How to violate the (Clausius statement of the) second law of thermodynamics with blackbodies

[Gerhard]

Abstract
This article describes an isolated optical setup where the entropy increases when two blackbodies - starting at same temperture - will build up a certain temperature difference. This is done by a special arragement where a kind of filter blocks a different fraction of heat radiation in both directions. Therefore one blackbody will cool off the other will warm up - until a temperature difference will be established. This prove will be done in a qualitativ form.
This optical setup violoates the Clausius statement of the 2nd law, an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, which states that "Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time."

Setup
The optical setup consists of five sheets. There are two blackbodies at the outer borders. In between are two transparent media with a high refractive index. In the middle is a transparent medium with a low refractive index. This sheet acts like a filter which let pass only beams with an angle lower than the critical angle. If these sheets are all parallel (like a "sandwich") no net flux will occur between the black bodies. However if a least one sheet is rotated, a net flux will occur which leads to the temperature difference. It is surprising, you can find this prove here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9LA2olZBPyhaU1kYlNlUG5WSDA/edit?usp=sharing

(PDF, without login)

Gerhard

[gghe...@gmail.com]

Hi Gerhard, Well I looked it over quickly. I'm a bit confused how you defeated reciprocity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism)#Optical_reciprocity_in_radiometric_terms.

I'm pretty sure light going one way can also go back.

George H.

[Gerhard]

>
> Hi Gerhard, Well I looked it over quickly. I'm a bit confused how you defeated reciprocity.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism)#Optical_reciprocity_in_radiometric_terms.
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure light going one way can also go back.
>
>
>
> George H.

Thanks for your response.

In fact, the light can always go back, but the intensity may differ.

So when one beam can get from a certain point P at one blackbody to a point Q to the other blackbody, there is always a way back, from Q to P - and vice versa. The prove focuses on another fact, that the intensity differ.

The simplest statement for "Reciprocity" regarding optics states that 'if I can see you, then you can see me'. This remains true for this setup. The equality of the amount is proved by using the second law of thermodynamics, which is however only an empirically validated postulate.

Gerhard

[Phil Hobbs]

I commend to your attention the law of conservation of radiance, which
can be proved rigorously from Maxwell's Equations.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[gghe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:57:44 AM UTC-4, Gerhard wrote:
> >
>
> > Hi Gerhard, Well I looked it over quickly. I'm a bit confused how you defeated reciprocity.
>
> >
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(electromagnetism)#Optical_reciprocity_in_radiometric_terms.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm pretty sure light going one way can also go back.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > George H.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
>
>
> In fact, the light can always go back, but the intensity may differ.
>
>
>
> So when one beam can get from a certain point P at one blackbody to a point Q to the other blackbody, there is always a way back, from Q to P - and vice versa. The prove focuses on another fact, that the intensity differ.

Hmm, how does that happen? (different intensities.)
I mean if the two bodies are at the same temperature.

>
>
>
> The simplest statement for "Reciprocity" regarding optics states that 'if I can see you, then you can see me'. This remains true for this setup. The equality of the amount is proved by using the second law of thermodynamics, which is however only an empirically validated postulate.

Well as far as I'm concerned everything we know in science is empirically validated. You do the experiment to test your theory. (You can't fool me with those big words :^)

George H.


>
>
>
> Gerhard

[haitic...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:14:48 AM UTC-4, Gerhard wrote:

Well, you can make a perpetual motion machine if this analysis is correct, can't
you? Then we could all retire. But I've heard the Ruler of the universe is a
Scrooge about unwinding randomness spontaneously. A pity. It's very unfair,
don't you think? :)
(Trying to remember who first formulated the 2nd law - Helmholtz?

