I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Exactly,
The laws of tdym (couldnt be bothered to type out that word) are not laws but merely indications, or generalisations.
The worst "law" is the first.
Read this extract from alternative science to find the history of that "law" and how it came about.
http://www.alternativescience.com/perpetual_motion.htm
You have got to be kidding. No one has ever proven them wrong. Here's Einstein's take on the laws of thermodynamics:
Quote:
Thermodynamics is the only physical theory of universal content which, within the framework of the applicability of its basic concepts, I am convinced will never be overthrown.” Albert Einstein
_________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:37 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
You have got to be kidding. No one has even proven them wrong.
Just because no one has proven them wrong so far doesn't mean they won't be proven wrong in the future. They're just extensions of mathematics used to describe our environment, and as such I don't think they can ever be proven to be consistent.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Consistency.html
IIRC most systems in math can't be proven consistent
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html
and math is essentially something we've made up in our minds over the past god knows how long!
You have got to be kidding. No one has even proven them wrong.
Just because no one has proven them wrong so far doesn't mean they won't be proven wrong in the future. They're just extensions of mathematics used to describe our environment, and as such I don't think they can ever be proven to be consistent.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Consistency.html
IIRC most systems in math can't be proven consistent
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html
and math is essentially something we've made up in our minds over the past god knows how long!
You have got to be kidding... Ever seen water flow uphill on its own? No? And you never will either. That is pretty consistent. I suggest you do a little more reading on the subject. Having a grasp of these laws is a crucial part of our future. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:17 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
You have got to be kidding... Ever seen water flow uphill on its own? No? And you never will either. That is pretty consistent. I suggest you do a little more reading on the subject. Having a grasp of these laws is a crucial part of our future.
I've done quite a bit of reading actually, I'm on the verge of getting my BS in Pure Math. Naturally I've taken the normal calc based physics that most math/physics/engineering students are required to take...
and what I've come to find is that some day I just might see water flow uphill on it's own. Most people didn't think relativity was possible, but it is. I'm confident that (given the chance) we'll realize more and refine our desciption of the universe more.
What I've come to find is that some day I just might see water flow uphill on it's own.
I'll let that quote stand by itself as my retort. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:30 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
pilferage wrote:
What I've come to find is that some day I just might see water flow uphill on it's own.
I'll let that quote stand by itself as my retort.
I'm just saying that some day we may have something that is able to reverse the force due to gravity, and then water would flow... er, kinda fly, upward.
What I've come to find is that some day I just might see water flow uphill on it's own.
I'll let that quote stand by itself as my retort.
I'm just saying that some day we may have something that is able to reverse the force due to gravity, and then water would flow... er, kinda fly, upward.
Then it won't flow uphill on its own will it? There are no free lunches. It takes energy. Cold will not ever flow to heat, ever. It doesn't take any math to know this, merely observation. Math explains the physical phenomena we observe. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:39 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
Then it won't flow uphill on its own will it? There are no free lunches. It takes energy. Cold will not ever flow to heat, ever. It doesn't take any math to know this, merely observation. Math explains the physical phenomena we observe.
It won't flow downhill of it's own accord either. Like you said, it takes energy...
I'm just saying that stating the laws of physics are immutable is kinda silly in a universe where the only constant I've seen is change.
Thermodynamics is the only physical theory of universal content which, within the framework of the applicability of its basic concepts, I am convinced will never be overthrown.” — Albert Einstein
pilferage quote:
Quote:
I'm just saying that stating the laws of physics are immutable is kinda silly in a universe where the only constant I've seen is change.
So Einstein's statement was silly? You are digging yourself in quite deep, my friend. Water flows downhill by gravity as a result of solar energy lifting it into the air and depositing it as rain. In our little world, we will always have to pump it uphill. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
I'm just saying that stating the laws of physics are immutable is kinda silly in a universe where the only constant I've seen is change.
