Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.
|
|
m. m. m.
Posts:
108
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
|
|
|
|
