Entropy

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Wow, just converted to this site by Robin Parsons. See what you mean - much prettier interface. Hi Rob, It's me.
Entropy - OK, the example you were quoting (on the other site) was the earth, which you correctly stated gains mass from stellar space in the form of dust, energy from the sun etc. etc. Because of this, the earth is an open system. In a closed system the entropy count will always rise. Not in an open system.
Another example of an open system is the human body (or for that fact any living organism) while it is alive. While alive it is an open system, taking food, nutrients, oxygen and everything else from outside. When the organism becomes a closed system (ie it dies and so is not breathing or feeding) the organism begins to decompose and the entropy count rises.
If you look closely, all of the examples of open systems you've given which disprove the theory are in fact open systems.

As for the claim of having discovered the "gravity particle", one rejected (and rather unsound) grant application without any prior research experiments does not qualify as having discovered anything.

THAT is NOT my Site, soooooo get over that one, please.

So if stating A Human Body is a Closed System you must first occlude time, otherwise, they return to the Dust from Which they Arose, no entropy, they came from (Originated) what you call a part of the "Open" or Disordered System....

As Long as You Occlude Space (or Time) you will see the "Illusion" of Entropy, Scalar Illusion that is why, when Looking for the Complete Answer the Scale Must be the Whole, and that, is a 'Closed' System Called the Universe, Contigous ..as 'Proven' in its' "BB'irth"

O.K.?

[Mr. B]

Glad that's not your site, I assumed that because the syntax, style and claims were so similar to yours that it was. Believe me, I'm over it. Mr ribs still ache from laughing though.

I see where you are coming from now. If you choose to regard the entire universe as a closed system, then entropy as a whole must be rising, therefore your assertion of the need for a creator. I've come across this theory once or twice before, usually when helping with A level RE and Philosopy when discussing aspects of "proper science".

Your theory doesnot take into account the fact that the Universe is expanding (proven by red shift), which counteracts the effect of matter mixing due to random collisions between particles. Because of the universe expanding, it is incorrect to apply the rules of entropy.

By giving the example of a human body I was giving a contextualised example, not ignoring one of our Universe's dimensions. I was including time to demonstrate that open systems can become closed systems. I'll do the opposite now. A bottle of fizzy lemonade has lots of carbon dioxide particles dissolved in it. Not very ordered. A closed system. Open the top, the gas escapes as an initial woosh, then as bubbles, and the entropy count decreases as the system has become an open system.

Do you get it now?

[Mr. B]

Another example of an expanding closed system(i'm sure that's not the proper name for it) would be a balloon in a vaccuum jar. While you suck the air out of the jar the balloon expands. During that period of expansion the entropy count slows or even ceases to rise as the particles which would be happily bouncing off eachother and mixing up are suddenly availed more space to move about in.

Try this for a brain melter - can the Universe expand faster than the matter within it? Is the Universe defined by the matter within it, or by the spacetime it occupies? My understanding is that it is the spacetime that defines the universe (I'm sure you'll probably argue that I'm wrong). If the sacetime is expanding at the same rate, or faster than the matter within it, what happens to the entropy count?

Answer, the entropy count does not rise because no particles are being bounced back into the middle. Sorry to use school speak, I'm trying to make this as clear as possible, not patronise you. The Universe must have similar properties or we'd have planets and stars whizzing towards us from all different directions. :eek:

I know that's not entirely in agreement with Einstein's assertion that space is finite yet boundless (i.e. it kind of curves apparently, but I haven't done any of the maths for it), but even that has a couple of detractors as it is apparently too simplistic. Remember that you need mass to have gravity, gravity to have time etc.

As a point of interest, why are you suggesting that Entropy is a scalar illusion when in the past you've used entropy (in what you believed to be closed systems which are actually open systems) to try and proooove (like feeeel, but repeatable in a Lab) the existence of God? :confused: :rolleyes:

These faces are a laugh. Don't want to wear it out...

You still haven't enlightened us on your discovery of the gravity particle! Do you mean the graviton??? Is this something completely new??? Why have you not been published??? You mentioned being "silenced" (or something similar) on the other forum - Panorama the UK TV show will pay you a fortune for that story... What about the press... Why the claims on forums but no actual trail of evidence? Does anyone else want to know?

Please, tell us all. I'm sure we're dying to know.

Pax

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So, in a sorta Short form, matter in the Universe arises due to the Creation of neutrons, When Viewing the belt of Stability that tracks (Graphs) the Elements of the Periodic Table of elements it is CLEAR that the Neutron ratio's involved, Here (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/key.html) (Fe = atomic # 26, atomic weight = 55.84, ergo four extra {unaligned with a proton} neutrons) are rising, further we leap past (Briefly) to Notice that a Neutron Star, generally accepted(?) as the precusor to a Black Hole, is Gravitationally empowered, and Neutron "enriched" (the ratio soars to near 60% neutrons) beyond our understanding of how gravities intimacies work, & ashowing that Neutrons seem to be present, in increasing numbers when an Larger (More Compact arrangement of Protons) energy source for them is available, but wait, A Neutron comes into being As from a Proton and seemingly, an 'electron' (And that neutrino....and/or et al) leastways that relevent amount of "wavepacket energy" so we can understand that a Neutrons creation gains (captures) Energy, and untill it's decomposition, stores it as Mass, hence an Iron (Fe) Atom (It's Nucleus) is an amassment of greater (Increased) energy, captured, and more organized, (Ordered) then from either, whence it started, or, anywheres along its' path of construct to that point.

Simple words an Iron atoms' Nucleus represents a more ordered, and organized, system then the nucleus of Oxygen, Carbon, Helium, etc etc and that is organized as an energy capture/retention system ...so entropy would be going down, from the initiation from the hydrogen gas forming the star in the first place....or thereafter the helium...etc etc.


So, we see the capturing amassment of energy inside the Neutrons ergo inside Mass, then we follow the 'dust' theory, and we have energy (now as 'mass' neutrons) being captured, as well as ambient temperature...by Gravity....

The Universe started out, least it is believed to have been, a closed system, one 'particle'.....

Our Sun redshifts light that reaches us here on this planet, it is called Gravitational redshifting, as it is the Suns' own Gravity that is causing that to arise, the redshifting in the Universe could easily be more due to that, then from distance >> therefore 'time' of travel rather then gravitational power of the emitting source.

More later, as my computer time is almost up.

BTW the Neutron is the gravitational Particle. (provable, as long as you examine enough of the evidence.....)

[Mr. B]

Ok, after repeating myself time and time again about closed and open systems you are still failing to grasp the fundamental point that the entropy count will only rise in a closed system.

I'll list a couple of things for you to tick off beauseI'm too tired and busy to talk this through again.
1. Have a look at the belt of stability. You can either assume that gigantic amounts of energy are magically being captured and turned into mass, which is wrong, or apply some very simple maths. Squash some atoms together (mathematically) and you'll find there are the incorrect numbers of the various species of particles within the atom. Then look at the type of radiation and the amount of radiation given off by the unstable intermediary you have, and you will see it decay into a stable intermediary. No need for massive energy capture, there is a simple energy / mass release.

2. Do some reading about open, closed, and expanding closed systems. When you grasp that and can satisfactorally define them, then start talking about entropy counts rising in closed systems. So far all that has happened is you've repeatedly stated that "the entropy count is falling" in wahat you believe to be a closed system, when in fact you are referring to an open system.

3. The fact that neutrons have mass (as do even electrons, albeit tiny) does not mean that they are "the gravity particle". Protons have a gravity effect, electrons will have a gravity effect, all matter, because all matter has mass, has a gravitational effect. Your assumptive connection between neutrons and gravity will not stand up to scrutiny because Hydrogen has a gravitational effect. It's a big player in the formation of stars. Why else would hydrogen gas form part of our atmosphere instead of floating into deep space?
Neutron stars have such a massive gravitational effect because neutrons can be packed so close together. This is because they don't repell eachother like protons do.
Huge amount of matter squashed into a tiny space = black hole.

4. before you start, a black hole is an open system, so don't even start on the whole entropy thing again.


I've got to say, the gravity particle thing looked impressie, untill I read the words . :rolleyes:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingtson Ontario Canada MMVI

Ok, after repeating myself time and time again about closed and open systems you are still failing to grasp the fundamental point that the entropy count will only rise in a closed system.

NO, I've agreed with that Scalar Illusions' reality, but you seem to have failed to grasp that that is all that that is.

I'll list a couple of things for you to tick off beauseI'm too tired and busy to talk this through again.
1. Have a look at the belt of stability. You can either assume that gigantic amounts of energy are magically being captured and turned into mass, which is wrong, or apply some very simple maths. Squash some atoms together (mathematically) and you'll find there are the incorrect numbers of the various species of particles within the atom. Then look at the type of radiation and the amount of radiation given off by the unstable intermediary you have, and you will see it decay into a stable intermediary. No need for massive energy capture, there is a simple energy / mass release.

Actually it is the tiny-Tiny Amounts of energy that are Amassing into Matter that then amasses into Planets that then Amass into More Powerful Gravitational Objects Like Neutron Stars And their (Presumed, 'by Science' the Generality) END result Black Holes ...the Most powerful Gravitational Objects ever Predicted and/or (Since then) known! ....soooo

2. Do some reading about open, closed, and expanding closed systems. When you grasp that and can satisfactorally define them, then start talking about entropy counts rising in closed systems. So far all that has happened is you've repeatedly stated that "the entropy count is falling" in wahat you believe to be a closed system, when in fact you are referring to an open system.
Can you prove that the Universe is an Open System?
(Cause that is the ONLY one Needing Proof/proving as to Resolve this Entropy Debate)

3. The fact that neutrons have mass (as do even electrons, albeit tiny) does not mean that they are "the gravity particle". Protons have a gravity effect, electrons will have a gravity effect, all matter, because all matter has mass, has a gravitational effect. Your assumptive connection between neutrons and gravity will not stand up to scrutiny because Hydrogen has a gravitational effect. It's a big player in the formation of stars. Why else would hydrogen gas form part of our atmosphere instead of floating into deep space?
Neutron stars have such a massive gravitational effect because neutrons can be packed so close together. This is because they don't repell eachother like protons do.
Huge amount of matter squashed into a tiny space = black hole.