[Gerhard]

Am Dienstag, 22. April 2014 22:12:40 UTC+2 schrieb gghe...@gmail.com:
>
> > So when one beam can get from a certain point P at one blackbody to a point Q to the other blackbody, there is always a way back, from Q to P - and vice versa. The prove focuses on another fact, that the intensity differ.
>
> Hmm, how does that happen? (different intensities.)
>
> I mean if the two bodies are at the same temperature.

This is the main point of the idea. Firstly, the sheet with the lower refractive index acts like a filter for certain angles (but the same for both directions). Secondly, this filter is not parallel to one of the black bodies. The combination of both facts will generate this effect. But nevertheless the optical propagation here is reciprocal.

> > The simplest statement for "Reciprocity" regarding optics states that 'if I can see you, then you can see me'. This remains true for this setup. The equality of the amount is proved by using the second law of thermodynamics, which is however only an empirically validated postulate.
>
> Well as far as I'm concerned everything we know in science is empirically validated. You do the experiment to test your theory. (You can't fool me with those big words :^)

Many laws are mathematical proved, like the first law, and of course this fact is empirically validated.
The second law about "heat can flow spontaneously from a colder to the hotter body" is only a validated postulate, since in daily life you don't cannot see such an effect. However it may exists like the Maxwell's demon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
I wrote a simple simulation program (for another purpose) using the Monte Carlo method, starting beams randomly from both blackbodies and calculate the reflections and absorption. When I simulate that all sheets are parallel, no net flux appear. But using this setup I described (including the sheet with the lower refractive index) the net flux will appear.

Gerhard

[Gerhard]

Am Dienstag, 22. April 2014 23:51:56 UTC+2 schrieb haitic...@gmail.com:

> Well, you can make a perpetual motion machine if this analysis is correct, can't
>
> you? Then we could all retire. But I've heard the Ruler of the universe is a
>
> Scrooge about unwinding randomness spontaneously. A pity. It's very unfair,
>
> don't you think? :)
>
> (Trying to remember who first formulated the 2nd law - Helmholtz?

What's about e.g. the "Maxwell's demon"? I'm sure you'll find the mistake I made in the article in a few seconds ...

Gerhard

[gghe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:07:32 AM UTC-4, Gerhard wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 22. April 2014 22:12:40 UTC+2 schrieb gghe...@gmail.com:
>
> >
>
> > > So when one beam can get from a certain point P at one blackbody to a point Q to the other blackbody, there is always a way back, from Q to P - and vice versa. The prove focuses on another fact, that the intensity differ.
>
> >
>
> > Hmm, how does that happen? (different intensities.)
>
> >
>
> > I mean if the two bodies are at the same temperature.
>
>
>
> This is the main point of the idea. Firstly, the sheet with the lower refractive index acts like a filter for certain angles (but the same for both directions). Secondly, this filter is not parallel to one of the black bodies. The combination of both facts will generate this effect. But nevertheless the optical propagation here is reciprocal.

OK, I'm not very good at getting all the theory right. In the (paraphrased) words of Brian Pippard, "I need some data to help guide my thinking."
But it sounds like you need to look into Phil's point about etendue.

>
> > > The simplest statement for "Reciprocity" regarding optics states that 'if I can see you, then you can see me'. This remains true for this setup. The equality of the amount is proved by using the second law of thermodynamics, which is however only an empirically validated postulate.
>
> >
>
> > Well as far as I'm concerned everything we know in science is empirically validated. You do the experiment to test your theory. (You can't fool me with those big words :^)
>
>
>
> Many laws are mathematical proved, like the first law, and of course this fact is empirically validated.

Hmm Well maybe we can just disagree about this.
For myself, you can show mathematically that some theory is consistent.
But the physics/science "proof" has to come from the real world.

>
> The second law about "heat can flow spontaneously from a colder to the hotter body" is only a validated postulate, since in daily life you don't cannot see such an effect. However it may exists like the Maxwell's demon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
>

That's nice... Feynman does this nice ratchet and pawl, example of a "demon".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet

George H.

