Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[Write4U]

This is what I was describing in condensed form. ("tell us... in your own words.....")

Allow me to quote from a source with better words than myself.

Law Of Entropy Explained – Smart Energy

There many laws that govern humanity, but none are intriguing as the universal laws, such as the law of entropy. At the same time, the mention of thermodynamics can make many people automatically mentally check out. Yes, many people learn this at their university and understand how to measure gas or other aspects to conduct calculations within their university surroundings to pass their course and move on to the next part of their journey.

But it is an essential factor in the discussion of sustainability, efficiency, and measurement of progress.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that “in all energy exchanges if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.”
The entropy of the universe or closed thermodynamic system only increases one of the more popular statements in the second law of thermodynamics. In the entropy of a system, we are talking about the disorder present within a system and, in essence, the various states that the isolated system could have.

It makes sense on the face of it because of movement. For instance, if you had a closed system where molecules had to stay in a specific area and would not transfer elsewhere, you would state it has low entropy. Still, in many closed systems, various molecules move to different points within that system, increasing the level of entropy. If molecules continue to move around within an isolated system, that shows a high level of entropy.

Further, in many cases, due to these processes increasing within an isolated system, we will note that most closed systems have irreversible processes. That is to say that the molecules, once moving to different states, will continue to move around as opposed to clustering in a specific area or staying in one shape.

The idea of the irreversible process is a critical one for entropy change in the second law. It seems that the entropy of the universe is only increasing due to its many potential states. Due to more interactions, the second law of thermodynamics states that there will be more entropy.

https://smartenergyeducation.com/law-of-entropy/

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Then why do you not provide the correct terminology when correcting my errors.

I have tried teaching you in the past, on several occasions. It never takes. In a day or two, or a month, you're always back to using the terminology in the same nonsensical way you started off with. So, it seems mostly like a waste of my time.

Moreover, since you tend to just randomly spam cut-and-pasted bits and pieces of text from the interwebs in vague attempts to cover up your previous mistakes, it's hard to know where to start with you. You seem to be so lacking in any basic foundational knowledge or academic skills that attempting to get you up to speed on just about anything would be equivalent to tutoring you through grade school first. That might be fine if you were paying me, but you're not, and my time is valuable.

I will often answer direct and specific questions you put to me - sometimes briefly, sometimes in more detail - but most of the time you seem to assume you don't need any help, because you think you already know everything you need to know. Also, you don't give any indications of wanting to learn anything properly. You have a very limited attention span; your mind seems to flit at random from one thing to the next, as you try to find mystical "connections" between essentially unconnected and random bits of science and fringe speculations.

You may want to check out the following to begin to get an understanding of my learning methods.

Why don't you try explaining your learning methods to us in your own words? A random youtube video about something unrelated to learning methods is unlikely to suffice for the job you want it to do.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Case in point about scatterbrainedness. Pinball asked you a few straightforward questions. Here they are:

1. What do you mean by "find?"
2. Have you been reading the scientific literature?
3. What do you mean by "common denominator?"

And here are your answers. Let's see how you did.

Really?
1. What do scientists mean when they use the term "find"? You do know that Universal properties and functions are "discovered" (found), don't you? They are codified and then I find them on the internet.

I mark this is as a FAIL. You couldn't explain why you mean by a simple word like "find". So you tried to answer the question with a question of your own. If you had any idea what scientists mean when they use the term "find", surely you could have applied that to deciding what you mean when you use the same term. But apparently, you don't know what you're doing when you think you're "finding" something.

2. Apparently you have not read any of my quoted scientific literature.

I mark this as a FAIL. And it was a simple Yes-No question!

3. How about Universal Constants?

I mark this as a FAIL. Answering a question with a question again, which is a dead giveaway that you have no clue what you mean when you say "common demominator". Either that, or you do know what you mean but you're embarrassed to tell anybody else what you mean. Maybe you're worried they'll laugh at you if they find out what you mean?

 

[James R]

And, pray tell what alerts you to the fact that I don't know what a differential equation is?

