Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Relativity defies thermodynamics

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Helland

unread,
Nov 26, 2011, 4:56:12 AM11/26/11
to
Light can travel indefinitely without using any energy.

john

unread,
Nov 26, 2011, 7:58:27 AM11/26/11
to
On Nov 26, 3:56 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Light can travel indefinitely without using any energy.

Egg-frickin-zacktly!!

And electrons can zip around their nuclei indefinitely
without using any energy either!

Isn't it wonderful?

And that's why we have DE and DM.

john

PD

unread,
Nov 26, 2011, 2:00:53 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/26/2011 3:56 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
> Light can travel indefinitely without using any energy.

And this doesn't defy thermodynamics in any way whatsoever.
Neither, by the way, does Newton's first law.

PD

unread,
Nov 26, 2011, 2:01:01 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/26/2011 6:58 AM, john wrote:
> On Nov 26, 3:56 am, Michael Helland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Light can travel indefinitely without using any energy.
>
> Egg-frickin-zacktly!!
>
> And electrons can zip around their nuclei indefinitely
> without using any energy either!

Yup. It's called Newton's first law. Been around for 400 years. You may
want to look that up.

"Objects in uniform motion will persist in that uniform motion without
any need for continued impetus."

G. L. Bradford

unread,
Nov 26, 2011, 2:38:07 PM11/26/11
to

"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jard19$lf2$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 11/26/2011 6:58 AM, john wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 3:56 am, Michael Helland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Light can travel indefinitely without using any energy.
>>
>> Egg-frickin-zacktly!!
>>
>> And electrons can zip around their nuclei indefinitely
>> without using any energy either!
>
> Yup. It's called Newton's first law. Been around for 400 years. You may
> want to look that up.
>
> "Objects in uniform motion will persist in that uniform motion without any
> need for continued impetus."
>

==================

Perpetual motion machine? At rest, though, as to local-motion?

GLB

=================

PD

unread,
Nov 26, 2011, 4:23:42 PM11/26/11
to
Something that obeys Newton's first law isn't usually referred to as a
perpetual motion machine. Something that generates net work is.

Something that moves without impetus is something that obeys
conservation of momentum.

Michael Helland

unread,
Nov 28, 2011, 10:31:44 AM11/28/11
to
Things happen, but there is no entropy.

Rock Brentwood

unread,
Nov 29, 2011, 7:08:38 PM11/29/11
to
On Nov 28, 9:31 am, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Things happen, but there is no entropy.

That's ambiguous and I suspect even you don't mean which sense you
intended this to mean:
#1 "Things happen, but there is no entropy -- i.e. the entropy of
every system of 0"
or
#2 "Things happen, but there is no entropy -- i.e. the definition of
entropy is logically inconsistent".

The entropy of a system is the amount of information contained in its
microscopic state not visible in its macroscopic state, using the
conversion 1 bit = Boltzmann's constant x ln(2).

There is no logical inconsistency in this statement. So, sense #2 is
ruled out.

If it's to be deemed inconsistent, then that inconsistency can only be
relative to some set of assumptions regarding the physical world. The
only assumption that comes to mind of that nature is that of there
being a well-defined *finite* amount of information contained in the
microscopic structure of any system. But if it's not finite, then
there'd be no need for storage technology, since there'd be an
infinite capacity for storing information in even the tiniest system
(like a human brain). The mere fact that people have limited memories
and intelligence amply demonstrates otherwise.

And finally: you do NOT know every last microscopic detail of a system
(otherwise there'd be no need for computers). Therefore sense #1 is
ruled out.
0 new messages