[haitic...@gmail.com]

SNIP

> That's nice... Feynman does this nice ratchet and pawl, example of a "demon".
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet
>
>
>
> George H.
>
> > I wrote a simple simulation program (for another purpose) using the Monte Carlo method, starting beams randomly from both blackbodies and calculate the reflections and absorption. When I simulate that all sheets are parallel, no net flux appear. But using this setup I described (including the sheet with the lower refractive index) the net flux will appear.
>
>
> > Gerhard

I agree that the 2nd law CAN be violated, in theory. This is because the law is
NOT wired into the rest of physics. The rest of classical physics runs backward
and forward in time, t. All the equations work with -t.
So the 2nd law gives time its "vector," pointing forward.
But, the only thing driving the 2nd law is the irreversibility of randomization...
Leo Szilard's 1936 paper dealt with ths issue, whether a Maxwell's Demon can
"cheat" the second law - and Leo decided that the Demon needed information
about the gas molecules to open the trap door efficaciously.
Therefore: Information = -entropy.


But, an "entropy sorter" would not violate any classical physical laws.
And - cosmologists and theoretical physicists have written about "time," and
their thoughts may be different than the above, involving such things as signals
travelling backward in time. The above views are current as of 1920. (see
Feynman et al.)

[Phil Hobbs]

Nuts.

[Gerhard]

Besides, very is the mistake in this really simple idea I described?

Gerhard

[gghe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:06:29 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 11:36 AM, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > SNIP
>
> >
>
> >> That's nice... Feynman does this nice ratchet and pawl, example of a "demon".
>
> >>
>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> George H.
>
> >>
>
> >>> I wrote a simple simulation program (for another purpose) using the Monte Carlo method, starting beams randomly from both blackbodies and calculate the reflections and absorption. When I simulate that all sheets are parallel, no net flux appear. But using this setup I described (including the sheet with the lower refractive index) the net flux will appear.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Gerhard
>
> >
>
> > I agree that the 2nd law CAN be violated, in theory. This is because the law is
>
> > NOT wired into the rest of physics. The rest of classical physics runs backward
>
> > and forward in time, t. All the equations work with -t.
>
> > So the 2nd law gives time its "vector," pointing forward.
>
> > But, the only thing driving the 2nd law is the irreversibility of randomization...
>
> > Leo Szilard's 1936 paper dealt with ths issue, whether a Maxwell's Demon can
>
> > "cheat" the second law - and Leo decided that the Demon needed information
>
> > about the gas molecules to open the trap door efficaciously.
>
> > Therefore: Information = -entropy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > But, an "entropy sorter" would not violate any classical physical laws.
>
> > And - cosmologists and theoretical physicists have written about "time," and
>
> > their thoughts may be different than the above, involving such things as signals
>
> > travelling backward in time. The above views are current as of 1920. (see
>
> > Feynman et al.)
>
> >
>
>
>
> Nuts.

Grin... I think people have a problem grasping how many atoms there are.
10, 100 1,000. We can deal with those types of numbers.. 10**23 blows the mind.

My son (age 12) would like to do away with the conservation of energy.
He's always coming up with schemes to make things better, faster, stronger...
and when his silly dad mentions conservation of energy... Well he's hoping that will soon be proven wrong... maybe he will do it. I tell him to "go for it".

George H.

[Phil Hobbs]

Another recreational impossibility, a la Douglas Adams.

Heat flows from hot to cold because in statistical mechanics, the ratio
of the probabilities (basically the state densities) favours that
direction by so large a factor that it's overwhelmingly probable that no
vaguely macroscopic hot object has ever got hotter by spontaneous heat
transfer from a colder object in the entire history of the universe.

I haven't slogged through Gerhard's example, but the usual ways that
people cock up radiative transfer calculations are failing to take into
account the change in the speed of light due to changing refractive
index (which gives erroneous numbers for the flux and the energy
density) or ignoring total internal reflection.

