Big Crunch's Thermodynamics law may have slowed down Time?
gu...@hotmail.com
divide thus: f x m^3).
---------------------------------------------------
It's "hard" not to apply thermodynamics to mass(density) and 3D
space....
....but if density can be applied in a cubic lattice(3D) then why
within only a 2D plane?
....and if a 2D plane then "perhaps" as well along a 1dimensional
line?
Gravitational_Time_Dilation slows the clocks, then "perhaps" this
thermodynamicly formed density along the 1 dimensional line (1D non-
euclidean string)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Thermodynamics is a conversion of energy into uneven densities: 1
called vacuum space and the others called mass).
Therefore this "string" of densities (string of pearls) where each
density is comparable to for "example": air molecules which vibrate
(TIME) due to longitudinal sound waves?
As more and more molecules are formed because of "perhaps" an effects
similar to Gravitational_Time_Dilation, the flow of time slows downs
as well???
--------------------------------------------------
STRETCH but "perhaps" the Universe could have been formed in the
Biblical's 7 days, and "maybe" Abraham's 1000 year life span was
converted to a 100 years due to an unexpected acceleration of
thermodynamics in the Universe?
(PS: **density** along a line is "hard" to conceive as is a single
line (single vector), instead it would be a metamorphose of **uneven
fluctuations** from the 1st Spacetime vector....the Pulse vector).
Androcles
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1176729197.1...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Let's say Time is a Pulse vector
No, let's say time isn't a vector at all, it had no additive inverse.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
[rest snipped, false premise introduced]
gu...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> No, let's say time isn't a vector at all, it had no additive inverse.
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
>
Boohwho ...someone never heard of it called the 4th dimension, or the
arrow(vector) of time. Just because it aint a vector space and it
can't be substracted doesn't mean it's not a unidirectional vector
(hence the arrow). Lets say you add your own theories or questions in
your own posts.
*******************************************************
And Once again:
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk> wrote in message news:8PKUh.28362$aB1....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> No, let's say time isn't a vector at all, it had no additive inverse.
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
Ask your grandson what's the inverse of "five minutes later"
and what's the inverse of "2 years ago".
Or better still, leave your grandchildren alone. You might
poison them with your vitriol.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
> Let's say Time is a Pulse vector (since the space vectors do not
> divide thus: f x m^3).
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> It's "hard" not to apply thermodynamics to mass(density) and 3D
> space....
[...]
Explain the difference between Maxwell-Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein, and
Fermi-Dirac statistics then.
gu...@hotmail.com
So are you saying that thermodynamics are also applied to 2d and 1d
vectors (tensors)?
gu...@hotmail.com
> Let's say Time is a Pulse vector (since the space vectors do not
> divide thus: f x m^3).
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> It's "hard" not to apply thermodynamics to mass(density) and 3D
> space....
>
> ....but if density can be applied in a cubic lattice(3D) then why
> within only a 2D plane?
>
> ....and if a 2D plane then "perhaps" as well along a 1dimensional
> line?
>
then thermodymics also might be applied to them and the mentionned
flow of time "concept" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_%28fluid%29
Tensor permeability
Quote: "To model permeability in anisotropic(non-homogenious = ****UN-
EVEN DENSITIES*****) media, a permeability tensor is needed. Pressure
can be applied in three directions, and for each direction,
permeability can be measured (via Darcy's law) in three directions,
thus leading to a 3 by 3 tensor."
Pressure (in 3 directions) and 3D (3 by 3 tensor) alone is
insufficient for the fabric of spacetime (time element missing). For
the full 4 dimension (4 vectors) a "Pressure Rate" is needed =
spacetime fabric?
Eric Gisse
No I am asking you to support your statement that thermodynamics is
not hard by demonstrating a basic bit of knowledge about it.
gu...@hotmail.com
If you could read, it would be nice.
meaning it's EASIER (not easy) to apply it to 3d space then 2d or 1d
space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other then that, the words speak for themselves, any Eric Gisse would
know thermodynamics in REFERENCE REFERENCE REFERENC REFERENCE to the
topic I wrote (and not delving into a more intricate Eric Gisse's Bose-
Einstein).
That reference If Eric Gisse was reading (instead of prejucist/racist)
properly was in relation relation relation to MASS MASS MASS and BIG
CRUNCH... BIG CRUNCH.
And that my grade 12 diploma loving child .....oh what could it
be ....is that non-homegeneous densities(mass) were formed as the
Universe cooled down with time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of 1d space and the string of Pearls concept....maybe "you"
could learn and figure out it's relation with Permeability Tensor.
