God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Hi Alan And M.L. Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Michael W. Pearson on July 23, 2003 19:49:26 UTC

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

Where's the "then" in this "if:then?"
And what if "not?" Is this definition a standard one in physics? I could look it up, but will you please give me the general idea first?

I call it "bound alternatives"

which I call "specification"

Are you kidding? Okay, maybe you're going somewhere with this.

but "time" involves specific generalisation?

So you get entropy in passing time as:

specified specific generalisation:

I see you're approaching this from a kind of set theory, aside from the baggage of speculations which are current theory. It's a fresh look, eh?

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

so: given "generalisation generalised" now gives:
"specification":

I feel GIGO speaks to this. One must not
rush forward to plug unverified data or findings into the next stage without marking them clearly as tentative. Otherwise, one may draw conclusions and forget it was merely an hypothesis.

And "specification" is "bound alternatives";
so entropy CAN increase as "time passes" BUT ONLY IF YOU COUNT!

Entropy is optional.

This one eludes me. I think the capitalized letters need to be fleshed out before they even stimulate a sense of what you MIGHT be saying.

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.

I think this could be illustrated by a chart.
Can you make a web page and put a drawing online?

So a relationship between physics and math exposed here......
I can show this in stunning detail for numerous physics laws...

Well, don't let me stop you.

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...

Hence the step back you are taking. This much makes sense.

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

Oh, yeah. But you were saying you were short of cash to answer some of my earlier posts -- couldn't afford internet. Has that changed?

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

It's as clear as fog on a window....too soon to say for sure.

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

This was in the sense of being "condemned" or not. We are free to use our good judgement.

Regards,
Mike