Cheers

Phil "Heard it all before" Hobbs

[Gerhard]

snip

>
>
> My son (age 12) would like to do away with the conservation of energy.
>
> He's always coming up with schemes to make things better, faster, stronger...
>
> and when his silly dad mentions conservation of energy... Well he's hoping that will soon be proven wrong... maybe he will do it. I tell him to "go for it".
>
>
>
> George H.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Cheers
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Phil Hobbs
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > Dr Philip C D Hobbs
>
> >
>
> > Principal Consultant
>
> >
>
> > ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
>
> >
>
> > Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 160 North State Road #203
>
> >
>
> > Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > hobbs at electrooptical dot net
>
> >
>
> > http://electrooptical.net

Perfect. Plese tell me when he has refuted the prove :-)

Gerhard

[Gerhard]

>
> Another recreational impossibility, a la Douglas Adams.
>
>
>
> Heat flows from hot to cold because in statistical mechanics, the ratio
>
> of the probabilities (basically the state densities) favours that
>
> direction by so large a factor that it's overwhelmingly probable that no
>
> vaguely macroscopic hot object has ever got hotter by spontaneous heat
>
> transfer from a colder object in the entire history of the universe.
>
>
>
> I haven't slogged through Gerhard's example, but the usual ways that
>
> people cock up radiative transfer calculations are failing to take into
>
> account the change in the speed of light due to changing refractive
>
> index (which gives erroneous numbers for the flux and the energy
>
> density) or ignoring total internal reflection.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Phil "Heard it all before" Hobbs
>
>

Thanks for your response. Both points are very important.
Regarding the speed of light: In this setup the speed is not important at all. In principle there are two blackbodies and in between some transparent media. The flux from blackbody A to B will (after a short time) only depend on the number of generated beams at A per time period and the probability that a beam from A will reach B any ant time. The time for the beams from A to reach B is irrelevant. And vice versa.
I considered the total internal reflection, since is one of the important facts from this setup. The transparent sheet in the middle has a lower refractive index than the other two sheets left and right. Therefore the beams with an angle arger than the critical angle with respect to the normal to the surface will be reflected. Interestingly when one blackbody is not parallel to this middle sheet, then this effect will occur.
Best regards,
Gerhard

[haitic...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:06:29 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Nuts? The 2nd law is statistical, and it is separate from the rest of physics.
If you were to violate F=MA, all hell would break loose. But entropy
is not tied into the basic structure of physics the way F=MA or the
gravitational force is.

I'm not saying anyone could violate statistics, just that there isn't the
fundamental laws against that happening, as in 2 + 2 = 5 or F-MA(exp2)

So if you were to make a demon using high speed electronics and microfluidics,
for example, I would be skeptical, but not nearly as skeptical if you had an
anti-gravity machine. :)

[haitic...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:59:45 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:


>
> Heat flows from hot to cold because in statistical mechanics, the ratio
>
> of the probabilities (basically the state densities) favours that
>
> direction by so large a factor that it's overwhelmingly probable that no
>
> vaguely macroscopic hot object has ever got hotter by spontaneous heat
>
> transfer from a colder object in the entire history of the universe.
>

