is related) subject matter.



Well if you don't need anyone i will once against suggest how we could all benefit by you finding another species and planet.

you say i dont use logic and then say this. IF by chance i was saying i dont need the lot of you, why would i need to find a new species?? i wouldnt need them either right?this is a rhetorical statement

continued...



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 





in addition- entropy is very meaningful to this planet, because its a system of large proportions, and all systems will reflect its mechanics.

But it does not so why say that it does? Why is there still life on Earth four billion years after it first started here? When is entropy going to set in and kill us all? Logic is clearly dead in some minds.

im sorry bro but entropy is everywhere, i dont know why you have this stigma attached to it, but its really not that horrible of a outcome.

we(life) have survived the ages by pure desire(subject to debate) to persist with/of our environment. we are not really that complex of creatures, yeah, yeah, yeah im a nihilist blah, blah, blahh. we are here solely becuase our environment is here, we evolve according to our environment. when our environment takes a hit we feel the repercussions.

in the past they stated the our land is our mother, this is what they spoke of. we are intrinsically connected to our world. when our world dies so shall we.

so as far as entropy is concerned with survival it goes somthing like this. the environment(earth) is a by product of star activity. since we are beings that have not evolved beyond the scope of our environment ill scrap the rest of the universe out of the equation. within our environment we have many systems that are currently taking place, all of which are repercussions of a prior event.



** i dont know your beliefs and i apologize if a trample over them with what im goin to say next.**

we(life) are the nature of a fungus. in the beginning we grew because chemical reactions dictate that outcome. as more elements were exposed to our existence, more chemical reactions took place.

at some point in this process a particular chemical reaction became the sole purpose(desire) of the form. the movement(hunting) that form was regulated by by the elements them selves(analogous to magnetism).

now what we have here is a brainless consuming machine. as the environments began to change so did the critter, branching of into various ecosystems.

your digestive system is designed to facilitate that primal of desires.(*just pointing that out)

i have this feeling you want to attribute negentropic events into this , but really it doesnt apply here. you may ask how does that prove entropy?? well it doesn't prove entropy (directly). we are simple creatures searching for our next chemical reaction, and are supported by those chemical reactions. nothing here is being sustained nor is progression(systematically*) being achieved. we are moving from a deposit of elements to another. when those element dissipate ......

[the life(soul) that people believe in is a chemical reaction restored by a supply of elements stored in the body. *on that point- im not saying the soul is not real im just saying the soul has a physical property that can be identified. the other side of the gate might have better answers, but we got what we got.]



so survival is not a form of progress nor is it a mode of sustainment. it is a chemical reaction that "choice(or the illusion of)" feeds, until the body run out of the essentials.

ENTROPY



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Nature will always lean to a choise which is in a worse state than the previous one, as long as it uses less enegry. To this day, the "minimum energy principle" is the strongest law of nature, and usually a worse state tends to use less engery. Hell, look at a teenager like me, my room never gets cleaner by itself, only worse.


To some, it may seem that entropy is nothing but an illusion, something stupid created by wacky scientists, but as proved in many cases a system will always have an increased entropy if no energy is put in to balance it back. There are numerous examples. Chemical mixtures blending causing a more mixed state than before. The smoke coming out of a chimney spreads out causing a more disorder like phenomena. And yes, even universe follows this law. In the beginning there was matter, all concentrated in one point, now it's everywhere. Yes it may seem to us as if entropy would decrease when planets form and suns born, but eventually even they will collaps to a worse state than before.

Think of a diamond. Now you will try to keep it safe from the evil entropy by closing it in a box with the most perceft vacuum ever created. No light, no matter can enter this box. Won't the diamond survive forever? No, eventually the box containing the diamond will be broken as a result of increased entropy and then it's bye bye diamond.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I can afford your nonsensical ramblings no more than one response every second week so don't expect them any sooner.

Thanks for continuing not to make much sense.


Originally posted by Glyph_D
you know what the hell we are saying, the above proves this. "for a very long time" or another way for this to be expressed is "at some point it will shut down".


