🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 21, 8:45 am, "rayoha...@yahoo.com.ar" <juanp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 21, 10:26 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 1:45 pm, "rayoha...@yahoo.com.ar" <juanp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > mmm... u put words and meanings that I´m not intend to. also u are
> > > diverging with our arguments, we cannot have a constructive discussion
> > > if it happen, cause we´re end nowhere. I don´t want to loose my time.
>
> > > i´d said ¨classical thermodynamics "is a very good theory, but it has
> > > no sense when u try to link it with arrow time¨.
>
> > It does not matter what you say or what I say. The name of both of us
> > is just "Mr. Loser". In contrast, Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa and Uffink are
> > by no means Mrs. and Mr. Loser so what they say is important:
>
> >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> > Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
> > to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
> > law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
> > statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
> > attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
> > Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
> > arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
> > actually a RED HERRING."
>
> > The problems are: why does Sir Arthur Eddington contradict Ehrenfest-
> > Afanassjewa and Uffink, why don't you care, why does nobody else care:
>
> >http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
> > The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme
> > position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that
> > your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's
> > equations--then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is
> > found to be contradicted by observation--well, these experimentalists
> > do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against
> > the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is
> > nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. Sir Arthur
> > Eddington (The Nature of the Physical World, 1915)
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> quote:
> { It does not matter what you say or what I say. The name of both of
> us
> is just "Mr. Loser". In contrast, Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa and Uffink are
> by no means Mrs. and Mr. Loser so what they say is important: }
>
> u think it about u, i don´t think in that way.
>
> quote:
> {The problems are: why does Sir Arthur Eddington contradict Ehrenfest-
> Afanassjewa and Uffink, why don't you care, why does nobody else
> care:}
>
> they contradict, because the look the answer in classical
> thermodynamics only, they both where wrong, and that´s the reason why
> nobody cares. if u want the answer u must look in statistical
> mechanics, u must enter into microscopic considerations, not details
> (as for example a particular hamiltonian), but it´s important the
> connection between classical thermodynamics, and its foundation from
> statistical mechanics. details don´t matters because, the important
> thing is about to note differences between canonical (or grand
> canonical) and microcanonical ensembles. the answer comes from what is
> adiabatically isolated and its effects from the microscopic point of
> view.
>
> best regards
> rayohauno- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

this is actually an indication of an unrecognized process. the problem
arrises as a result of an insistance on using GR and extrapolating
backwards in time. if you don't want nonsensical answers about entropy
increasing regardless of times' direction you must answer the question
of why the universe expands and that requires the existance of an
unrecognized process. entropy incresing into the past is an illusion
in the same sense that you have as many ancestors as descendants.