Summations Only

Both of our concepts involve reversible applicability; mine via the working metaphysical designer/manager of the system and yours applying the concept of a quantum Truth Observable zero orthogonal physical counterpart to logic, as I understand it.Neither would necessarily violate 2LoT though mine is at least is logical having the advantage of physical evidence of the existence of a working entity capable of work, effecting the reversibility.Conclusion: Mine be the most compatible to 2LoT. Edited by Buzsaw, : indicated by color

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

False. Your bullshit "theory" directly violates the second law of thermodynamics. What evidence do you have that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated in such a way? Conclusion: your theory requires the direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics and you're too ignorant to realize it and too arrogant to admit to your ignorance.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Since you haven't answered my question yet, Buzsaw, I'm asking again.Seventh time:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I'm sorry Buz, but I'm struggling to understand some of your concepts here. Can you please provide definitions for:- reversible applicability
- the working metaphysical designer/manager of...
(and how would this contrast with a "non-working" version of the same?)
the system
- a quantum Truth Observable zero orthogonal physical counterpart to logicWith regard to 2LoT, that can be most aptly stated as dS>0 - the change in entropy is always positive. Investigating this in the context of Big Bang comsology shows that this is indeed satisfied by the BBT.

Reversing the applicability of the 2nd law respective to entropy, in that the BBT:

Jehovah, the Biblical working metaphysical creator/designer/manager of the system capable of reversing the applicability of the 2nd law respective to entropy, albeit, without violating 2LoT which allows for the application of work which would effect some reversal of the positive entropy of the system. The BBT appears to be reversing the applicability of the 2nd law respective to entropy by definition of entropy as per the Online Free Dictionary, from which I received the three reversibles listed above.The disordered chaotic, zero mass, illogical alleged singularity, as some would describe it, allegedly prececessing the alleged BB, having no area in which it could have existed, no existing time in which it could have happened and no outside area for the BB to expand into, thus bass-akwardly and illogically effecting the reversal of the natural tendency towards positive entropy of a closed system.Online Free Dictionary definition: entropy:

quote:

---

2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

---

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Since you are the only person that would describe it that way - you are arguing against yourself....and appear to be losing.
/golfclap

So you get around your bullshit "theory"'s violation of the second law of thermodynamics by having a imaginary figure simply turn off the law? And you still claim that your bullshit is compatible with the three laws of thermodynaimcs? Clearly Buz your arrogance knows no bounds.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

But none of these are true in the BBT. None who knew what they were talking about! The singularity is actually the lowest entropy point, and hence the most ordered point, in the Universe.

quote:

---

4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

---

...unfortunately written by someone without the requisite knowledge. Uniformity can be used to describe lowest entropy as well as highest entropy, and hence is a useless (and incorrect) term in this context.

Since you haven't answered my question yet, Buzsaw, I'm asking again.Eighth time:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

The basic training in our exclusively secularistic college level physics haven't forgotten. Their problem is what they have been deprived of in that training relative to the probability of an operative intelligent designer in the Universe which would best explain the reversal of some aspects of positive entropy prevalent to 2LoT via work of the designiner/manager of the Universe.The basics of physics taught the yute should be more wholistic so as to widen the scope of physicist research.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

So you want college level physics to invoke magic? Or should they just teach alchemy in lieu of physics? Wait, wait, I know: you actually have some evidence for this "operative intelligent designer"? I assure you, we are all waiting with baited breath for you to supply evidence of this " operative intelligent designer" that is worthy of college level physics courses.8k+ posts on this board and you still haven't done so tells me you've got nothing but apologetics and whining about how we "secularists" won't accept your lack of evidence as evidence, my dear chap.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training?

---

​

The basic training in our exclusively secularistic college level physics haven't forgotten.

---

What does that mean? Is that a no, they haven't? Could you please answer more directly?Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training?

quote:

---

Their problem is what they have been deprived of in that training relative to the probability of an operative intelligent designer in the Universe which would best explain the reversal of some aspects of positive entropy prevalent to 2LoT via work of the designiner/manager of the Universe.

---

What does this have to do with anything? The question put to you is whether or not they forgot basic physics and in the process of examining the biggest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they all forgot to consider the thermodynamics of it.Your post is about being "compatible" with the laws of thermodynamics. Great.What I am asking you is why would cosmologists who are studying a thermodynamic event come up with a theory for it that is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Did they forget their basic training? Did they simply not bother to look at the thermodynamic properties of a thermodynamic event?In short, why do you think current cosmological models are in any way out of "compatibility" with the laws of thermodynamics? The models were created by people trained in thermo. They are necessarily designed to be in accordance with thermo. In fact, many of the models were rejected precisely because there was a problem. Why do you think inflation was presented?So I guess I get to ask for a ninth time. Please try to answer directly:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?You are free to expound upon your answers, but I need a direct answer first. These are yes-or-no questions. Did they forget their basic training? Yes or no. Did they simply not bother to look into the thermodynamic properties of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed? Yes or no.If the answer to those questions is no No, they didn't forget their training and no, they actually did look into the thermodynamic properties of the expansion of the universe then what is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

I'm still waiting for an answer, Buzsaw. Tenth time:Why would cosmologists who are studying a thermodynamic event come up with a theory for it that is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Did they forget their basic training? Did they simply not bother to look at the thermodynamic properties of a thermodynamic event?In short, why do you think current cosmological models are in any way out of "compatibility" with the laws of thermodynamics? The models were created by people trained in thermo. They are necessarily designed to be in accordance with thermo. In fact, many of the models were rejected precisely because there was a problem. Why do you think inflation was presented?Please try to answer directly:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?You are free to expound upon your answers, but I need a direct answer first. These are yes-or-no questions. Did they forget their basic training? Yes or no. Did they simply not bother to look into the thermodynamic properties of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed? Yes or no.If the answer to those questions is no No, they didn't forget their training and no, they actually did look into the thermodynamic properties of the expansion of the universe then what is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Buz - Do you have any examples of these entropy reversals that your designer/manager hypothesis predicts as necessary and observable?Do you understand that these reversals of entropy are by definition violating the second law of thermodynamics?I predict that you won't be able to cite any observation of overall entropy reversing in the way that your model demands.

I'm still waiting for an answer, Buzsaw. Eleventh time:Why would cosmologists who are studying a thermodynamic event come up with a theory for it that is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Did they forget their basic training? Did they simply not bother to look at the thermodynamic properties of a thermodynamic event?In short, why do you think current cosmological models are in any way out of "compatibility" with the laws of thermodynamics? The models were created by people trained in thermo. They are necessarily designed to be in accordance with thermo. In fact, many of the models were rejected precisely because there was a problem. Why do you think inflation was presented?Please try to answer directly:Are you seriously claiming that cosmologists forgot their basic physics training? That in examining the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed, they never bothered to consider the thermodynamics?You are free to expound upon your answers, but I need a direct answer first. These are yes-or-no questions. Did they forget their basic training? Yes or no. Did they simply not bother to look into the thermodynamic properties of the largest thermodynamic event ever witnessed? Yes or no.If the answer to those questions is no No, they didn't forget their training and no, they actually did look into the thermodynamic properties of the expansion of the universe then what is your basis for claiming that current cosmological models are "incompatible" with the laws of thermodynamics when they were developed in strict accordance with them?