If no intelligent action is taken to maintain or correct whatever is not working as designed? Why do you insist on misrepresenting every damn thing i say?


this basic of basic ideas is entropy.


You have not in my opinion shown that you understand even the most basic principles of entropy.


look i get no joy when one discovers his existence is a byproduct.


Yet you seem to be having absolutely blast and i think the word 'creep' is probably something i can start applying to you.


but thats the way it is, that being of course when trying to avoiding long winded speeches to convey an alternative so its more harmonious to the ear:/


That is the way it is for YOU and in your OPINION that is NOT being validated by science as we understand it. I can tell that harmony is nothing something you like hence your obsession with ignoring negentropic processes.


your absolutely right. but we mere mortals have only but underdeveloped brains and a horrible sense of belonging in our world:/


Speak for your own brain and stop pretending that we are all uninformed nihilist who invents and twists scientific principles to support their inhuman thinking.


short point is> im NOT the authority here, if i was it would be my name youd be reading in your wiki links.


But even ignorants such as yourself can and SHOULD introduce the supposed science they are basing their twisted views on. Why do you refuse to introduce such while appealing to science as authority for your particularly nasty beliefs?


no actually this has been my point from the get go.


You expressly said that we can not but technically we can and do. You are simply wrong but since your not informed or a authority this is hardly surprising.


to create atoms from scratch has the implications of creating a new universe.


No it does not and i would like you to introduce the scientific principle your derived that view from.


if you trust the theory of entropy you would see that our reality is falling apart, if we could "create" atoms we could then violate entropy from reaching its finality.


So once again we can not create atoms because you have decided that entropy says we can't? Can a self respecting person really engage in this much circular reasoning by shear accident?


restore that which has been exhausted, however "because" we can not achieve this feat, our fate is sealed.


But since the basic tenants of entropy becomes useless unless we presume a isolated system your arguments are entirely speculative. Unless you can show that the Universe is a fact a isolated system negentropy on local scales is all we got to work on and it's clearly not supportive of your speculation.


im trying to get a better understanding of how your mind sways but sometimes :/....


If you stuck to facts maybe you could begin to form a understanding of what motivates me.


i do not want to control anyone for any amount of time. my point was(as youve failed to grasp agian:/) that poeple are not easily controlled they wont allow a complete shift,


People can in fact be controlled to a relatively great extent and this is readily obvious by observing world affairs. I do NOT want to control people to bring about the world i would wish to live in and i do not believe that i will have to use any type of force to do so.


your dream world wont happen becuase they will stop you.


Once again only one of us is presuming to understand humanity while doing absolutely nothing to support his view that humanity does not want freedom.


and should you ever try to obtain your dream you would have to use force to get any progress.


A classical non sequiter.


some people want to be stupid, sorry they do.(im sure you claim im one of those eh??)


No one WANTS to be stupid unless they are somehow convinced that it's better for them not to understand...


we may indeed have more than enough, i never said we had a small supply. economics is not my way of life, but we live in a society where it is. ???for what its worth.


Great.


im no history buff but i will say this> we havent been part of a tribal society for a very long time, and unless you pull a monkey out your arse we aint going back to it either. we are where we are, moving forward is all we can do.


Human beings survived and evolved in tribal societies for the absolute vast majority of our time on Earth. What you don't seem to understand is that not all progress is in fact forward and that there is plenty of evidence that hundreds of millions of people are far worse off today than they were hundreds of years ago.


yeah.... cant we just accept that entropy is here and move on?


The bogeyman for grown men that replaced what you used to believe lived under your bed... "On the move", how tragic that you have such a ridiculously twisted view of the world.


his made me laugh
, at this particular moment it is indeed coincidence, what "kind" of evidence are you looking for???


Just cut and paste something that supports your views from somewhere relatively official looking? That would be a start at least and certainly better than simply suggesting that 'you know'.


every day you deal with systems of entropy, we dont need science to see it.


