- Thank you received: 0
The entropy of systems
20 years 1 week ago #12255
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />the electron is not spining around the nucleus of an atom but around the "common center of gravity" and so is the nucleus. at least in mainstream physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Was your book reference possibly referring back to this previous post of yours? If so, I didn't make the connection. Don't assume I follow all the posts. There isn't enough time for that.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Given Newton's third law, all forces of nature must produce a "center of mass" situation. (Note: <i>Not</i> "center of gravity", which is negligible in atoms according to classical theory.) But the center of mass results simply from action/reaction, not something interesting or profound. No forces emanate from this center of mass, and its location is completely arbitrary. It merely identifies a unique inertial frame for describing dynamics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
first Newton was not here in the 1900's.
i find it interesting because helps me understand how they think and therefore their perspective.
i'm willing to bet that there are forces at this center and that they are based on plasma.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you consult "Physics has its principles" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp or my book "Dark Matter..." or many discussions and articles in the Meta Research Bulletin, you will see reasons why blackholes and singularities cannot exist in nature. Highly collapsed stars become "Mitchell stars", which are quite different things from black holes
.
you've missed the point Tom, i'm not saying that i agree with them only that i understand their point of view better.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MRB 12#4 (2003 December 15). We had a short discussion on this Message Board around the time it appeared. MRB is the only place with up-to-date information about replacement models in astronomy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So far, there has not been any apparent need for them over and above the way they appear in mainstream astronomy. In what connection do you think they might prove interesting? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
really, are you kidding me!! Cosmic Plasmas changes everything its a starting point for ALL theories. Cosmic Plasmas are the essence for all matter. mainstream astronomy does not even take Cosmic Plasmas into consideration at least not as much as it should. i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked,and have had my discussion deleted.
Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />the electron is not spining around the nucleus of an atom but around the "common center of gravity" and so is the nucleus. at least in mainstream physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Was your book reference possibly referring back to this previous post of yours? If so, I didn't make the connection. Don't assume I follow all the posts. There isn't enough time for that.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Given Newton's third law, all forces of nature must produce a "center of mass" situation. (Note: <i>Not</i> "center of gravity", which is negligible in atoms according to classical theory.) But the center of mass results simply from action/reaction, not something interesting or profound. No forces emanate from this center of mass, and its location is completely arbitrary. It merely identifies a unique inertial frame for describing dynamics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
first Newton was not here in the 1900's.
i find it interesting because helps me understand how they think and therefore their perspective.
i'm willing to bet that there are forces at this center and that they are based on plasma.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you consult "Physics has its principles" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp or my book "Dark Matter..." or many discussions and articles in the Meta Research Bulletin, you will see reasons why blackholes and singularities cannot exist in nature. Highly collapsed stars become "Mitchell stars", which are quite different things from black holes
.
you've missed the point Tom, i'm not saying that i agree with them only that i understand their point of view better.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MRB 12#4 (2003 December 15). We had a short discussion on this Message Board around the time it appeared. MRB is the only place with up-to-date information about replacement models in astronomy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So far, there has not been any apparent need for them over and above the way they appear in mainstream astronomy. In what connection do you think they might prove interesting? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
really, are you kidding me!! Cosmic Plasmas changes everything its a starting point for ALL theories. Cosmic Plasmas are the essence for all matter. mainstream astronomy does not even take Cosmic Plasmas into consideration at least not as much as it should. i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked,and have had my discussion deleted.
Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 1 week ago #12256
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />i'm willing to bet that there are forces at this center and that they are based on plasma.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Many people seem to think there is something mystical about centers of mass, and to impute impossible properties to them. You also seem to be doing that here.
To illustrate why the center of mass is not a physically meaningful place that can be identified, consider the center of mass of the solar system for the Sun and nine planets. That is some spot, typically outside the Sun. No accelerations are directed toward that place.
Now add an asteroid to the system. The center of mass changes significantly, but none of the forces changes significantly.
Finally, add Alpha Centauri to the system. The center of mass is now located half way to that nearby star. But nothing is any different about solar system dynamics.
A center of mass is a point at an arbitrary location. It's only value is for anchoring a particular non-accelerating inertial frame. It's location within that frame is changeable on a whim.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">really, are you kidding me!! Cosmic Plasmas changes everything its a starting point for ALL theories. Cosmic Plasmas are the essence for all matter. mainstream astronomy does not even take Cosmic Plasmas into consideration at least not as much as it should. i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked, and have had my discussion deleted. Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In this paragraph, you conveyed considerable passion about the subject, but almost no information while making several unsupported assertions. That is no way to be persuasive to others.
* Cosmic plasmas are not a starting point for all theories. In fact, I can't think of any theory offhand that has plasmas as a starting point, with the possible exception of Alfven's Plasma Cosmology. In the Big Bang, all matter goes through a plasma stage, but that is not its starting point.
