joigus

You seem to be overly interested in words and moot points. Saying just "thermodynamics" suggests either classical, chemical or equilibrium thermodynamics; all of them based on equilibrium. There's also statistical mechanics, but that's almost never called thermodynamics. And there's non-equilibrium thermodynamics, but that's such a misnomer (it's not about just heat, temperature, and the like) that everybody referring to it always mentions it by the whole name, "non-equilibrium thermodynamics," only to make clear that it's not thermodynamics (T, Q, etc.) Here are all as covered by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#Branches_of_thermodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-equilibrium_thermodynamics You tell me which one you're referring to. There's also kinetics, but I'm not interested in climbing the tower of Babel. I meant (and I said) regions of phase space. Regions of phase space are not regions of 3-dimensional space. You're confusing both. I mean volumes in the way of, \[d^{3n}xd^{3n}p\] IOW, regions in a humongous 3Nx3N-dimensional space. It is in that space of huge dimension where sampling is robust. Macroscopic systems are ergodic, meaning that time averages give you a very good idea of phase-space averages (averages to all momenta and all positions) when systems are at equilibrium or going round and round in cycles. The molecules you describe as going up to the outer reaches of the atmosphere have to go back and recycle, participating in the overall thermal and dynamical processes, and exchanging the energy. That's the key. But all this is quite academic and, if pressed, I wouldn't be too sure of anything, the way you seem to be. Here's a much more intuitive explanation of why sampling in this way works even for chaotic systems: Tim Palmer's lecture at Perimeter Institute Lecture: Climate Change, Chaos, and Inexact Computing 11' 40''-16' 37'' (I copied the link starting at about the time when he explains the point.) I'm not an expert in climate change. @Area54 or @Ken Fabian can probably give much more accurate information and point out my excesses. I just wish to argue with my toolkit. And with my toolkit at hand, the arguments about "global warming" (however much of just a catchphrase that is) make a lot of sense to me.

Yes, you're right. My own pessimistic thinking is that we would be so busy at each other's throat that nobody would care about other survivors out there. But your question is very interesting, as well as the answers so far. I do believe with you that attempts at communication with intelligent animals should be a good laboratory for that hypothetical situation. Maybe we can train some animals to speak once a code is "agreed."

I've just squared a second and it gave me 1 second squared, so apparently you can.

This is a very good idea. I just hope when/if they read the message, they don't mistranslate it to "Hey, there's food and other usable energy here."

Thermodynamics is the study of equilibrium. The Earth is not a system in equilibrium. Climate science most emphatically is not sheer thermodynamics. Thermodynamics, e.g., does not allow you to calculate anything statistical, like, e.g., fluctuations. Statistical mechanics does. In (most) statistical mechanical systems, you can see that the temperature is the average kinetic energy per degree of freedom. These degrees of freedom are coded in what I called specific heat. Because systems are ultimately Hamiltonian, they satisfy an interesting mathematical property: The phase-space points can mix all they want (and in chaotic systems they do, which makes averages more robust, not less), but they do not contract in volume, meaning that microscopic systems spread their dynamical information very efficiently. IOW, there is no chance that a small region of phase space can store big quantities of energy making local averages non-robust, as you are suggesting. As to local cooling: If the first statistical moment of the distribution is shifting, an increase in the second moment is exactly what I would expect before the system reaches the next closer-to-stationary stage. If the variance goes up, some places would overheat and others would "overcool." Nothing unexpected there, because the system is "trying to equilibrate." So temperature measurements are significant. But they're not the whole story, as has been pointed out to you over and over. The sea is nearly a perfect absorber of radiation and the ice caps are nearly a perfect reflector (albedos.) There is the question of sea currents too. The ice caps should be building up by now because we are well within a Milankovitch cycle. They're not: It's just the opposite. This will interrupt the circulating flow in the seas. None of these important details seem to have caught your attention, which would have amounted to an interesting conversation. All you're interested in is to not let go of your strawman (the average temperature parameter) and punch its face repeatedly. The average temperature, being significant, is the catchphrase you've chosen to attack. It's your voodoo doll against climate science. Your point does not stand, it's a blurry blob. Your strawman does.

Water bears. Tardigrade

Monitor the trend of the averaged temperatures of a turbulent gas measured over wide spans of time and space which have highly heterogeneous pressure and surface conditions. Exactly. Of the average temperatures of a turbulent gas measured over wide spans of time and space which have highly heterogeneous pressure and surface conditions. You seem to have a very basic problem of understanding. And @VenusPrincess, don't go further in that direction, because I can see very clearly now how much you ignore about ergodicity and the role it plays in physics. Doh!

Theorems are proven mathematical results. Physics' so-called theorems are rigorous results: Coleman-Mandula, Penrose-Hawking, Köchen-Specker, Bell, Ehrenfest... What do they mean? How relevant are they? are different questions. These theorems are later examined by mathematicians, and cast in more and more rigorous and/or alternative formulations. You can doubt the premises. The authors themselves make no claim about their premises. They claim: If these premises are true, then this result follows. I don't trust you, because you don't accept a mathematically proven result. So I know you're wrong. Also, you miss this very important sociological point: Physics, in its human dimension, is driven by fierce competition. Rivals somewhere are only too willing to prove you wrong, no matter who you are.

