Thu, 14 Feb 2008
Re: #297 Corey Said:
>>"February 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
>>Mark Witt wrote: “Please note that I wrote “through the
>>Second Law of Thermodynamics.” The point of attack is
>>not directly the Second Law - instead, it is the Zeroth
>>Law. It is important not to conflate these two
>>statements.”
>>And this is what we call a moving goalpost fallacy.
>>Predictably it fails as well. Here’s the 0th law: If
>>two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium
>>with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with
>>each other. In other words, if A & B are the same
>>temperature as C, A & B are also the same temp. As the
>>sun’s surface is several thousand degrees Kelvin, we
>>know Sol and Terra are not in equilibrium. Mark…make
>>sure you actually read some physics before
>>posting-Wikipedia, Google, and textbooks will be used
>>against you (and it makes you look like an idiot).
>>The rest of your post is irrelevant."
HOW UNFAIR, Sir! You dismiss me out of hand!
Your repertoire of counterarguments is quite predictable, TOO.
At some point, you are going to tell me that the time translation invariance of a Lagrangian is related to conservation of energy by Noether's theorem.
(You might add for flavor that Emmy Noether was a German mathematician that studied at Erlangen, but was denied a paid professorship in Germany because she was a woman. Then she immigrated to the US....)
That is all beside the point.
You might also mention that the first law of thermodynamics is a restatement of conservation of energy for a system that is defined by a particular boundary.
Ok, that is all well and good.
Also, you already stated that the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is essentially the transitivity of equality applied to temperature.
Who has not heard that before?
I could have looked it up on Wikipedia or I could have used Google. Why should I, though? I have a pretty damn good idea of exactly what I am doing!
Admittedly, I am a little uneasy with the handling of the sharpened Hodge Star Operator. Maybe I miscalculated the boundary terms, but I don't think so; I doubt that I am off by any more than a factor of 6 times the square root of the variance - AND that is pretty good for any calculation!!!
It seems that the single-wash property (isoclysm) of the system DOES, indeed, generate spin cocycles on the manifold associated with the du Gerdemain manifold.
If you go back to the original papers - especially, Auguste du Gerdemain's paper. I am sure my position will be clear to you.
FIND someone who can help you with the French text and take a look at the partitive functions and their use in du Gerdemain. Yes, yes...I know that the common terminology in modern statistical mechanics refers to them as PARTITION functions, but this is using the original FRENCH terminology!
I would like to have a productive exchange with you, so please do as I ask with an open mind.
May God Bless B.S.!
Sincerely,
Mark Witt
(Provisional Founding Council Member)
Intelligent Design,
Institute of Theory
New Haven, CT
No comments:
Post a Comment