Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

Do you then hold that the laws are invalid especially the laws of conservation?

If so do you have any reason, that qualifies under the scientific method, to consider the laws of conservation are invalid?

You see the endless discussion available if the fundamentals are not held as fundamental,
All of science relies on the laws of thermodynamics to be valid. Even simple mathematics need for equivalency ie. 1+1 = 2, 2-1 =1 relies exclusively on conservation principles and a closed system is being rigidly utilized.

Yet there are some doubt held by scientists that the universe is a closed system. Yet simultaneously they would strongly support the laws of thermodynamics which relies on a closed system.
Throw one out and you throw the other out as you can not have it both ways... sort of thing...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These problems might be brought up in a scientific research paper with its primary purpose being the problem with present definitions. It would be difficult to publish, however, and if published few would read it IMO. I would expect most replies to the paper, if any, would be snarkisms. The reason why I think I disagree with many definitions in physics today is because I disagree with the related theory(s).

or if suspected a heretic, tested by water, if you float or swim with rocks tied to you, you are guilty, if you sink for more than 15 minutes you are innocent

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hee hee unless they used pumice in an attempt to make you sink....

"Hey look!" they yelled.
"He is floating better than he would have with out being tied to the rocks!"

News headlines: "Scientific discovery of life jackets made of rock..." [chuckle]
or
"Heretic's point rock solid!!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no, I am quite fond of the conservation of matter/ energy.

No

Thermodynamics is based upon heat energy in a system. In a system involving gravity new heat is created by gravity in the form of new stars and galaxies being created all the time. Thermodynamics would not seem to be applicable to such a system. Here is a criticism that the Big Bang model as a whole is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, besides in detail as you have explained.

 

If you float you are considered guilty but there is one more test with possible reprieve. The test of fire. You are tied very firmly to a stake, the strength of your ties tested by witnesses. Then wood is placed below you and then set on fire. If you are innocent god will set you free, either at first or god will cause the ropes to be burned so that you can escape eternal damnation. If not you will burn like you deserve, and the heretic that you are -- as well as being engulfed in hellfire for eternity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-- such is the possible fate of alternative theorists. Not pretty.

 

A touch of theosophical irony:
"If he dies God has indeed set him free"
re: "Death the great escape"

 

Yes, in other forums I have responded to personal attacks, but even with the most civil response on my part it has gotten me into more trouble with moderation than it did the attacker. It appears that any response gives credence to the attacker or false assertion. Nearly all attacks were in mainstream forums where I indicated possible problems with a mainsteam theory being discussed. I should just learn to ignore such attacks regardless of how aggressive they are, or what lies, profanity, or imaginations they concoct, without resorting to the 'report button.' That only draws attention to the commotion, and the possible perception that I may be the cause of it. Let someone else report it if they like, right? For this reason I have learned to choose my words very carefully in mainstream forums, and for this reason often stay away from them. Here it seems a little more relaxed.

 

Yes, with the proper words said, prayers and blessings, you might be forgiven for having been human

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hee hee

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And that somewhere else seems like it is the Alternative Theories sub-forum. I remember you linked to some of your papers in that "Theory vs Reality" thread. Why not link them here or in a new thread here in the Fringe?

 

That is a good point to consider. Can you give us an example of a definition of energy that would be more appropriate and complete, takin into consideration the scientific method?

 

It does sound like it on the surface, doesn't it? But I didn't aim for that. I tried to develop my mechanistic cosmology, and then the Eternal Intent was an after thought. Part of that was to leave some common ground between a scientific view and the world religions, to the extent that God and the universe might be one and the same.

The other part was that my model invokes an infinite and eternal unchanging (steady state on a grand scale) universe. If the universe has always existed and has always been the same on that level of big bang interacting arenas across the potentially infinite universe, then I came up with the saying: The universe is as it has always been, it is the way it should be, and could be not other way.

From that I was going for the fact that if it hosts life now, it has always hosted life. The particulars of that might be the generative and evolvative "forces", i.e. the nature of the universe to provide places where life can be self-generated, evolve, and live to talk about it, lol.

 

That bring up a question I have about open and closed in regard to infinite. Am I right to say that an infinite universe has to be considered an "open" universe from the stand point of thermodynamics?

 

It depends on what you mean by "infinite universe"?
If the universe is much the same as it is but infinitely large then I see no reason why this would logically threaten the Laws of Thermodynamics.
In fact a finite universe I believe would make the laws invalid come to think on it...

 

True, be the Big Bang arena also evolves and produces heavy elements, solar systems, and eventually life. Life evolves to adapt to the changing "hospitable" environments.

Perhaps you see me talking about intelligent design, and maybe you think when I say evolution and intelligence go hand in hand you see that as my application of Intelligent Design. That is not where I am coming from. The invariant natural laws accommodate the generation and evolution of intelligence; they don't start with an intelligence that has a hand in intelligence evolving in my philosophy..

In my view, it is the result of the invariant natural laws and there isn't any "plan" behind it. The chips fall where they will. But the natural laws accommodate the eventuality of life, evolution, and intelligence, such as it is, and the potentially infinite circumstances across the universe where that has happened will probably be characterized by a potentially infinite number of different "world" circumstances, our world being just one possibility.

I do agree with your position that our particular world has gone amuck in many respects, but then ... in an infinite universe, we may be just a unique case. The others will be better or worse, and as to where we are in the spectrum? We have only one example to measure by, so we are average, lol.

Lol, that is fine with me ... who needs it if space is infinite and has always existed, IHMO.

Yes, more interesting discoveries to come.

 

How so?

 

I looked at the abstract and it left me wondering about the referenced alternative model. I do think you could conduct an interesting thread out here in the fringe.

If your paper is correct about there not being a need for dark energy, and if your analysis shows there is not really any acceleration of expansion going on, I would be perfectly fine with it. I would have to change my model to take out the parts that cause acceleration, (see the opening post), but that itself would be a fun re-write

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I read the link. Perhaps you can explain how temperature is maintained when volume increases, as implied by "The free expansion of an ideal gas is a constant temperature process"?

 

Well, a finite universe implies normally a boundary and a boundary that has energy in the form of EMR, heat etc that is just bleeding of into no-where or nothingness which means that energy is not being conserved.
Where as in an infinite universe energy is always conserved as there is no boundary where there is nothingness beyond.
So a finite universe IMo would contra the laws of thermodynamics.
Therefore if I hold that the laws are valid then the universe MUST be infinite in size.

 

That suits me.

I would mention that in a finite universe, with an implied boundary where the volume of the system is increasing, there would be no loss of energy. The system would contain the same amount of energy in a larger volume, wouldn't it?