Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.
|
|
Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
it's in there somewhere....
Replies:
13
Last Post:
Jan 28, 2013 1:30 AM
|
 |
|
m. m. m.
Posts:
107
Registered:
11/28/11
|
|
Re: it's in there somewhere....
Posted:
Nov 7, 2012 4:11 AM
|
|
On Nov 7, 1:00 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote: > ====http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adiabatic > adiabatic. > > adj. > Of, relating to, or being a reversible > thermodynamic process that occurs without > gain or loss of heat and without > a change in entropy. > ==== > > see, unless one can posit that the expansion > of the universe was something of this sort, > one doesn't get a reversible process, > > and positting something of this sort will > likewise fail because it will not allow > for the formation of distinguishable > particulate objects. > > meaning, if one were to suggest, > that some 'other unknowable universe' > > was simply holding a gaseous deposit in 'it' > until such time as 'it' spewed 'its' contents > into what we would call 'our' spacial domain, > > the only way such a process could be reversible > would be one in which no materials were ever > formed and simply a 'plasmic' 'heat exchange' > between dual spacial domains. > > very slow inflation from one > spacial domain to the 'other' domain. > > the fact that we see integrated particulate matter > tells us that we do not have a reversble adiabatic > process between dual spacial domains and therefore > are not looking at such a reversible process and > therefore, our 'beginning' remains as the first > and only knowable beginning. > > in other words, this relegates the > 'cosmic flatulence' to an > invalid sentiment. > > meaning, if we don't have a reversible > adiabatic process, we dissipate all our > heat and run out of fuels before the > surface of endless time is even > scratched and we should not be here > to ponder the question, > > and if we do have a reversible > adiabatic process, we don't > get any particles. > > therefore, a primary singular one time > initiation of the entire process by > conscious intent remains as the only > valid mechanism. > > the prospect of collapsing this universe > into a zero order nothingness also remains > as a possibility given conscious control > of the system. > > the logistics of which only need take into > account the possibility of some lynch pin > collapse mechanism placed in our domain > by the Creator. > > a minor alteration in any of > the six numbers and the entire > thing collapses into a > zero order nothingness. > > likewise, > ordering the six numbers > initiates genesis. > > the magnificent concentration of design will. > > be it so
here and there
|
|
|
|