> Dr Philip C D Hobbs

"Statistical mechanics" sounds complex and authoritarian, but it is just a way
to calculate gas laws, historically. But it gets violated every instant of time
- it's called Brownian Motion, and Einstein the first to examine it
theoretically.
To say that statistical mechanics precludes violating it is like saying, since
all electric currents in solid conductors cancel out, then manipulation of
electrons is impossible.
It's true, perpetual motion machines are to be treated with skepticism, but as
a point in the philosophy of science, there is no law that precludes them on
theoretical grounds.
Yet we "know"it's impossible. So - maybe the best approach is to "prove" why
not. But, as math is not science, statistics of macroscopic systems is not
enough. What is needed?
That's where Leo Szilard comes in, as the source of Shannon's work. Basically,
Einstein's pet said that a demon must know the trajectory of the molecule to
sort it and violate the 2nd law. That "know" = gain in negentropy =>
information as "entropy-stuff."
It was an attempt, in the 1950's, to bring information into the purvey of
classical physics. There were a number of conferences on "information theory,"
but its pretty much a seldom-used nomogram for communicatin engineers today.
I'm sure not everyone will agree with that assessment, but I will close with an
historical-social remark. Classical physics started, and then continued, a view
of the clock-work universe which man was separate from. So observations on the planets and Newton portrayed a world which ran like a clock that did not need
winding.
Enter Quantum Mechanics. Suddenly man's choices, even mental choices and
consciousness itself, was mixed up with the world clock. Classical physics is
incorrect scientifically, psychologically, and socially. Information theory
was the old reductionist scientific approach attempting to put the genie back in
the bottle.
Today, there still isn't a complete theory of physics and consciousness. It is
clear that many social problems come from treating man as a machine. But many
theoretical physicists today think as I have presented, and I talk with some of
them, resulting in tiresome posts like this. :)

[Phil Hobbs]

On 4/25/2014 9:38 AM, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:59:45 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Heat flows from hot to cold because in statistical mechanics, the ratio
>>
>> of the probabilities (basically the state densities) favours that
>>
>> direction by so large a factor that it's overwhelmingly probable that no
>>
>> vaguely macroscopic hot object has ever got hotter by spontaneous heat
>>
>> transfer from a colder object in the entire history of the universe.
>>
>
>> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
>
> "Statistical mechanics" sounds complex and authoritarian, but it is just a way
> to calculate gas laws, historically. But it gets violated every instant of time
> - it's called Brownian Motion, and Einstein the first to examine it
> theoretically.
> To say that statistical mechanics precludes violating it is like saying, since
> all electric currents in solid conductors cancel out, then manipulation of
> electrons is impossible.

Nonsense. What I said was that (due to the exponential increase in the
number of available states in the higher-entropy direction) the ratio of
the probabilities of heat flowing hot-to-cold vs. cold-to-hot for any
vaguely macroscopic system is so very large that it's overwhelmingly
likely that it has never happened in the lifetime of the universe.

This isn't intimidation, it's undergraduate thermodynamics. Elementary
books such as Kittel's "Thermal Physics" have it. All the math you need
is permutations and Stirling's formula for the gamma function.

> It's true, perpetual motion machines are to be treated with skepticism, but as
> a point in the philosophy of science, there is no law that precludes them on
> theoretical grounds.

Not so, see above for an example. Natural laws are summaries of
observed behaviour, not logical axioms.

And we all have to decide what is and is not worth spending our time on.
Discussing this stuff on Usenet is strictly a recreational activity on
my end.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--

Dr Philip C D Hobbs

[Skywise]

haitic...@gmail.com wrote in
news:84c71fb6-4e94-402f...@googlegroups.com:

> It's true, perpetual motion machines are to be treated with skepticism,
> but as a point in the philosophy of science, there is no law that
> precludes them on theoretical grounds.
> Yet we "know"it's impossible.

As I understand it, perpetual motion is not impossible, but
extracting ANY work out of it is. Therefore, a perpetual motion
machine is, if one could be made, useless.

I think a lot of folks confound "perpetual motion" with "free
energy".

I get this, and all I've had is high school physics and chem,
and decades of self reading.

Brian
--
http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/index.php - Earthquake prediction & Earth
Sciences
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[gghe...@gmail.com]

Yeah I think that's OK.
If I crank up the current and B field in a SC. magnet,
and then put it in persistence mode.
(close the SC shunt that allows you to change the current...
it's then a closed loop and I can turn off the power supply.)
How long will it last? (assuming I keep it cold and all.)

George H.