* Plasmas have nothing to do with the essence of matter in conventional physics. They are simply a fourth state of matter, the more common states being solids, liquids, and gases.
* Mainstream astronomy has no need for plasmas beyond what it already uses for some of the early stages of the Big Bang. Even there, they are merely a transition phase to more interesting things.
* "i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked,and have had my discussion deleted." -- Is this supposed to be some sort of recommendation for the subject? You seem to be admitting that your arguments (whatever they may be) have proved unpersuasive to others. Getting banned suggests that you allowed your passion to dominate your reason, and stopped being reasonable.
* "Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies." -- As you know, I think the Big Bang is junk science. So what evidence exists that any matter was once plasma? Why can't planets assemble from cold interstellar dust, and eventually explode back into more interstellar dust to start a new cycle?
Unbridled passion is a form of bias. Always try to eliminate your own biases, and judge the worthiness of ideas by how well they communicate to and persuade others. -|Tom|-
<br />i'm willing to bet that there are forces at this center and that they are based on plasma.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Many people seem to think there is something mystical about centers of mass, and to impute impossible properties to them. You also seem to be doing that here.
To illustrate why the center of mass is not a physically meaningful place that can be identified, consider the center of mass of the solar system for the Sun and nine planets. That is some spot, typically outside the Sun. No accelerations are directed toward that place.
Now add an asteroid to the system. The center of mass changes significantly, but none of the forces changes significantly.
Finally, add Alpha Centauri to the system. The center of mass is now located half way to that nearby star. But nothing is any different about solar system dynamics.
A center of mass is a point at an arbitrary location. It's only value is for anchoring a particular non-accelerating inertial frame. It's location within that frame is changeable on a whim.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">really, are you kidding me!! Cosmic Plasmas changes everything its a starting point for ALL theories. Cosmic Plasmas are the essence for all matter. mainstream astronomy does not even take Cosmic Plasmas into consideration at least not as much as it should. i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked, and have had my discussion deleted. Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In this paragraph, you conveyed considerable passion about the subject, but almost no information while making several unsupported assertions. That is no way to be persuasive to others.
* Cosmic plasmas are not a starting point for all theories. In fact, I can't think of any theory offhand that has plasmas as a starting point, with the possible exception of Alfven's Plasma Cosmology. In the Big Bang, all matter goes through a plasma stage, but that is not its starting point.
* Plasmas have nothing to do with the essence of matter in conventional physics. They are simply a fourth state of matter, the more common states being solids, liquids, and gases.
* Mainstream astronomy has no need for plasmas beyond what it already uses for some of the early stages of the Big Bang. Even there, they are merely a transition phase to more interesting things.
* "i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked,and have had my discussion deleted." -- Is this supposed to be some sort of recommendation for the subject? You seem to be admitting that your arguments (whatever they may be) have proved unpersuasive to others. Getting banned suggests that you allowed your passion to dominate your reason, and stopped being reasonable.
* "Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies." -- As you know, I think the Big Bang is junk science. So what evidence exists that any matter was once plasma? Why can't planets assemble from cold interstellar dust, and eventually explode back into more interstellar dust to start a new cycle?
Unbridled passion is a form of bias. Always try to eliminate your own biases, and judge the worthiness of ideas by how well they communicate to and persuade others. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 1 week ago #12079
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />i'm willing to bet that there are forces at this center and that they are based on plasma.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Many people seem to think there is something mystical about centers of mass, and to impute impossible properties to them. You also seem to be doing that here.
To illustrate why the center of mass is not a physically meaningful place that can be identified, consider the center of mass of the solar system for the Sun and nine planets. That is some spot, typically outside the Sun. No accelerations are directed toward that place.
Now add an asteroid to the system. The center of mass changes significantly, but none of the forces changes significantly.
Finally, add Alpha Centauri to the system. The center of mass is now located half way to that nearby star. But nothing is any different about solar system dynamics.
A center of mass is a point at an arbitrary location. It's only value is for anchoring a particular non-accelerating inertial frame. It's location within that frame is changeable on a whim.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
however since i was talking about the Atom and not the solar system,galaxies etc. which by the way ALL have a membrane of plasma surrounding them, i would rather stick with this. and since both the electron and nucleus are revolving around this center(name me something that revolves nothing at all) and if you also include the emission and absorption lines as well i think that it also follows that since the solar system and galaxies have this membrane of plasma surrouding them i think so does the atom it says to me at this point that there is more going on here that just electrons and a nucleus. will i be right i don't know yet but i will try to find the answer to this.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">really, are you kidding me!! Cosmic Plasmas changes everything its a starting point for ALL theories. Cosmic Plasmas are the essence for all matter. mainstream astronomy does not even take Cosmic Plasmas into consideration at least not as much as it should. i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked, and have had my discussion deleted. Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In this paragraph, you conveyed considerable passion about the subject, but almost no information while making several unsupported assertions. That is no way to be persuasive to others.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
i have given information awhile ago along with the web site. what unsupported assertions??