Your constant misuse of the term. I already covered this in some detail, just a few posts above in this very thread, didn't I?

Tell me. does this guy know what differential equations are? I don't have any problems understanding what he is explaining.

Do you really think that if some other guy knows that a differential equation is, that means that you know what a differential equation is?

Maybe this is a big part of your problem. You see that there are lots of web pages out on the interwebs, on which lots of people expound on various topics with an appearance of erudition or expertise. Because those people exist, and their writings are accessible to you, you wrongly assume that therefore you have somehow - by osmosis, perhaps - gained the same level of knowledge and expertise that those guys have, by proxy.

This is delusional, Write4U. Cutting and pasting stuff you don't understand from one page on the internet to another does not made you an expert in the subject matter. At best, it only develops your expertise in manipulating the CTRL-C and CTRL-V keys on your keyboard.

I do not NEED to know the maths. Just what it IS and how it works in general.

Bizarre.

How could you possibly gain any idea of "how it works in general" (for anything), without needing to "know" it? Understanding something means knowing how the thing works in general, and knowing how the thing works in general requires some level of understanding of the thing.

And it is up to you to prove I am trolling.

I think exchemist has it right. I think that, no matter what anybody says to you, you just want to fill in your time by stringing out the conversation. Apparently, you're past the point where you care whether you make any sense, and beyond caring if people conclude that your elevator might not be going all the way to the top floor. Is this just an attention seeking exercise for you? Or just a time filler? Or what?

 

[James R]

I'll ignore the ad hominem for now and answer the real question.

So now you're going teach us what a differential equation is? Because, as has been established, you "know how it works in general", albeit without needing to know any maths?

Do you think you're the expert on differential equations in this conversation, Write4U? This, despite my previous post, and similar posts from Pinball and DaveC, telling you where you were going wrong?

Have you got yourself up to speed since then and surpassed us all, so that now you think you're in a position to teach us all the basics about differential equations, bijections and multivalued functions? You must have remarkable aptitude in that huge brain of yours; such a quick learner!

Not all differential equations have solutions; nor is the question of existence purely mathematical but if a meaningful physical problem is correctly formulated mathematically as a differential equation, then the mathematical problem should have a solution.

Is this your own idea?

In the best of all possible worlds we know the laws of physics perfectly and can write them as differential equations (or something similar).But we do not live in that world.

So, that world is irrelevant then. Why did you mention it?

Instead we create models of the physical world that may not correspond to the actual laws (due to ignorance or just approximation).

That statement just sort of hangs in a void, disconnected from the rest of your post. Relevance?

Bijection

Time for another cut-and-paste definition? Got to keep that quota up!

(Actually I suspect that you ran into this word while cutting and pasting a previous quote, and it stopped you in your tracks. You thought to yourself: if somebody calls me on what that word means, I'd better be ready with an answer, or I'll look stupid! Quick, grab the dictionary, again!)

Multivalued function

And we end with the customary Write4U non sequitur.

 

[Pinball1970]

I actually made a mistake earlier, I meant factor not common denominator. Write4u did not notice. The "common denominator" is mentioned in the "Microtubules " thread too. I do not think he is interested in the science there either.

 

[exchemist]

Good idea to file all Write4U's meanderings in one place.

Back on the science (I'm loyally trying to extract some from this guff) I'm mildly amused to see that, after several days searching, Write4U has eventually found a site in which the phrase "law of entropy" does actually appear. However, as the quotes from this site show, it's a dodgy, run by people with shaky command of English who do not reveal who or where they are.

I was however intrigued by one strange claim they make, viz. that 2nd law of TD can be expressed as saying that in any change within a closed system the potential energy always declines. Apparently whoever wrote this thinks that entropy is a measure of loss of potential energy. What can they mean? Is this a garbled version of the idea that thermodynamic potentials are minimised at equilibrium?

 

[Write4U]

Why don't you try explaining your learning methods to us in your own words?

Then I am accused of word salad. I'll stick with the language that suits my purposes.

btw. have you ever wondered what it is that I am researching. Note that I do not seek to answer any "hard questions", but am trying to build a library of "hard facts". IMO, this is sage advice from Tegmark.

The puzzle has many pieces but Tegmark believes that not many pieces will be necessary to complete the puzzle.

 

[Write4U]

Why don't you try explaining your learning methods to us in your own words? A random youtube video about something unrelated to learning methods is unlikely to suffice for the job you want it to do.

I read what I quote and I quote only if I understand the narrative that accompanies a scientific paper. I do not need to do the math.

You completely misunderstand my position. I am not here to solve equations. I quote them from reliable sources because I accept their validity and functionality. I am not arguing with current science other than trying to find "common denominators" that are fundamentally related to the potential responsible for the BB.

This is my absolute conviction: The universe did not emerge from a prior irreducible complexity and as 1 (singularity) is an irreducible value there must be a single "common denominator" which was causal to the beginning.

And that causality was not in the form of a God but of a mathematical object.

 

[Pinball1970]

I read what I quote and I quote only if I understand the narrative that accompanies a scientific paper. I do not need to do the math.

You completely misunderstand my position. I am not here to solve equations. I quote them from reliable sources because I accept their validity and functionality. I am not arguing with current science other than trying to find "common denominators" that are fundamentally related to the potential responsible for the BB.

This is my absolute conviction: The universe did not emerge from a prior irreducible complexity and as 1 (singularity) is an irreducible value there must be a single "common denominator" which was causal to the beginning.

And that causality was not in the form of a God but of a mathematical object.

You do not science this way, you cannot learn science this way and you certainly cannot find out anything new this way.

It would be like wandering around hospitals and hanging out with medics in the pub to try and find out which genes are responsible for pancreatic cancer.

You learn science from text books, science that is already worked out and documented. I have said this at least twice now. Are you going to take this on board or not?

What you said about the universe, common denominator, singularity etc is obviously nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

You learn science from text books, science that is already worked out and documented. I have said this at least twice now. Are you going to take this on board or not?

And I have answered this at least a dozen times that I quote from science that is already worked out and documented.
What is the difference?

I do not propose new science, I build logically on existing science and you just keep telling me that is what I should do. I have been doing this all my life. I scored 70% on a MENSA test, partly due to time pressures. I never studied for the test. Is that indicative of something?

The symbolic language is superfluous unless you want to produce a peer-reviewed paper. My needs are modest, I seek understanding and learning symbols does not add to that quest. I seek good narratives, not calculus.
You expect calculus and to me that's no more than bookkeeping.

And trust me, judging from your advise, I understand a lot more than you think.

You may want to check out my thread on " Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules? "
I like Roger Penrose's proposal of ORCH OR. It sounds right.

 

[Write4U]

Another important idea that does not need symbolic language.

The Physics Behind Schrödinger's Cat Paradox

Schrödinger developed the paradox, says Martell, to illustrate a point in quantum mechanics about the nature of wave particles.

"What we discovered in the late 1800s and early 1900s is that really, really tiny things didn't obey Newton's Laws," he says. "So the rules that we used to govern the motion of a ball or person or car couldn't be used to explain how an electron or atom works."

At the very heart of quantum theory—which is used to describe how subatomic particles like electrons and protons behave—is the idea of a wave function. A wave function describes all of the possible states that such particles can have, including properties like energy, momentum, and position.

more....
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...nger-erwin-google-doodle-cat-paradox-science#

 

[Pinball1970]

Another important idea that does not need symbolic language.

The Physics Behind Schrödinger's Cat Paradox
more....
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...nger-erwin-google-doodle-cat-paradox-science#

You have not answered this a dozen times from me.
Schrödinger? What does that have to do with anything we have discussed?

That you accept current science from researchers/ qualified scientists in the field is good.
I assume you would not tell your daughter that her 21 week scan showed some anomalies?
Or your uncles blood test indicated colorectal cancer right?
Why are you thinking you can find things about the universe?
Teams have been working on this for 100 years.
Do you think you can add anything that the theorists can add? Or the researchers involved with WMAP, COBE or the HST or JWST ?

