Maybe that the “dark matter” exists, but who really knows? And because of the fact that they know nearly nothing about the “dark matter”, I may say that the hypothesis of the “dark matter” is false.
I know (even more certainly than they guess).
It certainly exists, but I can’t say that it is the cause of what they are talking about. I am not an astrophysicist.
Yes, but the cause of what they are talking about is just the main point when it comes to argue like them.
I don’t really see the first sentence going with the second one. And it is more than a hypothesis and less than a theory from what I can see as a layman. But it seems like you just skipped past most of what I said and are just restating your position, so we can leave it here.
What I was trying to say with those two sentences was that nobody or nearly nobody (who knows) really knows what the “dark matter” really is, and that in that case, and because of the fact that physicists are no gods (who knows?), they should not say that they know what the “dark matter” causes because they use / misuse the hypothesis of the “dark matter” in order to support the theory of the “big bang” and especially of the “inflation of the universe”!
According to that “dark” theory the “dark energy” causes the “ever” increasing acceleration of the expansion speed.
Dark energy: about 70%,
Dark matter: 25%,
That what we can see: about 5% .
According to that “dark” theory the “dark energy” functions similarly to the cosmological constant.
I can also tell you that there are electric fields playing a role in planetary and star motion, which seems to be left out of the modern model of the universe.
The Big Bang is almost definitely false but if there was a bang of any kind, it was certainly just extremely large black-holes merely coming together after traveling incredible distances thus colliding at extreme velocity. The effect of that would match everything they claim about the spreading of galaxies. But in reality, there is a good chance that there is very little spreading but rather merely the appearance of spreading for any of several reasons.
It all seems to be in an effort to maintain a religious belief in early thermodynamics (which kicked off the Secular religious movement).
“Religious belief in early thermodynamics”? Would you ming going into details? “Secular religious movement”? Which one you mean, James?
Oh wow, well… You probably know even better than I how the Roman emperor Constantine I forced Christianity into being the imperial religion and philosophy. He provided the chains that held down the philosophical “Devil of Doubt” that was keeping the fires of chaos flaming throughout Europe. It was time for the baby to rest despite his resistance. So for about 1000 years philosophical thought was taboo as the baby slept (despite a few dreams now and again). But eventually it was time to wake up and start thinking again.
So around 1500 or so, European Man began to open his eyes a bit and gaze upon the world with a little fresher mind (the very purpose of such sleep). It took a few hundred years to shake off the chains in his mind and get a grip on his situation. Once he got his feet on the ground a bit and realized a few probable fundamental truths concerning his physical situation (mostly involving materiality and mathematics), he got inspired into taking advantage of the weaknesses of his intellectual confinement and from that grew the “new age”, “secular” foundation for belief, now known as “Secularism” (and what Hitler thought to be his “Third Reich”).
But it appears to me that the notion of thermodynamics became a cornerstone of confidence concerning the nature of the universe. Thermodynamics provided an ontology that produced ways to predict all kinds of chaos with a high degree of accuracy (thus possibly useful for controlling chaotic social masses and the devil himself). And since Chaos is the antithesis of the demanded Order that had confined him for so long and the “Destroyer” with which to overcome, like every creature, Man propelled himself zealously in the opposite direction of what he perceived as his oppression, toward chaos worship with a confident means for controlling it - “Thermodynamics”.
Unfortunately for the world, thermodynamics was only partially true (like the rest of the famous revelations and theories) and certainly not the god of the physical universe as was being worshiped (and still is in many places throughout the West). Plank, Carnot, Hess, and the like helped out during war times with their use of it so it gained serious respect. And much like Constantine, in many universities, thermodynamics is not to be questioned (I know from being one who questioned it). I proved the fallacies in it back in 1972 when I designed a device that defeated natural entropy (the god of chaos) with a physically real “Maxwell’s Demon”. But unfortunately for me, Chaos had just become the fundamental theme for the rise of Cain and Chaos in the West.
I’ve expected this answer. Now I know more about your evaluation of thermodynamics. I mean that the 1st law of thermodynamics (J. Robert Mayer, Hermann Helmholtz), the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Rudolf J. E. Clausius), the 3rd law of thermodynamics (Walther Hermann Nernst), and (partly) also the 4th or 0th law of thermodynamics are important fundamental laws in physics and applicable in all of the other natural sciences. That’s great, isn’t it?
I see that they have yet again changed the wording even from the last time I checked Wiki. Most of these cases are merely word games that amount to declared definitions rather than physical laws.
In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.
