 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / November 2007Guidelines for effective USENET scientific discussion
It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited experience on those lands, specially sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity, which are both hard newsgroups. Just compare my miserable 539 messages with top posters in the sci.physics.relativity newsgroup statistics, http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/about I have tried different tactics during posting: Replying everything (including flamers); detailed discussion; quoting and references; ignoring blacklisted; angry tone; hurling insults when being insulted; others. I would also acknowledge people who defended me when I was unjustly attacked by certain people, including that poster who decided to falsify ratings giving non-accurate weight to the replies of his 'friends'. I am trying to improve USENET experience by making a series of guidelines i wait to follow closely here in thereafter. I introduce the recommendations below with the aim of waiting useful feedback. -------------------------------------------------------- ((1)) Be courteous and polite There is nothing to be gained by taking an angry tone, hurling insults, name-calling, etc. Some messages are very annoying and offensive. Hard to ignore but they must be ignored. Keep a cool head. Read your reply at least twice before submitting it. A good rule of thumb is to wait a day and review what you want to send. ((2)) Use a plain language and simple examples Remember that 21st century science is a very complex and large subject. Most of readers are not specialists on the topic you are discussing for. You always can add more information and details in some appendix or just citing additional references. ((3)) Be honest about weaknesses and your own limitations Any scientific theory or model has its weak points. Admit it! Science is about modeling nature like we can observe and measure it. Science is not about how we want Nature to be. You may be a recognized specialist on some topic but you continue to be human. Remember that specialists on some old paradigm are the first ones to be wrong during a scientific revolution. For instance, classical physicists and quantum mechanics revolution. ((4)) Do not argue against a straw man Some people will argue indefinitely over a moot point. A of their favorite tactics is to overemphasize a minor point while totally ignoring a major issue. Avoid this trap! It fills the network with useless noise. ((5)) Do not argue against proud non-specialists Some people strongly argue over a topic they did not even take the time to study. Some of this people even reject to read the references you provide to support your point! When you correct some of their mistakes, they often reply by making more mistakes. Avoid this trap also! It fills the network with useless noise in some exponential way. ((6)) Do not respond to obvious flame bait and red-herring arguments It is a pointless waste of time, energy, bandwidth, and disk space to respond to these insults. Flames and red-herring are intended to confuse the reader or divert attention away from the subject. Some people are masters of changing the subject. This even includes the subject title. Flames often are attempts to hide the poster's ignorance on some topic by inciting a series of angry responses. Ignore this nonsense. ((7)) Give credit and acknowledge people who has assisted you Be careful when quoting others' messages. Acknowledgments would include people who tried to help you even if they were of no real help. ((8)) Please cite or link this article on your messages if you decide to follow the guidelines Readers will see for themselves that you are a reasonable person. Who are alkl that arsholkes in that links ? Josef Matz Germany > It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation > on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Readers will see for themselves that you are a reasonable person. : It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation : on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/about To be a top poster respond to everything and say nothing. The statistics are worthless. : I have tried different tactics during posting: Replying everything : (including flamers); detailed discussion; quoting and references; [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] : : Readers will see for themselves that you are a reasonable person. > : It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation > : on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > To be a top poster respond to everything and say nothing. A little self-deprecation, Mr. #1 Poster for November (a factor of 2 over your nearest competitor)? I'm pleasantly surprised. Didn't think you had it in you. - Randy : > : It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation : > : on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] : I'm pleasantly surprised. Didn't think you had it : in you. It's nothing special, Dork Van de merde the spermless local village idiot happens to have shut the f.ck up for a change. Note that his 6906 all time is for dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com and his 6028 all time is for dirkvandemoor...@thanks-no-sperm.hotmail.com Add the two and he exceeds Seto in his rantings but he only whines and copies repeat lists for his web page attacks on his betters anyway. Same goes for Bilge, the real top poster, 10,360 + 6617 with the fanatic Humpty Roberts not far behind. As they say in the rag trade, never mind the quality, feel the width. If all the idiot nymshifters stuck to one ID I wouldn't show at all. The stats are meaningless. > : > : It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation > : > : on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > If all the idiot nymshifters stuck to one ID I wouldn't show at all. > The stats are meaningless. Almost: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html Dirk Vdm On 14 nov, 07:13, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: > It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation > on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > Readers will see for themselves that you are a reasonable person. On final analysis, this boils down to an intention of discussing only with civil contributors. That's the policy I have been practicing for years, and that everyone should follow. A personal choice though. Andr? Michaud On Nov 14, 4:38 pm, s...@microtec.net wrote: > On 14 nov, 07:13, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > André Michaud Thanks by kindly words. I have uploaded the guidelines. I am using them since now. ======== I follow http://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt On 15 nov, 13:45, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: > On Nov 14, 4:38 pm, s...@microtec.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > ======== > I followhttp://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt Fine choice. Most aggressors on these ngs are not even physicists anyway. Typically students in physics who think they know everything with chips on their shoulders who like to pass as real deals when addressing less informed newbees. They typically know a little math and very little physics. They don't really care about physics, only their own image in the eyes of their peers. Real physicists do not attack people. They contribute info and do discuss civilly. Very few however hang around unmonitored ngs though. They have real jobs and have no time to spend harassing people. André Michaud On Nov 15, 8:16 pm, s...@microtec.net wrote: > Fine choice. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > little physics. They don't really care about physics, > only their own image in the eyes of their peers. 