Thermo-Dynamic Society

Something to think about... Note that the end speed seems not to change, therefore the second law / conservation of energy is not violated -  but somewhere along the way, the effect of gravity shortens the overall time, thus increasing the overall speed (though the actual distance of travel also increased as well), so that the sphere with the longest way to travel paradoxically hits the target first . This works even in repetition:     Now imagine the opposite - a cannon ball shot (or a rock hurled) straight up into the air, to fall down exactly where it was: the distance is zero (or, if you miss, very short), but time did pass - and the speed of the projectile was much higher than can be inferred from that resulting 'distance'; in fact, the higher its velocity, the more time passes until it's return, and the slower or lower the resulting overall speed (remember that the trajectory of any missile on earth is always longer than the actual di...

The Watchmaker and the Waiting Time For some time, there has been (a partly new) critique of Darwin's theory of random , incremental change to, or mutation of, the genome as the mechanism leading to the origin of species. The main criticism seems to be that not only does the fossil record not support Darwin's theory; but, more than that, the mathematics of molecular biology or micro-evolution , and of generational sequence or macro-evolution combined, do not allow the necessary changes from one species to another to take place in the time frame provided by the age of the universe; and this by many orders of magnitude. This phenomenon is called the Waiting Time Problem . There are a lot of videos on this on YouTube, a quite concise one is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V15sjy7gtVM Molecular biologists and mathematicians seem to say that the age the universe does not suffice, by far, for new species to evolve this way, because viable, non-lethal mutations are ...

Order and Complexity in view of Information Order and Complexity have been used almost synonymously in this concept of gravitationally induced order throughout the universe; and though they are not quite the same, rightfully so. What has been missing is that order and complexity convey information . And this plays into the concept of entropy vs. negentropy (or negative entropy , which, again, does not exist ; what is meant is less entropy.) 1.    One manifestation or concept of entropy is that of disorder ; ergo, the opposite, negative entropy , manifests itself as negative disorder , less disorder or, simply, order . 2.    Another concept describes negative entropy as a measure of the information content of a system; the more entropy a system expresses, the less information it contains: Maximum disorder is maximum disorder. Maximum order is maximum order (which is far more difficult to express or assert). Comparing two identical...

Some time in the 80ies / 90ies of the last century, I used to listen to the radio in the evenings (we all did), for music and stuff - this was pre-internet, you see. And on every Thursday or Friday night, a certain semi-local station had this abominable week-end dating call-in; but as there was little else going maybe, I used to listen to it with loathing - well, at least for as long as I could stand it. . It was hosted by a rabid, bad-looking, overweight, post- first-wave-feminist female man-hater, who was quite a celebrity back then, having written books on the subject with enticing titles such as: "Why Women are so Great ( And Men so Horrible )" "Why Men Suck" - you get the drift - and at older age (i.e., forty something) had moved on to radio as a non-visible means of communication and earning money; before that it had been talkshows on TV. She had a grating voice, a false exuberance bordering on the hysteric, and a caustic, self-centered sense of - well, I s...

Sawdust in the gearbox Or Doping your ancestors The following is anecdotal; and I feel much too lazy to look it up properly right now. Just reminiscing... about times gone by, back when we used to dope our ancestors to death. Ancestors' Comfort This here reminded me of something irritating in my childhood: way back then, people talked ironically of " comforting the ancestors " - and of firing up horses for the race or the sale, like filling sawdust into a worn-out gearbox to have a used car (or horse!) running smoothly for just enough miles to be out of sight and reach when the deception is noticed. Using a poison.    The subject in question: Arsenic , aka Ancestors' Comfort ; that nickname - or so it seemed - being a sarcastic reference to its murderous aim and quality. Arsenic was, as far as I remember, a waste product of silver and lead or sulfur mining; known as a rodent poison to protect the crops, it earned its nickname as " Ancestors' ...

Chance & Determination The unknown man scoffed.  "Human development was driven by chance and selection. God doesn't exist"  "All right," I answered. "that puts HIM out of the way, since it is useless to talk about something that doesn't exist. So you - and I - are a product of chance rather than determination?" The man nodded.  "Well, then just by chance, you look very similar to those around you. And no random bone is sticking out of your head. Of course, 99.9% of you is predetermined; chance comes into it at the fuzzy edges, like the color of your eyes - sometimes. 99% of all humans don't have a choice even there. Not that you had any, by the way. And if more than the hypothetical 0.1% is a purely randomized mutation, you would not have been born alive." The man started to protest. "Darwin... "  "Ask any doctor, and he will tell you. But that is not even the issue here. Of course Darwin was right : man evolv...