This was an attempt to state a “conservation of energy” law as it would relate to heat and work. But it relies heavily on exactly how one defines both “heat” and “work”. They have a dubious relationship.
Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.
Not true in all cases. James Maxwell proposed a theoretical case wherein this “Law” would be violated. It came to be known as “Maxwell’s Demon” (a “demon” because it casts doubt on their newly proposed monolithic god and religion). I, along with many others, have shown that this “law”, is very often not true, yet still proclaimed as a “LAW”. A few years ago on Wiki, and in many books from years ago, it had been reworded as a “tendency” yet remained as a “LAW” anyway. In effect it is like saying:
“Second Law of Agriculture: Healthy leaves are green.”
The entropy change associated with any condensed system undergoing a reversible isothermal process approaches zero as temperature approaches 0 K, where condensed system refers to liquids and solids.
This is another attempt to declare a definition relating entropy with zero temperature. The problem is that one can change the energy content (and thus the entropy) within a system (such as a crystal) without affecting its zero temperature state. Also energy can be taken out of such a system while the system remains at zero kelvin (again breaking the second law as heat/work rises from zero temperature).
If a body A, be in thermal equilibrium with two other bodies, B and C, then B and C are in thermal equilibrium with one another.
This is just a restatement of Aristotle’s “If A = B and B = C, then A = C”.
These were a part of the obvious attempt to know the absolute laws of God. It appears that they never really got it exactly right. And nothing is worse than to get such a thing only almost right. A great deal of power ends up being used to create a great deal of needless misery. It would “be great” as it would apply to many fields of science, except that it was never quite right.
Another thing concerning the apparent worship of these laws (rather than merely scientific honesty) is that they propose Entropy to be the most fundamental law of the universe, ie “God”. In effect, they deny anti-entropy entirely. They are a worship of a Devil-god, Shiva, while denying any Savior-god, Vishnu. Again, expressing the antithesis of Jesus (aka “AntiChrist”).
Above it all, the upper insiders drive the “stock-market” (efforts of Man) up while investing in futures and then at a pre-chosen time, driving the market down while investing in put-options, thus increasing their wealth and power in both cases. They thrive off of the confusion and futile struggles of Man.
1st law of thermodynamics (J. Robert Mayer, Hermann Helmholtz), also called conservation of energy:
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but only converted into different types.
2nd law of thermodynamics (Rudolf J. E. Clausius), also called entropy:
Energy is not convertible to any extent in other types, but only up to maximum values which depend on another state variable: the entropy (in a closed system entropy can never decrease).
3rd law of thermodynamics (Walther Hermann Nernst), also called Nernst’s theorem of heat:
The absolute zero temperature is unattainable.
4rd or 0th law of thermodynamics:
If two systems are each in thermodynamic balance with a third system, then they are also among each other in balance.
That is the law as stated in physics. But even in physics, isn’t 100% true, depending on exactly how they measure energy. If they use the ontology that energy cannot be destroyed, they find that their measurements show that it can be destroyed. In an effort to fill in the gaps, Quantum Physics presumes a discreet sizing of packs of energy. But that isn’t real either.
They have epistemological and ontological (philosophy) problems.
I have never heard that wording and don’t know what the word “species” in that context would refer to, but the end conclusion is incorrect. Entropy can be decreased in a closed system.
To try to defend the proclamation, they have added that the system must first “settle”. But what they are saying with that is simply that nothing can change unless something changes it - somewhat of a cop-out.
Chaos can be (and is) automatically reformed into order within specific systems and can be endlessly cycled.
An example would be a large balloon of mixed hydrogen and argon floating out in space. Given time, the argon will gather at the center, forming a lower state of entropy than the mixed gases were originally. Similarly, a very tall column of water (isolated from the environment) will automatically separate its warm water from its cooler water with the warm on top. But one can then place an insulated aluminum bar extending from top to bottom, and the water will begin to eternally circulate from top to bottom (warming the bottom). And there are many other examples of “perpetual motion mechanisms of the second kind”. Today, they have built vehicles that automatically run against the wind without fuel (we had a video of that here in a different thread).
Unless you have only one particle (or atom). And they are claiming that they have “zero kelvin crystals” (although I haven’t seen them). And they discovered that they can add heat to the crystal and it remains at zero kelvin.
So this is an issue of defining “temperature” and its applicable domain. It isn’t applicable to subatomic physics.
And that is tautological, a repetition of Aristotle’s logic.
A basic problem is that they are using the concept of temperature in an effort to explain all things (to make a God-formula). But some things are not in the domain of temperature.