-------------------------------------------------------
To model permeability in ******anisotropic*****(= non-homogeneous)
media, a permeability tensor is needed. Pressure can be applied in
three directions, and for each direction, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(fluid) - 22k -
Eric Gisse
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 1:40 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 10:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 16, 5:13 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Let's say Time is a Pulse vector (since the space vectors do not
> > > > > divide thus: f x m^3).
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > It's "hard" not to apply thermodynamics to mass(density) and 3D
> > > > > space....
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > Explain the difference between Maxwell-Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein, and
> > > > Fermi-Dirac statistics then.
>
> > > So are you saying that thermodynamics are also applied to 2d and 1d
> > > vectors (tensors)?
>
> > No I am asking you to support your statement that thermodynamics is
> > not hard by demonstrating a basic bit of knowledge about it.
>
> If you could read, it would be nice.
>
> meaning it's EASIER (not easy) to apply it to 3d space then 2d or 1d
> space.
I was merely asking you to support your assertion by demonstrating a
basic knowledge of the subject. I guess that was too much to ask.
[snip remainder]
You need to have an actual understanding of E&M before you can start
talking about tensors in E&M without being laughed at. Thermodyanmics
and the permeability/permittivity tensor have jack shit to do with
each other.
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 17, 6:32 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > On Apr 17, 1:40 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 16, 10:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 16, 5:13 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Let's say Time is a Pulse vector (since the space vectors do not
> > > > > > divide thus: f x m^3).
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > > It's "hard" not to apply thermodynamics to mass(density) and 3D
> > > > > > space....
>
> > > > > [...]
>
> > > > > Explain the difference between Maxwell-Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein, and
> > > > > Fermi-Dirac statistics then.
>
> > > > So are you saying that thermodynamics are also applied to 2d and 1d
> > > > vectors (tensors)?
>
> > > No I am asking you to support your statement that thermodynamics is
> > > not hard by demonstrating a basic bit of knowledge about it.
>
> > If you could read, it would be nice.
>
> > meaning it's EASIER (not easy) to apply it to 3d space then 2d or 1d
> > space.
>
> I was merely asking you to support your assertion by demonstrating a
> basic knowledge of the subject. I guess that was too much to ask.
>
Boy you're fast, I was about to remove this post.
Actually I'm sorry. Your Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is quite
related to the topic...I've been overposting I guess with little time
to over explore.
(Bose-Einstein not as much since it's related to only one particle...)
>
> You need to have an actual understanding of E&M before you can start
> talking about tensors in E&M without being laughed at. Thermodyanmics
> and the permeability/permittivity tensor have jack shit to do with
> each other.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gu...@hotmail.com
>
(thus mass vs vacuum space)
#2 tensors begin from START to FINISH the creation of space, this
therefore includes the TIME FACTOR and the gradual(time vector)
creation of mass that bends(tensor) it.
Eric Gisse
[...]
Get a clue. You have no idea what tensors are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
It is a good of place as any to start. If you ever look at Symon's
mechanics, the details of tensor analysis are taught in chapter 10 and
used in the remaining chapters.
Eric Gisse
Even if you ask Google really, really nicely to remove the post from
Google's archives, folks will still have seen how stupid you are. Plus
there are a shitload of forum<-->USENET interfaces that keep your drek
forever and ever.
>
> Actually I'm sorry. Your Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is quite
> related to the topic...I've been overposting I guess with little time
> to over explore.
Try my new method of learning: shut the fuck up and read a book.
Using my new method, you will be able to pick up concepts that are
written down in books. If you are skilled, you will even be able to
_talk_ about those subjects without making yourself look stupid to
those who know about said subjects.
>
> (Bose-Einstein not as much since it's related to only one particle...)
Wrong. Bose-Einstein statistics are applicable to an arbitrary number
of particles - the only constraint is that they be Bosons.
Try my new method on Rief's Statistical and Thermal physics. If you
apply my new method sucessfully, you will actually understand some
thermodynamics rather than merely knowing some of the words.
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 17, 7:05 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Get a clue. You have no idea what tensors are.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
>
to the sentence that is incoherent to your brain.
I wrote:
#1. They're related to non-homogenous (= uneven) densities in space
(thus mass vs vacuum space)
---------------------------------------
Below is your evidence my child:
The rank of a particular tensor is the number of array indices
required to describe such a quantity. For example, mass, temperature,
and other scalar quantities are tensors of rank 0
------------------------------------------------
I wrote:
#2 tensors begin from START to FINISH the creation of space, this
therefore includes the TIME FACTOR and the gradual(time vector)
creation of mass that bends(tensor) it.