And we also observe things growing yet that is ignored by people of your particular faith...


i would love very much to give you the book that has all the answers you want and even the ones you dont want, but i have misplaced that book when i was cleaning
sorry


I have read plenty of those books but i am pretty sure now that you never did.


how about this since youve revived this thread(negentropicly), how about you tell us your perspective and not a view that can be linked. heres why im asking you obviously have read enough to convince you of your position,


I am not the one who have not posted evidence to support my views and i will not allow you to further derail this thread by once again refusing to do your fair share.


but does that position have any merit? from my perspective no, you say entropy is false and then try to prove it with unrelated(technically it is related) subject matter.


I am saying that entropy is IRRELEVANT the same way that the expected cooling down of the sun, in four odd billion years, is. It's not that say that entropy on a universal level is not true but that we JUST DON'T KNOW and we don't really have to worry about it in terms of human life expectancies.


you say i dont use logic and then say this. IF by chance i was saying i dont need the lot of you, why would i need to find a new species??


Because i think you clearly like sharing your uninformed views with others. Clearly you want something to communicate with but since your message is so inhuman and twisted i would rather you bother another form of life with it.


i wouldnt need them either right?this is a rhetorical statement


You could prove that you don't need anyone or anything by giving up on sharing your uninformed and unsupported opinions with the rest of us.


Originally posted by Glyph_D
im sorry bro but entropy is everywhere,


Then we need to find out what is counteracting it is there has been life on this planet for four BILLION years. If entropy is as self evident as you claim it to be why do we observe stellar evolution and galactic cluster and superstructure formation. We are obviously looking back in time but what evidence is there for entropy as cardinal mover?


i dont know why you have this stigma attached to it, but its really not that horrible of a outcome.


Presuming that we have in fact figured out the likely outcome. I mean why do you keep presuming 'facts' that are simply not in evidence and why do you display such nihilistic tendencies in your selection of conclusions?


we(life) have survived the ages by pure desire(subject to debate) to persist with/of our environment.


And now desire is enough to survive? Are you finally giving up the pretense that you understand some basic physics?


we are not really that complex of creatures, im a nihilist blah, blah, blahh. we are here solely becuase our environment is here, we evolve according to our environment. when our environment takes a hit we feel the repercussions.


I think human beings are 'kinda' complex but i suppose someone like you can imagine something more complex to compare us against? We are NOT solely here because our environment is since that presumes that evolution, or the existence of life itself, is directed to a specific goal when that is clearly not the case.


in the past they stated the our land is our mother, this is what they spoke of. we are intrinsically connected to our world. when our world dies so shall we.


What nonsense. They lived off the land and if the land suffered fire, flood or drought they quickly felt the effects. Why do you choose to misrepresent such basic facts? The planet can not really die ( it can cease to exist given proper stellar activity) but i may no longer be able to sustain life on or near the surface. As i have mentioned elsewhere we have had the technology to survive without sunlight and underground since at least the nineteen thirties.

Continued



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

so as far as entropy is concerned with survival it goes somthing like this. the environment(earth) is a by product of star activity. since we are beings that have not evolved beyond the scope of our environment ill scrap the rest of the universe out of the equation. within our environment we have many systems that are currently taking place, all of which are repercussions of a prior event.


Presumably they are repercussions of a prior event but we really do not know as we are still presuming a big bang when we really do not know. All your arguments comes down to presumption at best and it's appeals to physics and science is tenuous at best and normally patently false when presumed as conclusions to ongoing discussions.


** i dont know your beliefs and i apologize if a trample over them with what im goin to say next.**


Too damn late.


we(life) are the nature of a fungus.


What reasonable comparisons , to say nothing of how many, can you make between a human being and fungus?


in the beginning we grew because chemical reactions dictate that outcome.


Chemical reactions dictate no such thing as is obvious by the fact that we have not found life everywhere in the universe or even on all the planets in our solar systems. Why once again choose to compare a certain set of reactions in the human body with those goes on in the universe around us? Why must you misrepresent the fact that life is not end result of all chemical interaction?


as more elements were exposed to our existence, more chemical reactions took place.


A non sequitur if i ever saw one. Please pretend that you understand how to employ logic by avoiding these types of 'arguments:

en.wikipedia.org...


at some point in this process a particular chemical reaction became the sole purpose(desire) of the form.