4. before you start, a black hole is an open system, so don't even start on the whole entropy thing again.

I've got to say, the gravity particle thing looked impressie, untill I read the words . :rolleyes:

Neutrons Don't repel each Other, WHat?? Since When??
Since When Have ALL of the Nuclear Reactors STOPPED working??

Those are Bundles of Fuel rods that, When Placed in close proximity to each other, (Absent of A Moderator that Otherwise Catchs the Fleeing Neutrons) the Neutrons Either, FLY off Or, 'Coast' out of Orbit (so to speak) AKA Fast Neutrons and Slow Neutrons ...then there are the Ultra Cold...

BTW that is when the Neutron to Proton ratio Gets to High, It Becomes, (or is) Unstable in Atomic Nucleic Construct

So when you tell me there are more Neutrons there, in A Neutron Star, Because they Don't "Repel Each Other", well, when Far enough from the 'Tugging' Needed Energy of a Proton they FALL APART, and when Close Enough, Fast Enough, (Like under Intense Compression) They EXPLODE, yet seemingly these Neutron Stars Do NOT behave that way ...they Remain 'Stable'

And Hydrogen, Lets see, a Positive Charge and a Negative Charge, makes A Magnet....see there was this reactor design, a design for a Fusion reactor using the Very Principle of Hydrogens Magnetization/Magnetics as Manner of Generating A Field as to Generate Cause of Collapse of Said Field as to Initiate the Fusion reactions Beginning, The Original MIGMA design ...and, YUP! H Has 'Mass' so a Neutrons Gravitational Field would Affect/Attract it.....

WOW we's Helpin Everyone! Now!

Then, Round Two?

Ever Seen Proof of a 'Protons' Gravitational Field? Or the Electrons, (EMF Wavepackets') for that matter?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingtson Ontario Canada MMVI

8:05 AM 6/27/2006

So Mr. B, Time = 0 and Time = ∞ are the same thing.

No Time in the Infinite.

So we start with a Tiny Particle, it was the last stage of the Particles' Cycle, Complete, and total, Gravitational Field Collapse, Followed by, almost in an "Instantaneity" a Most Massive Silent Explosion of, well, Matter, all of the Tiny particles that that Tiny Particle was/hadbeen made up of ....It had become Totally Neutronal, composed of 99.9999999999999999 (ad absurdum) % 'Neutrons' & Highly compressed Neutronal activity but, as it lost its' Requisite "Outer affectation" (Similar in nature to the Protons' Pull, in the Nucleus) the ability to Absorb (Seemingly 'Empty') 'Space' itself, (the Energy Field that it is THE Carrier of 'Thermal') it collapsed in, upon itself, thusly forsaking its' Very own, self generated, (From Within itself) 'Cloaking' Field of Stabilization/Stability, hence the Massive 'Silent' explosion, (into/within {For lack of a Better way to put it} the 'Infinite') Due to the, Now, Highly Imbalanced Energies, (To many Proton Like 'things' {Precursors?} packed into too small a Space!) BUT wait! Wait, a Few of those Neutrons Survived! (Probably Several Hundreds of Thousands actually) ....and Look! ("Up IN the SKY...Its a ...") We can Still See there Progeny, Just that, we now call them the "Galaxies"

When ten years has Passed, they can sent out a COBE 'clone' as to ensure the obtaining of the Same level of 'reading' abilities (Enhancing it will Not help) hence, a Duplicate (Copy/CUT/Paste) of the Original Work, such as to Compare it with the Initial Work, cause within ten years, the Differences (in the Two Works) should be apparent, Given that the Level Of Sensitvity that is Obtainable from that level of Technology is sufficient enough to reveal the On-going Event that is Our Universes' ....well, existence.

Then We Will Know ....When the Light 'Shines'

So, we end off with the Very Simple Question, "Can Entropy, Outrun Gravity....??"


(Tee Hee Hee heeeeee heheheheheheheheheheheheheheeee)

Does that Help? Cause it probably DOES help 'others'....Been Concerned for that one-too.

[Mr. B]

Ok, quit using cut and paste to try and look clever. Your colours are pretty and I'm glad you've discovered the boldn and itallics buttons. Your science, however well expressed (and I must say you certainly present your science with the air of the highly informed), is full of holes. How long have you been working on the grandoise hot air that you repeatedly spout, like your catchphrase "scalar illusion". Are you agreeing with the massed ranks of highly trained and highly educated scientists from the last 156 years that entropy is a reality, although allowing yourself a get out clause of referring to it as an illusion? How, if you would stop demeaning yourself with adolescent posturing eg. (Tee Hee Hee heeeeee heheheheheheheheheheheheheheeee) at least for a while, can an illusion be reality? Surely an illusion is a misinterpretation of reality (as discussed in some detail by Descartes) and so cannnot be a reality?

Go on, call me pretentious again. Using long words make you look really clever.


Anyway.
Neutrons possess "gravity" alone to the expense of all other hadrons? The difference in internal structure between a neutron and a proton is an electron. Aside from that, both comprise of one up quark and two down quarks. Surely following your own logic then the true "mass particle" (a variation of the old ether idea most of the civilised world abandoned ages ago) is an electron?

To test your theory we can make some very simple observations.

Firstly, lightyears away there are enourmous clouds of stellar gas known as Nebulae. Within nebulae there are vast areas of hydrogen alone. No neutrons, but still the gas clumps together to form dusts, then stars, and all drawn together by the the force of _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Go on, fill in the blanks without denying your crackpot theory.

As an aside, most of the universe is comprised of Hydrogen, then a tiny bit of helium and the odd anomaly of other stuff left over from dead stars which astronomers refer to as "metals" although this bracket includes oxygen , nitrogen etc etc. Remember that astrophysicists do physics, not chemistry.

Another observation which kind of upsets your theory is that superheated hydrogen which has entered a plasma state (no electrons) is still effected by gravity. No electrons AND no neutrons? Holy cow Batman. Go on, deny it exists - theres plenty for all to see in our local star and it all has gravity.

You mention lots of separate facts and, yet again, apply them incorrectly, often making and emphasising the most rediuculous proclamations. For example 'Cloaking' Field of Stabilization/Stability. Neurtons in isolation are unstable. Deal with it.

The neutrons you can see actually decomposed to hydrogen and a bit of helium (Neutron and proton = stable neutron).
Try this one - neutrons held together = stable neutrons.
Now add this - Lots of neutrons together eventually have enough mass to attract eachother together by their gravity.
Hive it a hint of this one - neutrons don't repel eachother like protons or electrons (can I quote you from the other site, asking you to read what I say, not what you want me to say?) and so can be packed together into a tiny space.
Put them in the oven for 40 minutes at gas mark 6 and what do you get?
An understanding of how black holes works using real science which has repeatable experiments to prove it from peer reviewed sources?

So, to paraphrase you, "look, the progeny of neutrons theat decomposed and a tiny proportion of neutrons that got hitched with a proton before they decomposed, galaxies". Save me the sarcasm, i've noticed you only seem to bite when you are either completely out of your depth, or have been spotlighted as clearly miles off the mark. I bite back because I enjoy it and you don't seem to posess the emotional strength to witness someone correct you. Bet you quote that, with a sarcastic remark.

How far can I be bothered to wade through the incorrect minutia of your postings? I see you clearly enjoy such time wasting yourself. Lets try this one:

Massive 'Silent' explosion

Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. There is enough of a vacuum in space to stop sound from travelling. Do the itallics mean I can ignore the word as irrelivant? Telling people what is blindingly obvious doesn't make you look learned,clever, or even well read.

Another one - read carefully back through the posts. When I told you about the universe expanding, did you stop before that point? Universe expanding therefore entropy example does not count (if you believe the universe is a closed system). Write it down a hundred times in your own words and you might retain it. I'm getting so sick of repeating myself over and over and over and over. It's threatening to make me mentally obese.

As for what I assume is supposed to be a trick question "Can Entropy Outrun Gravity....??", gravity has no defined speed. There are lower limits, which vary a bit bit from model to model, but when we remember that gravity from an accelerating source does NOT experience a light-time delay the tempting, if philosophically awquard conclusion is that gravitational effect is instantanious. Talking about the speed of entropy only highlights the fact that you really are shaky on the topic. Who told you there is a "speed of entropy"? Someone is having a laugh at your expense. I mean, aside from me. What did they tell you is "the speed of entropy"? Who was it? It's like saying thee is a speed of Guinness, or something...

At least you have stopped referring to books which you read ages ago and are never named and are "out of print", TV shows, radio programmes, web sites and articles from newspapers and magazines. They all count for as much as "mymateDavefromthepub" in the field of academic science. Nothing.

And as for the world (of Science) being wrong and you being right and so proving to yourself your religious beliefs are correct, and your amazing theory about neutrons which was brushed under the carpet or whatever you claimed (do you even know what a particle accelerator looks like, let alone been into a paticle physics lab?), psychiatrists have a name for that....


Just to finish, you'r syntax and use of language have changed - are you cut and pasting from other peoples websites? Is your Dad writing this for you?

Tell you, go to your local University, plug into "Athens" (please don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about) and show us a couple of genuine papers that support your standpoint. I'm struggling to even find a web site that backs you up.

[Epsilon=One]

Your theory doesnot take into account the fact that the Universe is expanding (proven by red shift), which counteracts the effect of matter mixing due to random collisions between particles. Because of the universe expanding, it is incorrect to apply the rules of entropy.The Universe is not expanding. It is unending; however, it is fixed between the dual loci of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity).

It is true that the galaxies are expanding (moving outward as they dissipate) and that there is accelerating, galactic recession; however, these phenomena occur within a fixed Universe (steady-state). Otherwise, there would be no mechanical explanation for the acceleration of Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI). Thus, the Universe with its source of emergent, dark energy (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DE) is a "closed" system. Logic can be nothing else, despite the contentions of most pomo theoretical astrophysicists.

An explanation for the why of "red-shift (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/RS)" is still an unsettled matter. Most likely it has more to do with the intrinsic "age" of an "unwinding" free electron (photon) than an external expansion.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

11:01 AM 6/29/2006


(SNIP) Ok, quit using cut and paste to try and look clever. Your colours are pretty and I'm glad you've discovered the boldn and itallics buttons. (SNoP)
Cut & Paste, Where?

...And (I) Don't Use the Buttons, (I) am THE lazzzy Typisssst, (I) type (Color=ORANGEY) them out....


(SNIP) Your science, however well expressed (and I must say you certainly present your science with the air of the highly informed), is full of holes. (SNoP)
Really...?

You Mean Like this one?....

(SNIP) How long have you been working on the grandoise hot air that you repeatedly spout, (SNoP)

Quite the Hole in My 'Science'

(SNIP)like your catchphrase (SNoP)
CatchPhrase....?

....(I) Didn't do it....


"scalar illusion".

(SNIP) Are you agreeing with the massed ranks of highly trained and highly educated scientists from the last 156 years that entropy is a reality, although allowing yourself a get out clause of referring to it as an illusion?(SNoP)
Yes!

Well, O.K.....Look, When you occlude any part of the Universe, you know, draw a Circle, you will Almost always see Entropy ...somewhere, sooner or later ....(I) Agree.

* When You STOP 'scaling' By use of Occlusion, you MUST now view the Whole, Closed System = No Entropy ...So the Idea of it Being an 'Illusion' {ergo Not the Whole/Complete Truth/Answer/observance in/of Reality} is Justified/justafiable as it will always Arise, Entropy, as A Property of Occluded (Scaled/Encircled/"Balloned"/"Bubbled") Space, it is a Scientific Rule, Observable repeatable, BUT! it is NOT the Final Rule of/in the System itself, there, the Rule No longer Applies....

That is What (I) have been tryin to Keep Clear.




(SNIP) How, if you would stop demeaning yourself with adolescent posturing eg. (Tee Hee Hee heeeeee heheheheheheheheheheheheheheeee) at least for a while,(SNoP)

But its' Fun

(SNIP) can an illusion be reality? Surely an illusion is a misinterpretation of reality (as discussed in some detail by Descartes) and so cannnot be a reality?(SNoP)
See *


(SNIP) Go on, call me pretentious again. Using long words make you look really clever.(SNoP)

Huh?

(SNIP)
Anyway.(SNoP)
Maaaaybe, or, maybe .... 'someway'


(SNIP) Neutrons possess "gravity" alone to the expense of all other hadrons? The difference in internal structure between a neutron and a proton is an electron. Aside from that, both comprise of one up quark and two down quarks. *EDIT* LOOK And ASSUMPT-I-ON Follows >> /EDIT Surely following your own logic then the true "mass particle" (a variation of the old ether idea most of the civilised world abandoned ages ago) is an electron?

To test your theory we can make some very simple observations.(SNoP)
Yes Observations, Humm Like the one Highlighted in the next Quoteing of ...well, you


(SNIP) Firstly, lightyears away there are enourmous clouds of stellar gas known as Nebulae. Within nebulae there are vast areas of hydrogen alone. No neutrons, but still the gas clumps together to form dusts, then stars, and all drawn together by the the force of _ _ _ _ _ _ _.(SNoP)
So, Uhmmm So ...Now... Hydrogen, All By Itself Atomic and/or Molecular Hydrogen Gas ....can Form Dust?

When Did that happen? Got a "Peer Reviewed Reference" for that one Cause (I) am Most Assuredly Gonna Need one for that Uhmmm, Welll, Aaaaa? "theory"??

Or, You agree that Hydrogen can 'self Initiate' A Fusion reaction therefore the NEUTRONS would Assuredly SHOW UP ...As That was seemingly the Theory Behind that MIGMA reaction Sequencing....But Neutrons Show up, Really Quickly too.

(SNIP) Go on, fill in the blanks without denying your crackpot theory.(SNoP)

Uhmm, Seem to have been a step Ahead of you, again, So Sorry, sorta.....

(SNIP) As an aside, most of the universe is comprised of Hydrogen, then a tiny bit of helium and the odd anomaly of other stuff left over from dead stars which astronomers refer to as "metals" although this bracket includes oxygen , nitrogen etc etc. Remember that astrophysicists do physics, not chemistry.(SNoP)

Glad you cleared that up for me, cause me, (I) was so Stupid(?) that (I) ACTUALLY thought that 'Scientists' Did well, You Know S-c-i-e-n-c-e ...."Study ..stuff"

If the Astrophysicists do Physics, (and the Chemists do? ...Chemistry?!) what are the Astronomers doing?

Wait a Second thats' Why (I) shouldn't have been a Doctor, (I) would wanted to do the 'Physics' of Motion, the 'Chemistry' of the Brain, and Look at everyones Well, 'Anatomy', their "MOONS/CURVES/Geometry?"

(And No (I) don't really Mean that 'Moon' part!)

(SNIP) Another observation which kind of upsets your theory is that superheated hydrogen which has entered a plasma state (no electrons) is still effected by gravity. No electrons AND no neutrons? Holy cow Batman. Go on, deny it exists - theres plenty for all to see in our local star and it all has gravity.(SNoP)

So, (I) went out and Asked 'Batman' He Said that when you have HYDROGEN in a Superheated PLASMA state, (NO Electrons!!) YOU HAVE A PROTON, And Neutrons BIND to them

(SNIP) You mention lots of separate facts and, yet again, apply them incorrectly, often making and emphasising the most rediuculous proclamations. (SNoP)

You Mean like the one (I) just made Above? Hey!/Hay! That Was BATMANS' fault! (I) didn't do it ....(I) told ya that.

(SNIP)For example 'Cloaking' Field of Stabilization/Stability. Neurtons in isolation are unstable. Deal with it.(SNoP)
Hummm, (I) Had been thinking more along the lines of What Black Holes represent/present 'us' with, a Self Cloaked Form of A Highly Stable By Compression, Matter/Mass ....As, as a 'mass' it demonstrates very Clearly, Its' Ability to Generate the 'Property' of Mass(es) called 'weight' ...IT....Has Pull!

(SNIP) The neutrons you can see actually decomposed to hydrogen and a bit of helium (Neutron and proton = stable neutron).
Try this one - neutrons held together = stable neutrons.
Now add this - Lots of neutrons together eventually have enough mass to attract eachother together by their gravity.
Hive it a hint of this one - neutrons don't repel eachother like protons or electrons (can I quote you from the other site, asking you to read what I say, not what you want me to say?) and so can be packed together into a tiny space.
Put them in the oven for 40 minutes at gas mark 6 and what do you get?
An understanding of how black holes works using real science which has repeatable experiments to prove it from peer reviewed sources?

So, to paraphrase you, "look, the progeny of neutrons theat decomposed and a tiny proportion of neutrons that got hitched with a proton before they decomposed, galaxies". Save me the sarcasm, i've noticed you only seem to bite when you are either completely out of your depth, or have been spotlighted as clearly miles off the mark. I bite back because I enjoy it and you don't seem to posess the emotional strength to witness someone correct you. Bet you quote that, with a sarcastic remark.(SNoP)
Nope.

(SNIP)I bite back because I enjoy it(SNoP)

Its' More Like "Evidence"


(SNIP)How far can I be bothered to wade through the incorrect minutia of your postings? I see you clearly enjoy such time wasting yourself. Lets try this one:

Massive 'Silent' explosion

Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. There is enough of a vacuum in space to stop sound from travelling. Do the itallics mean I can ignore the word as irrelivant? Telling people what is blindingly obvious doesn't make you look learned,clever, or even well read.(SNoP) ~75 Words do what Was done with these <i></i> once, and (I) claim the Lazzzzzynesssses....<<<<look (Sarc!)

(SNIP)Another one - read carefully back through the posts. When I told you about the universe expanding, did you stop before that point? Universe expanding therefore entropy example does not count (if you believe the universe is a closed system). Write it down a hundred times in your own words and you might retain it. I'm getting so sick of repeating myself over and over and over and over. It's threatening to make me mentally obese.

As for what I assume is supposed to be a trick question "Can Entropy Outrun Gravity....??", gravity has no defined speed. There are lower limits, which vary a bit bit from model to model, but when we remember that gravity from an accelerating source does NOT experience a light-time delay the tempting, if philosophically awquard conclusion is that gravitational effect is instantanious. Talking about the speed of entropy only highlights the fact that you really are shaky on the topic. Who told you there is a "speed of entropy"? Someone is having a laugh at your expense. I mean, aside from me. What did they tell you is "the speed of entropy"? Who was it? It's like saying thee is a speed of Guinness, or something...(SNoP)
Uhmmm, Well Don't mean to make you look stupid, But entropy deals with 'Heat' (State Thermicity) and that Travels as EMR in (respective of) the Medium of its' Propagation.

If You Had Observed the Color Usage, (it was A Hint) the Answer to the Question is found (above) in the (that) Text, telling that Gravity is the Absorption of the Medium of the Propagation of well, heat....


(SNIP)At least you have stopped referring to books which you read ages ago and are never named and are "out of print", TV shows, radio programmes, web sites and articles from newspapers and magazines. They all count for as much as "mymateDavefromthepub" in the field of academic science. Nothing.(SNoP) More like: "Me Mate, Mr. B! ...On the innernet"....Newbie? are Ya?

(SNIP)And as for the world (of Science) being wrong and you being right and so proving to yourself your religious beliefs are correct, and your amazing theory about neutrons which was brushed under the carpet or whatever you claimed (do you even know what a particle accelerator looks like, let alone been into a paticle physics lab?), psychiatrists have a name for that....(SNoP)Psychiatrists have a name for What?? Particle Accelerators??? HUH??

Seen the Inside of Fermi, CERN, Los Alamos, Berkly (SLAC) on the 'telly' but that means Nothing, to you, Plus all the Photos in Science Publications and Journals that (I) have, over time, perused .....'Table top' seem to be the latest.

Need a net reference for that? or a peer reviewed one? Hey Wait He has A Net Connection, Let him Find His Own ...Maybe he can find some, you know, 'other' reading material, too

(SNIP)Just to finish, you'r syntax and use of language have changed - are you cut and pasting from other peoples websites? Is your Dad writing this for you?