[haitic...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:08:06 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 4/25/2014 9:38 AM, hait2ic...@gmail.com wrote:
> 33

well I don't give a twaddle about perp motion myself. But it gives me a chance
to exercise some Phil. Sci.
The point was that the 2nd law stand alone, depends on statistics.
Max Planck was fascinated with this subject, until he did something useful.
I heard he has the symbol for configurational entropy, omega, on his
tomb stone.
I may reply to your points as soon as I recover from a wedding. (not my own :)

[Helpful person]

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:08:06 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
> And we all have to decide what is and is not worth spending our time on.
> Discussing this stuff on Usenet is strictly a recreational activity on
> my end.
>
> Cheers
> Phil Hobbs
>

And much appreciated.

http://www.richardfisher.com

[haitic...@gmail.com]

Not so, see above for an example. Natural laws are summaries of
observed behaviour, not logical axioms.

Not quite. Lamarckism was based on observations, and flat earth too. How are you
going to vet various peoples' observations, particularly when their ego and
authority is tied up in degrees and positions based on their view of things?
No scientific method was ever, or could ever be, based on simple observation.
Instead, explanatory power, generality, and, yes, a logical connection to the
rest of science comes into play. kinetic energy at 1/2mv2 is tied to f=ma and
evolution tied to the geological record. These are not random observations.

The reason that quantum mechanics over-turned classical physics is that their
particular observations contradicted the logical structure of classical views.
In other words, some observations disrupted an interconnected world-view called classical physics.

Entropy in classical physics enjoyed none of this support from the rest of
physics. That was my simple point, and it has been stated by a multitude of
physicists. The second law gives time its "arrow," and the rest of physics
laws go backward and forward in time happily. I didn't make this up.

That view of things was why Max Planck was fascinated by entropy. Leo Szilard
went on to devote a decade or two to entropy and perpetual motion machines: His
thesis was on the feasiblity of perpetual motion machines, and he eventually
formulated information theory by theorizing that a Maxwell demon *could*
violate the 2nd law, IF he had information about th molecules coming his way at
the trap door.

This was te work that Shannon built on - I would like you to give me the
formula again that he used for channels... Data = ? As far as I know, this was the only successful use of Szilard's work. This doesn't mean it was invalid, of
course. (But it's not a big vote for that, even so.)

All the major achievements of modern science such as the digital computer via
miniaturization, transistor, etc. were happily built wthout Szilard's theory.
You may feel Shannon plays a central enabing role in measurement theory - If so, I'd be interested.

And it is certainly possible that Szilard's theory has been neglected because
engineers and scientists are "locked into" a world view that doesn't absolutely
need it. Norbert Weiner and Shannon were enthusiastic about it. In other words,
most scientists have ignored it.

You can see this "lock-in" phenom in my field, biochemical thermodynamics.
Entropy was the basis for the discovery of the structure of DNA, and is the THE
force that holds proteins together. (gives them shape.) But few biochemists
know this, and nearly all non-biochemists are ignorant. Why? Because entropy is
very non-intuitive. What people like to think in is forces, like H bonding, etc.

It is interesting, too, that the term "signal averaging" has confused so many
scientists. Why? Because it is a misnomer. Horowitz clearly shows that it
involves only addition and subtraction, but the name misleads. Te wikipedia
entry is in error over this. Needs fixing.

jb

[Phil Hobbs]

On 04/30/2014 09:30 AM, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:
> Not so, see above for an example. Natural laws are summaries of
> observed behaviour, not logical axioms.
>
> Not quite. Lamarckism was based on observations, and flat earth too. How are you
> going to vet various peoples' observations, particularly when their ego and
> authority is tied up in degrees and positions based on their view of things?