I would call this what it is you are trying to say. Why do you think ( i am giving you credit as it seems more like faith) desires are involved in evolution and why do you believe that chemicals or their reactions have such?


the movement(hunting) that form was regulated by by the elements them selves(analogous to magnetism).


Please show me how you came to believe these very ignorant things and which scientific theories you employed in their creation.


now what we have here is a brainless consuming machine. as the environments began to change so did the critter, branching of into various ecosystems.


We do have brains and so do many other life forms on this planet.
There is no direct geological or anthropological connection between environments and the life in it changing together in any well understood or useful fashion.


your digestive system is designed to facilitate that primal of desires.(*just pointing that out)


Oh well done! I should applaud you for knowing that life forms needs means to facilitate a means of energy flow/conversion between themselves and the environments they exist in?


i have this feeling you want to attribute negentropic events into this , but really it doesnt apply here.


So you don't know how i wish to do it but wish to make it clear that you know how i wont be able? That's way past prescient but i suppose this helps to expose your motives.



you may ask how does that prove entropy?? well it doesn't prove entropy (directly). we are simple creatures searching for our next chemical reaction, and are supported by those chemical reactions.


But not all chemical reactions are good and we are most certainly not spending ALL our time looking for the next chemical reaction! In fact given sufficient wealth you spend almost NO time thinking about those chemical reactions! It's fascinating how your mind just doesn't seem able to reach useful or accurate conclusions.



nothing here is being sustained nor is progression(systematically*) being achieved.


I don't understand how you can pretend that the world , and especially human society, is not changing and becoming progressively better organized! Where can you find grounds to deny that?


we are moving from a deposit of elements to another. when those element dissipate ......


Talk about reductionism! Fascinating how the mind can be twisted to spew forth such nonsense. You have still not provided grounds for your claim that elements or atoms dissipate so please stop appealing to convention when it simply does not support your views.


[the life(soul) that people believe in is a chemical reaction restored by a supply of elements stored in the body.


I do not think it's proven that we have souls but maybe you wish to provide us with reasons why you presume that it's a fact of sorts?


*on that point- im not saying the soul is not real im just saying the soul has a physical property that can be identified. the other side of the gate might have better answers, but we got what we got.]


Thanks for making yourself seem even more credible than was readily apparent so far.



so survival is not a form of progress nor is it a mode of sustainment.


Because you say so evidently? I mean why should i not consider it progress when i read a book and remember details that i then employ to show up the ignorant or false arguments made by other individuals on the Internet? How is what we are doing NOT survival? How is this death and decay?


it is a chemical reaction that "choice(or the illusion of)" feeds, until the body run out of the essentials.

ENTROPY


There is once again no logical reason why a human being should die at all, we have discovered nano technology and may eventually build machines that can prevent our DNA from making copying errors( the reason for growing old), and i am of the opinion that we might soon find ways to extend human life for centuries if not forever in a virtual realm.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Stellar, I wish I wouldn't do this because I know that you will eventually tire me out.

The very foundation of physics say that matter nor energy can be re-created. I have no idea how you think you can just make something out of nothing by mixing substances. That's not how it works.

Entropy exists, I have no idea where you have got your ideas from. But eventually everything will go bust. It may take seconds, years (many years even) but entropy will take over. You try to beat this problem by using pure logic. That's not how physics works. Only if you let your mind see every aspect of a problem you will understand this. Stating here that humans can live forever, and that we are godlike, tells me one thing and one thing only. It shows a fear of death. Why are you neglecting the very basic physics just so you can create a world where everything works the way you want it to?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Stellar, I wish I wouldn't do this because I know that you will eventually tire me out.


I apologise for being on the side of reality and defending it against the onslaught of ignorance.



The very foundation of physics say that matter nor energy can be re-created.


No one is so far suggesting that energy or matter is created and my arguments so far simply states that the terms are interchangable and that not all processes are entropic.


I have no idea how you think you can just make something out of nothing by mixing substances. That's not how it works.


Who said anything about creating something out of nothing?


Entropy exists, I have no idea where you have got your ideas from.


Then READ? Who said entropy does not exist? Do you like straw men or what?


But eventually everything will go bust. It may take seconds, years (many years even) but entropy will take over.


And this presumes a isolated system....


You try to beat this problem by using pure logic.


LOL! Thanks for accusing me of that 'flaw'.


That's not how physics works. Only if you let your mind see every aspect of a problem you will understand this.


Thanks for presuming that i am not considering the most obvious 'aspects' of this particular problem.
Why is it that you are considering even fewer aspects of the problem?


Stating here that humans can live forever, and that we are godlike, tells me one thing and one thing only.


Well if you go look at the what scientist and biologist are talking about i am not reaching and it's certainly far better science than anything related to the big bang or entropy!


It shows a fear of death.


You don't have to fear death not to like the concept! Do you think the fact that i don't much like the idea somehow invalidates the claims i make or the facts i have presented?


Why are you neglecting the very basic physics just so you can create a world where everything works the way you want it to?


If you can point out which scientific principles i am neglecting then i will do my best to explain why you are mistaken or why i am possibly not taking them into consideration. So far i have seen nothing but chest thumping ( from all the nay sayers) and the insistence that 'entropy is real' and that it must be because we observe some entropic processes! I keep pointing out the circular nature of such reasoning but i suppose some of us WANTS a universe that will eventually die a heat death no matter the total lack of evidence.


Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Nature will always lean to a choise which is in a worse state than the previous one, as long as it uses less enegry.


A worse state for who? I mean this is clearly a value judgement and i am unsure that we know what nature likes or wants.



To this day, the "minimum energy principle" is the strongest law of nature, and usually a worse state tends to use less engery.


I think you should get back to the text books and just see how accurate your last claim were...


Hell, look at a teenager like me, my room never gets cleaner by itself, only worse.


That's because your there and you just wont leave stuff alone!


To some, it may seem that entropy is nothing but an illusion, something stupid created by wacky scientists,


'Wacky' scientist? I do not remember that anyone in this forum suggested that entropy does not exist so who are you referring to?


but as proved in many cases a system will always have an increased entropy if no energy is put in to balance it back.


This presumes a closed system but since we do not have evidence that nature as we know it is ( we don't know if our universe is isolated or open) is one or contains such we are just speculating.


There are numerous examples. Chemical mixtures blending causing a more mixed state than before.


And in some crystals forms which is non the less the most entropic condition...


The smoke coming out of a chimney spreads out causing a more disorder like phenomena.


In relation to what? What about the industrial process , negentropy, that this smoke is the result of?


And yes, even universe follows this law. In the beginning there was matter, all concentrated in one point, now it's everywhere.


Your presuming a big bang when we have good evidence to suggest otherwise and certainly enough to prevent anyone to have a final word.


Yes it may seem to us as if entropy would decrease when planets form and suns born, but eventually even they will collaps to a worse state than before.


Worse for who? What about the interim negentrophic process and are you not still presuming that the universe is a in fact a isolated system?


Think of a diamond. Now you will try to keep it safe from the evil entropy by closing it in a box with the most perceft vacuum ever created. No light, no matter can enter this box.


Why would you want to preserve it by means of a vacuum when the Earth itself were unable to destroy it?


Won't the diamond survive forever? No, eventually the box containing the diamond will be broken as a result of increased entropy and then it's bye bye diamond.


What will break up the diamond? What type of entropy can destroy a diamond?

Stellar

[edit on 29-9-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Stating here that humans can live forever, and that we are godlike, tells me one thing and one thing only. It shows a fear of death.


i completely agree


StellarX i may have a few more post in left, right now im just going to right some wrongs that you have pushed out. my inhuman logic hasnt the desirer to continue this feud.