Tell you, go to your local University, plug into "Athens" (please don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about) and show us a couple of genuine papers that support your standpoint. I'm struggling to even find a web site that backs you up.(SNoP)

My DAD?? From his grave?? What?? (thats' Rude you know)

Copy Paste, where?

(SNIP)"don't tell me you don't know what I'm talking about"(SNoP) O.K. Then Perhaps someone 'else' who Might upon this, (as a read) would like to Know, So: "(I) Don't Have A CLUE what he is talking about!"

But he is correct, inasmuch as, His Mental 'Obesity' Observation This is a THICK post ...to thick to coninue.

Could you Please lock this /Topic Off. Thanks....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

9:08 AM 01/07/2006

(SNIP) Neutrons possess "gravity" alone to the expense of all other hadrons? The difference in internal structure between a neutron and a proton is an electron. Aside from that, both comprise of one up quark and two down quarks.(SNoP)

So from this site, Wikipedia....
Neutron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron) (under the heading 'Properties')

'Cited' from: Wikipedia.org "A neutron is classified as a baryon, and consists of two down quarks and one up quark."

Then, the same source, (you agree that "Wiki" is an Acceptable source for tis kind of Scienctific Information, you know "general Knowledge" amongst the 'Students' of the 'Sciences' ....Like me.....right?) Proton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton)

'Cited' from: Wikipedia.org "The two up quarks and one down quark of the proton"

-Proton ='s 2 u's 1 d
Neutron ='s 2 d's 1 u

So you got that one wrong, and it Beeeeeegs the question, Where did the electron go? cause it is known (you can read about it, at that site, Wiki.org) that a Neutron is simply a Proton, with a Captured electron (+ extra energy) so what happened? (the electron Changed one of the Up Quarks into a Down quark thusly disappearing? and the observed exiting Neutrino? where did that go? )


(SNIP) Another observation which kind of upsets your theory is that superheated hydrogen which has entered a plasma state (no electrons) is still effected by gravity.(SNoP) How does that "upset" my theory? "Superheated Hydrogen" essentially has 'broken down' as in, lost it's electron, (ionized out) thus the remnant is a Proton, and Protons in a Superheated Plasma State is/are where we see the Initiation of the Fusion processes that generate Neutrons....so how does that 'Flaw' my theory? (It Doesn't >> It supports it!)



(SNIP)(do you even know what a particle accelerator looks like, let alone been into a paticle physics lab?(SNoP)

Sorta Was in a Physics 'lab' At Mc Gill University (Montreal Quebec Canada) some years back...but (I) never claimed to have been, but (I) do Know how (I) can Know, same as you, from the poeple who publish this page....

>> Look Here << (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/experiments/online_exp.shtml)

Its Stanford University BTW, is that an Acceptable 'resource'/'reference' for you? SLAC Stanford Linear Accelerator ...where they produce "Pictures" like this one Neutralino Simulation Signature (http://www.interactions.org/imagebank/search_detail.php?image_no=OT0029) or this one ATF2 Layout (http://lcdev.kek.jp/ATF2/ATF2layout33.gif) or Live Camera At SLAC (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~rkj/test.shtml) or here,SLD image Collection (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/sld/figure/intro.html)

Or here, as per this web search, "particle accelerator Pictures (http://www.ask.com/web?q=particle+accelerator+Pictures&qsrc=0&o=312) (Links to more pages then (I) have seen/read)

So, well, like, a.....

( (I)'m the Wrong person { :p } for you to try to "Bite" as (I) am Not one of your students)

Might (I) Respectfully Suggest that, you spend a little time getting aquainted/re-aquainted with 'Modern Technology' use the Internet to aquire just a little bit more accurate, knowledge, after all, you teach!

Oh Yes, If you try to go on that 'Telly' show (you mentioned) that pays for such things as being "The Discoverer/Revealer of the Gravitational Particle" well, they have 'Modern Technology' too, (E-mail) so if you were to try to 'pass it off' as your work, well, they would be "buying into" a Waaaaay Bigger story then what they would think they are buying into, and after the ....what?? Fraud Charges? well, your career....????!!

So have a Nice day, and please Follow that/the Curriculum :eek:


(Many "Thanks!" to The Right Honorable Mr. T. Blair (and associates) for contructing it >> that/the 'Curriculum' :cool: )

[Mr. B]

You, the LLAAAYYYZZZZEEE typist? Too layzee to get a job, live in a tent, cycle 10ks to use free internet access, by own admission no friends, on the run from the MIB because of your "dangerous" theory about neutrons, still quoting web sources (wikipedia etc) and one of the few "enlightened" people who reallise that Entropy is wrong, flying in the face of the massed ranks of formally trained scientists. Don't get personal with me sunshine, king of the road, littlest hobo, by the grace of God (BTGOG) we've all listened to your misinformed hocus pocus for long enough to take you with a pinch (or pillar) of salt.

The up and down thing, the one you quoted back at me, was a typo. Get over it. BTGOG, the arguement still stands.

1. Don't suggest that I speak to my students in an unprofessional way. It belittles you and is a prosecutable action in your country and mine, so don't quote your fraud charges crap at me. IF someone was gullible to buy into your idea and managed to make any money from it, there would be nothing you could do because you've put the information into the public domain without publication - how could you prove the idea was yours in the first place? Didn't think of that before you started blazing away, did you.
2. As your knickers are in such a twist I can see you really can't cope with any sort of discourse that challenges your world view.
3. A crusty fifty something year old homeless guyn says that I need to get in touch with technology. Don't make me laugh. Grow up you silly old fart.
4. Putting a link to a University website, BTGOG, does not support your claims if you are not referring to anything specifically on it.
5. Why on earth are you so worried that I would taint my name with your rediculous gravity theory? Hey, thaught directing you towardsa a bit of cash might help your personal situation. Try and help a fellow human, get grief from him. No buddy, I don't have any spare change for you.

I tire of you, go and get published (in a peer reviewed journal), on TV and everything else with your neutron thing and I'll post a link to a video of me in my own house with central heating, hot and cold running water, car outside (i worked in industry before teaching and drive a Red car), etc etc, eating my own hat.

I've repeated myself enough times at you, believe whatever you want to, keep listening to the "other person" in your head who you have told everyone is in there. Go talk to him, I'm sure he'll agree with you all day long. As far as I am concerned, I came for science and intelligent debate, and all I found was Mr. Robin Parsons. This conversation, BTGOG, as clearly as I can explain to you, although you probably won't listen to me on this post either, is over. Go happy clap at someone else :p



:)
Regarding Epsilon=1's assertion about the universe being closed, I like the idea, but I cant see how the space can be "there" towards infinity without any matter to provide gravity and therefore spacetime. Tell me more, I like the way it helps explain the cosmic inertia problem. My main question is that if the galaxies are expanding and so "using up more of the space" within a closed (butinfinite?) universe, do you think they represent an expanding system, and if not, does the enlarging of the "used" area within our universe by galaxies surely still invoke the expanding closed system model?

This is genuinely interesting, possibly plausible stuff - please tell me more. It's nice to know there are non-nuttters who visit here from time to time.


Anyway, can't waste hours here like Robin, got work to do.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

.... non existent!!
You, the LLAAAYYYZZZZEEE typist? Too layzee to get a job, live in a tent, cycle 10ks to use free internet access, by own admission no friends, on the run from the MIB because of your "dangerous" theory about neutrons, still quoting web sources (wikipedia etc) and one of the few "enlightened" people who reallise that Entropy is wrong, flying in the face of the massed ranks of formally trained scientists. Don't get personal with me sunshine, king of the road, littlest hobo, by the grace of God (BTGOG) we've all listened to your misinformed hocus pocus for long enough to take you with a pinch (or pillar) of salt.
The up and down thing, the one you quoted back at me, was a typo. Get over it. BTGOG, the arguement still stands.
1. Don't suggest that I speak to my students in an unprofessional way. It belittles you and is a prosecutable action in your country and mine, so don't quote your fraud charges crap at me. IF someone was gullible to buy into your idea and managed to make any money from it, there would be nothing you could do because you've put the information into the public domain without publication - how could you prove the idea was yours in the first place? Didn't think of that before you started blazing away, did you.
2. As your knickers are in such a twist I can see you really can't cope with any sort of discourse that challenges your world view.
3. A crusty fifty something year old homeless guyn says that I need to get in touch with technology. Don't make me laugh. Grow up you silly old fart.
4. Putting a link to a University website, BTGOG, does not support your claims if you are not referring to anything specifically on it.
5. Why on earth are you so worried that I would taint my name with your rediculous gravity theory? Hey, thaught directing you towardsa a bit of cash might help your personal situation. Try and help a fellow human, get grief from him. No buddy, I don't have any spare change for you.
I tire of you, go and get published (in a peer reviewed journal), on TV and everything else with your neutron thing and I'll post a link to a video of me in my own house with central heating, hot and cold running water, car outside (i worked in industry before teaching and drive a Red car), etc etc, eating my own hat.
I've repeated myself enough times at you, believe whatever you want to, keep listening to the "other person" in your head who you have told everyone is in there. Go talk to him, I'm sure he'll agree with you all day long. As far as I am concerned, I came for science and intelligent debate, and all I found was Mr. Robin Parsons. This conversation, BTGOG, as clearly as I can explain to you, although you probably won't listen to me on this post either, is over. Go happy clap at someone else :p
:)
Regarding Epsilon=1's assertion about the universe being closed, I like the idea, but I cant see how the space can be "there" towards infinity without any matter to provide gravity and therefore spacetime. Tell me more, I like the way it helps explain the cosmic inertia problem. My main question is that if the galaxies are expanding and so "using up more of the space" within a closed (butinfinite?) universe, do you think they represent an expanding system, and if not, does the enlarging of the "used" area within our universe by galaxies surely still invoke the expanding closed system model?
This is genuinely interesting, possibly plausible stuff - please tell me more. It's nice to know there are non-nuttters who visit here from time to time.
Anyway, can't waste hours here like Robin, got work to do.

hummm a Science teacher, and the rebuttal of the Science is.....non existent

(Cause you don't have one)

....followed by the observation that when pressed, on anything, you attack, personally, do you do that to your students? too?

