Logical Hierarchies

Jan,

I would amend your statement to the following:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>The established Relativists community takes us for a fool. Relativity assumes that space is void, yet they suggest dark matter permeates 99% of space.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
This doesn't let you off the 2nd law hook however. This law will stand well after the sun is gone. It's very real and you may surely bet your life on it's continued validity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As I have said in another threads I am not convinced that the scientists will draw the proper conclusions from their data. Like the old astronomers that just wouldn't give in, they keep adding fudge factors, new types of invisible phenomena and blarney to save the theory at all costs.

The 2nd law applies (as I understand it) to closed systems. But if the universe is infinite with infinite amounts of matter then the universe as whole is not closed. Gravity and electromagnetic forces are antientropic and other forces that we have not run into yet may not be. If Arp is right and new matter is being born out of the center of galaxies as quasars then that would imply the universe is a colossal recycling system. The 2nd law I think has its limitations.

I'm the last one to deny that the 2nd law is flawed, but this law incorporates certain human aspects. For example, the fact that we cannot reverse the entropy does not imply that mother nature has any problems. Hence, the 2nd law merely reveals our own limitations, not that of the universe.

"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The 2nd law I think has its limitations.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No, it has no limitations. It is exactly what it appears to be ... an absolute impossibility theorem about the way inanimate matter behaves. It gives the universe an indeniable directional character.
It is supported by concrete evidence in immense portions while all other contrary hypotheses yield no experimental evidence whatever. That is why it is the "inductive principle" which cannot give way to hypotheses. Hence, the fundamental idea that the universe had a beginning has the mantle of credibility over other theories until and unless experimental evidence falsifies the 2nd law ... or ... we are able to examine the whole universe at once and see that it is not the "sum of its parts" but rather contradicts them. If you wish to posit a universe with a no beginning, you are compelled to do so in opposition to the evidence.

I grant that we have many "good" parts which don't yet fit together to make a workable machine but they are close enough to see mistakes. It's not like a "modern" art work. It's more like a bad piece of classical art done by an inexperienced student.

EBTX,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>No, it has no limitations. It is exactly what it appears to be ... an absolute impossibility theorem about the way inanimate matter behaves. It gives the universe an indeniable directional character.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


physicsweb.org/article/news/6/7/11


Hmmmmmmm. Can you also be wrong about anythingelse?

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

The second law is about heat and heat is not understood very well. Heat is what happens when energy interacts with matter- it is not a universal effect because there are other effects that happen when matter and energy interact. These effects do not behave according to what the second law demands and this is well known. Energy can rise without any change in entrophy as is observed in lasers and other atomic processes. The second law is more a rule of thumb than a real law of nature. It was developed for use is gas laws and works real well within bounds.