Just a few notes but may be more: 1. I like your intuition. 2. Thermodynamics is no science. It started with a goal to calculate efficiency of a steam machine and it has been developed into calculating efficiency of any machine or any natural process. It puts its money where its mouth is. It describes how nature works. As entropy (measure of Thermodynamic disorder) never decreases in closed and isolated systems which do not exist in nature it does always increase in open systems the only ones which do exist in nature. If you are interested in mathematical principals of the above you may google for Kelvins On universal tendency of mechanical energy to dissipate. It is U-n-i-v-e-r-s-a-l. And remember whatever E-sts say they always lie or mindlessly repeat lies,....actually I think you have figured that out and you just strive on this fact like a parasite. 3. E-sts and scientists will tell you that there observed instances of spontaneous creation of an order like snowflakes or crystalized minerals. Scientists are perverts you should never believe them,....actually I think you have figured that out and you just strive on this fact like a parasite . T-cs is no science. In T-cs its order is not geometry or symmetry. In T-cs steam is a highly ordered body when snowflakes are highly disordered body. Laying back you can compare it to life and death. Snowflakes are dead steam. Crystallized minerals are dead solution. T-cs is no science it does not take intuition, it does not have Apple or Windows GUI. 4. God is not a mechanical thing. You wouldnt calculate God. You have to experience God. You would make nobody to experience God, only God can do. Whatever are your mechanical arguments for God they cannot be enough because God takes the soul and so Devil wants it and your soul is not mechanical thing. You are on a futile en-devour. wasting your life and providing no service to God. 5. In physical processes there is no point of a beginning or an end but only a differential. We solve differential equations. The exclusion is 0K. 6. Singularity is not a physical state of the matter or energy. It is a coordinate of a mathematical function never reached by the function. Laying back you can look at it as at a total fiction of a physical state or just a total fiction
thank you for your contribution confirming my points. Any other believer in science to come over and spew in a pond?
I will give that trolling is your specialty. I have learned a lot of things but not how to deal with trolls. I guess when one cannot learn anything one learns science which is the same as trolling. They say do not feed trolls, but I find feeding a troll may be very entertaining. Let me ask you a question: do closed or isolated thermodynamic systems exist in nature? Years ago I used to demonstrate that no scientist can understand less answer a simple question. Do you understand the question?
Thank you, I think. Entropy does exist in nature despite being an open system. Just because I put gas in the car doesn't mean I never have to check it every few thousand miles. The crystallizes due to the nature of their molecules. How did they form to that shape to begin with? Would you use a calculator to hammer in a nail? Would you use a bathroom scale to see how long is something is? The point is you have to use the right tool for the job. So the universe always existed? What?
Hold on a bit. Entropy is not a system. It does not exist in nature or it exists rather as a mathematical concept, a measure like an inch or Lb, more exactly a measure of uncertainty of …. will spare you from the full description. Your gas in the car does not have to do to anything. Why don’t you start listening, I am not to confront you, as I said I like your intuition, I just want to shed some light on things one cannot get by intuition. You know that entropy always comes up and you may think that scientists have some understanding of it. They have no clue. Which does not allow you to make the same wildest statements. Don’t quite understand what are you asking and what does it have to do to my statements. Everything will be crystalized in the end at 0K. The point was that crystallization with forming a geometrical order in Tcs is written off as coming to T-c disorder (increase of entropy) while scientists lie that that a higher order can be generated spontaneously and they give snowflakes and minerals as an example to trick you, which of course is ridiculous from POV of Tcs and theory of Information. Certainly steam has a higher order and carries more info than a snowflake. I just wanted to warn about standard lies of scientists. non-sequitur question. For the calculations I mentioned it does not matter, you may say it began 5000 years ago, you may say it always existed, though it is a lot more convenient to deal with 5000 than to deal with infinity. Singularity is a point on the axes of coordinates to which a function would be getting indefinitely closer but would never reach it, where there is no physical state as there is no mathematical description of it. In other words it is a total fiction. Is it better?
If entropy doesn't exist then why when I leave my bike outside it gets rusty and if I leave it out long enough it'll degrade into dust? Wait, are we on the same side or are you playing the devil's advocate or something? As for my question I was asking how did the molecules formed into the shape they are to make snowflakes. Ok? Sorta. I'm still having trouble. What is total fiction? The Big Bang?