(SNIP) there would be nothing you could do because you've put the information into the public domain without publication (SNoP)
Not all of it. and (I) have historical reference(s) that can Prove clearly that (I) was the First.

You really are the "dark star" (Pink FLoyd) aren't you.....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(No Offence intended towards Mr. Rowan Atkinson Who Portrays the Real "Mr. Bean" With, well 'Hilarity')

So Mr. B My intention when stating that you should come to this forum was NOT so that you could continue to try to throw Venom in my face, but for the Discourse upon Science...Clearly you seemed to have missed that point.

After that, well, Know what one of these ? is? ...Used it again there...

What (I) did is called "Asking a Question" usually Indicated by the Employ of one of these thingy's ? but you, in desire of What? ...only Heaven knows well, Miss the Point again Completely.

Thereafter, well, you tell of your error in the u's And d's as a "Tpyo" (BTW thats a Typo!) Rather then the Simple Honesty of: "Well, I Made a Mistake, O.K. I'll try to remember it, as 'reference' and, to 'reference' what I am writing, if not only for myself .....But, also as to be, accurate"

Your "Presentation" Thus far, amounts to little more then, you have made a Complete Buffoon ...of yourself....

So, if you would like to continue.....

You should, first, follow your own advice and ask yourself the question, (?) "What Have I contributed, to this conversation?"

.....And you don't like "Wiki" ...well, 'Bully for you' fella cause (I) haven't seen a Single thing, so far, Referenced BY YOU

You should, also-perhaps(?) Re-Read what you have posted @ Me, cause it is Cheaper (Less expensive) then a Psychiatrist.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

And B what is it that you are trying to do here? on the Internet, Berate A Homeless man?.....It isn't just Buffoonery, it lacks Dignity too ....Yours.

You don't like Wiki but it is clearly Waaaaay better then ANY references you have made ......So

And B from myfriend-PAT@thebar.computerruser (A Real Person, too) This 'note' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/buffoon) Just in case your having some trouble with the....... (your #3)
Big Words

[Epsilon=One]

(Cause you don't have one)Will you ever stop deciding what someone else has, thinks, or says. I find the technique, of providing your own "strawman" into your arguments, reprehensible.

...when pressed, on anything, you attack, personally...Of countless discusions I've had with you, I believe there are very few where the ad hominem attack and rhetorical question have not been your arguments of choice when you disagree. See below for one of many examples.

You really are the "dark star" (Pink FLoyd) aren't you.....

[Epsilon=One]

...And B what is it that you are trying to do here? on the Internet...It isn't just Buffoonery, it lacks Dignity too ....Yours.It's difficult to imagine that one can have such an awareness, while posting with the signature that you use at the end of every one of your posts.

Homelessness and dignity are not related; however, a person's way with words, thoughts, and actions does define dignity.

You don't like Wiki but it is clearly Waaaaay better then ANY references you have made ......SoThis statement relies upon assumptions, hyperbole, and is without any specific details, which is your usual banter and gobbledygook. Are you not aware that your posts are memorialized indefinitely on internet servers???

Anger is fraught with peril.

[Epsilon=One]

Regarding Epsilon=1's assertion about the universe being closed, I like the idea, but I cant see how the space can be "there" towards infinity without any matter to provide gravity and therefore spacetime.You are correct that gravity requires matter. Of course, exactly what matter is, is another discussion. When you think of such conceptual or Unimetric “space” “towards infinity” there is only motion . . . no matter, no “space,” no time. Dimensions and time are not as yet established until there is some sort of harmony to cause the resonances that interrupt the hyper-relativistic seminal motion. This interruption starts the “tick” of time and all the other phenomena that we observe as existence.

Physical infinity, or the infinitesimal is a concept of motion, or its absence, rather than size or distance.

Besides matter/gravity, you are also concerned with spacetime, which is a fiction established by Einstein and continued to this day because no one can adequately define “time.” Physicists rely on no dimension more than “time”; yet, to this day there is no precise definition. Imagine we have QCD, black holes, the Big Bang, and super galactic clusters “falling” towards an attractor . . . all without a definition for the “clock” that establishes fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).

After your mind has been impressed for so many years the concept of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Infinity), which should be quite simple and straightforward, is quite counterintuitive and very difficult to perceive. But then, for me, so are Higgs Bosons and fractional charges.

Tell me more, I like the way it helps explain the cosmic inertia problem.You’ve hit the nail on the head. This “problem” (and the container problem) undermines every Standard Model paradigm.

My main question is that if the galaxies are expanding and so "using up more of the space" within a closed (but infinite?) universe, do you think they represent an expanding system, and if not, does the enlarging of the "used" area within our universe by galaxies surely still invoke the expanding closed system model?Think of the galaxies as “falling” away. Acceleretion is intrinsic to gravity alone; thus Cosmic Inertia (the force that the galaxies might be said to be falling towards) must be a reaction to gravity (actually gravity is more than one phenomenon). Think of the Universe as a large closed, spherical container. The galaxies are in a realm of dissipation (they are coming apart and getting lighter) and are being displaced outward as more dense dark matter is being compressed to the center. The force and its reaction exhibit acceleration because the mass that forms about the outside is being forced to the center at an increasing force. Remember, gravity is more than one phenomenon.

There is currently no other explanation for why the stars don't fly out of galaxies. World-class astronomers know that black holes at the center cannot account for the observed motion of the stars. They know the force must be inward from outside the galaxy.

The above is very heuristic, not entirely accurate, but at least it should get you thinking in the right direction. Ask more questions.

This is genuinely interesting, possibly plausible stuff - please tell me more. It's nice to know there are non-nuttters who visit here from time to time.Thanks, I thrive on questions. Nice to have you aboard. You will find that there are others here also. Most of the people you would most likely like are also quite busy . . . and looking for what they know not; but enjoying the search.

Any alternative theory that is plausible is better than what we now have. Soon there will be a "new physics."

(I have been following your posts carefully. Wasn't sure you'd come out with a sense of humor left. I've decided you didn't need any help . . . but couldn't resist jumping in from time to time.)

[Mr. B]

Mr. Robin Parsons walked into a Doctor's surgery wearing nothing but a pairof shorts made of cling film. The doctor said "I can clearly see your nuts".

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI



And B from myfriend-PAT@thebar.computerruser (A Real Person, too) This 'note' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/buffoon) Just in case your having some trouble with the....... (your #3)
Big Words

Ok, claiming to have a friend who sent a message is the lowest you've stooped so far. You've admitted yourself you have no friends! Are you a liar?

I also have a web reference for you. Check this out, take your laughable Neutron theory and go away.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusional

I really am not going to talk to / make a fool of, you any more. There is really no challenge in it. WILLPOWER! I WILL BE STRONG. I WILL RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO HAVE A LAUGH AT YOUR EXPENSE ANY MORE.

Oh no, I can sense you "feeling my mind from afar"!
Aaaaarrrggghhhh! Youre in here with me! No, DON'T TAKE THAT OFF! STOP DOING THAT TO YOURSELF!

Insert pant-wettingly acute laughter attack here.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

This is what (I) had typed out prior to being aware of the Current Responces, Above, re: mylast posting, Sooooo..

Maybe something will follow, But it is Probably best left at letting you two show yourselves for what you actually are, as you have, Above, Proven yourselves to Be. ( (I) Certainly couldn't have done/caused that!)

________________________________

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

7:34 AM 7/3/2006

So B'eee you'd Offered an Olive Branch In the Other Forum, with 'Forgiveness' attached, (I) attempted to reciprocate, Forgiving ....in Your Religion you are Supposed to Forgive Someone 70 Times 70 Or 4,900 times, so B'eee (I) Forgive you for every single Letter you have Typed, to that Limit.

Can You catch on to that B?

It is Apparent enough that the School year has just ended, and it is also reasonable to accept that in the End of the "Trying times" that Being a Teacher ...can be, there is a Need to Unwind juuuuusst a Little Bit, (more) But B, Coming on the Internet, you know "The GLOBAL LIBRARY" and Posting little 'notes' ('Therein' &/or 'Thereupon' "Public Domain" was your term? but doesn't constitute a 'Publication' ...you seem to think, Right?) attempting to make yourself feel good, by Berating A Homeless Man.

Mr. B you are probably a better person then that.

Govern Yourself ....Accordingly(?)

O.K.?

P.ssssst the Reason Why (I) am The Lazzzzy Typisssssst, is because all (I) need do to repeat a Letter, is Hold the Key Down ....a (Slight ...Hee hee) Change from What (I) first tried typing on Tack > Tack > Tack > Tack (and (I) typed all of that out)

O Yes, B (I) did Copy/Paste as (I) cited from Web sites, and Your words, that Big post of Yours, so Long that (I) copied it onto a Notepad so (I) could read, re-read ....respond to it ....later on.

Soooo Ya/Yup/Yes "Mei Culpa" too, ....of? Well? pretty well ...Nothing....(?) (IDANO!) (U-B?)

Added BTW B what your laughing at, Wow!! What a Child Living In an Adult world, Adult People Have Sex b So Get over it! Or go See a ......!!!!!!!!!!!

(Well, someone who can 'help' you)

But that 'Nut Joke' is Funny, who originated it? do you know B?

It's like that one By (who was it? He was A UK Prime Minister But the Spelling of His name presently escapes me) "In a World where All great Minds Think Alike, Mr. B, You Sir Truly have a Unique Opinon"

(I)'c "C-ya" but only if (I) looked Tee Heee hehehehehehheeeeeeeee...........Sew!

('Look! he was typing In the Moment')

[Mr. B]

Taking a DT, pupils working in silence. Sometimes I have to find time, like now.

If you take a really long look at the history of this dialogue, you'll find that the last THREE POSTINGS BETWEEN US were from you, so don't try pulling the "I was going to be all nice untill I saw what you'd done" routeine on me, sunshine. It won't wash. Won't wash, could run with that, but it's too blatant.

