Re: Mark Issak - Shot Dead


wade.hines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> island5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > wade.hines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > island5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > wade.hines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > > > > You are not adressing the question. The question isn't what is
> > > > > happening, it is why are you tying humans into the what.
>
> > > > Because we are an impetus for it.
>
> > > I am unaware of how to model impetus into any of the varous
> > > formulations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Rather, I take
> > > a clue from chemistry and substitute the term catalyst. There
> > > I know that the catalyst doesn't change the deltaG of a
> > > reaction though it changes its kinetics.
>
> > > I'm unclear on how the universe could tell if I mixed the acid
> > > and base or if they fell off the shelf.
>
>
> > It probably couldn't except that the human contribution is additive,
> > not "in lieu of".
>
> Every fledgling chemist is taught how to calculate the entropy
> of formation of a molecule. You start with the entropy of
> formation of the bits and add them up. Nowhere in the equations
> for the formation of a molecule is there a term assigned to
> a chemist.


Nor should there be, unless you're calculating the effect on the
entropy of the universe including the creation of dissipative
structures that can isolate the release of a specific form of energy at
a specific rate, at this time in the history of the universe.


> It is true that a chemist may perform some work to mix a bottle
> of A with a bottle of B but it could be a robot doing the same
> attached to a random number generator decideing what bottle to
> mix. The thermodynamics of any particular mixing is independent
> of any animate or inanimate chemist.


Not independent of, not in lieu of... IN ADDITION TO... like I said.


> High energy particles in supercolliders are the same.
> Same with fission. Same with fusion. In these processes
> we may be considered a catalyst.
>
> > > In the lab when making particles from vacuum energy, or when
> > > making tea, I don't see any forces or fields connecting my
> > > involvement or anyones involvement in the process.
> > >
> > > Good, bad or indifferent intentions just aren't part of
> > > the physics.
>
>
> > No that's false for the good reason give, above.
>
> You didn't give a reason, you said "in lieu of".


Okay, my reason was that we ADD to the effect, RATHER than saying that
this occurs in lieu of other natural effects that accomplish the same
thing, but regardless, if the chemicals already fell off the shelf to
the ground and the didn't get mixed, then how will you accomplish this
naturally... right now?... at this time in the history of the
pre-determined thermodynamic process, but without disrupting ten city
blocks with an earthquake.

How would the oil get burned right now, if not for us?

How would the oil get mixed into the environment in the manner that it
is, right now, if not for us?... because this is totally necessary in
the model that I'm using, and if you accept my universal model by
witholding judgement to say that more volcanic activity could "arise"
to do the job, then I'd point out that this is less-efficient, like an
earthquake or a meteor-blitz, so we become the path of least action in
a near-flat universe, which is structured to maximize time that it
takes for this energy to be dissipated via combustion.


> You'll have to
> overturn chemistry as well as cosmology to connect the dots I
> think you are trying to connect.


No, it all falls out the initial conditions that determine the matter
field that gets set by the big bang in the model that I'm using.


> For clairity's sake, perhaps you can tell us what the units
> of this impetus is and how one calculates it. Has it ever
> been measured?



General Relativity in a deterministic evolving universal model accounts
for it via the coarse graining of the metric with an arrow of time, but
Carlip or Baez, among others can do this a lot better than me.



> > > > > But NaOH and HCl create NaCl and H2O.
> > > > > Salt is created if humans
> > > > > mix these chemical or if they are mixed without humans so humans
> > > > > are not part of the physics or chemistry of the reaction.
>
> > > > They most certainly are when it's applicable, but you seem to want
> > > > remove the impetus for the reaction, so NaOH and HCl DO NOT create NaCl
> > > > and H2O if there is no means to get NaOH and HC1 together.
> > >
> > > What they do when they get together is independent of the agent(s)
> > > that brought them together. I am not coupled in any thermodynamic
> > > sense to the reactions I start (or stop) in a test tube.
>
> > > > > Humans
> > > > > are not part of the what.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes they are, they are the activation energy.
> > > >
> > > > <snip, until we get past it>
> > >
> > > That is not activation energy in the way chemists use the term
> > > or that it is meaningful thermodynamically.
>
> > No, it most definitely is thermodynamically meaningful, except you're
> > right, not as a chemist would recognize it... ;)
>
> You'll have to explain it then. Basically, you are violating the
> very definition of entropy as a state variable.


Or your lab is too small.


> > > For focus, if we allow for the time being that physicists creating
> > > particles from vacuum energy causes some substantial effect within
> > > the universe, how is this effect transferred to humanity?
> > > Nobody thinks that humans building fission or fusion bombs
> > > transfers maps to any entropy changes in humans. Why is your
> > > process _categorically_ different from any other chemistry or
> > > physics?
>
>
> > The effect is additive and more energy-efficient, following closely
> > with the tendency for the universe to replace extremely large black
> > holes with smaller ones that perform the same task more evenly... but
> > also, in the model that I'm using it is possible that intelligent life
> > is the only catalyst for a big bang since we may be the only source for
> > relativistically high-speed collisions between matter and antimatter,
> > which won't mean anything in the model that "modern cosmology" uses,
> > but it does mean everything if tension between matter and the vacuum
> > increases as more and more matter gets created from vacuum energy.
> > Like a blown-up balloon... the catalyst is our needle and if there is
> > no other means for this, then we most definintely are in the chemistry
> > of the reaction.
> >
> > Either way, the cumulative effect works to justify our existence, the
> > process being critical to the survival of the universe, in the model
> > that I'm using, at least.
>
> I understand your claim that by messing about with arcane physics
> we are providing critical relief to the universe. I withhold judgement
> on the validity of this claim. However, allowing for this claim
> still leaves a missing link.


Then I should feel right at home, except that you'll draw a
distinction... ;)

Do you people ever eat or work or anything?... ;)

.

Relevant Pages