Again you are thinking logical. I told you I do not do logic, and so Tcs is not logical. Metal oxidases, the result substance is powdery and it gets dissipated by elements. If you left your bike in a room with nitrogen, you would die before seen the shine dulling on it. Basic chemical reaction and chemical properties. It is like you are asking if degrees of Farenheights do not exist in nature why I feel cold when I touch ice. The concept of entropy was introduced to facilitate calculations of efficiency of a steam machine, and then any cycle of transformation of energy. It is very easy, - you plot the cycle on T-S diagram, calculate 2 areas and divide two numbers. I am on your side, though I do not like creationism. You know all happenings in the universe are mere transformation of energy. That’s why Tcs rules. Instead of creationism I would advise you to spend your life studing T-cs and to go to a Church on Sundays, but on other side I am here, too . How they form into flakes? Do I remember everything? No, it was such long time ago, that I am surprised sometimes how much I remember off top of my head. There is a nuclear and gravitation force holding molecules of a substance together, if to imagine that a substance consist of molecules. As you give molecules energy they are starting breaking away from that force and depart from each other. They also always are in a movement. In metals they tremble in their positions, in water they “chaotically move around”. As you give more energy, heat to water, the molecules gain higher speed and freedom of movement and water turns into a steam. Steam goes to a steam engine and produces mechanical work. The lower is the entropy the lower is uncertainty of a body to produce work. As steam gives energy away , it cools down, molecules get together and steams turns into water, S increases. Then if you take energy from the molecules it turns into snowflakes where molecules do not have energy to move around but get to fixed positions where they hardly have energy to tremble, less certainty to produce work. God knows why he made those positions so beautiful, or rather gave some of us the sense of beautiful and God knows why are you asking totally unrelated questions. The Hypotheses of Primeval Atom which is mockingly called Big Bang is quite beautiful, but it is still a Hypotheses. Yet, if you believe in God you should read the Bible, if you believe in BB you should read The Hypotheses of the Primeval Atom or at least what is the name of the work… expanding universe of constant velocity and increasing radius… forgot… written by that catholic priest, what was his name…. There is no singularity there. But it shouldn’t be taught in schools. Neither black holes nor other speculations of Cosmetology, I mean Cosmology… the same, now it is total mental derangement …. O! googled - Georges Lemaître. Good guy. should be turning in his grave now. A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius. Good reading, but totally useless.
1a. 'intuition' is NOT fact nor debate material. You didn't help. 1b. His intuition, like yours, is actually 'Indoctrination'. Which god one believes in is 95% a geograhpic/cultural accident of birth, not any Discerable truth. 2. um, so? ! 3. Your completely PERVERSE and IRRATIONAL Anti-intellectual wittle world, where there is No reason, just your empty pronouncements on god/dog/voodoo/dogdoo. 4. LOFL Haji. Which/WITCH god/dog is that? Pick one! Unlike Evolution, there is NO evidence of god/Dog, just thousands of different, oft contraDICtory gods. Ergo at least 75% of the world's believers are necessarily wrong, even if one stepped in it. 5. ALL your posts are BS deflections unable to address your opponents. Even when I challenge you to TO precise points you WHIFF on them. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=457149&page=29&p=1066273022#post1066273022 I said you could NOT answer and you did not. 6. You lack the knowledge and straightforwardness, and are not smart enough to realize one cannot make a case for god on a mesaage board. All but the most Whacked understand this, and live (and post) humbly with what THEY iunderstand IS Faith, not logic. Evolution has overwhelming EVIDENCE, god/godS have NONE. One acknowledges the evidence and facts of evolution, one has 'Faith' (belief withOUT evdience) in god/dog. 7. BTW, I'm or course, an 'evolutionist' .. and a 'Gravitationalist' too. How bizarre your lingo. You are baseLESS Theist/Haysoos/Voodoo Freak. AGAIN, Numbered for easy but Nonevasive reply. AGAIN, you will NOT be able to do so. +
I shouldn't, but sometime I just cannot help to feed a troll. Let's do 1 at a time. Describing intuition to a believer in evolution is like talking about rainbow to a color blind, playing violin to a def. For the same lack of some senses or receptors no believer in evolution can decipher neither the rhythm nor the rhyme of text of the Bible, less , texts of Einstein or Poincare referring to the place of intuition in science, What am I talking about? What is the word Poincare for a believer in evolution? At the same time they come to interrupt conversation of two intelligent people like a bully in a school yard, for some reason thinking that he dealing with 2 nerds who would be afraid to knock him down. Macaabee didn't have a problem to understand and see the fact of intuition, not at all. Neither he nor I had any intention to help you. May be medical science one day will be able to repair damage or insufficient brain to let a color blind to see rainbow and a def to hear a violin, but I doubt it will be able to help a believer in evolution to comprehend meaning and role of intuition in science and life, decipher thoughts of Einstein or Poincare. am pretty much sure there is no believer in evolution who would agree that a thought is a fact. Obviously in the view of believers in evolution if they cannot have any thoughts thoughts do not exist as a fact and nobody can have them. OK. I knew that it couldn't help you or any other believer in evolution. It did not help. OK Should I move to the next item? Or you just knock it down?