* <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Cosmic plasmas are not a starting point for all theories. In fact, I can't think of any theory offhand that has plasmas as a starting point, with the possible exception of Alfven's Plasma Cosmology. In the Big Bang, all matter goes through a plasma stage, but that is not its starting point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
yes your right Cosmic Plasmas are not the starting point for all theories i just think they should be because to me a theory which does not include them is incomplete.there is also a paper aganist the big bang on this site theuniverse.ws.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">* Plasmas have nothing to do with the essence of matter in conventional physics. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
thats because in conventional physics they don't even consider Cosmic Plasmas in the first place. and to say that high energy plasmas are not the fundamental essence of all matter is erroneous. this is not me that says this it is the people on the site mentioned above. if you disagree with them, why not talk to them??
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">* Mainstream astronomy has no need for plasmas beyond what it already uses for some of the early stages of the Big Bang. Even there, they are merely a transition phase to more interesting things.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
there is alot more going here with Cosmic Plasmas than just the essence of matter. there is electromagnetics,electric currents,current sheets etc. thats why i mentioned the site in the first place i could not hope to do the subject of plasmas justice on my own.
* "i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked,and have had my discussion deleted.
" -- Is this supposed to be some sort of recommendation for the subject? You seem to be admitting that your arguments (whatever they may be) have proved unpersuasive to others. Getting banned suggests that you allowed your passion to dominate your reason, and stopped being reasonable.
* "Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">." -- As you know, I think the Big Bang is junk science. So what evidence exists that any matter was once plasma? Why can't planets assemble from cold interstellar dust, and eventually explode back into more interstellar dust to start a new cycle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
that was the whole idea of giving the site address so that people could learn about Cosmic Plasmas and Plasmas and find the answers to there questions on there own.there are papers on the site as well, i've read some but certainly not all. thats the thing with interstellar dust is that, if i remember right is not cold but plasma dust. that is all i can remember. will a new cycle start? i think so. my thinking is that first you have high energy plasma>matter>high energy plasma, generally.
Unbridled passion is a form of bias. Always try to eliminate your own biases, and judge the worthiness of ideas by how well they communicate to and persuade others. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
thats just the way i am. my enthusiasm might be a little over board at times but i look at it this way, if i'm excited by what i've found maybe others will be, if not then so be it!!
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />i'm willing to bet that there are forces at this center and that they are based on plasma.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Many people seem to think there is something mystical about centers of mass, and to impute impossible properties to them. You also seem to be doing that here.
To illustrate why the center of mass is not a physically meaningful place that can be identified, consider the center of mass of the solar system for the Sun and nine planets. That is some spot, typically outside the Sun. No accelerations are directed toward that place.
Now add an asteroid to the system. The center of mass changes significantly, but none of the forces changes significantly.
Finally, add Alpha Centauri to the system. The center of mass is now located half way to that nearby star. But nothing is any different about solar system dynamics.
A center of mass is a point at an arbitrary location. It's only value is for anchoring a particular non-accelerating inertial frame. It's location within that frame is changeable on a whim.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
however since i was talking about the Atom and not the solar system,galaxies etc. which by the way ALL have a membrane of plasma surrounding them, i would rather stick with this. and since both the electron and nucleus are revolving around this center(name me something that revolves nothing at all) and if you also include the emission and absorption lines as well i think that it also follows that since the solar system and galaxies have this membrane of plasma surrouding them i think so does the atom it says to me at this point that there is more going on here that just electrons and a nucleus. will i be right i don't know yet but i will try to find the answer to this.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">really, are you kidding me!! Cosmic Plasmas changes everything its a starting point for ALL theories. Cosmic Plasmas are the essence for all matter. mainstream astronomy does not even take Cosmic Plasmas into consideration at least not as much as it should. i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked, and have had my discussion deleted. Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In this paragraph, you conveyed considerable passion about the subject, but almost no information while making several unsupported assertions. That is no way to be persuasive to others.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
i have given information awhile ago along with the web site. what unsupported assertions??
* <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Cosmic plasmas are not a starting point for all theories. In fact, I can't think of any theory offhand that has plasmas as a starting point, with the possible exception of Alfven's Plasma Cosmology. In the Big Bang, all matter goes through a plasma stage, but that is not its starting point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
yes your right Cosmic Plasmas are not the starting point for all theories i just think they should be because to me a theory which does not include them is incomplete.there is also a paper aganist the big bang on this site theuniverse.ws.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">* Plasmas have nothing to do with the essence of matter in conventional physics. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
thats because in conventional physics they don't even consider Cosmic Plasmas in the first place. and to say that high energy plasmas are not the fundamental essence of all matter is erroneous. this is not me that says this it is the people on the site mentioned above. if you disagree with them, why not talk to them??