 

[Pinball1970]

And I have answered this at least a dozen times that I quote from science that is already worked out and documented.
What is the difference?

I do not propose new science, I build logically on existing science and you just keep telling me that is what I should do. I have been doing this all my life. I scored 70% on a MENSA test, partly due to time pressures. I never studied for the test. Is that indicative of something?

The symbolic language is superfluous unless you want to produce a peer-reviewed paper. My needs are modest, I seek understanding and learning symbols does not add to that quest. I seek good narratives, not calculus.
You expect calculus and to me that's no more than bookkeeping.

And trust me, judging from your advise, I understand a lot more than you think.

You may want to check out my thread on " Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules? "
I like Roger Penrose's proposal of ORCH OR. It sounds right.

Do you not think it is important to understand the science if you are going to quote it?

How exactly do you, "build on existing science" if you do not understand that science?

 

[Write4U]

Do you think you can add anything that the theorists can add? Or the researchers involved with WMAP, COBE or the HST or JWST ?

I do not want to add to science. I want to add to my personal "knowledge" of science

 

[Write4U]

How exactly do you, "build on existing science" if you do not understand that science?

First, I do understand most science. I have explained that if I understand the narrative, I don't need to know the calculus
Second, read, read, read and catching up on my knowledge and understanding of science.

 

[Pinball1970]

First, I do understand most science. I have explained that if I understand the narrative, I don't need to know the calculus
Second, read, read, read and catching up on my knowledge and understanding of science.

By "narrative" do you mean someone explaining something like special relativity with words? On a YT video?

 

[origin]

First, I do understand most science.

I don't know which is worse, that you really believe you know 'most science' or you think you can fool people into believing that you know 'most science'.

 

[Write4U]

Schrödinger? What does that have to do with anything we have discussed?

I'll repeat the reason.
"Another important idea that does not need symbolic language."

By "narrative" do you mean someone explaining something like special relativity with words?

Yes.
I was a boy when I read one of my father's books on Einstein. The description of the Doppler effect was perfectly clear and was proven the same day listening to a passing motorcycle confirmed the "words".
No symbolic numbers or calculations are needed to observe and understand the Doppler phenomenon.

Note; with symbolic language I mean maths and symbolic strings, not plain English explanation of cause and effect.

2. Difficult Language :
Scientific language is very difficult language. It contains specific terms and symbols for communication which are not used in our everyday life. Difficult and unfamiliar words are usually used in scientific language. Only concerned person can understand the meaning of these scientific words and symbols. For example, Ag is symbol of silver, H2O is a formula of water.

Do I need to know the chemistry of "the 3 states of water as gas (vapor), liquid (water), or solid (ice)?
Tegmark gave a simple picture that explained the state of H2O is determined by the molecular density, simple, straight forward.

 

[Pinball1970]

I'll repeat the reason.
"Another important idea that does not need symbolic language."
Yes.
I was a boy when I read one of my father's books on Einstein. The description of the Doppler effect was perfectly clear and was proven the same day listening to a passing motorcycle confirmed the "words".
No symbolic numbers or calculations are needed to observe and understand the Doppler phenomenon.

Note; with symbolic language I mean maths and symbolic strings, not plain English explanation of cause and effect.

2. Difficult Language :
Scientific language is very difficult language. It contains specific terms and symbols for communication which are not used in our everyday life. Difficult and unfamiliar words are usually used in scientific language. Only concerned person can understand the meaning of these scientific words and symbols. For example, Ag is symbol of silver, H2O is a formula of water.

Do I need to know the chemistry of "the 3 states of water as gas (vapor), liquid (water), or solid (ice)?
Tegmark gave a simple picture that explained the state of H2O is determined by the molecular density, simple, straight forward.

Judging by your questions it is clear to me that your approach is not working.

You confused, wave, wave length, wave function, frequency, Quantum mechanics, entropy, thermodynamics and special and general relativity.
A lot of those in one sentence.
Just scroll back in this and the thread where this was pointed out to you.
I have told you how to learn about these things correctly but you are arguing against this tried and tested method.