Julie: The most important point which I can make is that understanding the laws of nature (ie. physics) is not difficult. The beauty of physics is itâ€™s simplicity. Folks perceive it â€œto be hardâ€ and therefore â€œmake it hardâ€. I have thoguht about this. there are certain theorems that, like you said, prove our universe to be incorrect.
The theorem which I stated is one which Ron Jones conceived and to my knowledge has never been published.
Can you believe the consequences if the theorem were true.
Virtually all funding for a substantial portion astrophysics would cease.
In the following paragraphs I set forth â€œthe way I think aboutâ€ the concepts which you reference. This â€œway of thinkingâ€ was distilled from various physicsâ€™ explanations for simplicity in order that I could understand the concepts. something that i always found difficult to get my head round is entropy.
Just think of entropy as chaos.
If 1000 hydrogen atoms were placed together in a dense spherical geometry in a massless black sphere at time zero and a significant time later the atoms were observed they would be randomly distributed in the sphere (ie. the system had decayed from order (the dense spherical geometry) to chaos (the random distribution).
This is an explanation of the equation which you learned in thermodynamics (the second law):
dS/dT>=0 where S is entropy and T is time. in my thermodynamics classes we always just think of entropy in a heat transfer type of way, whihc is maybe why i find it difficult to get my head round as im so used to thinking about it this way,
Yes I have read one â€œEngineeringâ€ thermodynamics book and it was as useless as mammary glands on a male hog with respect to understanding the basic precepts of the description of the portion of nature which we term thermodynamics.
In your next paragraph you are â€œbarking at the bottom of a tree a significant distance from the one the coon climbedâ€.
I believe what you may be referring to is Brownian motion.
If hold a hammer 1 meter above the floor and release it there is some probability that it will hit the ceiling instead of the floor. Obviously this probability is very small and approaches zero. however more generally its just giving a direction to time which is difficult to me. when you drop a plate, it doesnt just gather itself up again and put itself back onto the table for example. but it is scientifically sound for the plate to be able to do this. cant get my head round that one no matter how hard i try.
If a system is always decaying to a state of chaos how can we exist?
We are obviously well organized systems.
Easy!!! With the input of energy.
In the example of entropy above if we allowed the hydrogen atoms to decay to chaos and subsequently induced a tremendous positive charge on the sphere (ie. the input of energy) the hydrogen atoms would subsequently be observed to once again be grouped together.
Wahla: order from chaos.
The missing link here is that probably in your thermodynamics course no one nor the literature stated that you were studying equilibrium thermodynamics.
In nonequilibrium thermodynamics (ie. energy input to a system) order becomes possible.
Yes. Your following paragraph is an extrapolation of my reference. or dark matter/black holes etc? places of infinite density basically. in theory it is correct, but i just cant understand how it can be as it defies other laws which are also scientifically correct.
I do not know of any other of our laws of nature which are defied.
The â€œkeys to the kingdomâ€ here is the concept that energy and matter are just different states of mass.
This is analogous to ice and steam being different states of water.
If energy has mass then it is subject to gravitational effects.
(This concept was proved while Einstein was alive by the observation of star light being â€œwarpedâ€ by the gravitation effects of the Sun.)
Hence a large enough mass can exist such that itâ€™s gravitational effect of will preclude light escaping (energy being emitted) = a black hole. i think its just a theory vs practice thing. no matter how sound the theory is, there are always holes in it - external factors that havent been taken into account which alter the results. not that i claim to understand or know what these holes in it are, lol, i just think that must be the cause of it.
Black holes have been observed in multiple star systems.
Obviously not by direct observation (as no light or other energy is emitted) but by observation of the motion of stars in the system which are affected by the gravitational effects of the black hole. i take it thats the kinda stuff youre talking about jones?
Another example would be the warping of 3 dimensional space by a black hole which might imply, that although the speed of energy in a vacuum is the limiting speed in the universe, that travel across the universe might be possible in very brief time periods by â€œjumping a short distanceâ€ from one location to another instead of â€œtravelingâ€ between the locations.
If ETâ€™s have been able to understand this warping and have the technology to produce massive quantities of energy (ie. by some process such as controlled thermonuclear fusion) then we may have observed their presence.
Julie and other folks.
I hope I did not bore yall with this post as I thought some might be interested in the various items which I have set forth.