The Animate And The Inanimate

[wucko]

http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm

 

This should be a textbook in physics studies. What do you think?

[imatfaal]

Why do you think it should? Most of the textbooks I know of in physics are maths-heavy and explain to the student how models are built up from simple postulates to recreate or predict what we are able to observe. My quick flip through this book makes me think that this is not the case for Sidis.

[John Cuthber]

Nothing written in magenta on black should be in a textbook.

[wucko]

Nothing written in magenta on black should be in a textbook.

 

ah, physics is a science of webdesign?

 

Why do you think it should? Most of the textbooks I know of in physics are maths-heavy and explain to the student how models are built up from simple postulates to recreate or predict what we are able to observe. My quick flip through this book makes me think that this is not the case for Sidis.

 

Because limiting ourselves to a language that can describe, dechipher and explain exclusively known-knowns infact prohibits any possibility of progress. And because there isnt a math sollution to any paradox. Such as the one of "having to deduce a irreversible law of physics from perfectly reversible ones". And because in reality the Real is never fully described, preciselly because of the symbolic chains (know as languages) that are used to describe the Real.

 

He wasnt a physicist, but I think this should be an introduction to theoretical cosmology.

 

" Our previous consideration on the production of radiant energy from the stars indicates that such production of radiant energy is only possible where the second law of thermodynamics is followed, that is, in a positive section of the universe. In a negative section of the universe the reverse process must take place; namely, space is full of radiant energy, presumably produced in the positive section of space, and the stars use this radiant energy to build up a higher level of heat. All radiant energy in that section of space would tend to be absorbed by the stars, which would thus constitute perfectly black bodies; "

 

It is good to note, that arround 1920 this guy asked hymself how would the universe appear to be if time was reversed (a mental experiment), and come to conclusions such asof existance of dark matter, black holes. One of the most 'annoying' notions of his is the notion of the 2nd law of thermodynamics not being a law at all, but an overwhelming probabillity. He goes and reconciles the paradox of "having to deduce an irriversible law from perfectly reversible ones" by claiming just that. Futhermore, he finds one of the best possible definitions of 'life' in the 2nd law, and yes- claims, that life IS the reversal of it. More to it: he reasons that there are other regions of universe where the 'tendencies' (of arrow of time) must be reverse. He goes on and describes it as a sort of 3-D checkerboard universe, with 'positive-tendency-universe regions' - (ours - 2nd law irriversible except for life itself) and 'negative-tendency-universe regions' (2nd law reversible in most cases- pseudo living organisms, reverse arroe of time) borrdered by 'neutral regions' constitute the whole universe as such - but not literaly as a 3d checkerboard.

 

Of course, he wasnt a physicist.

Edited May 12, 2012 by wucko

[swansont]

He wasnt a physicist, but I think this should be an introduction to theoretical cosmology.

 

" Our previous consideration on the production of radiant energy from the stars indicates that such production of radiant energy is only possible where the second law of thermodynamics is followed, that is, in a positive section of the universe. In a negative section of the universe the reverse process must take place; namely, space is full of radiant energy, presumably produced in the positive section of space, and the stars use this radiant energy to build up a higher level of heat. All radiant energy in that section of space would tend to be absorbed by the stars, which would thus constitute perfectly black bodies; "

 

Passages such as that do not inspire a whole lot of confidence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics holds everywhere; there is no evidence of "negative sections" of the universe where the "opposite" happens. A blackbody bathed in radiant energy, heating up, is in full accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The emitted power of a blackbody varias as [math]T^4_{blackbody} - T^4_{reservoir}[/math]

 

 

It is good to note, that arround 1920 this guy asked hymself how would the universe appear to be if time was reversed (a mental experiment), and come to conclusions such asof existance of dark matter, black holes. One of the most 'annoying' notions of his is the notion of the 2nd law of thermodynamics not being a law at all, but an overwhelming probabillity. He goes and reconciles the paradox of "having to deduce an irriversible law from perfectly reversible ones" by claiming just that. Futhermore, he finds one of the best possible definitions of 'life' in the 2nd law, and yes- claims, that life IS the reversal of it. More to it: he reasons that there are other regions of universe where the 'tendencies' (of arrow of time) must be reverse. He goes on and describes it as a sort of 3-D checkerboard universe, with 'positive-tendency-universe regions' - (ours - 2nd law irriversible except for life itself) and 'negative-tendency-universe regions' (2nd law reversible in most cases- pseudo living organisms, reverse arroe of time) borrdered by 'neutral regions' constitute the whole universe as such - but not literaly as a 3d checkerboard.