It must have been Mr. Spock quoting Sherlock Holmes. CMCs or space-like translations between parallel fantasy universes aside. Anyway. Radiation thermalises very easily. Unless in cosmic expanding spaces, in which it rather vanishes into a stretched-out red-shifted mantle of quasi nothingness. In between those extremes, the only chance I can see for the OP's hopes is the crackling sound of an old radio frequency trying to tell someone out there how to build an amino acid. Trying to end on a poetic note. 🖖

A statistical distribution is made up of an infinite series of statistical moments. What you're saying is that the first statistical moment is not significant. Never mind that reports of global temperature are meant to monitor general trends, not to build a rover to operate here or there. @Area54 has seen your strawman miles away. I was distracted. <T_Mars> = -63 ºC <T_Venus> = 453 ºC So this is utterly useless even to build a rover? I don't know why you want to build a rover in order to monitor Earth's global climate, by the way. If you wanted to build a rover, it would be silly to rely only on average global temperature as "the" parameter. I wouldn't describe the behaviour of an ant's colony only in terms only of its average position either.

Just to take some input from recent threads, not spending countless hours, days, and even years on a hopeless, idiotic idea (because you know better) can do wonders for your intelligence's performance. That's a kind of wisdom that could be particularly useful.

Not everything that's useful or meaningful as an average must have a valid thermodynamic definition. The average receding speed of the galaxies is increasing, yet the universe is not a thermodynamic system. The concept of temperature that's used in these atmospheric models is more akin to the concept of temperature in the heat equation. It is not the thermodynamic concept of temperature but for small cells of material that have a definite specific heat. Do you suggest the Earth's atmosphere does not have a useful concept of specific heat?

The genetic code is not fixed. It suffers genetic drift, mutations; some good, some bad, some neutral. And for about three billion years most anything that lived on Earth were bacteria and archaea, or similar. Where was our genetic code written all that time? Genetic code is not a fixed thing. Bear in mind, the rebound, if you prefer that term, goes to about a billion K degrees. Never mind collapse is not reached. What nucleotide can survive that? EM signals? Radiation in the universe doesn't hold information. In fact, in cosmological calculations, the entropy of the universe (the disorder) is about the number of photons. Crystals can hold information, not radiation.

The Bohr model is a quantum mechanical (not classical) model of sorts. You can get a good fit for the dynamics of the ground state for the hydrogen atom with semi-classical arguments. But the "centrifugal force" is supplied by uncertainty momentum. That's not really a "force." You can actually calculate quite a good approximation to the ground-state energy by means of HUP. But that's as far as it goes with half-classical arguments AFAIK. You must use quantum mechanics to solve quantum mechanical problems. I need more time to look at the previous arguments. That's all I can say now. Swansont can handle it perfectly.

@molbol2000, what do Cossacks have to do with P=NP? Give it a rest or open a new thread, would be my suggestion.

I think ALL is American: https://americanlacrosseleague.com/ Are the sources intelligent? is another question.

I think evidence is that life did arise. Complex life comes from much, much simpler life. Why would beings from another cosmic cycle send seeds in the form of amino-acids and simple nucleotides, when these can be formed from simpler substances? --Miller-Urey experiment and others. And how would these molecules survive a re-collapsing universe and a new big-bang?

No way to go off-topic, as the topic is ALL.

All is clear now.

Torques can cancel each other, kinetic energy can cancel potential energy, but kinetic energies can never cancel each other. Kinetic energy is positive by definition. Had you accepted my discussion in terms of rigid bodies, you would have seen that very clearly from first principles. For a partition into different points i of a rigid body in an inertial frame it has the form, \[\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}m_{i}\left(\boldsymbol{V}+\boldsymbol{\omega}\wedge\boldsymbol{r}_{i}\right)^{2}\] which is always positive. After all, the kinetic energy is a sum of contributions (1/2)mv2, which is always positive.

You already said. Sorry.

Glycine has been found in asteroids too. It's the simplest amino acid. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-on-a-comet/

And at 90º "steepness" the drive would go to zero, because cos(90º) = 0. Ergo, no drive. Maths saves you a lot of thinking work. Maths are by nature non-intuitive perhaps, but once you learn them, they overcome most all flaws coming from our intuition. You can autopilot most of the time. But you've been one of the nicest, most civil speculators in these forums. For that, I thank you. The sad thing about this is, IMHO, that had you taken the criticism, maybe there would be an idea behind worth considering (by using frictionless superconductors, high "steepness" combined, who knows.) In the way of an efficient drive mechanism, rather that spontaneous drive, which is a physical impossibility. Ditto. I can't add more reactions today. I would need some action.

Just curious, @michel123456. Can you explain to me, so that I can see clearly that you understand, what synchronizing clocks mean? Please add some explanation of how observers (both in the same inertial frame and in different ones) synchronize their clocks. There is a reason why Einstein took pains to define very clearly this concept both in his papers and his popular books from the start. All observers, no matter what their state of inertial motion, must agree on one event as the origin of coordinates for space and time. That way, all transformations become linear and homogeneous. As Markus says: (My emphasis.) Otherwise you're working with affine transformations in space-time and the discussion becomes an unwholesome indigestible mess, if not mathematically, conceptually at least. And if not for others, at least for me. Sorry for the extra work that I'm giving you. I'm following the conversation from a distance, and I need some precautions in order not to turn mad. I won't participate much, I promise. If other users don't need this, it's OK with me. I'll try to keep up as best I can.