Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Hi Dr. Dick! Do You Follow This Argument?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on July 23, 2003 08:46:27 UTC

From a post to Mike Levine and to Mike Pearson:

If entropy is the amount of "bound energy" in a system:

I call it "bound alternatives"

which I call "specification"

but "time" involves specific generalisation?

So you get entropy in pasing time as:

specified specific generalisation:

or; generalised generalisation (as two specifications give generalisation):

so: given "generalisation generalised" now gives:

final answer is: "specification".

And "specification" is "bound alternatives";

so entropy CAN increase as "time passes" BUT ONLY IF YOU COUNT!

Entropy is optional.

If you count: you get for example:

specification (or bound energy) goes to NEW SPECIFICATION (counted bound energy)

so an example here of how a physics law is OPTIONAL and is only "laid down" by COUNTING.

So a relationship between physics and math exposed here......

I can show this in stunning detail for numerous physics laws...

Physics laws are optional and can take any form; it's a question of how you count.

If you stick labels on things; you might get stuck...

But if you count God first; nothing shall be impossible to you......................

do you see how the act of counting generates the LAW in a physics law?

"As YOU judge; so you are judged" it is said...

By the way: the minimal definition of a "function" is that something is "constant" in a varying scenario; effectively: "1 = 1 = 2" with "2" as the "same background" the ones are viewed against.

You and Profesor Stephen Hawking have apparently un-realisingly re-discovered math INSIDE math; something described pre-mathematically by Chris Langan as "conspansive duality", I might suggest...

("pea instanton" may be a way of re-finding: "1 + 1 = 2".)

"Generalisation" becomes "2" or "group": "specification" becomes "1" or "partially differentiated".

Universal Dirac Delta function becomes "1 + 1 = 2".

"Fourth axis virtual partical exchange" as "quantum electro-dynamics" (from your comments long ago) becomes: "including other perspective on 1 + 1 = 2" that is when one meets one; each one has a view on the meeting.

Distributive law inside distributive law: QED...?



Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins