studiot

Are you planning to answer my question please ?

The old approach would have been to call them the Laws of Thermodynamics (there are 4) Most definitely not the other three you ask about. But I have already offered you a more modern approach. Models would be the correct word now. This is because subsequent to the original Laws being drafted (by Maxwell) different approaches were discovered (by Gibbs and Boltzman), So nowadays we have at least three different models using different quantities. This is the same as we have been trying to tell you about Mechanics. There are Newtonian models using forces There are Lagrangian models using generalised coordinates (momentum and position) There are Hamiltonian models using energy and several more.

No expert on cosmology maybe, but a wise and well considered post nonetheless. +1 This nonsense of pure speculation is a far cry for someone who started of asking the question. Thermodynamics is not a 'force'. Period. Congratualtions you have successfully hijacked your own thread. For your information models, views or interpretations of Physics that are based on the force concept are usually called Newtonian and most of the subject falls under the purview of Mechanics. There are however alternative models, viewpoints or interpretations that do not use a force concept at all. These may be derived from Newtonian and/or relativistic mechanics or the energy methods of Lagrange, Hamilton, Mach, and others. Or they may be represented by the Mathematics of 'forms' - forms in particular. Or again they may be represented by the calculus of variations. These latter methods have the advantage that they also mean something in both relativistic mechanics and quantum theory.

No but thank you for your response. I had not given any thought to your initial, Thomas was a biblical reference. No offence meant to anyone. I tried it on both an older mechanical scale and a more modern electronic one. The effect happens on both but is more pronounced on the mechanical one. It must be remembered that a bathroom scale has a large distribution platform supported on a post of very small cross section which is no doubt why the manufacturers instruct the user to stand squarely and quietly on the platform.

Thermodynamics is indifferent to whether there are four or four hundred or four thousand 'forces' acting or available. In short it is not about forces. Thermodynamics is also indifferent to time. Where in Thermodynamics is there any definition of a second or that your three minutes are the same as my three minutes ? Another basic fact about Thermodynamics is that it discusses thermodynamic equilibrium and the direction the evolution of a system can take, but not the time it takes for this to happen.

It's a bad one, then. Entanglement means you can't treat particles as separate, independent entities. Not only is it a defective analogy, the play is not according to the rules of Table Tennis. Kartazion please read my careful explanation again. You have it wrong the situation is not a binary one (either - or) As to the 'analogy' , we have a saying "It takes two to tango". A game or the game of ping pong is only one entity, and you need at least two for entanglement, by definition.

Thomas, this is on a par one experience in my life where a chartered engineer with degrees and theoretical calculations' and such stood next to me observering a test pile being pushed ito the London Clay with a force lower than his theoretical calculations required - and would not believe it. I posted a list of readings from my scale. You did not respond. Have you repeated the experiment for yourself ?

This has nothing to do with my point. We don't know if the Universe is an open or closed or isolated system. This is so basic that it must be addressed to make any statement about gain or loss of entropy or any other thermodynamic property. Until anyone can answer this they are just building castles in the air.

No Entropy is a state function. To apply the laws and structure of Thermodynamics you must first establish the state or states to have a state function. To establish the state (if any) you must establish the nature of the system (Universe) We do not know if the system is closed, open or isolated so cannot apply the Laws.

I owe you both an apology for my poorly drafted wording that I agree is totally confusing. Here is a better version. A simpler example than extrapolating back in time is to consider Charles Law. The volume of an ideal gas is directly proportional to its absolute temperature. V = aT where a is the constant of proportionality that depends upon the units employed for V and T. Therefore putting T = 0 into this equation yields V = 0 Therefore the volume of an ideal gas is zero at absolute zero. Now this is a suprising and disturbing result which shows the danger of extrapolating. Note also that I said an ideal gas. Real world gases do not obey this law at some low enough temperature, although for some gases, such as the ones Charles studied, it is pretty good at normal temperatures. Cosmology and cosmological equations are in the same state Physics was in the 18th century, or even less developed. I hope this helps.

No, I'm sorry I missed out the quote from the bottom of your posts. http://thescienceforum.org

B is much better. With A There is a twist on the screws and if they are of conventional thread this will offer a constant unscrewing force tending to work the screws a bit loose. Also with A the shear transfer is by friction from the clamping force between the plates any relaxation of which will tend to loosen the timber and cause sag at the loaded end. Edit I would also add a small triangular gusset underneath the bottom metal support. @iNow I see you are advertising these people and I had a look but couldn't get past the cookie blog. Are they still active ?

No we didn't notice the boom. We only learned about it from the News. Then I wondered if it was due the the volcanic eruption in Iceland. The last one (2010) could apparently beheard in the UK.

You keep repeating this like a mantra, but have not answered anyone's questions about the detail. The devil is in the detail and also in the fact that you are using conventionally defined terms quite differently from convention. One more thing. To have a beginning or end time (or any axis) must work on Poincare measure (ie the graduations of the scale get smaller and smaller as you approcah those points so you never actually reach them. This is similar to why we can't reach absolute zero of 'temperature', which is when incidentally an ideal gas has zero volume ie occupies zero space so exists as space time without space for as long as the gas is at absolute zero.

What on Earth do you mean in relation to this thread ?

You are the one making the claims, so you are the one who needs to provide proof. t0 and x0 are just points on a line. Mathematically I can extend the lines indefinitely in both directions and there is no mathematical reason that they must coincide. So my question remains.

I don't see an answer to my question to you.

No, the tide comes in and out under a sabkha crust. (Although the tide is the Red Sea is very small, especially by my standards in Somerset) The point is that the seawater is fully even super saturated with salts and minerals so the sabkha material cannot dissolve and forms a strong solid crust on the surface. In normal conditions this crust is so strong that the locals drive races up and down on it as it is very flat and even. But flash floods are formed from rainwater, which is fresh. This extra water runs floods down the wadi and empties into the sea where it dilutes the seawater enough to dissolve some salt out of the sabkha, collapsing its structure. And no I was not caught out, I was the one sent down to extract some colleagues who had inadvisedly driven out onto it, just before a flash flood.

But does it ? Certainly not according to the rules. The next event prescribed in the rules is that the ball must strike the table top in B's court plus a list of things it must not do. Before this happens, B is not allowed to strike, touch or influence the ball in any way so cannot be said to 'have the ball'. It is just not his ball yet. The correct sequence is that A strikes the ball, the ball strikes the table top and then B strikes the ball. In the period between A striking the ball and the ball striking the table top neither player has the ball. And if the ball does not strike the table top ie misses or spins back over the net then A looses the point. So the correct sequence is 1) The ball strikes the table top on B's side and B then 'has the ball' and retains the ball until he strikes it. 2) From B striking the ball to the ball striking the table top on A's side neither player 'has the ball'. 3) If The ball then strikes the table top on A's side, A 'then has the ball', until he strikes it. and so on. The middle event, (2) may well take bar far the longest time in a rally.

Yes it could happen and indeed there are many examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_crater_lake But this also does not address the issue of the deluge I mentioned before. Remember that the Bible was written by people used to dry semi desert and desert conditions. It has been suggested both here and in the article I linked to that any flood was local to the people concerned. From personal knowledge of the region I know that in the summer rainy season the area is subject to local flash floods to this day. But these are of very short duration. Have you heard of sabkha ? I had an interesting experience with this apparantly dry land by the Red Sea in 1976? In the last two decades we have gained a new understanding of the 'ocean conveyor'. This is the fact that the ocean current systems all link up to one giant circulatory system that moves water around the globe. Air currents and winds are driven by this and tend to follow the distribution. So is our whole climatic system. Not that far to the east of the middle east lies the indian sub and southy east asian sub continents. These are subject to an annula monsoon deluge. Another hypothesis is that one year perhaps a glitch in the ocean currents moved the monsoon west causing some sort of flood. The possibility is worrying as changes to the ocean conveyor could dramatically change our climate.

This is not what I meant. Let us call the players A and B. Suppose A strikes the ball. So at that point A clearly 'has the ball' and B does not. Now consider an infinitesimal instant after A has struck the ball. A is not allowed to strike the ball again or in any way further influence its trajectory. So does A still 'have the ball ?

Yes that is the difficulty. I think there is a period when neither player 'has the ball'

Please define

Unless you have/had a hidden agenda, the stated (by yourself) topic of this thread is about the Science or scientific basis of Noah's Flood as represented in the Bible and to a lesser degree as referred to in other ancient writings. What on Earth does circumcision have to do with this ?

Yes and no. Yes this is the principle of the magnetic impellor in a central heating pump. No you can't get something for nothing. You would need sufficient current to be flowing in the cabling for the magnetic coupling.