Thermo-Dynamic Society

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 ...

 On Creation Creation did not happen ; it is still going on. The following is intended, inter alia, to shed some light on the phenomenon of how the role of gravity - although generally known - found so surprisingly little entry into the considerations of " What holds this world together innermost ", and how these considerations were always focussed more on destructive thermodynamics - that is, to the realm of potential reduction with conservation of mass and energy . Beyond that, however, Creation is a ongoing process in the making , in this very moment ; and this goes far beyond Darwin's concept of ongoing biological evolution, or even of the Earth's geological evolution, both of which were discovered at around the same time . Both concepts hitherto implicit a status quo, some defined point in time and space; however, Creation in this view is eternal , universal and all-encompassing ; it did not just take place everywhere and throughout time ...

[This title is of course stolen from Douglas Adams , but the name from Stanislaw Lem .] Paradise was never lost - It never existed -      on EARTH       Many currently believe that this world is by nature - literally from its inception - a paradise that is only maliciously prevented from manifesting itself by a certain part of the population. This is new . At least some believe this - at least as long as enough moist food pulp is squeezed into their dwelling cells and the waste from their metabolism is discreetly and efficiently disposed of; then they may also believe that they do not produce any. And it is really an irrational, religious belief (that in a paradise possible on Earth), even if they themselves do not perceive this belief rationally , but try to rationalize their belief; their conveyance of guilt for the loss of it onto some evil Satan incarnate shows this all too clearly. However, this belief is justified b...