100% agree. For instance the 'aggressor' of above (often call himself a top expertise on relativity) just discovered a few months ago that proper time is an invariant! > Real physicists do not attack people. They contribute > info and do discuss civilly. Very few however hang around > unmonitored ngs though. They have real jobs and have > no time to spend harassing people. I am mainly posting on sci.physics.foundations and sci.physics.research those days where most of the nonsense can be avoided. However, moderation cannot be perfect and yesterday I replied to one 100% wrong posting (with zero references) on sci.physics.research: "Dark Energy and MOND". http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/tree/browse_frm/thread/6ca5c 9d3d638aa3c/4f3ecd24786c6540?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.research%2Fbrow se_frm%2Fthread%2F6ca5c9d3d638aa3c%2F4f3ecd24786c6540%3F#doc_6c40215368a63df1 > André Michaud Thanks, i would close-end this thread. ======== I follow http://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt On Nov 15, 8:16 pm, s...@microtec.net wrote: > Fine choice. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > little physics. They don't really care about physics, > only their own image in the eyes of their peers. 100% agree. For instance the 'aggressor' of above (often call himself a top expertise on relativity) just discovered a few months ago that proper time is an invariant! > Real physicists do not attack people. They contribute > info and do discuss civilly. Very few however hang around > unmonitored ngs though. They have real jobs and have > no time to spend harassing people. I am mainly posting on sci.physics.foundations and sci.physics.research those days where most of the nonsense can be avoided. However, moderation cannot be perfect and yesterday I replied to one 100% wrong posting (with zero references) on sci.physics.research: "Dark Energy and MOND". http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/tree/browse_frm/thread/6ca5c 9d3d638aa3c/4f3ecd24786c6540?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.research%2Fbrow se_frm%2Fthread%2F6ca5c9d3d638aa3c%2F4f3ecd24786c6540%3F#doc_6c40215368a63df1 > André Michaud Thanks, i would close-end this thread. ======== I follow http://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt On 16 nov, 08:45, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: > On Nov 15, 8:16 pm, s...@microtec.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Thanks, i would close-end this thread. You should be treated better on these moderated ngs, if you don't stray too far from orthodoxy. Bye André Michaud As for Usenet decorum, the smart people simply contribute what they can, when they feel they can. As I see it, insulters ( e.g. Uncle Albert ) are merely talking about themselves, to themselves. Uncle Al has a low opinion of himself, I'm sure. You often say “ I'd close-end this thread. ”, Juan, when I think you mean “ I'm done with this thread. ”. Who, besides you, feels the word “ close-end ” is a verb ? > It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation > on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/about [snip] All time 12095 kenseto Main sewage pipes typically have internal diameters of 10 feet. So?  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 : > It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation : > on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : : Main sewage pipes typically have internal diameters of 10 feet. So? No brain. > > It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation > > on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 Al, I wish you could share that fact with our town fathers here in Chelmsford, MA, who are installing a new sewer system at a connection cost that will drive many of the older homeowners to move elsewhere.. The feeder lines are 8", and the main sewer pipes are 12". For obvious reasons, they keep the name of their engineering consulting firm a secret, since not even the manholes have a diameter of 10-feet. Worse still, the town doesn't have a treatment facility, and local residents have absolutely no idea where the sewer leads to. This is a town with a population of greater than 33,000. I was raised in a small New Jersey town (Bordentown) which indeed had sewer lines 10-ft in diameter, because as kids we liked to walk through and explore. For kids, it was like living in Paris! Today, I'm amaze that any of us are still alive 60 years later, but many of us still are, and are a pain in the a.s to our local town planners and town governments. 12" sewer mains, gimme a break! It's a joke on the community, and the local taxpayers. Still, Chelmsford is gradually transitioning to a bedroom community for clueless yuppies working in Boston, and it will be an unpleasant surprise for them on the first occasion where the basements of their million dollar McMansions become filled with he smelly excrement and toilet paper scraps of their neighbors. At that point they will complain like Hell to the town government, but by that time all members of the town government who were instrumental in putting this system into place will be retired and living in Florida, or South America! At that point, the local residents will have little choice but, as they say in New Jersey, "Go Pound Sand". Harry C. Dear hhc314: On Nov 14, 8:54 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: ... > > Main sewage pipes typically have internal diameters of > > 10 feet. So? Not true. It depends on the size of the community being served, and the available slope. In this little town of 1.5 million people, only the "last" 10 miles is served by two 90" diameter pipes. ... > Al, I wish you could share that fact with our town > fathers here in Chelmsford, MA, who are installing a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > engineering consulting firm a secret, since not even > the manholes have a diameter of 10-feet. Small communities are usually engineered by a city officer, until they have enough bucks available to outsource the job, and let that person outsource it. > Worse still, the town doesn't have a treatment > facility, and local residents have absolutely no idea > where the sewer leads to. Most people have pretty strange ideas about their own intestines and urinary tract too. > This is a town with a population of greater than 33,000. Conservative flow is a peak of 400 gallons per day per person, or 9166 gpm. I find that at 2 ft per second (keeps the poop from cemeting to the bottom of the pipe), you can be served by a pipe as large as a 42", or as small as 21" (higher than 10 ft/sec abrades the inside of the pipe). It depends on natural slope and how many roof and street drains empty into the sanitary sewer system, of course. > I was raised in a small New Jersey town (Bordentown) > which indeed had sewer lines 10-ft in diameter, > because as kids we liked to walk through and explore. You are probably recalling a separate storm sewer system. The sanitary sewer system may also have emptied into it, at some point in the past. > For kids, it was like living in Paris! Or Kansas... the welcoming smells of open sanitary sewer systems. > Today, I'm amaze that any of us are still alive 60 > years later, but many of us still are, and are a > pain in the a.s to our local town planners and town > governments. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Tear the streets up every year to install new pipes, and see how long you stay in office. It is tougher than you know. And I understand your pain. David A. Smith Re: Juan R. Gonzaleza's complaints about title changes, The header of each-and-every post contains a link ( i.e. a MessageID ) to the parent post and recent ancestors, going up the root, like this: Uncle_Al news:473B3DA1.BD9FE0C2@hate.spam.net Juan_R news:1195042387.293105.262990@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com Re: Google's list of “ most active ” people in Sci.Physics , Some regulars I've been enjoying are: G=EMC^2 Glazier ( a.k.a. Bert ) TJ Frazir RH Nigl gdewilde ( Gaby De Wilde ) Tom Potter PMB ( Pete ) > Re: Juan R. Gonzaleza's complaints about title changes, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Uncle_Al news:473B3DA1.BD9FE0C2@hate.spam.net > Juan_R news:1195042387.293105.262990@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com Thanks by the hint. A problem is that title changes make difficult a direct search in Google Groups because no "(was: ...)" section is displayed at "topic list" view. ======== I follow http://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt Re: Scanning through Google Groups' list of topics, I looked through all recent titles, one by one, at Google Groups' list of topics for Sci.Physics, I didn't find my post ( with the changed title ), but I did find your Nov 14th post, 15 pages deep. So I don't understand your complaint. Have you tried a newsreader like Outlook, Windows Mail, or 40tude Dialog ? I recommend paying 10 Euros per year to signup for: “ News.Individual.NET:8119 ” ( www.Individual.NET ). I've been enjoying Individual.NET for many years now. It has a giga-bit connection to the Internet, thanks to German tax payers. If it's free you want, consider these servers ( in order ): “ Reader.Motzarella.ORG:80 ”, “ NNTP.Aioe.ORG:80 ” ( no sign-up required ), “ News.ReadFreeNews.NET:119 ” “ FreeNews.NetFront.NET:119 ” ( no sign-up required ) As I said, each and every post has a link to the parent post, i.e. the parent's MessageID is in each header. This is the thread, and it's unrelated to the title: Juan_R news:3d8d246f-6021-4e63-911f-30dd1a022cc0@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com Jeff☠Relf news:Jeff_Relf_2007_Nov_23__4_39_PT@Cotse.NET Uncle_Al news:473B3DA1.BD9FE0C2@hate.spam.net Juan_R news:1195042387.293105.262990@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com Google Groups' “ Advanced Search ” finds MessageID's, and/or you can use a link like this: “ http://Google.COM/groups?selm=Jeff_Relf_2007_Nov_23__4_39_PT@Cotse.NET ” If you use “ Search-Engine Plug-Ins ”, running this in your browser's URL-bar ( I use FireFox ) will give you a “ Message-ID lookup ”: “ javascript: ( function() { window.external.AddSearchProvider( "http://www.cotse.net/users/jeffrelf/MessID.XML"); } )(); ”. Note: The JavaScript must be a single line, and you have to hit “ Go ” twice. El Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:11:16 +0000, Jeff☠Relf escribió: > Re: Scanning through Google Groups' list of topics, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I didn't find my post ( with the changed title ), but I did find your > Nov 14th post, 15 pages deep. So I don't understand your complaint. I mean that title changes do difficult the following of old threads in a _first_ reading in the topic list view on Google Groups web-based reader. > Have you tried a newsreader like Outlook, Windows Mail, or 40tude Dialog > ? I always disliked Outlook for anything. I have recently switched from a Microsoft Windows environment after saying 'enough' and just learning my new OS. Therefore i do not try other two i think are only windows, no? I have tried default Evolution client but I dislike. I search info on Thunder but i have just downloaded and installed newsreader Pan http://pan.rebelbase.com/features/ I am giving a try when writting this. > I recommend paying 10 Euros per year to signup for: “ > News.Individual.NET:8119 ” ( www.Individual.NET ). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > News.ReadFreeNews.NET:119 ” > “ FreeNews.NetFront.NET:119 ” ( no sign-up required ) Many thanks by this list letting me avoid ISP Spanish newserver! > As I said, each and every post has a link to the parent post, i.e. the > parent's MessageID is in each header. This is the thread, and it's [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Note: The JavaScript must be a single line, and you have to hit “ Go ” > twice. Many thanks by this useful feedback Jeff. Apologies to others by this all non-physics stuff. I wait however newsreader stuff can be so useful for readers as was for me. ======== I follow http://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt You ( Juan ) told me: “ ...title changes [ make it hard to follow ] old threads in a _first_ reading in the topic list view on Google Groups... ”. I don't know anything about that, sorry. Re: “ NNTP.Aioe.ORG:80 ” ( no sign-up required ), You told me: “ Many thanks by this list letting me avoid ISP Spanish newserver ! ”. Some ISP's block port 119, hence the “ :80 ”. As an anonymous user on Aioe.ORG, censorship is less of a problem, I think. Re: Pan ( on Linux or Windows ): http://pan.rebelbase.com/features/ , Even if, like most people, you're only listing UnRead articles, hitting the “ U ” key ( for “ Up ” ) takes you to the parent post, see: “ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Parent.PNG ”. Article-titles have nothing to do with the thread. Outlook, Windows Mail, or 40tude Dialog are all Windows-only. Jeff☠Relf wrote Jeff_Relf_2007_Nov_24__0_17_Pq@Cotse.NET on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:17:44 +0000: > You ( Juan ) told me: > “ ...title changes [ make it hard to follow ] old threads in > a _first_ reading in the topic list view on Google Groups... ”. > > I don't know anything about that, sorry. Imagine thread original title is ALPHA. You read list on Google Groups and you find *one* entry for a thread titled ALPHA on sci.physics.relativity webpage. Now imagine that someone changes title to BETA when replying. Then Google Groups will list the reply under a thread titled BETA (with none visible reference to ALPHA). You can scan the entire list (paged) but it looks like if you lose a thread. Of course, you can use the Google search engine to find your ALPHA thread. But then you waste extra time searching for and when found it, you may remember that name changed to BETA during posterior readings of the Google Groups list (e.g. next weak in my case). This can be a nightmare when reading different newsgroups at once and when thread suffer from too many changes on title (e.g. this thread). It is not a problem for me now (using Pan). I never lost a thread from the list (visually i mean) even with title-changes [#]. > Re: Pan ( on Linux or Windows ): http://pan.rebelbase.com/features/ , Pan is working fine. It is easy, very personalizable, and fast. Being a dedicated newsreader Pan is built-in with advanced options are not available on clients as Outlook, Windows Mail, or Google Groups [#]). > Even if, like most people, you're only listing UnRead articles, hitting > the “ U ” key ( for “ Up ” ) takes you to the parent post, see: “ > www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Parent.PNG ”. Yes, U key works that way. However, I am listing all articles. I have changed layout from default (your picture) to 1 | --| 3 2 | I prefer that way. > Article-titles have nothing to do with the thread. I have added a %i attribute on the posting profile. > Outlook, Windows > Mail, or 40tude Dialog are all Windows-only. And Windows Mail only for Vista, it seems. I would close-end this thread. Thanks by this very useful feedback Jeff. [#] Google's people, take this as a kind of feedback for improving your service. SignatureI follow http://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt Google needs a link to the parent post at each and every post. Re: The list of topics at Sci.Physics at Google Groups, Not to belabor the point... but I can't get Google Groups to act as you describe. The only title I see is the one you used Nov. 14th, which is also listed under “ Active older topics ”. G.G. changes a lot, maybe that's why. > Re: Juan R. Gonzaleza's complaints about title changes, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Tom Potter > PMB ( Pete ) ah, I see you have rated me above Tom Potter. This is interesting I now feel as if anything I say about this would be guaranteed to be taken the wrong way. Lets try... I guess Tom didn't make it into the top 3 either? I like Tom Potter a lot, but he doesn't post that much. All the same, you won't find me bitching about Jews. I love Einstein, Königsberg ( a.k.a. Woody Allen ), etc. Jews seem to be more obsessed with letters and numbers than the rest of us, but I can deal with that. And I can relate to them... my nose is huge, for one thing: “ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Jeff_Relf_Aug_2005.JPG ”. Pete ( PMB ) is very nice and very informed, but he gets offened at the drop of a hat... “ oy vey ! ”. Pete might be a Jewish-Christian, I'm not sure. Like me, you're lame, Gaby; but I'm deeply depressed while you're wild-a.s manic. > I like Tom Potter a lot, but he doesn't post that much. > All the same, you won't find me bitching about Jews. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Like me, you're lame, Gaby; > but I'm deeply depressed while you're wild-a.s manic. Why cant you blame some one else like normal people do? Are you that self centered? As I see it, Gaby, the more informed/spoiled you are, the more depressed you get... and I'm very informed/spoiled. Should I bitch and moan about knowing/having too much ? I don't like people who don't like smokers. Besides my desire to stay in Seattle, the I need to earn money so I can avoid “ Smoker Haters ”. As a self-proclaimed “ scientist ”, I love this Kent Ad: “ www.AliciaPatterson.ORG/APF1005/Levin/Levin00.jpg ”. [ New York Mirror magazine, 1960 ] Yes, these are --> My <-- people: www.FlatRock.ORG.NZ/topics/animals/assets/having_a_smoke.jpg www.LamerMelculo.COM/imagenes/webs/120104/fumar.jpg Listen up kids, smoking hasn't harmed me none: http://whyquit.com/whyquit/smokersbody.jpg Nevertheless, I am cutting back: www.ImoqLand.COM/albums/albumgeneral/no_fumar.jpg >It is obvious i have made many mistakes during my brief participation >on USENET groups. Part of mistakes are traced to my very limited [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/about Yea, both newsgroups are 'hard' in that you should actually know some physics to post in sci.physics and know some relativity to post in sci.physics.relativity as well as you get your a.s kicked when it is shown that you /don't/ know anything. The reason /you/ find participating here to be hard is that you are, frankly, an idiot who knows nothing about physics or relativity in addition to your loathsome personality. >I have tried different tactics during posting: Replying everything >(including flamers); detailed discussion; quoting and references; >ignoring blacklisted; angry tone; hurling insults when being insulted; >others. Any of those would work if you actually understood what you were talking about. >I would also acknowledge people who defended me when I was unjustly >attacked by certain people, including that poster who decided to >falsify ratings giving non-accurate weight to the replies of his >'friends'. Get over it. Nobody but you cares. >I am trying to improve USENET experience by making a series of >guidelines i wait to follow closely here in thereafter. I introduce >the recommendations below with the aim of waiting useful feedback. This will be utterly charming, I'm sure. >-------------------------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >insults, name-calling, etc. Some messages are very annoying and >offensive. Hard to ignore but they must be ignored. Keep a cool head. ...but what do you do when the person you are replying to just won't keep his stupid ideas to himself and continues to post despite being ignored for several years. >Read your reply at least twice before submitting it. A good rule of >thumb is to wait a day and review what you want to send. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >subject. Most of readers are not specialists on the topic you are >discussing for. A giant euphamism for "don't use big words" as well as "math is hard". >You always can add more information and details in some appendix or >just citing additional references. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >is about modeling nature like we can observe and measure it. Science >is not about how we want Nature to be. An actual, relevant, and salient point. I wonder if you will subscribe to it from this day forth. >You may be a recognized specialist on some topic but you continue to >be human. Remember that specialists on some old paradigm are the first [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >ignoring a major issue. Avoid this trap! It fills the network with >useless noise. Did you have a stroke? This is delightful to hear - just odd hearing it from you. It'd be like Henri Wilson arguing, in a non-ironic fashion, for honesty about presenting academic qualifications. >((5)) Do not argue against proud non-specialists > >Some people strongly argue over a topic they did not even take the >time to study. Some of this people even reject to read the references >you provide to support your point! Is this actually Juan R? [..remaining entirely reasonable ideas snipped] On Nov 15, 12:16 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote: > >((1)) Be courteous and polite > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > keep his stupid ideas to himself and continues to post despite being > ignored for several years. You have to start your study some place, it might as well be point 1. "" ((1)) Be courteous and polite There is nothing to be gained by taking an angry tone, hurling insults, name-calling, etc. Some messages are very annoying and offensive. Hard to ignore but they must be ignored. Keep a cool head. Read your reply at least twice before submitting it. A good rule of thumb is to wait a day and review what you want to send. "" Good luck dude, have faith you can do it!! Every time Gisse insults someone ( i.e. when he posts ) he's really complaining about himself to himself. The weaker you are the more you complain. > Every time Gisse insults someone ( i.e. when he posts ) > he's really complaining about himself to himself. > The weaker you are the more you complain. Thanks for the insight Jeff :0-) I remember Eric's feedback on my perpetual motion invention. http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/magnetmotor gabydewilde - magnetmotor But this concept demands a very accurate approach/speed/flux/distance configuration. So I've upgraded it into this now. COUNTER ROTATING FIELDS ABSTRACT Delayed magnetomecanical entrainment utilising 3 point interaction[1] by means of inductive shielding[2]. http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text/counter-rotating-fields The same concept but it works much better. I expect it to take just as long as Jules Verne for the selfless pubic to understand what it means. Should still make an amusing read I think..... *gg* As I recently told Uncle Albert ( in Sci.Physics )... The second law of thermodynamics is a hard fact. Show me the exploitable energy; mere energy ( e.g. mass ) is not enough. If the cosmos wasn't perpetually cooling, allowing us to exploit the motion, we'd not be here, talking now. Evolution is God, and the 2nd law is his taskmaster. I'm ever amazed how, one after another, othewise respectable people tilt their lances at the 2nd law; as if, somehow, it could be slain, freezing all motion, everywhere... oh joyous triumph ! Quoting Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington at WikiQuote.ORG: “ If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. ”. --> there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation <-- Gaby. Did you get that ? --> deepest humiliation <-- . Quoting Cervantes... Don Quixote tells his squire: “ Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants ? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless. ” Sancho Panza asks “ What giants ? ” and his master replies: “ Those you see over there, with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length. ” “ Take care, sir ”, cried Sancho, “ Those over there are not giants but windmills. ”. > As I recently told Uncle Albert ( in Sci.Physics )... > The second law of thermodynamics is a hard fact. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tilt their lances at the 2nd law; as if, somehow, it could be slain, > freezing all motion, everywhere... oh joyous triumph ! Stop gappin marks lik a dumb Franc. http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/30151 http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/30205 http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/30020 There is no nouht. -Aut > Quoting Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington at WikiQuote.ORG: > > But if your theory is found to be > against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; > there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. ”. Very ironic, since Eddington, from what I've heard, claimed to be one of the few people who understood GR. The 2nd Law refers to the observation that work results from energy dispersal (energy gradients in spacetime) and that once dispersed evenly energy (zero energy gradient) can do no further work. I don't think that a zero energy gradient exists in nature, except for brief periods. Zero energy gradients can be maintained artificially, but we have to fight natural processes to do that. GR implies that gravity works to concentrate energy e.g. (in BH's), which is the reverse of dispersal. If BH's vent out in WH's, which is entirely plausible then the energy becomes free to disperse and do more work in the process. If that were so, then GR itself would be "against the second law of thermodynamics". > “ Those over there are not giants but windmills. ”. The bigger they are the harder they fall. Everybody's invincible till they're vinced. Love, Jenny On Nov 18, 6:04 pm, Yuan...@gmail.com wrote: > > Quoting Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington at WikiQuote.ORG: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Love, > Jenny The second law is an assumption. May we not learn to assume great things like this? Or should the great assumption of one man refute the observations of another? My papers look like this, a single glance is enough to understand the whole thing entirely. If one can read one can-not miss the point or lack the attention span. COUNTER ROTATING FIELDS ABSTRACT Delayed magnetomecanical entrainment utilising 3 point interaction[1] by means of inductive shielding[2]. http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/text/counter-rotating-fields One can bridge the flux from north to south. The flux beyond the ferromagnetic medium is obviously affected by this. The gif illustrates how the secondary magnet catches up with the primary 2 times per rotation as a result of this. The primary rotation does-not suffer any opposing force while the secondary is catching up. The catching-up is powered by both pushing AND pulling forces. Thus this force does not reflect back onto the primary rotor. It seems simple enough? Where am I wrong? I can tell you where you went wrong, Gaby. You goofed-up the moment you couldn't: “ Show us the exploitable energy... and lots of it. ”. But shouldn't feel bad about that, and here's why... The Univ. of Wash. campus, where I live, has tons of majestic trees; pine-cones and chestnuts are everywhere right now, tons of material. Only trees that produce such copious seeds have lived to date; but, thanks to our gardeners, it's unlikely that even one of these seeds will produce another tree. Nature is full of dead-ends like that, random/manic flailing to no avail. Humans are no exception. Everyone tries everything until... hopefully... ...someone, somewhere, succeeds. Although the exploitable energy of the earth and solar system drops as it cools, it never stops approaching zero. The word “ zero ” is merely a place-holder for: “ Something that's too small to count. ”. So, although “ life ” will always exist, it must evolve into something quite different from the “ water world ” we know today... ...something that consumes less energy. > I can tell you where you went wrong, Gaby. > You goofed-up the moment you couldn't: > “ Show us the exploitable energy... and lots of it. ”. Oh, but I can and I have lots of times. First we need a good explanation of force out of nothing. 1 part repulsion 2 part attraction Combine the both and you may construct either configurations where.... the sum of both equals a total force of zero parts And you may also configure constructions where... the sum of both equals a total force of 2 parts. I CONCLUDE! One may approach at the cost of zero and depart with the gain of 2. What I did figure out is that the work can be extracted from the pushing and the pulling magnets perspective. This will destroy our delicate balance of 1-1=0 but it will never grow beyond 1 and continue to give us 1+1=2 over the whole distance. So much for the curly talks. I have now improved this concept by placing a flux carrying medium in the center. This is completely removing what drag one should expect from the secondary rotor. One can bridge the flux from north to south. The amount of flux traveling beyond the ferromagnetic medium is obviously affected by this. The gif illustrates how the secondary magnet catches up with the primary 2 times per rotation as a result of this. http://magnetmotor.googlepages.com/counter-rotating-fields.gif The primary rotation does-not suffer any opposing force while the secondary is catching up. The catching-up is powered by both pushing AND pulling forces. The delay in propagation is restoring the 1-1=0 ratio over a small angle. Thus this force does not reflect back onto the primary rotor. It seems simple enough? How much energy exactly comes-out no-one knows. How do you expect me to invent something and have the numbers in advance? You use a big magnet then you get lots of force, use a small one then get only a small bit? ha-ha? oh, and if you use no magnet at all then you get nothing. It seems important to mention :P Let us know when you're selling power to the gid, Gaby, until then you don't have a leg to stand on. > Although the exploitable energy of the earth and solar system > drops as it cools, it never stops approaching zero. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the “ water world ” we know today... > ...something that consumes less energy. retarded dolt: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+permanent-temperature http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+permanent Just because you can freeze ice cubes, reducing entropy locally, it doesn't mean that the net entropy of the closed system didn't go up, reducing the exploitable energy of the closed system. Likely, the known Universe has never had a center of gravity, and it's 1,100 times cooler than it was 13.7 giga years ago, thanks to the accelerated expansion of spacetime ( i.e. G.R.'s lambda ). In other words, at scales of giga parsecs over giga years, the exploitable energy of any given area has gone down and its gravitational field has weakened. Were it not so, life could not exist, because our Universe would be a singularity, sans length, and there'd be no exploitable energy, no one to tell the tale. Evolution is our God, our judge, our father and our executioner, and the 2nd Law is his taskmaster. Denying it doesn't help. > Just because you can freeze ice cubes, reducing entropy locally, > it doesn't mean that the net entropy of the closed system didn't go up, > reducing the exploitable energy of the closed system. An established fact is a hypothesis that is supported by observation. Hypothesis: Closed systems don't exist. Observation: No naturally occuring closed system has ever been observed. Conclusion: The hypothesis that closed systems don't exist is supported by observation. Nature abhors closed systems. The non-existence of closed systems is an established fact. The Second Law relates to closed systems. Therefor the Second Law relates only to systems that don't exist in nature. If you think the above is wrong, try creating and maintaining a closed system. Alternative Second Law: Closed systems can only be maintained by increasing the entropy of the the environment Love, Jenny On Nov 18, 9:14 pm, Yuan...