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">* Mainstream astronomy has no need for plasmas beyond what it already uses for some of the early stages of the Big Bang. Even there, they are merely a transition phase to more interesting things.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
there is alot more going here with Cosmic Plasmas than just the essence of matter. there is electromagnetics,electric currents,current sheets etc. thats why i mentioned the site in the first place i could not hope to do the subject of plasmas justice on my own.
* "i know because i have had discussions on other sites about plasmas and their implications. i have been banned, attacked,and have had my discussion deleted.
" -- Is this supposed to be some sort of recommendation for the subject? You seem to be admitting that your arguments (whatever they may be) have proved unpersuasive to others. Getting banned suggests that you allowed your passion to dominate your reason, and stopped being reasonable.
* "Cosmic Plasmas are the bases for ALL things from Hydrogen to Galaxies <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">." -- As you know, I think the Big Bang is junk science. So what evidence exists that any matter was once plasma? Why can't planets assemble from cold interstellar dust, and eventually explode back into more interstellar dust to start a new cycle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
that was the whole idea of giving the site address so that people could learn about Cosmic Plasmas and Plasmas and find the answers to there questions on there own.there are papers on the site as well, i've read some but certainly not all. thats the thing with interstellar dust is that, if i remember right is not cold but plasma dust. that is all i can remember. will a new cycle start? i think so. my thinking is that first you have high energy plasma>matter>high energy plasma, generally.
Unbridled passion is a form of bias. Always try to eliminate your own biases, and judge the worthiness of ideas by how well they communicate to and persuade others. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
thats just the way i am. my enthusiasm might be a little over board at times but i look at it this way, if i'm excited by what i've found maybe others will be, if not then so be it!!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 2 months ago #14222
by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by GD</i>
<br />Sorry North,
I think this subject is getting to me. I'm taking some time off myself.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hello everyone,
I found a paper & articles (by Mr. Ajay Sharma) which is somewhat in agreement with what I have been saying (except for this comment: "...universe was created with dwindling amount of energy..."):
www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-5/G.pdf
www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma7.htm
www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma3.htm
He is in the process of publishing a book: "100 years of E=mc>2".
<br />Sorry North,
I think this subject is getting to me. I'm taking some time off myself.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hello everyone,
I found a paper & articles (by Mr. Ajay Sharma) which is somewhat in agreement with what I have been saying (except for this comment: "...universe was created with dwindling amount of energy..."):
www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-5/G.pdf
www.mrelativity.net/Papers/8/Sharma7.htm
www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma3.htm
He is in the process of publishing a book: "100 years of E=mc>2".
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 2 months ago #12632
by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
The entropy of systems increase with time, .... billions of years in the making....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
I tend to disagree with dark matter scenario. Matter accelerates because free energy (organized energy) decreases with time.
www.sdss.org/news/releases/20031028.powerspectrum.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
I tend to disagree with dark matter scenario. Matter accelerates because free energy (organized energy) decreases with time.
www.sdss.org/news/releases/20031028.powerspectrum.html
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 2 months ago #12633
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
The 2nd law of thermodynamics concerning the disorganization of systems over time holds true in most normal situations. The most notable exception and in my opinion the balancing solution to entropy is star creation. How anti-entropic can it get? Also in Pushing Gravity, the energy cycle between the LCM and the graviton counteracts the entropy that we observe. Stellar construction at the grand scale, galaxy organization, subatomic joining, all of these take free energy and organize it. A false belief in relativity causes all of these stopgap measures to explain with rationalization why BB and other relativity derivatives don't work to explain the observations that pour into labs all over the world. Mental inertia is the reason that new ideas are slow to acceptance.
About two years ago this topic came up and I am reminded of a converstaion I had during that time where I talked about how the Ideal Gas Law used in any chemistry class gets funky when the real constraints are applied. The Real Gas Law doesn't even predict the behavior of gases at standard temp and pressure. It is clear that our understanding of Thermodynamics while functional as approximations doesn't begin to explain the whole picture. Zero-point energy also acts to thwart the relativists. Entropy cannot be used to support BB.
Mark
About two years ago this topic came up and I am reminded of a converstaion I had during that time where I talked about how the Ideal Gas Law used in any chemistry class gets funky when the real constraints are applied. The Real Gas Law doesn't even predict the behavior of gases at standard temp and pressure. It is clear that our understanding of Thermodynamics while functional as approximations doesn't begin to explain the whole picture. Zero-point energy also acts to thwart the relativists. Entropy cannot be used to support BB.
Mark
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.593 seconds