The joke is a Tommy Cooper classic, so yes, I do know who I'm quoting.

This is how our recourse seems to work:
1. You get all offensive and agressive because you've been argued into a corner
2. I "out offensive and agressive" you.
3. You cry silent internet tears because I'm berating a "homeless man". Boo hoo, sniff sniff.

I see, it's ok for you to dish it, but you can't take it back. The whole world disagrees with your gravity theory, and it's the whole world that's wrong. You're a scientific genius, but have only ever driven snow ploughs and other large vehicles. No mention of further education, just endlessly repeated soundbytes some bloke on the lecturn has spouted at you. Ha, I blow soggy raspberries at you! Look that up on your Wikipedia, daddy-o! Hey, I'll even provide the shortcut!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_a_raspberry
Tbbbtthhhhhh!

Try writing a few C.V.s and emailing them off to prospective employers instead of wasting my time - your life cituation may change. Hell, try writing a theory about your Neutrons. Some UFO book publisher might like it.

Damn, I'd said I'd stop trying to help you...


Ok, so there is one thiing you have managed to prove, be it probably unwittingly. The only potential hole in the logic is the existence of the stupid gene, or the stupid gene matrix.
This is how it works.

There must be some form of benign entity looking down on us. This is because without it certain individuals, let us take you as an example, would not exist. There must either have to have been a devine hand creating by design for you to exist, or for devine intervention to have prevented your gulibillity / stupidity / blind hard-headedness gene from being selected out of the gene pool aeons ago. Without this your genes would simply have fallen by the wayside. Natural selection would have kicked in just after your stone age ancestors decided that sabre toothed tigres are herbivires, because all herbivores have teeth, and gone to pet "little kitty".

Please don't take that as a slur on your birth parents, it is entirely a slur on you. Now go away you nutter, you have nothing to teach me other than new ways to cuss you.

Go

GO

BEGONE!

(Quote: Judge Death, 2000AD the Mega Issue 1993, etc. etc - entirely inaccurate reference, but at least it's not a web site). :p


You= :mad:
Me= :D ha ha ha

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Taking a DT, pupils working in silence. Sometimes I have to find time, like now.
If you take a really long look at the history of this dialogue, you'll find that the last THREE POSTINGS BETWEEN US were from you, so don't try pulling the "I was going to be all nice untill I saw what you'd done" routeine on me, sunshine. It won't wash. Won't wash, could run with that, but it's too blatant.
The joke is a Tommy Cooper classic, so yes, I do know who I'm quoting.
This is how our recourse seems to work:
1. You get all offensive and agressive because you've been argued into a corner
2. I "out offensive and agressive" you.
3. You cry silent internet tears because I'm berating a "homeless man". Boo hoo, sniff sniff.
I see, it's ok for you to dish it, but you can't take it back. The whole world disagrees with your gravity theory, and it's the whole world that's wrong. You're a scientific genius, but have only ever driven snow ploughs and other large vehicles. No mention of further education, just endlessly repeated soundbytes some bloke on the lecturn has spouted at you. Ha, I blow soggy raspberries at you! Look that up on your Wikipedia, daddy-o! Hey, I'll even provide the shortcut!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowing_a_raspberryTbbbtthhhhhh!
Try writing a few C.V.s and emailing them off to prospective employers instead of wasting my time - your life cituation may change. Hell, try writing a theory about your Neutrons. Some UFO book publisher might like it.
Damn, I'd said I'd stop trying to help you...
Ok, so there is one thiing you have managed to prove, be it probably unwittingly. The only potential hole in the logic is the existence of the stupid gene, or the stupid gene matrix.
This is how it works.
There must be some form of benign entity looking down on us. This is because without it certain individuals, let us take you as an example, would not exist. There must either have to have been a devine hand creating by design for you to exist, or for devine intervention to have prevented your gulibillity / stupidity / blind hard-headedness gene from being selected out of the gene pool aeons ago. Without this your genes would simply have fallen by the wayside. Natural selection would have kicked in just after your stone age ancestors decided that sabre toothed tigres are herbivires, because all herbivores have teeth, and gone to pet "little kitty".
Please don't take that as a slur on your birth parents, it is entirely a slur on you. Now go away you nutter, you have nothing to teach me other than new ways to cuss you.
Go
GO
BEGONE!
(Quote: Judge Death, 2000AD the Mega Issue 1993, etc. etc - entirely inaccurate reference, but at least it's not a web site). :p
You= :mad:
Me= :D ha ha ha © Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Hummm this is a thread about entropy, it is not supposed to be one for the display of well, you, showing off your truer (Despicable) character/nature.

Moderator, as the Discourse upon entropy has long since passed, could you please, now, lock out this thread?

"The title was entropy, but your the 'Chaos' here b ....your brainwaves."

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(SNIP) "....You're a scientific genius....." (SNIP)
Uhmmm, ....well, Yes.

.....but, as it "takes one to know one" clearly ...you wouldn't know/recognize it/that.

And (I) have been mentioning that the Universe if Contiguous (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contiguous) (Closed) since waaaaaay back, why wouldn't (I) after all, its' true.

Here's Hoping that this thread gets Locked.....or, Maybe, (I)'ll Just Delete it!

[Mr. B]

I am both evil and despicable. No need for a wikipedia reference. See how this conversation between us is a closed system, and the amount of order has decreased...

Contiguous does not equal closed. Like I said before, you, Sir, are a card carrying maniac. Please help end this thread. I am bored of this discourse. You have an insationable desire to try to irritate me.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I am both evil and despicable. No need for a wikipedia reference. See how this conversation between us is a closed system, and the amount of order has decreased...

Contiguous does not equal closed. Like I said before, you, Sir, are a card carrying maniac. Please help end this thread. I am bored of this discourse. You have an insationable desire to try to irritate me.

Then stop responding to/in the/this Thread that (I) Started....

Maybe you could use the "freed up" time to, you know, 'study some science'

And, in the Sense of 'Entropy of the System' >> 'Contiguous' Means 'CLOSED' as in: "all remaining connected to itself" ....never totally, or in any sized/sizing of 'totallity' ...separate/separated

(Means; "NO Scalar Illusions")

The Open Parts? The Dark energy Regions, that is the Background Infinity, the "Space" (For lack of anything/word that would adequately describe the in-describable) into which the Big Bang >> Banged, Silently.

So the Fabric can tear...Live with it! .....(you've no choice)

It is Interesting, to me, how even the 'Outside' of the Realities Presentation is also included in it's inner presentation, and hold true to its' definition as Indescibable as anything other then A Darkness ergo: Un-knowable!

Same as the definition of Infinity that that "little Kids' Joke" tells you (proves ...by logic) is true.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

B! Look! The Porn Fairy (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=820) showed up! :eek: :eek:

:p (J/L-ust for you?) :p

'Adults' only please..... ;) :rolleyes:

[Mr. B]

Can't believe you're still posting here. Guess that's an easy way to get your post count up - reply to your own posts. Does that count as talking to yourself?

I hate to waste my time correcting you again, but the fact that space (distance and time) are contiguous in no way leads to the assertation that you can claim that the principles behind creationism must stand because you believe that the entropy count in the Universe must rise.

Let's use EP=1's definiton so we're using neutral ground. Drop the idea of the expanding universe (my own preferred model), lets use his infinite universe with all the matter expanding outwards from the center. Even in this model, because of the movement of matter outwards from a central point, the entropy count still does still not need to rise. Please explain how your model works. See if you can manage it without getting agressive, endlessly quoting other peoples posts with little comments or making personal attacks. Lets get some communication going instead of intimidation.

As a point of interest, just before I go, may I ask why the creationist fedei defensor is posting links to what I assume are obscene websites? Shame on you.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

So B, You Say 'you(I)' "Said" refferring to me, but B there is a 'System' (in place) that if you should want to Quote someone, You Can! So then, Please use the 'Quotation System' and demonstrate where it was that (I) Said (typed) What you are 'accusing(?)' me of ("saying") having 'said'(typed).

The reason why (I) ask you to do this? Because (I) already know that, in context, you will not find me having typed out those words as/Because you have MIS-represented them, herein.

(SNIP) I hate to waste my time correcting you again, but the fact that space (distance and time) are contiguous in no way leads to the assertation that you can claim that the principles behind creationism must stand because you believe that the entropy count in the Universe must rise. (SNoP) A very VERY Misleading expression of My thoughts?? No! those are .....Yours.

(I) didn't invent the "Porn Fairy" b it/they is simply a presence on the Internet.


Only Someone who doesn't read what others post would think that Answering/Posting on/in a thread is akin to "talking to themsleves"

B Have you noticed the R-e-a-d COUNT(s)?? ...Other people read these pages B

...."Believe it, Or N-O-T!" :eek: :D

B Why am (I) here? cause (I) authored the Thread ....Begging the Question WHY are YOU still Here? :p

[Mr. B]

And, in the Sense of 'Entropy of the System' >> 'Contiguous' Means 'CLOSED' .

Does this ring a bell?

Look Robin, it doesn't really matter who started the thread. I posted where I did so that you would have no trouble finding my post. If quoting my post counts as posting a new thread, fine. Sounds a bit like the kid taking his ball home.

The posting of liks to "adult" websites is totally inappropriate whether you are responsible for that site's existence or not.

I'll pose the question / request again as you've not answered it.

Let's use EP=1's definiton so we're using neutral ground. Drop the idea of the expanding universe (my own preferred model), lets use his infinite universe with all the matter expanding outwards from the center. Even in this model, because of the movement of matter outwards from a central point, the entropy count still does still not need to rise. Please explain how your model works. See if you can manage it without getting agressive, endlessly quoting other peoples posts with little comments or making personal attacks. Lets get some communication going instead of intimidation.

Could you please also explain why you feel the need to post links to the "PF"? Why would a fifty something year old man who can feeeeeel people's inner
beauty from afar need to visit such sites? If you don't visit them, how come you know about them?


Dominus mihi adjutor

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


Just in case anyone else is interested, here are some "Table Top" Links....