@gmail.com wrote: > > Just because you can freeze ice cubes, reducing entropy locally, > > it doesn't mean that the net entropy of the closed system didn't go up, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Love, > Jenny Here is another idea of mine. http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=428#428 Bimetalmotor - Ambient heat gradient power In a desert it would make quite a few rotations per day. It runs on hot sewage also. :) I know it's not something new, every old thermostat uses an engine like this. But how would the power mass ratio work out if we just use air to cool and heat it? I thought making it a thin film would reduce the power a bit but keep it spinning longer. It's not such a complicated device really. If it's worth building some one should :) is it? The better a system is known the more time is spatial; e.g. the SI second is a length. Hyper ( 4-D ) volumes have no motion... they're static, like rocks. G.R. doesn't allow forward-motion in time, much less backward. Speaking of GR's gravitational field, Einstein said: “ But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ”. -- “ Ether and the Theory of Relativity ” ( 1920 ) “ http://TUHH.DE/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html ” For more on “ Spatial Time ”, a.k.a. “ Eternalism ”, a.k.a. “ Block Time ”, a.k.a. “ Block Universe ” see: “ http://WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time ”. Just like the arrow of time, closed systems exist only in our minds. But what counts, if not our minds ? “ How much energy can we exploit and is it enough ? ” that's the question. And the caution is: “ Consuming more means dying that much sooner. ”. Over-eating, over-drugging, etc. are only bad if you're trying to live “ slower but longer ”. What matters most is that you can control yourself, including liberating yourself from those who'd rule over you. You're alive, obviously, thanks to your ancestors, but that's just the way it is, it doesn't constitute true purpose nor meaning. Meaning and happiness are artifcially dervived from whatever games fate has us playing. > The better a system is known the more time is spatial; Absolutely not! > e.g. the SI second is a length. It's a distance, not a displacement! > Hyper ( 4-D ) volumes have no motion... they're static, like rocks. That ain't necessarily so! In fact, it necessarily ain't so! > G.R. doesn't allow forward-motion in time, much less backward. King Canute wouldn't allow the tide to come in - but it came in anyway! > Speaking of GR's gravitational field, Einstein said: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ”. So what? You can't expect him to be correct *all* the time! > Just like the arrow of time, closed systems exist only in our minds. > But what counts, if not our minds ? In other words, if our minds don't count, what will? Things don't carte whether we count them or not! > “ How much energy can we exploit and is it enough ? ” > that's the question. There's enough for all, forever! It's forbidden for energy to disappear! There's nowhere else for it to go! As I suggested: Closed systems can only be maintained by increasing the entropy of the the environment From which it follows, since there are no closed systems, the entropy of the environment can't increase! Love, Kenny For any being with a finite mind ( i.e. for us ), exploitable energy is a finite resource. If I were to ( somehow ) move the entire solar system to a place 45 giga-light-years away, leaving only you behind, you wouldn't think: “ There's enough [ exploitable energy ] for all, forever ! It's forbidden for [ it ] to disappear ! [ i.e. it can't be consumed, nothing eats, nothing lives ] There's nowhere else for it to go ! ”. The Second Law is what created you, what maintains you, and, ultimately, what replaces you with something else. Without it, motion would not be, life couldn't exist. Thanks to the eternal cooling of the cosmos, observable, exploitable energy continually approaches zero, and “ life ” continually evolves to consume it. Where it not so, how do you explain galaxies moving directly away from us, faster than the speed of light ? ............ Speaking of my quote from Einstein, you told me: “ So what ? You can't expect him to be correct *all* the time ! ”. Like the rest of the world, I'll trust him, not you. Einstein and Hawking seek nothing less than to know “ The mind of God ” because that's the key to unifying the 4 forces. Evolution is God; having created you, he passes judgment on you. And the Second Law is his taskmaster. Intrinsically ( i.e. independent of what is or isn't known ) the cosmos “ just is ”, with no beginning nor end; i.e. time is spatial, randomness is ignorance. > Like the rest of the world, I'll trust him, not you. > Einstein and Hawking seek nothing less than to know > “ The mind of God ” because that's the key to unifying the 4 forces. There is no trust involved, there is just a thought to be entertained in both cases. Science is not a democracy, you don't get to vote on anything. Believe systems are also banished. Einstein made a far fetched assumption. I tried but I'm not in a position to understand it. I'm to busy being chased around the mud-ball by raving lunatics it seems. You will just have to accept my observation for what it's worth. In the game of rock paper scissors the assumption does not defeat the observation. The only truth you may derive from my great disclosure at the current stage is surprisingly little work it would take to replicate a setup that confirms my findings. If ferromagnetic you don't even have to glue the magnets onto the axles but they stick on-there all by there own source of force. It's a miracle of it's own if I may say so. Quite unlike Jenny here, Einstein has earned my trust. Like life, science is full of pure assumptions, faith really. Faith in an after-life is easy and fantastical, because you can't test it, not while you're still alive. Faith in entropy ( i.e. the spew, e.g. from the sun ) is quite a different matter, it's continually tested. > Quite unlike Jenny here, Einstein has earned my trust. > Like life, science is full of pure assumptions, faith really. > > Faith in an after-life is easy and fantastical, > because you can't test it, not while you're still alive. This is the afterlife. > Faith in entropy ( i.e. the spew, e.g. from the sun ) > is quite a different matter, it's continually tested. Yet my perpetual radiator-conductor defeats such. On Nov 18, 5:30 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's a miracle of it's own if I may say so. it's -> its miracle = retard Excample 1 "Be courteous and polite" http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/tree/browse_frm/thread/e3b4d6983d4ccd f1/ae38c9cdec818407?