Well that speaks for itself, if you need more info then that then you
must be an Eric Gisse.
According to the Big Bang theory nothing is known about the universe
at time=0, though it is presumed that all fundamental forces coexisted
and that all matter, energy, and spacetime expanded outward from an
extremely hot and dense singularity. One planck time after the event
is the closest that theoretical physics can get us to it, and at that
time it appears that gravity separated from the other fundamental
forces.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 17, 11:44 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 17, 7:05 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > Get a clue. You have no idea what tensors are.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
>
> So that your "intelligence" may look bright to all...next time point
> to the sentence that is incoherent to your brain.
>
> I wrote:
>
> #1. They're related to non-homogenous (= uneven) densities in space
> (thus mass vs vacuum space)
This is simply wrong.
> ---------------------------------------
> Below is your evidence my child:
>
> The rank of a particular tensor is the number of array indices
> required to describe such a quantity. For example, mass, temperature,
> and other scalar quantities are tensors of rank 0
Just because it is a scalar does not mean it is a rank 0 tensor.
Temperature has functional dependence - mass does not.
I can construct the scalar quantity "mass" using specific tensors.
That makes it a rank 0 tensor. I cannot do the same thing with
temperature.
I really, really don't see why you think you are fooling me with this
spew.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> I wrote:
>
> #2 tensors begin from START to FINISH the creation of space, this
> therefore includes the TIME FACTOR and the gradual(time vector)
> creation of mass that bends(tensor) it.
This is also wrong. Tensors are linear functions that obey a specific
set of rules.
I understand these subjects. You do not.
I have studied these subjects. You have not.
I know my limitations. You do not know yours.
>
> Well that speaks for itself, if you need more info then that then you
> must be an Eric Gisse.
>
> According to the Big Bang theory nothing is known about the universe
> at time=0, though it is presumed that all fundamental forces coexisted
> and that all matter, energy, and spacetime expanded outward from an
> extremely hot and dense singularity. One planck time after the event
> is the closest that theoretical physics can get us to it, and at that
> time it appears that gravity separated from the other fundamental
> forces.
Salad O' Words.
Get an understanding of classical mechanics and classical
electrodynamics before you worry about such things.
gu...@hotmail.com
So you never make typing mistakes. ...to only one group of particles
and I personally wouldn't call em real particles as compared to
fermions.
No two fermions can occupy the same quantum mechanical state at the
same time. This results in "rigidness" or "stiffness" of fermions and
of fermionic matter (atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, etc), so
fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, and
bosons to be particles that ***transmit*** interactions (forces).
> Try my new method on Rief's Statistical and Thermal physics. If you
> apply my new method sucessfully, you will actually understand some
> thermodynamics rather than merely knowing some of the words.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > You need to have an actual understanding of E&M before you can start
> > > talking about tensors in E&M without being laughed at. Thermodyanmics
> > > and the permeability/permittivity tensor have jack shit to do with
> > > each other.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
gu...@hotmail.com
Just making sure it don't get deleted.
Yee haw
Eric Gisse
Still wrong.
Bose-Einstein statistics is applicable to _lots_ of things. Two
fermions can form a singlet/triplet state that has a net spin of 1,
which is covered. Anything that has integer spin can be dealt with by
Bose-Einstein statistics.
Not noticing the distinction between "one group of particles" and
"only one particle" when talking about quantum statistics is a pretty
fucking big gaffe.
>
> No two fermions can occupy the same quantum mechanical state at the
> same time. This results in "rigidness" or "stiffness" of fermions and
> of fermionic matter (atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, etc), so
> fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, and
> bosons to be particles that ***transmit*** interactions (forces).
Not all matter is fermionic - witness the amazing differences between
Helium-4 and Helium-3, for example.
Vector bosons have nothing to do with this. Nothing at all.
gu...@hotmail.com
and how the heck do you manage to "always" remember which has what
spin.
>
> which is covered. Anything that has integer spin can be dealt with by
> Bose-Einstein statistics.
>
didn't know how to spell "intricate" till I met you and other
creature....why is that?
well excuuuuuse me not to remember all these "intricate" details
instead of general(why are into discussion groups make I as you), and
to remember all that after you expect one to have read a zillion of
books.