 

Of course, he wasnt a physicist.

 

Life is not a reversal of the 2nd law.

[wucko]

Nothing written in magenta on black should be in a textbook.

 

http://www.eoht.info...d+the+Inanimate

 

can you accpet the fonts of this webiste ?

 

Passages such as that do not inspire a whole lot of confidence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics holds everywhere; there is no evidence of "negative sections" of the universe where the "opposite" happens. A blackbody bathed in radiant energy, heating up, is in full accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The emitted power of a blackbody varias as [math]T^4_{blackbody} - T^4_{reservoir}[/math]

 

 

 

 

Life is not a reversal of the 2nd law.

 

He claims, that it is a very big probability that the 2nd law holds almost always but it probbably isnt a law at all. But he finds a paradox mentioned before and goes ahead and reconciles it. As long as I agree that life (worth living) is not a reverse of the 2nd law, in terms of description of life in scientific sense, nothing comes closer to it than the proposal to define life as the reversal of the 2nd law.

 

To me his idea in general proposes a universe with mater-anit matter properties, and finds a connection between stars and black holes in sense that in some way they are the same process, only the stars being an instance of positive tendency and black holes instances of negative tendency. I do not know, but is causality possible inside a black hole?

 

"Interestingly, in this work, Sidis predicted the existence of black holes (using the term "black body" stars), which he defined as a type of sun that would take in all light energy, and therefore be totally invisible, some forty-seven-years before the term "black hole" was even invented; a 1967 coining of American astrophysicist John Wheeler. [3] Sidis also described what is now known as the event horizon, using the term "boundary surface". A partial explanation of his theory is found in chapter eight ‘The Nebular Hypothesis’, where Sidis explains his views on the nebular hypothesis, black bodies, and radiation thermodynamics"

Edited May 12, 2012 by wucko

[John Cuthber]

The colour scheme might be better, but the physics problems still remain.

Why should something which makes mistakes like life being a breach of the 2nd law be a physics textbook?

[wucko]

The colour scheme might be better, but the physics problems still remain.

Why should something which makes mistakes like life being a breach of the 2nd law be a physics textbook?

 

not sure, but, it remains to be prooven that the 2nd law infact is a law at all (and not an very attractive and extremely likely probbability) I reffer: http://en.wikipedia....idt%27s_paradox

 

"Loschmidt's paradox, also known as the reversibility paradox, is the objection that it should not be possible to deduce an irreversible process from time-symmetric dynamics. This puts the time reversal symmetry of (almost) all known low-level fundamental physical processes at odds with any attempt to infer from them the second law of thermodynamics which describes the behaviour of macroscopic systems. Both of these are well-accepted principles in physics, with sound observational and theoretical support, yet they seem to be in conflict; hence the paradox. "

 

Loschmidt's paradox says physics is paradoxical. So did Sidis, and he reconciled the paradox by proposing 2nd law not being a law, but an overwhelming probbability. Much of what follows is indeed speculative, but thats what you are usually left with when you bump at a paradox.

 

Passages such as that do not inspire a whole lot of confidence. The 2nd law of thermodynamics holds everywhere; there is no evidence of "negative sections" of the universe where the "opposite" happens. A blackbody bathed in radiant energy, heating up, is in full accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The emitted power of a blackbody varias as [math]T^4_{blackbody} - T^4_{reservoir}[/math]

 

 

 

 

Life is not a reversal of the 2nd law.

 

I think the abillity of a black hole to emmit radiation could be a candidate for a reversal. but I admit Im very doubtful myself, or better said underinformed.

Edited May 13, 2012 by wucko

[John Cuthber]

If the second law was not a law then it wouldn't mater if life breached it, but life doesn't anyway.

So it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter.

[wucko]

If the second law was not a law then it wouldn't mater if life breached it, but life doesn't anyway.

So it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter.

 

if the second law is only a huge probability, then it matters alot if life brached it, but life can anyway. so it matters a litle bit, that it could not matter.

[John Cuthber]

"if the second law is only a huge probability, then it matters alot if life brached it, but life can anyway"

 

No it can't.

If you think otherwise, please cite evidence.

But, before you do so, check what "isolate system" means.

[wucko]

lets cite your evidence

[John Cuthber]

lets cite your evidence

That's not the way it goes.

You are making the extraordinary claim that something breaches the laws of thermodynamics. So it's your job to provide the evidence.