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthr ead%2Fe3b4d6983d4ccdf1%3Fhl%3Den%26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_ae38c9cdec818407 > On Nov 18, 5:30 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It's a miracle of it's own if I may say so. > > it's -> its > miracle = retard original postin appended for clairties: On Nov 19, 2:30 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 19, 1:09 am, Jeff☠Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It's a miracle of it's own if I may say so. On Nov 18, 5:19 pm, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: > The better a system is known the more time is spatial; Absolutely not! > e.g. the SI second is a length. It's a distance, not a displacement! > Hyper ( 4-D ) volumes have no motion... they're static, like rocks. That ain't necessarily so! In fact, it necessarily ain't so! > G.R. doesn't allow forward-motion in time, much less backward. King Canute wouldn't allow the tide to come in - but it came in anyway! > Speaking of GR's gravitational field, Einstein said: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ". So what? You can't expect him to be correct *all* the time! > Just like the arrow of time, closed systems exist only in our minds. > But what counts, if not our minds ? In other words, if our minds don't count, what will? Things don't carte whether we count them or not! > " How much energy can we exploit and is it enough ? " > that's the question. There's enough for all, forever! It's forbidden for energy to disappear! There's nowhere else for it to go! As I suggested: Closed systems can only be maintained by increasing the entropy of the the environment From which it follows, since there are no closed systems, the entropy of the environment can't increase! Love, Kenny Thought it was "Jenny"... hermaphrodite, perhaps? Or just don't "carte" to spell your own name? On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:25:47 GMT, Homo Androgenous wrote: >> Hyper ( 4-D ) volumes have no motion... they're static, like rocks. > >That ain't necessarily so! In fact, it necessarily ain't so! ahahaha... Andromo is talking out of his a.s again and nobody really gives a sh.t. Not even Jeff. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... "Totally queer arse humper" <traveler@noasskissers.net> stated his heartfelt desire and declared his homosexuality in news:3r4ki3539l40nrg6f1b0v2kec49jpng7tl@4ax.com... : ahahaha... Bend over, Wabi. I'll show you some coordinates. ahahaha... : AHAHAHA... ahahaha... > <Yuan...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thought it was "Jenny"... hermaphrodite, perhaps? Or just don't "carte" > to spell your own name? Spilling was never my stringpint. Love, Lenny PS - a rise by any other name might be something else. : > <Yuan...@gmail.com> wrote in message : > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] : : PS - a rise by any other name might be something else. It might, in which case it would be hard... but I'm easy... or soft. Unlike Onan I prefer not to spill it incorrectly. You are correct, in the final analysis there are no closed systems, debating the point is futile. The issue remains undecided by Russell's paradox, there is no set of all sets. Only when people understand that division by zero is not infinity (a SINGLE and very big number), but undefined, it is ALL numbers, will they cease to debate the infinite. Mathematics as it applies to physics deals in ideals but it is an imperfect and chaotic universe that is only approximated by mathematics, never fully defined. When the balls jump out of pockets and form a triangle on the pool table then entropy will be reversed, and they do at the start of every game. The system is not closed. Yuancur@gmail.com wrote in news:dea3fb25-3c3d-4268-b44c-e1e1471b1349 @p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: > On Nov 18, 5:19 pm, Jeff☠Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > From which it follows, since there are no closed systems, the entropy > of the environment can't increase! The total entropy of the universe is increasing all the time. Heat travels from stars into empty space. This represents an increase in entropy. Your logical points fail because you are equating closed micro systems with (which are impossible to maintain as closed forever) and the macro system (which may or may not be closed, but there is no basis to assert that it is NOT closed). Since we can NOT assume that it is not closed, then your conclusion can not be sustained. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap > Yuan...@gmail.com wrote in news:dea3fb25-3c3d-4268-b44c-e1e1471b1349 > @p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Since we can NOT assume that it is not closed, then your conclusion can not > be sustained. DWH: The Universe is a pure system and inasmuch as it is the only system, cannot react adiabatically or otherwise with any other system. Net entropy in such a system must be zero and therefore the universe MUST recycly, and is the only perpetual motion machine of the second kind. Copyright 1990 by D.W. Higginbotham > -- > bz [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> Yuan...@gmail.com wrote in news:dea3fb25-3c3d-4268-b44c-e1e1471b1349 >> @p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > MUST recycly, and is the only perpetual motion machine of the second > kind. Then there must be something out somewhere that reverses the laws of physics from those we observe. Every experiment we have ever done upon an approximately closed system has had the following results: Free energy (energy available to do work) has decreased AND/OR Entropy has increased. USUALLY both. We can either go upon what we are able to observe and test by experiment OR we can make up stuff. Saying the NET entropy must be zero requires NEGATIVE entropy somewhere. A whole LOT of negative entropy. I can't even imagine what a block of negative entropy would look like. Negative entropy has NEVER been observed. The entropy in a small area can decrease, but as long as the temperature is above absolute zero, there will be some disorder and entropy will have a positive value. As the universe approaches the 'heat death' it seems to be heading for, free energy will go to zero, as everything will be the same temperature. Matter and energy will be rather evenly and randomly distributed throughout the universe. Entropy will be maximum. What happens after that, no one knows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy [quote] the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value; and so, by implication, the entropy of the universe (i.e. the system and its surroundings), assumed as an isolated system, tends to increase. [unquote] > Copyright 1990 by D.W. Higginbotham Interesting fiction, but not science. Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap The cosmos never stops cooling, I assume, so there's always motion, life, and death. The only difference is that life must continually evolve as the density of exploitable energy drops. Water world or not, life is everywhere there's motion. Evolution is our creator, our God, passing judgment on us all, replacing us; and the Second Law is his taskmaster. Our own sun, which spews out 4 mega tons per second ( mostly photons ), is the best example of this truism: “ No Second Law == No life ( or death ), No motion. ” Here's an ultraviolet photo showing some of the spew: http://Upload.WikiMedia.ORG/wikipedia/en/6/6d/CoronalMassEjection.jpg Jeff Best to keep in mind for the Earth to be a BH it would have to shrink to the size of a pea. The Sun is 99% of the mass of the solar system,and even all that mass you say it radiates out each second it will be shining for the next 5 billion years Bert > Jeff Best to keep in mind for the Earth to be a BH it would have to > shrink to the size of a pea. Earth would shrink to a point... Schwazchild radius would be about 9mm Which law of physics is it that overrides the speed of light limit and the path intergral of Quantum Mechanics