#1) PhysicsWeb (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/17/1)

#2) EurekaAlert (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/icos-ste092704.php)

#3) Cern Courier (http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/41/9/6)

#4) SpaceDaily (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Nuclear_Fusion_On_A_Tabletop.html) (Fusion)

#5) Newton-ex-ac-uk (http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/catagories/particle_accelerators.html) (Various Types of accelerators)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Does this ring a bell?
Look Robin, it doesn't really matter who started the thread. I posted where I did so that you would have no trouble finding my post. If quoting my post counts as posting a new thread, fine. Sounds a bit like the kid taking his ball home.
The posting of liks to "adult" websites is totally inappropriate whether you are responsible for that site's existence or not.
I'll pose the question / request again as you've not answered it.
Let's use EP=1's definiton so we're using neutral ground. Drop the idea of the expanding universe (my own preferred model), lets use his infinite universe with all the matter expanding outwards from the center. Even in this model, because of the movement of matter outwards from a central point, the entropy count still does still not need to rise. Please explain how your model works. See if you can manage it without getting agressive, endlessly quoting other peoples posts with little comments or making personal attacks. Lets get some communication going instead of intimidation.
Could you please also explain why you feel the need to post links to the "PF"? Why would a fifty something year old man who can feeeeeel people's inner
beauty from afar need to visit such sites? If you don't visit them, how come you know about them?
Dominus mihi adjutor
Well, if you want to IGNORE responcibilities then go ahead, but as far as (I) am Concerned the person who "Authors a thread" Has a responcibility to it.


After that, well, EP1's model ....isn't, neither is yours, (I) generally do not try to 'model' but do try to follow realities' modelling...

After that, well what part of a Closed system functions are you (seemingly) still missing?

After that, Visit those sites? How come (I) know about Porn? try Starting a new thread, as this one is supposed to be about >> Entropy << not >> Porno <<

After that, Well Please follow your own advise for if you bother to peruse it all, you will find your 'event' history, on those matters much greater then mine...thanks!

Why Did (I) link it? so you could find it.

:cool: O.K.?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

B since the instant Messaging system on this board doesn't seem to function terribly well, And (I) Suspect you will get the e-mail of this....

(SNIP) Why would a fifty something year old man who can feeeeeel people's innerbeauty from afar need to visit such sites? (SNP)

Well least you seem to be a Little More willing to admit to having feeelt me, EP1 was, well, Said (I) seemed to 'flit in and out' if (I) recall it properly ....SO Thanks! most people don't admit knowing that, or talk to/with me, openly, about it ............not-at-all.

As for Visiting Porn Sites, Who Said (I) did that?

But (I) have Seen Porn Before, after All (I) am An Adult and (I) used to Be a Child! (Teenager in there somewheres, too)

[Mr. B]

Robin, you're still missing the point. If all the matter in the universe is expanding out from a single point to either occupy open space, or generating new space around it (i'e space itself is expanding) the entropy count does not necessarily rise. The expanding closed system, remember?

We're still waiting for a description of your preferred model.

Read my posts again slowly, word by word. At no point have I said I can feeeeel you. I don't have Jedi powers. Wish I did though. I'd be a place kicker for the Dallas Cowboys! Come on every now and then, slice the ball, guide it between the posts using Jedi powers, collect a six figure cheque each month... I'll have to work on my telekenesis!

As an aside, you know when you quote people and add colour? Like in your last post? That counts as editing someones post. It is exactly this kind of editing which annoys EP=1, and to be frank (although that's not my name) me as well because it can change the emphasis of what has been said.

As far as your links to flesh sites, er thanks, but no thanks. Each to their own though - whatever you want to do in your own time. It should be removed as spam by the moderator though.



Two dogs pulling on opposite ends of a stick will eventually go around in circles.

[OfficeShredder]

Ok, the porn fairy. Apparently I was the only one curious to see what he actually linked to (just hover your cursor over the link, and it gives the URL in the bottom of your web browser)

He linked to a spam thread made elsewhere in the forum. It's not that terrible guys

[Epsilon=One]

Two dogs pulling on opposite ends of a stick will eventually go around in circles.More likely . . . ellipses.

[Epsilon=One]

...EP1 was, well, Said (I) seemed to 'flit in and out' if (I) recall it properly ....You do not "recall it properly."

Your behavior and liberties with others' quotes and your mistatements of their words is as despicable and intolerable as your wasting of everyone's time with off message posts that deceive and require mitigation.

If you can't move a topic along succinctly with a bit of decorum while respecting the rules and those who make an effort towards toleration, please post at: "Mr. Robin Parsons says.....?" (RPS) rather than screw up the dialogue of others.

Meaningful threads lose all interest when the reader must follow, sift, and correct your continuing off-topic drivel that if left standing indicates an agreement with your addled comments.

Why not just a word or two; such as "My thoughts here" that links to RPS. Then the reader can decide if your thoughts are worth the effort; and reply to you without screwing up an interesting thread.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Ok, the porn fairy. Apparently I was the only one curious to see what he actually linked to (just hover your cursor over the link, and it gives the URL in the bottom of your web browser)
He linked to a spam thread made elsewhere in the forum. It's not that terrible guys
Exactly what (I) had thought, thanks. :cool:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Robin, you're still missing the point. If all the matter in the universe is expanding out from a single point to either occupy open space, or generating new space around it (i'e space itself is expanding) the entropy count does not necessarily rise. The expanding closed system, remember?
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

You say "Entropy count does not rise" isn't that the Point (I) have been making, to you, No Entropy in the Universe....?? (Have you been missing that?)

We're still waiting for a description of your preferred model. Don't hold your breath.

Read my posts again slowly, word by word. At no point have I said I can feeeeel you. I don't have Jedi powers. Wish I did though. I'd be a place kicker for the Dallas Cowboys! Come on every now and then, slice the ball, guide it between the posts using Jedi powers, collect a six figure cheque each month... I'll have to work on my telekenesis!You don't need them, it is Me, not you, who can do this ... after that that you deny having feeelt me, Oh Well, Silly (Self decieved?) you.

As for re-reading you (I) have no interest in Wading through all of the Insults and offensiveness that surround what little contributions of actual Science are there.

As an aside, you know when you quote people and add colour? Like in your last post? That counts as editing someones post. It is exactly this kind of editing which annoys EP=1, and to be frank (although that's not my name) me as well because it can change the emphasis of what has been said.When (I) add color to a Quotation It is TO HIGHLIGHT the words, that does NOT count as editing as (I) have NOT changed a Single word, but (I) have drawn out (from the Surrounding Crap) the Operational word(s)/Wording as to respond to whatever it is that needs responding to....

As far as your links to flesh sites, er thanks, but no thanks. Each to their own though - whatever you want to do in your own time. It should be removed as spam by the moderator though. Links to flesh sites, WHERE??

But (I) would agree the Posting(s) in this Forum that constitutes a Spam(ing) should be removed

Two dogs pulling on opposite ends of a stick will eventually go around in circles.
Ha ha ha hahahahahaha :D You and EP1 :p

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You do not "recall it properly." So then, what?? you never admittied to anything?? or have never said a Word on it?? is that it??

Your behavior and liberties with others' quotes and your mistatements of their words is as despicable and intolerable as your wasting of everyone's time with off message posts that deceive and require mitigation. If you think what (I) type is a waste of time STOP READING IT cause (I) am NOT responsible for what you (agreed to, by looking at it) read!

If you can't move a topic along succinctly with a bit of decorum while respecting the rules and those who make an effort towards toleration, please post at: "Mr. Robin Parsons says.....?" (RPS) rather than screw up the dialogue of others.
Please, Take your OWN advice!

Meaningful threads lose all interest when the reader must follow, sift, and correct your continuing off-topic drivel that if left standing indicates an agreement with your addled comments.Look at that, Your looking in that Mirror again, and once again you only see yourself.....

Why not just a word or two; such as "My thoughts here" that links to RPS. Then the reader can decide if your thoughts are worth the effort; and reply to you without screwing up an interesting thread.
And whom was it that made you God of the Forum that you (seemingly) Dictate in his manner??

Oh Yes, BTW your off topic ....again!

(and Insulting and Rude-Arrogant-Pompous-Ad Hominemus Etc. Etc.)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

EP1 Look here post #13 (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=91&page=2&pp=10) You didn't admit it, nor did you deny it, (perhaps it is Just that (I) can recall what you "thought") soooooo??

So then, what? You cannot feel me, when (I) CAN feeel you, ......or you can, but will not admit to it? Right?

(BTW to the readers, Oprah Confirmed it to me, on television, more times then (I) could care to tell you about, so (I) DO know!)

Or your like B, unwilling to admit to the personal Reality that HAS transpired, Right B....?

Oh Yes, EP1 (I) found a Really Good Quote of you while (I) was looking, your "beliefs" about God....

This one....
My creed is that god is not anthropic; therefore god can have no thoughts . . . NO design. God has no awareness that man exists. God can take no side in disputes or morality. (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=33&page=1&pp=10) Post #10 ....proves that you are a Godless Man.

[Epsilon=One]

When (I) add color to a Quotation It is TO HIGHLIGHT the words, that does NOT count as editing as (I) have NOT changed a Single word, but (I) have drawn out (from the Surrounding Crap) the Operational word(s)/Wording as to respond to whatever it is that needs responding to....Your admitted practice is reprehensible, along with other mangling of quotes and positions that you misstate. Your posting practices are not acceptable in any civilized dialogue. If you must screw up quotes and positions, it is your responsibility to note that you are paraphrasing, editing, adding emphasis of any kind, etc.

When you are corrected your MO is always to confuse and mislead. Why not just try, "Thank you!" or agree to disagree.

Ha ha ha hahahahahaha :D You and EP1 :pThis is a fine example of your buffoonery and loutishness.

[Epsilon=One]

So then, what?? you never admittied to anything?? or have never said a Word on it?? is that it??Besides catching you making a deceptive comment, that's about it.

Thank you for reposting my comments followed by your comments in post #39. I could not have advocated my position any stronger than you have.

If you think what (I) type is a waste of time STOP READING IT cause (I) am NOT responsible for what you (agreed to, by looking at it) read!I waste my time only to point out your unending deceptions that the casual reader might accept at face value.