It is well, at this point, to remind ourselves, that it is we who try to make sense of reality , as it exists; reality does not try to make sense of us . It is we who depend on it existing; it does not depend on us . So what ever we may think of reality, we are unable change it as a whole; our understanding of it has influence only on us as subjects , not on it as the object of this reflection. In this game, reality is the primary entity; we are the secondary . Imagine a Victorian Kitchen Maid A scullery girl. The lowest of the lowest of all peasants, illegitimately born and picked out of a ditch, with no mother, no father, no relations; weak-minded, uneducated, unable to speak, to think, let alone to read or write; laden with the lowest and most menial of tasks, all of which involve the cleaning up of other people's mess, and left to endless hours daily of washing the dishes of those ' higher up ', never been out of her dark, wet corner of the genera...

A thermodynamic universe ends up as a cold, dead cloud A gravitational one as today's cosmos This is not about the neo-pagan animism of re-assigning souls to trees, stones or waters, to ask them for permission, forgiveness and protection, and certainly not about addressing a ball of glowing liquid rock (or a dead stone like the Moon), as a living being, by the name of ' Gaia '. Quite to the contrary That could be seen a superstitious expression of a free-floating need for a religious anchor, which 'modern' people once had, but lost, subsequently filling their internal cavernous vacancy with a belief in their own thermodynamics - which theoretically cannot sustain itself, an internal contradiction which is so often blissfully ignored: It is surprising how many people seem to be consciously unaware that the laws of thermodynamics relentlessly apply to themselves as well, individually and collectively. " The LORD giveth, and the LORD tak...

  A Game of Choice This still isn't exactly what I was looking for, but for the time being...: Caveat: I have no idea if this is valid enough to serve as a pattern or rule, or if it's just a function of pick- and- choose selection or simple coincidence. In other words, I have no idea if there is a counterexample that would show the opposite, or otherwise inconsistent results. The problem or task: If given three known factors A , B , and C , is there a "blind" mechanical method for testing which of several possibilities of relation would be valid, and which would not? And how many possibilities of relation are there at all? The way I see it, the factors A, B, and C can be connected by multiplication in three distinct ways: A=BC , B=AC , or C=AB i. e. one as the result of the other two multiplied. Expressing that relation by division is just a transformation or resolution of the above, in order: A =BC, A =B/C, A =C/B B= AC, B =C/A, B =A/C C= AB...

Notice on the Formula of Speed (velocity) I ask a mathematician v(i)=t/d   vs.   v=d/t or " a minute for a mile " vs. " a mile in a minute " Which is better? Which is right ? Speed has been measured throughout the ages And although the first formula above: v(i)=t/d or " time per distance " is instinctively used in human context to this day, and so most probably has been for thousands of years ( how long did you take? how fast will they be here? ), as it is easy to add a sum of relative times t ( moving, pausing, moving slower... ) in relation to a set (or invariable) and known distance d ... The inverted formula: v=d/t or " distance per time " which is said to have been found by Galileo or his surroundings no longer than half a millennium ago, although counter- intuitive, is much more useful to describe a mechanical, physical, engineered movement, where time t is absolute (or invariable) and distance d is relative. ...

Mad Maths And Physics: TL; DR: S =/= Q/T;   S = T/Q You're welcome. A little math If you want to express the relationship between two quantities A and B, you have two basically equivalent variants to choose from, which do not deliver the same results: x = A / B   and  y = B / A . One is the reciprocal of the other, and both variants can be equally well calculated. Both are equally valid. Both expressions can then be checked, separately, to see if the value of zero might appear (solely) in the denominator of one, or the other. That one needs to be discarded, since the expression is mathematically not defined at this point (and in reality not even in approximation). For entropy , that would be  S = Q / T   and   S(i) = T / Q Checking denominator and numerator for zero: Now, the formula for entropy as  S = Q / T is not defined at T = 0   (independent of Q > 0! ); On the other hand, if Q = 0 , then T ...