to allow a metaphysically dense object such at as your: “ Earth shrinking to a point ”, Sam ? I'm all ears. Which physical law states that the mass of the earth can't be packed into a ball with a 9 mm radius, instead of your metaphysical “ point ” ? Is God involved ? Aliens ? I didn't mean to imply that the solar system would soon be gone, Bert. I was just saying that, as things cool, exploitable energy gets consumed, creating the dance of life and death. The ballet never ends because the cooling never ends. Water world or not, life evolves and adapts. We get replaced. Jeff You are talking"entropy" and it can be described as the degree of disorder of a system. Even melting ice fits. I always liked to put it this way "The forward direction of time is the direction of increasing entropy."Jeff best to keep in mind this. "As time passes the entropy of the whole universe increases in a similar way Stars are born grow old and die,and this evolvement created by gravity goes till the universe is a cold dark place. At this time Jeff the entropy of the universe will be close to maximum Bert The Second Law is eternal, Bert, endless. Life evolves as the density of exploitable energy gets eaten away. Water molecules bounce off ice, melting it, then the water evoporates... it's all cooling, thinning. Were it not so, nothing would move, no dance of life. Intrinsically, there's nothing special about the temperatue and density of water, the sun is more alive. Switching topics... T.J.'s expenses are enormous because his “ family ” is so large. He needs more traders, more shippers, to improve the lives of his workers. Ironically, the more you have the more you need. Herb get yourself a computer One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/index.php http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/explore.php http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/give-one-get-one.php > Our own sun, which spews out 4 mega tons per second ( mostly photons ), > is the best example of this truism: > “ No Second Law == No life ( or death ), No motion. ” > > Here's an ultraviolet photo showing some of the spew:http://Upload.WikiMedia.ORG/wikipedia/en/6/6d/CoronalMassEjection.jpg yes, this space vessel is some what bigger as ours. We are living on a small rock floating in space. hihihi The next ant colony is probably not far away. If you define life as motion, with or without water, the sun is more alive than we are. > If you define life as motion, with or without water, > the sun is more alive than we are. Every particle is the equivalent of a quantum computer. QPC's are never put to any real use. They always sit there being redundant. Much like our ant farm. Asking if particles are intelligent is like asking if life on earth has intelligence. Obviously not. :-) > > If you define life as motion, with or without water, > > the sun is more alive than we are. I'm going to have sex with the sun. I'll let you know how it was. > "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If you define life as motion, with or without water, > > > the sun is more alive than we are. > > I'm going to have sex with the sun. I'll let you know how it was. There is an enlightened view on reality. It needs some work, actually it would require overcoming various impossibilties. I doubt she will even notice you, small the way you are. But it's definitely an original plan. ___ http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress Try having sex without the sun, it doesn't work, too cold. Think about what you're eating. Without the sun, neither it nor you could exist. Jeff Pee-Air Likes sex with no Sun(in the dark) Likes sex in the Sun(don't even mind if people are watching. If the girl is hot even on an iceberg. Bert Viewed from afar, it looks as if the earth ( or, more properly, the sun ) is flaring up, i.e. getting hotter, igniting. Call it global warming if you must, but, in reality, exploitable energy is dissipating away, never to return; i.e., the earth is burning out. Eventually, unless we move on to Venus or something, we'll be replaced by something that has a lower consumption rate. > Viewed from afar, > it looks as if the earth ( or, more properly, the sun ) is flaring up, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Eventually, unless we move on to Venus or something, > we'll be replaced by something that has a lower consumption rate. Lets look at the Q-cumber. We take a seed put it in the mud then we add some watter. Is there something you don't understand about this ritual? You put a stick with the tomato plant so that it grows the way you want it. Now you have a blob of mud, watter, seeds and a moon. The moon was obviously used to put earth into it's current position, or shall we say grow? Analog really means analog. The galaxy is much much BIG it is!! XXXXXL The Q-cumber seed and planet earth are of roughly the same size. Just like humans are not dramatically bigger as ants. Or like I'm not dramatically much more intelligent as everyone else. How humble is that? If you look at the bones the evolutionists dug up we may conclude they even came to see how the garden was doing. It sure looks like Intelligent life only existed after moderation. The big question is what kind of Q-cumbers do they expect us to grow? My guess is death stars and mega maids? ____ http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress > Yuan...@gmail.com wrote in news:dea3fb25-3c3d-4268-b44c-e1e1471b1349 > @p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Since we can NOT assume that it is not closed, then your conclusion can not > be sustained. Closed finite systems are impossible to maintain as closed forever. That's a reasonable hypothesis. An established fact is a hypothesis which is repeatedly supported by experiment. Hypothesis: the set of systems is an open set. Observation: Examine whether any systems is a part of some larger system. Results : The hypothesis is supported by observation. Conclusion: It is an established fact that the set of systems is an open set. By observation, the set of all systems is unbounded (i.e. infinite) in just the same way as the set of real numbers is unbounded. The set of systems is open, just as the set of real numbers is open - unless, and until, it can be shown otherwise. Since there are no finite, permanently closed systems it follws that the Second Law which relates only to closed systems has a limited domain of applicability - in the same way as all other known Laws of Physics Love, Jenny Yuancur@gmail.com wrote in news:5b25708a-4100-441e-9758- 39984fc7aa7d@o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > The set of systems is open, just as the set of real numbers is open - > unless, and until, it can be shown otherwise. As the velocity of light limits what we can know about the boundries of our universe, this is a question that can never be answered. > Since there are no finite, permanently closed systems it follws that > the Second Law which relates only to closed systems has a limited > domain of applicability - in the same way as all other known Laws of > Physics All laws of physics DO have domains of applicability. The question is: If the universe is bounded just beyond the limits of the distance light will travel during the life of the universe OR if the universe is unbounded IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE in the laws of physics? That question is worth exploring. A quick look at it gives me an answer of NO, it makes no difference. Then we can say 'assume the former (the universe IS bounded). That implies that the 2nd law applies. Right? Then we can say, 'if it really makes no difference whether it is bounded or not, then the 2nd law must apply, regardless.' Is there any flaw in my logic? Signaturebz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message