<sniiiiippp>

John, you're skating nearer and nearer to troll status. Just saying.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
>
> jb

[haitic...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:16:39 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

> On 04/30/2014 09:30 AM, ha1i2tic...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Not so, see above for an example. Natural laws are summaries of
>
> > observed behaviour, not logical axioms.
>
> >
>
> > Not quite. Lamarckism was based on observations, and flat earth too. How are you
>
> > going to vet various peoples' observations, particularly when their ego and
>
> > authority is tied up in degrees and positions based on their view of things?
>
>
>
> <sniiiiippp>
>
>
>
> John, you're skating nearer and nearer to troll status. Just saying.
>
>

Phil, yes, my policy is to stick to the argument, and avoid name calling.
That being said, I do feel that people have habit patterns based on degrees
and professional groups. Haven't you read the famous "Structure of Scientific
Revolutions," by Thomas Kuhn? I'm sorry you took my comments personally.
I believe in dealing with the issue, not the personalities. As soon as
you engage in name calling, you've lost the argument, in my book. There's a lot of it in these groups. Since there is no one in charge, I just ignore the personalities and treat everything as a logical, scientific argument. Example:

Someone says:
"You are a total idiot, and obviously have alzheimers."

Well, that's a tough scientific hypothesis to prove, isn't it? So you could
ignore it, or say jokingly:

"I just had that checked at the doctors, and showed him your post, and he said
you did!"

"I now you are wrong, since I ate my cereal without spilling it down my front
this morning!"

"Yes, you have me worried I have alzheimers, since you obviously have
experience with it."

BUT - better not to pollute your thoughts with comebacks or repartees. That way
you stay clean. Best strategy is to return to the argument, even if you are
wrong.

So apologies for the insults.
JB

PS - I shouldn't say this, but haveyou eve said to your kids, "stop this
fighting or I am turning this car around?" :) Another interesting insight on
this whole thing, the discourse here, is that we all are creating what is
happening here. I don't know what your excuse is, but I'm suspecting this
is a colossal waste of time.

[Skywise]

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:TuCdnZ-niPNamPzO...@supernews.com:

> John, you're skating nearer and nearer to troll status. Just saying.

I guess I'm not alone in my impressions. Many of the words and
phraseolgy I'm reading are somewhat similar to several pseudoscience
crowds - Einstein deniers, chemtrailers, earth expansionists,
Velikovsky catastrophists, anti-vaccinationists, etc... etc....

That may not be the case here, but why do I keep getting this nagging
itch like I'm watching a Depak Chopra interview?

Apologies if I am totally off base. I could be wrong.

[haitic...@gmail.com]

Brian,
You'd have to be more specific yourself. :)

Of course, there is a presumption that, you know, engineering is "hard hat."
And as well, the universe is one big clock-work.

Well, I've got news for you. You don't exist. Your mind is an illusion. You
don't know who you are. You can't tell me where your awareness comes from.
Other than that, you are a great guy! :)

You have to pardon me, I'm having a bit of fun with you. It IS hard to have a
"sober" argument on these issues like the nature of consciousness.


There is a whole branch of quantum theory that involves the role of
consciousness. And that guy Deepak Chopra knows a lot of theoretical
physicists. (Possibly because he supports their research. :) He is known in
psychic circles as "Deep Pockets Chopra."

And I anticipate your reply - There is indeed a lot of flim-flam in the psychic
research area. I think every new science has it. Recall that when electricity
was discovered in the modern era, Mesmer claimed psychic powers. Optics has
had it's charltans - auras seen through blue filters, Kirlian photography, etc.

jb
"What a revoltin' development this is." - Jackie Gleason

[haitic...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 4:41:40 PM UTC-4, Skywise wrote:

Brian,
Please allow me to say that, regarding the health area, I may sometimes "amp
up" the volume, since I feel like that sheep in the Gary Larson cartoon, who
stands up on his hind legs in the herd and says "power to the sheeple." :)

I the health area, I see many people dying way too early, so I make the
decision to risk making a fool of myself in order to tell them.

I can't say I have any superior position in general regarding the issue of
"taking hold of my destiny," but in some specific areas I have been able to "grasp my destiny."

jb