And this constant change you see is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Entropy. The constant random movement towards disorder. You have just been hoisted by your own petard! _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:28 pm Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
pilferage wrote:
I'm just saying that stating the laws of physics are immutable is kinda silly in a universe where the only constant I've seen is change.
And this constant change you see is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Entropy. The constant random movement towards disorder. You have just been hoisted by your own petard!
I have not!
Constant change does not always imply disorder...
well maybe in classical physics it does (if you insist on only using it), but classical physics is not the be all, end all of our insight into the universe. Check this out if you have time...
http://quic.ulb.ac.be/publications/1997-PRL-79-5194.pdf
I'm just saying that stating the laws of physics are immutable is kinda silly in a universe where the only constant I've seen is change.
And this constant change you see is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Entropy. The constant random movement towards disorder. You have just been hoisted by your own petard!
I'm just saying that stating the laws of physics are immutable is kinda silly in a universe where the only constant I've seen is change.
And this constant change you see is called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Entropy. The constant random movement towards disorder. You have just been hoisted by your own petard!
I have not!
Constant change does not always imply disorder...
well maybe in classical physics it does (if you insist on only using it), but classical physics is not the be all, end all of our insight into the universe. Check this out if you have time...
http://quic.ulb.ac.be/publications/1997-PRL-79-5194.pdf
Something wrong with the link you posted. As to the dilemma before us regarding peak oil and the time constraints involved, the Laws of Thermodynamics is the end all and be all of our near future. Efforts by anyone to dispute this can be confined to a fool's errand. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Constant change does not always imply disorder...
well maybe in classical physics it does (if you insist on only using it), but classical physics is not the be all, end all of our insight into the universe. Check this out if you have time...
http://quic.ulb.ac.be/publications/1997-PRL-79-5194.pdf
Classical physics laws can be broken at nanoscale where quantum laws are prevailing. Particle entanglement, tunelling effects, etc. seem to be in violation with classical laws. That's conceptually nice, the trouble is that all these effects disappear quickly at microscale because of interference particles behaving like waves is no longer a pertinent model. You can prove a lot of crazy stuff at nanoscale: wormholes are possible, time machine, teleportation, etc. but everything disappear at our scale.
Classical physics laws can be broken at nanoscale where quantum laws are prevailing. Particle entanglement, tunelling effects, etc. seem to be in violation with classical laws. That's conceptually nice, the trouble is that all these effects disappear quickly at microscale because of interference particles behaving like waves is no longer a pertinent model. You can prove a lot of crazy stuff at nanoscale: wormholes are possible, time machine, teleportation, etc. but everything disappear at our scale.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the disorder of the Universe can only increase in time, but the equations of classical and quantum mechanics, the laws that govern the behaviour of the very small, are time reversible. A few years ago, a tentative theoretical solution to this paradox was proposed - the so-called Fluctuation Theorem - stating that the chances of the Second Law being violated increases as the system in question gets smaller.
This means that at human scales, the Second Law dominates and machines only ever run in one direction. However, when working at molecular scales and over extremely short periods of time, things can take place in either direction. Now, scientists have demonstrated that principle experimentally. Professor Denis Evans and colleagues at the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University put 100 tiny beads into a water-filled container. They fired a laser beam at one of the beads, electrically charging the tiny particle and trapping it.
The container holding the beads was then moved from side to side a thousand times a second so that the trapped bead would be dragged first one way and then the other. The researchers discovered that in such a tiny system, entropy can sometimes decrease rather than increase. This effect was seen when the researchers looked at the bead's behaviour for a tenth of a second. Any longer and the effect was lost. This is the only known experiment that I am aware of. Disproving 2nd Law consistency for a tenth of a second does not hold much hope for me in solving the issue of peak oil. And in this experiment, it seems that shaking the container was adding kenetic energy to the closed system. False results? Dunno...In our peak-oil macro world, 2nd Law cannot be questioned, nor is it. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