> Not noticing the distinction between "one group of particles" and
> "only one particle" when talking about quantum statistics is a pretty
> fucking big gaffe.
>
Correct but believe me please I knew that Bosons are not a particle
but a group of different particles (lengthy...typing see)...
>
> > No two fermions can occupy the same quantum mechanical state at the
> > same time. This results in "rigidness" or "stiffness" of fermions and
> > of fermionic matter (atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, etc), so
> > fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, and
> > bosons to be particles that ***transmit*** interactions (forces).
>
> Not all matter is fermionic - witness the amazing differences between
> Helium-4 and Helium-3, for example.
>
> Vector bosons have nothing to do with this. Nothing at all.
>
>
as you once said "buh"....
I was simply stating that I excluded Bosons(and Bose-Einstein because
they are not real particles (matter) as compared to fermions ....thats
it, thats all (didn't care to apply the circumstances of
thermodynamics, mass, temperature to them)....
>
>
and besides as the subject of this posting says....I am not trying to
apply thermodynamics to 3d space (= particles and matter and your
bosons and your fermions) which is EASIER DONE....but to 2d vectors
(tensors), and only 2d if it's unrealistic but rather to apply
thermodynamics to 1d vector(string...rank_1 tensor).
So your comments about particle statistics was AWAY from the
principale of this post's focus which as from the start I said easier
for 3D space but I wish "if" possible to 1d (2d otherwise).
I said I'm sorry about your Maxwell-Boltzmann cause it seemed to
possibly apply (don't expect everyone to know about Maxwell-
Boltzmann).
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 18, 4:57 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 11:20 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 17, 11:48 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Still wrong.
>
> > Bose-Einstein statistics is applicable to _lots_ of things. Two
> > fermions can form a singlet/triplet state that has a net spin of 1,
>
> and how the heck do you manage to "always" remember which has what
> spin.
Education.
>
> > which is covered. Anything that has integer spin can be dealt with by
> > Bose-Einstein statistics.
>
> didn't know how to spell "intricate" till I met you and other
> creature....why is that?
Lack of education.
>
> well excuuuuuse me not to remember all these "intricate" details
> instead of general(why are into discussion groups make I as you), and
> to remember all that after you expect one to have read a zillion of
> books.
No, the intricate details would be asking you to remember the exact
form of the distribution functions and how they are derived.
>
> > Not noticing the distinction between "one group of particles" and
> > "only one particle" when talking about quantum statistics is a pretty
> > fucking big gaffe.
>
> Correct but believe me please I knew that Bosons are not a particle
> but a group of different particles (lengthy...typing see)...
A photon is a boson, but so is Helium 4.
Anything that has integer spin is a boson.
>
>
>
> > > No two fermions can occupy the same quantum mechanical state at the
> > > same time. This results in "rigidness" or "stiffness" of fermions and
> > > of fermionic matter (atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, etc), so
> > > fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, and
> > > bosons to be particles that ***transmit*** interactions (forces).
>
> > Not all matter is fermionic - witness the amazing differences between
> > Helium-4 and Helium-3, for example.
>
> > Vector bosons have nothing to do with this. Nothing at all.
>
> as you once said "buh"....
>
> I was simply stating that I excluded Bosons(and Bose-Einstein because
> they are not real particles (matter) as compared to fermions ....thats
> it, thats all (didn't care to apply the circumstances of
> thermodynamics, mass, temperature to them)....
That's wrong, still.
Read about Bose-Einstein condensates.
>
>
>
> and besides as the subject of this posting says....I am not trying to
> apply thermodynamics to 3d space (= particles and matter and your
> bosons and your fermions) which is EASIER DONE....but to 2d vectors
> (tensors), and only 2d if it's unrealistic but rather to apply
> thermodynamics to 1d vector(string...rank_1 tensor).
>
> So your comments about particle statistics was AWAY from the
> principale of this post's focus which as from the start I said easier
> for 3D space but I wish "if" possible to 1d (2d otherwise).
The post's focus was a word salad about a subject you know nothing
about.
Tensors are linear functions that obey a certain set of transformation
rules. Nothing more. You have no idea what tensors are, so you attempt
to make up some kind of meaning for them based upon a fractured
understanding.
I have seen through it, and you should knock it off. Study the subject
before spewing about it.
>
> I said I'm sorry about your Maxwell-Boltzmann cause it seemed to
> possibly apply (don't expect everyone to know about Maxwell-
> Boltzmann).
Which means you have never studied thermodynamics. Getting this out in
the light was my entire point.
[...]