What is intuition or thought in your belief system? What governs why you have a thought or intuition? Does the mechanisms involved forming a thought necessarily make it a fact? Why does the belief in evolution make someone incapable of being helped? Does the belief of the Big Bang or the fundamental forces in the universe also make us incapable of being helped? Do you accept this statement format as logically valid: If A, then B. Given A do you conclude B? If you do not accept that format, why not? Please do not just say it was developed by someone therefore it is not valid. Justify your answer. The reason that I ask these questions is that you state your beliefs partially and just assume that they are universally accepted, but they have little to no justification.
All answers can be easily found in my recent posts repeated a clarified a number of times. I have to conclude that you are just trolling and are not really interested in answers. Your belief in evolution does not bother me. It does not bother me even if I read the decent of the man while you don’t even know what I am talking about. Your belief in BB does not bother me. It does not bother me even if I read Lemaitre while you don’t even know what I am talking about, and if you knew and try you wouldn’t decipher the language. Your belief that logic is superior to intuition and imagination does not bother me. It does not bother me even if I had to take the highest form of logic, higher math in all its perversion for 4 semesters as a prerequisite to having education while you won’t even be able to make out mathematical symbols. Your atheism does not bother me. I was raised as an atheist and lived as an atheist among atheists may be longer than you lived on the earth. I do not consider your beliefs to be in a lesser standing than mine. I do not consider that you have lesser rights by being a self-enamored close minded ignoramus than I have by not being such. All people have different fingerprints and are different in many other ways. But in my belief they all are equal children of God and have equal right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What bothers me that you aggressively want to impose your beliefs on me, make everyone think in the same way, or actually not to think at all, and you have formed a state brainwashing its citizens, starting from childhood, into your belief as the only right and superior one. And you want me not only to believe in what you believe but also pay you just for having and exercising your beliefs. I am a Xn and thus I am a free man, I accept no authority from a man or a group of men or from a community of men whether scientific or not, but only from God, and I stand for freedom; while you are a slave and you stand for slavery of thoughts, imagination and human spirit, or actually for extermination of such in others just because you don’t have them and they do not exist for you. Why believers in evolution and deniers of God turn each and every thread in science forums into discussion of beliefs? My answer stand corrects - because their atheism is science and math for them, and for them abandoning atheism is abandoning science and math.
I am not sure if you just keep on trolling or not. For a little tiny chance chance that you are not I am sorry that you couldn't understand the answers again. May be we can go with one question at a time? Very often answering the first question makes no need in following. At least it is true in logic. Wanna try?
If you would like to continue one question at a time, I will gladly use that format, but statements like these: are patronizing and show a lack of any understanding of the relationship between mathematics, logic, and science. The patronizing aspect is assuming that you have a better understanding of something without knowing anything about the person you are talking to. I do not assume that I know any more or less than you, but you obviously assume that you know more than me. Yet, you accuse me of believing that I am superior to you. I do not hold that belief. I was simply asking questions that I believe would reveal more of your beliefs, so that I can learn more about them. The lack of understanding stems from the idea that higher math is 4 semesters of undergraduate math, and the idea that mathematics is the highest form of logic. Four semesters of college level mathematics, barely covers the remedial aspects of only a few branches of mathematics. The relationship between logic and mathematics is not hierarchical. Logic has been used within mathematical proofs, but it can also be considered a branch of mathematics. There is no clear hierarchical structure between mathematics and logic, it is a more symbiotic relationship. So, for the first question: what is intuition or thought in your belief system?
I try to be as simple as possible. You do not understand simplest things. I am to demonstrate that no evolutionist can understand a simple sentence. I am to demonstrate that no evolutionist can answer a simple question. All evolutionists can do is to come and shout their beliefs like ALLAH AKHBAR with their eyes and ears shut. Instead of asking a question you go on a long and irrelevant rant. You demonstrate that evolutionists cannot ask a simple question. I have clearly stated that it does not matter who and how mach of math knows. I have clearly stated that both personal beliefs of an ignorant of math and personal beliefs of a professional mathematician have equal standing. They are beliefs. They should be discussed at religion and philosophy sub forum, unless a mathematical equation is discussed. I have clearly expressed and I have repeated that, in my belief and within the frame of discussion, thoughts and intuition do exist as a fact and they play an important role in science. I pointed that it is not only can be clearly in confessions of Einstein, Poincare and others, but from texts of their theories they have posted. While on other side those who believe in evolution as well believe that thoughts and intuition do not exist and accordingly play no role in anything. How much more simple texts could be for you to understand? How many more times can I ask you to stay within a frame of a discussion and not wonder around? I have not been asking you to prove that thoughts and intuition do not exist. Not because you believe that one cannot prove a negative in spite of the fact that scientific theories of Einstein and Poincare kind prove negative all the time. Not because you demonstrate that you are void of of any thoughts and intuition. Because I respect your beliefs and demand you to equally respect my beliefs and beliefs of other. Which is impossible as I have been demonstrating for believers in evolution to do. I do not prove things, I demonstrate them for those who have eyes to see.