Basically, they are going about it all wrong. They were (and still are) trying to observe a few things and extrapolate the concept to infinity. Man has always done that (which is how he got his religions). But that doesn’t work if you are trying to get it 100% right.
Instead, one must begin with what has no option but to be true and then expand on that with logical additions that have no option but to be true. The guide is the total lack of alternatives.
Start with what can’t be false and build up.
So you think that thermodynamics is largely science history (? [! {?}]) ! 
Oh, I guess that I see Thermodynamics of Science like the Astrology or Hebrewism of Religion.
They would have been better off sticking to Lorentz’s Aether and defining it a little different after realizing that it couldn’t be exactly as they were thinking at the time. If they had done that, the world would have headed to globalization even sooner, trying to make the world into a single “particle of human mass”, but after a generation or so would see the sanity in making it more of an atom, with a positive and negative focus (the rise of Taoism). And then after another generation, realized that although positive and negative are opposite, they are not equal. Then perhaps in another generation they would wake up to the sense of molecularisation and ended up with what I call “Anentropic Molecularisation”, AM.
The world wars would have still taken place (being already setup) although the world would probably have never heard of Relativity or Einstein, nor Quantum Physics, although Quantum Mechanics would have still lingered. A better form of constitutionalism (AM) and better use of technology would have been the final resolve of the wars rather than robotic globalization.
Today globalization is still the focus because they got stuck with a crippled understanding (Thermodynamics, Hebrewism) and thus never got past their first urge. So they keep redefining things, hiding things, trying to deceive the entire world needlessly, and false flags blowing up buildings, all because they never got the train on the exact right track before taking off to Gloryville. They have to protect their threatened ego until they have ultimate control over all things. And as always, with the slightest glimmer of hope, they shoot for the stars and lust to dominate the universe.
In a loose sense, one could blame Thermodynamics (specifically the Second Law/Theory) for the high degree of threat to the homosapian species of today. But really it is just their egocentric lust to dominate at the bottom of it along with their willingness to Presume (the serpent of the mind).
James, I recommend you to open a thread: AFFECTANCE ONTOLOGY.
Really?
Realize that Affectance Ontology is a very precise ontology of ALL existence. It covers the fields of Physics, Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Religion, Governance, Intelligence, Consciousness, All Sciences,… It is a different mindset, more fundamental than what Man has been using (as well as being more precise). It isn’t merely a university course. It is at least an entire university curriculum. One should expect to get a PhD in merely one facet of Affectance Ontology. So where to begin?
What part of reality would you want to focus on?
For what purpose would you be interested?
I need something to narrow down the topic, else it is a thread on “ALL EXISTENCE”.
That’s right, James. So I recommend you to begin with the physics - of course. That’s - in addition - the part or field I would like to focus on. The purpose for what I would be interested is the cosmology.
Oh geeezzz… I was afraid you were going to say that.
-
Cosmology or astronomy is not a field that I have much interest or great knowledge about.
-
Why are you interested in it?
-
The simple laws governing physics only mildly apply to objects in space because unlike what was presumed long ago, space is NOT empty. And because it isn’t empty, the simple rules concerning mass attraction are not as applicable as people have presumed. The fundamental laws of affect still apply, but our knowledge of what is actually out there is limited. There is a lot between Earth and EVERYTHING else, but it is mostly invisible to us. And distant stars? - Too much speculation about something we will never have a need to know about.
-
I haven’t been terribly interested in cosmology because I really don’t see how the concern about what might have happened 14 billions years ago is terribly relevant or rational to be trying to know considering what needs to be known here and now. I can think of a variety of reasons to know that the entire expansion and Big Bang theories are irrelevant and too naive. Whether the universe is expanding or not affects what exactly? During the next 500 years, so much more will be known for certain that any theories proposed today would be like speculating about life on Mars from 3000 years ago - who cares about grossly naive theories? Whatever is happening out there isn’t going to affect anything here for a very long time other than impending objects coming this way - easy enough to spot long in advance.
But I will go through the physics and we can see how much can be applied to a cosmos that we can’t measure, if you like.
And you did read The Fundamentals page, right? Do I need to repost that whole thing, or was there any particular part of interest or question concerning it?
Oh! 
Never mind! We can choose another field, but it should be a field of physics!
A theory must be well-founded, and this is merely possible in two scientific directions:
- In the direction of natural science, and the foundation of natural science is physics and chemistry, especially physics!
- In the direction of cultural science, and the foundation of cultural science is mathematics and philosophy, especially mathematics!
Oh!
Probably not!
Compare :
You don’t have to repost that whole thing.