And whom was it that made you God of the Forum that you (seemingly) Dictate in his manner??As I have often pointed out, you have a very strange and irreverent concept of "God."

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Your admitted practice is reprehensible, along with other mangling of quotes and positions that you misstate. Your posting practices are not acceptable in any civilized dialogue. If you must screw up quotes and positions, it is your responsibility to note that you are paraphrasing, editing, adding emphasis of any kind, etc.© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Why would (I) 'note' that which is self evident, to appease the Stupid? like you?

As per your usual method, accusation without basis, without fact, merit, or PROOF!

When you are corrected your MO is always to confuse and mislead. Why not just try, "Thank you!" or agree to disagree.
Look at this, 'Manners lessons' from an ill mannered, Knowledgable Fool.

Oh Yes, when have you (ever) corrected me?

BTW an Unknowledgable fool at least has an excuse (ignorance) for being such.

This is a fine example of your buffoonery and loutishness.Me? turning your (and B's) joke, against me, back against you .....makes me a Lout?? Ha hahahahahahahahahaa! Your comical.

Talk about wasting someone time, mine, by you! :p

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Besides catching you making a deceptive comment, that's about it. As (I) had stated at the time it was IF (I) Recall it properly.....now (I)'ll need to go and search out just where you admitted that.

Thank you for reposting my comments followed by your comments in post #39. I could not have advocated my position any stronger than you have. Huh?

I waste my time only to point out your unending deceptions that the casual reader might accept at face value.Yet you have yet to show even one of them, my "unending deceptions" so, please do....or, admit your a liar.

As I have often pointed out, you have a very strange and irreverent concept of "God." Really, you can't tell that (I) was simply pointing out that your tone is all to often dictatorial?

It is you who has the Irreverant concept of God, well, actually no concept! right? A god you believe in who ......well, isn't there

And you think that that makes sense, and that that isn't misleading to any readers, think again.

Aside from that who made you self appointed GOD of the truth that you seem to think (I) employ un-ending deceptions? Huh?

[Epsilon=One]

Re: Mr. Robin Parsons' Posts #43 and #44.
I will let this post stand without any further comment than: Little could make my arguments more persuasively.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Look here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=2821#post2821) As (I) fixed my post.

As for making your agruements more pursuasively, well you have done an excellant job of demonstrating your character, in all of the accusations that you make.

The reason why you won't add further comment is because you know darn well you haven't any real (Substantial) proof of anything that you keep accusing me of......

As for misleading people YIKES! Look here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=627) Posts # 4 & 6 and they answer that posters questions HOW?? (Oh Right, they promote your ideas , razzle-dazzle the Poster, and leave them LOST)

The title of your post #6 "....there are those that work hard to obfuscate the simple truths." which is exactly what you tried to do with My use of the Wording "Isn't it simpler to use f = ma" followed by your Knowledgable Foolishness in trying to point out that no one knows a definition of force, etc. etc.

"No Fool Like and Old Fool" or so (I) hear/read.

[Epsilon=One]

As for making your agruements more pursuasively, well you have done an excellant job of demonstrating your character, in all of the accusations that you make.Thank you.

The reason why you won't add further comment is because you know darn well you haven't any real (Substantial) proof of anything that you keep accusing me of......Not quite correct. It's because your replies buttress my argument. I don't want to further muddle the issue.

As for misleading people YIKES! Look here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=627) Posts # 4 & 6 and they answer that posters questions HOW?? (Oh Right, they promote your ideas , razzle-dazzle the Poster, and leave them LOST)Thank you for drawing attention to these posts. I stand by them; in fact they're right on point. I always link to neologisms that I use; as, theiir definitions cannot be found in a dictionary.

I would appreciate your pointing out any particular sentence that you disagree with so that the issue may be discussed for the benefit of other Viewers. You never seem to have specific disagreements with any of my logic or mathematics; just everything in general and my person. I'm sure you would have more credibility overall if you could be specific concerning math and physics rather than continual carping without specifics.

The title of your post #6 "....there are those that work hard to obfuscate the simple truths." which is exactly what you tried to do with My use of the Wording "Isn't it simpler to use f = ma" followed by your Knowledgable Foolishness in trying to point out that no one knows a definition of force, etc. etc.The intent was to offset your reliance on classical physics, which appeared biased. A primary purpose of this forum is to discuss such ideas.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
Not quite correct. It's because your replies buttress my argument. I don't want to further muddle the issue. The only muddle is you

Thank you for drawing attention to these posts. I stand by them; in fact they're right on point. I always link to neologisms that I use; as, theiir definitions cannot be found in a dictionary. You Missed the point ......what else is new, asides from your obfuscational style

I would appreciate your pointing out any particular sentence that you disagree with so that the issue may be discussed for the benefit of other Viewers. You never seem to have specific disagreements with any of my logic or mathematics; just everything in general and my person. I'm sure you would have more credibility overall if you could be specific concerning math and physics rather than continual carping without specifics. .......once Again, FOLLOW your own advise!

The intent was to offset your reliance on classical physics, which appeared biased. A primary purpose of this forum is to discuss such ideas.What CRAP! your intent was to find a Manner in which to try to insult me, just that ....You failed!

[Epsilon=One]

Thank you for post #48.

I very much appreciate your effort . . . and the posting of my comments.

Now can you discuss something specific regarding Entropy that you have not already belabored.

If not, find another thread or start a thread; so that the rest of us can move on.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Thank you for post #48.
I very much appreciate your effort . . . and the posting of my comments.
Now can you discuss something specific regarding Entropy that you have not already belabored.
If not, find another thread or start a thread; so that the rest of us can move on.What a TWIT...

Case you didn't notice it, (I) Started this thread, so if you want to move on, GO AHEAD!! MOVE ON!! GET OFF OF THIS THREAD!!

Look, (I) did some research......

Page 1) Me, 5 posts, all about entropy. >> you? 1 Post #9 ....and it has NOTHING to do with entropy!

Page 2) Me 5 postings >> you 3 #16-#17-#18 ....some content but NO Content ON Entropy.....

Page 3) Me 6 >> you zero.

Page 4) Me 6 >> you 2 and STILL NO ENTROPY Discussion, or words, from YOU!

Page 5) Me 4 >> you 5 BUT not a WORD about entropy from you, just your CONTINUEING Ad Hominem ATTACK.

So like what the heck did you come to this thread entitled "ENTROPY" to do?? cause it sure as heck was NOT to discuss entropy, as you haven't! anywheres!

Must be what it usually is, your want of an audience.

And you tell me that those posts (I) used to show you that you edited my WORDS, proves your point...How deluded are you? you changed a Question Into a Statement and you want me to believe that it is me who misquotes, not you? WOW!! ....Huge.......
WOW!!

[Epsilon=One]

Case you didn't notice it, (I) Started this thread, so if you want to move on, GO AHEAD!! MOVE ON!! GET OFF OF THIS THREAD!!Sorry. I joined this thread with post #9, more or less, to support your position by disagreeing with your antagonist concerning open/closed systems.

Since then, most of my time has been defending myself against your ad hominems and deceptions.

Must be what it usually is, your want of an audience.You are correct. And, I might add that you have been an excellent foil to that intent. Have you noticed the soaring number of Viewers? Or, the large number of listings on Yahoo and Google?

And you tell me that those posts (I) used to show you that you edited my WORDS, proves your point...How deluded are you? you changed a Question Into a Statement and you want me to believe that it is me who misquotes, not you?Yes. Exactly.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Do you really expect me to believe anything you post ......any farther??

Sorry. I joined this thread with post #9, more or less, to support your position by disagreeing with your antagonist concerning open/closed systems. Not quite, more like your 'links to self' routine .....looking for new readers you can Baffle-Gab

Since then, most of my time has been defending myself against your ad hominems and deceptions.You really are an Instigator.....

You are correct. And, I might add that you have been an excellent foil to that intent. Have you noticed the soaring number of Viewers? Or, the large number of listings on Yahoo and Google?
No.

Yes. Exactly.
Proof! yet again, of how you willfully decieve yourself...

Nothing new...

oh yes, your history in this thread

Page #2 Posts #16 & #17 are overt attacks against me BY YOU And Without ANY provocation!

Page #4 Posts #35 Mockery & #36 Attack! Again!

Page #5 Post #41 Your Dictatorial statement #42 #45 #47 your defending your offence(s) #49 Your dictating again.....

And now, page #6 your defending yourself by attacking

Time to move on there "Bud" ......

And Oh Yes, you did (Sorta >> fault is your style) admit to 'feeling' me, sorta, Here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=91&page=4&pp=10&highlight=feel
) post #35 >> but, not really, as you lack the Courage requisite of that Kind of Honesty! (Just my Opinon)

[Mr. B]

Robin, here are a few references that might help you with entropy and thermodynamics second law.

Also, try looking up (aargh a web reference!) www.2ndlaw.somethingorotherpossiblydotcom... which expresses and explains far more eloquently than I will ever the concept of entropy from both an order and an energetic strandpoint.

Scholarly and helpful analysis of the Gibbs function, showing that is is more closely related to entropy than to energy and building on Planck’s function (of total entropy change in a universe): Professor Laurence E. Strong and H. Frank Halliwell, Journal of Chemical Education, 1970, 47 [5] 347 – 352.

An excellent introduction to Professor Norman C. Craig’s procedure of attacking entropy problems and to his short book Entropy Analysis (John Wiley, New York 1992), the best text on the subject, is in "Entropy Analyses of Four Familiar Processes", Journal of Chemical Education, 1988 65 (9), 760 – 764.

If you really want to talk about energy levels and entropy, Professor John P. Lowe’s explanation of the importance of the occupancy of energy levels as a genuine basis for entropy (rather than "randomness" or "disorder") via Q and A is superb in Journal of Chemical Education, 1988 65 (5), 403 – 406.


Hope this helps.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Gravity is a Summing Force, it always Adds.

So, No Entropy in the Universe, but on scale? EVERYWHERE.

So "Noooo prob-lemoo..."

Pssssst. Mr. B Current Knowledge in/of the Universe, it is Changing.