Originally posted by StellarX
If no intelligent action is taken to maintain or correct whatever is not working as designed? Why do you insist on misrepresenting every damn thing i say?

what am i misinterpreting??? you are saying> "IF" one day we obtain the technology to invert the effects of degradation; then entropy is an obsolete line of thought. i completely agree "IF" we get that far, then yes entropy is no more for "some" systems that we apply our achievement to. HOWEVER we havent and we may never obtain that goal.

by using your NON SEQUITUR claim> if we cant do it now, then we can not reap its benefits. becuase we havent done it yet, we most defiantly can not reap its benefits.

i see you like to attack the modes of thoughts of your debatee, and not really address what they are saying. just cause you can identify the mode I(or anyone else) speaks does NOT discredit it outright.

for example you employ "ad hominid" speech, yea i have enough justification to end this discussion right here right now. however i wont becuase regardless of your feeble attempt to apply subversion to this topic ill stand strong on my own feet. throw the kitchen sink if you must, ill give it right back with a smile(hey you dropped this :lol
.

by the way if you read properly youd see that im not using non-sequitur logic. re read (i believe its my second post in this thread) i outline my logic through numbers in that post.



But even ignorants such as yourself can and SHOULD introduce the supposed science they are basing their twisted views on.

was it not introduced at the start?? what further explanation are you seeking. the way i see it is your failure to understand that which has already been presented in this thread by myself and others. thats where our discussion will continue to orbit untill you address it directly. saying negentropy alone is not even close to being a respectable position.

your responses our like hearing "nu-huh".
what im doing(attempting) is cutting apart any loose ends you have, as you present them in this discussion. with the hope that you run out of places to hide and give in to the truth.




to create atoms from scratch has the implications of creating a new universe.

No it does not and i would like you to introduce the scientific principle your derived that view from.

yes it does, use your brain(you say you got one). if i can make atoms(from scratch), then all forms of destruction can be undone. we dont need science to tell us these things, it simple math.



So once again we can not create atoms because you have decided that entropy says we can't? Can a self respecting person really engage in this much circular reasoning by shear accident?

No.... we cant create atoms, becuase we havent figured out "how to create atoms":/



your arguments are entirely speculative.

ultimately this is true, becuase we dont have the perspective to see the universe as a single entity. HOWEVER we see enough of entropy occurring on many different scales to assume it to be law.

before you jump off your high horse know that nearly every thing in our human scope is developed using this logic- so cut us all some slack. [we are still underdevelopment.]



What you don't seem to understand is that not all progress is in fact forward and that there is plenty of evidence that hundreds of millions of people are far worse off today than they were hundreds of years ago.

why do you assume that moveing forward is progress??? and to the next point of the above thats entropy under the human wing(we have fallen, and will continue to fall).




[1]I would call this what it is you are trying to say. Why do you think ( i am giving you credit as it seems more like faith) desires are involved in evolution and why do you believe that chemicals or their reactions have such?

[2]We do have brains and so do many other life forms on this planet. There is no direct geological or anthropological connection between environments and the life in it changing together in any well understood or useful fashion.

[3]But not all chemical reactions are good and we are most certainly not spending ALL our time looking for the next chemical reaction! In fact given sufficient wealth you spend almost NO time thinking about those chemical reactions!

[4]I do not think it's proven that we have souls

[2]in the beginning we didnt have brains, we were brainless consuming machines. "skin" is a direct response toward/from our environment(any more brainbusters???)
[1&3] actually we(life) spend everyday looking for our next fix. one example is a womans biological clock.
[4]i stated this becuase it has not be proven nor disproven, and im not here to smash religious beliefs. it was a safety for those with a religious disposition.




There is once again no logical reason why a human being should die at all

we cam not regenerate our nervous system. we that wears down(and it does over time), we become much more slower and less responsive, until we get picked off by nature.

yea yea yea humans are figuring that out right now. but for who??? not you nor I. thats very relevant to your human experience "exclusion" get used to it.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I am saying that entropy is IRRELEVANT the same way that the expected cooling down of the sun, in four odd billion years, is. It's not that say that entropy on a universal level is not true but that we JUST DON'T KNOW and we don't really have to worry about it in terms of human life expectancies.

so your saying we should just close our eyes and dream of a better world??? thats being consumed by fear, no thanks.



You could prove that you don't need anyone or anything by giving up on sharing your uninformed and unsupported opinions with the rest of us.

true.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join