Getting there at last...

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp relativity 
Sujet : Getting there at last...
De : banerjeeadda1234 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Arindam Banerjee)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity sci.physics sci.math
Date : 27. Mar 2024, 01:49:21
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Nemoweb
Message-ID : <9YCpfbWayDDTVrmI9Yye1LKiThs@jntp>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Nemo/0.999a
Le 23/03/2024 à 21:24, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) a écrit :
Thomas Heger wrote:
 
Am 21.03.2024 um 14:05 schrieb bertitaylor:
 
Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.
>
the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look
at this:
No, because both terms are related, but not equal.
>
Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.
>
They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.
 
Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:
 
transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation
 
Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always transported by radiation.
 I did not say that.  What did I say? ">> They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy." Heat engines, laws of thermodynamics (1824) antedated Maxwell and JC Bose.
 
Radiation is essentially force.
 
Well, but no.
 It is force all right, going by fields magnetic and electric which relate to force. If we believe in aether, radiation as travelling electromagnetic waves using aether medium, etc. 
Actually you (apparently) mean 'fields' with 'essential'.
 When I say heat, I mean radiant force, coming from electromagnetic fields, that exert force when something material is impacted.
 
To call a field 'force' is totally wrong.
 A field causes a force when impacted as I said. The notion of force very much attends an electric field. Look up the basics, relating to classical physics.
  
The term 'force' stems from the measurement of a field. But fields exist without measurement.
 Fields are practical, not theoretical, in classical physics. What exists without measurement cannot be deemed scientific. That way, unicorns, pixies, etc. exist by definition with no need for measurement.
 Wherever there is electric force, pushing a current, or affecting charges otherwise, there has to be an electric field.
  
So, if I decode your statement properly, you like to say, that heat transfer by radiation utilises the em-field.
 No, radiation is travelling electromagnetic waves using the aether medium. Wherever this radiation is obstructed, electric forces (leading to voltage potentials) on the surfaces are created, creating currents, that cause the sensation of heat. to humans.
 In short, the em-field is not like a soccer field. It is time and space varying electric field spread out from the radiator, to infinity, lessening with distance with the inverse square law.
 
That would be actually correct.
 
With distance it becomes nearly zero from its source.
Creating the overall background radiation.
 
Now you want to explain CMBR?
 Easy. The fields from all the stars in the universe add up to form background radiation, universal, and composed of all frequencies. They make electronic oscillators possible. And nanotech too, with nanovoltages to drive nanomachines. The fields from those stars at infinity are zero, most of it from the nearby stars and galaxies.
 bt
 
I personally think, that CMBR has nothing to do with the big-bang, but is caused by the gravitational field of the Earth.
....
 
TH
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Date Sujet#  Auteur
21 Mar 24 * Re: ? ? ?49bertitaylor
23 Mar 24 `* Re: ? ? ?48Thomas Heger
23 Mar 24  +* Re: ? ? ?37bertitaylor
26 Mar 24  i+* Re: ? ? ?15Arindam Banerjee
26 Mar 24  ii`* Re: ? ? ?14Thean Nogushi Hatoyama
27 Mar 24  ii `* Re: ? ? ?13Arindam Banerjee
27 Mar 24  ii  +* Re: ? ? ?3Athel Cornish-Bowden
27 Mar 24  ii  i+- Re: ? ? ?1J. J. Lodder
27 Mar 24  ii  i`- Re: ? ? ?1Arindam Banerjee
27 Mar 24  ii  `* Re: ? ? ?9Jed László Barabás
27 Mar 24  ii   `* Re: ? ? ?8Arindam Banerjee
27 Mar 24  ii    `* Re: ? ? ?7Thaddeus Horiatis Demetrious
28 Mar 24  ii     `* Re: ? ? ?6Arindam Banerjee
28 Mar 24  ii      `* Re: ? ? ?5Yasmani Hasekura
28 Mar 24  ii       `* Re: ? ? ?4Arindam Banerjee
28 Mar 24  ii        `* Re: ? ? ?3Leland Behtenev Basov
28 Mar 24  ii         +- Re: ? ? ?1Arindam Banerjee
28 Mar 24  ii         `- Re: ? ? ?1Chris M. Thomasson
27 Mar 24  i`* Getting there at last...21Arindam Banerjee
28 Mar 24  i `* Re: Getting there at last...20Thomas Heger
28 Mar 24  i  `* Re: Getting there at last...19Arindam Banerjee
30 Mar 24  i   `* Re: Getting there at last...18Thomas Heger
30 Mar 24  i    `* Re: Getting there at last...17Arindam Banerjee
2 Apr 24  i     `* Re: Getting there at last...16Thomas Heger
2 Apr 24  i      +* Re: Getting there at last...4Arindam Banerjee
2 Apr 24  i      i`* Re: Getting there at last...3Chris M. Thomasson
3 Apr 24  i      i `* Re: Getting there at last...2Arindam Banerjee
8 Apr 24  i      i  `- Re: Getting there at last...1Thomas Heger
3 Apr 24  i      `* Re: Getting there at last...11Thomas Heger
3 Apr 24  i       +- Re: Getting there at last...1Yusney Turaev Momotov
4 Apr 24  i       `* Re: Getting there at last...9Arindam Banerjee
5 Apr 24  i        `* Re: Getting there at last...8Thomas Heger
6 Apr 24  i         `* Re: Getting there at last...7Arindam Banerjee
6 Apr 24  i          `* Re: Getting there at last...6Thomas Heger
6 Apr 24  i           +- Re: Getting there at last...1Python
6 Apr 24  i           +- Re: Getting there at last...1Jim Pennino
7 Apr 24  i           `* Re: Getting there at last...3Arindam Banerjee
7 Apr 24  i            `* Re: Getting there at last...2Thomas Heger
8 Apr 24  i             `- Re: Getting there at last...1Arindam Banerjee
23 Mar 24  `* Re: ? ? ?10Yatzyk Trampotova
25 Mar 24   `* Re: ? ? ?9Thomas Heger
25 Mar 24    +- Re: ? ? ?1Evasio Alexandropoulos
2 Apr 24    `* Re: ? ? ?7Jim Pennino
2 Apr 24     `* Re: ? ? ?6Jim Pennino
4 Apr 24      `* Re: ? ? ?5Jim Pennino
4 Apr 24       `* Re: ? ? ?4Jim Pennino
5 Apr 24        +* Re: ? ? ?2Colin Mcdonald
5 Apr 24        i`- Re: ? ? ?1Jim Pennino
5 Apr 24        `- Re: ? ? ?1Jim Pennino

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal