Trajectory branching in Liouville space as the source of irreversibility
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pasting Lemma
Next: a question on differentiability
From: Han de Bruijn on 7 Jun 2010 07:33 On Jun 7, 12:56 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:30:36 -0700: > > > On Jun 7, 1:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > > [ .. snip things done .. ] > > >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:31:08 -0700: > > >> > No comment on personal attacks in the first place. > > >> First attacks as your previous "The Ultimate Arrogance" for referring > >> to available grand theories or "that many people are incompetent" when > >> discussing modern convenia in the field. > > > Those were attacks on a discipline, and on dumb group consensus, but no > > attacks on you personally. > > You wrote your "The Ultimate Arrogance" in direct reply to my phrase > about obtaining a *grand* theory of irreversibility. Sorry .. I didn't know what's meant by a "grand" theory, at that time. Thought it was synonymous with an "ultimate" theory. I'll give you the advantage of the doubt here. And I'll withdraw the claim that devising such a theory is the ultimate arrogance. I'll keep the claim that your path towards such a grand theory is _not_ going to accomplish anything of value. > You wrote your "many people are incompetent" in direct reply to my > phrase about how diffusion is considered to be a subclass of convection. Yes. People who say _this_ just _are_ incompetent. > You have sniped now all that, but it is still available in the previous > messages in this thread. Sure. And nobody is going to erase al that. Not me anyway. > >> > Second, just GIVE the > >> > world that Perpetuum Mobilae. And the unlimited source of energy > >> > that's so desperately needed. And stop blathering about it. But I am > >> > quite sure that such a thing is impossible. > > >> No I have not claimed Perpetuum Mobilae nor other fantasies only in > >> your brain. This is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those > >> topics, but you cannot even read the messages. > > > Huh .. ?? If heat can spontaneously flow from low temperature to high > > temperature, as you have claimed, than I can devise an engine running > > between those two (high -> low) temperatures. And have plenty of free > > and costless energy. So you _have_ claimed a Perpetuum Mobilae. > > I REPEAT, do NOT attribute YOUR mistakes and silly claims to others. YOU have > done *twice* the claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. Neither I nor the other > authors of the references I alluded have done YOUR WRONG claims. > > I REPEAT, this is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those topics, > but you do NOT read the messages sistematically correcting your silly > claims about others. I REPEAT, that your claim that heat can spontaneously flow from low temperature to high temperature IS EQUIVALENT with the claim that a Perpetuum Mobile does indeed exist. Any undergraduate knows that. And there is no *grand* theory that will help you out eventually. Han de Bruijn
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 7 Jun 2010 11:49 Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:33:19 -0700: > On Jun 7, 12:56 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:30:36 -0700: >> >> > On Jun 7, 1:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> > [ .. snip things done .. ] >> >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:31:08 -0700: >> >> >> > No comment on personal attacks in the first place. >> >> >> First attacks as your previous "The Ultimate Arrogance" for >> >> referring to available grand theories or "that many people are >> >> incompetent" when discussing modern convenia in the field. >> >> > Those were attacks on a discipline, and on dumb group consensus, but >> > no attacks on you personally. >> >> You wrote your "The Ultimate Arrogance" in direct reply to my phrase >> about obtaining a *grand* theory of irreversibility. > > Sorry .. I didn't know what's meant by a "grand" theory, at that time. > Thought it was synonymous with an "ultimate" theory. I'll give you the > advantage of the doubt here. And I'll withdraw the claim that devising > such a theory is the ultimate arrogance. I'll keep the claim that your > path towards such a grand theory is _not_ going to accomplish anything > of value. You are free to continue disconected from modern research. I see no problem with that :-D >> You wrote your "many people are incompetent" in direct reply to my >> phrase about how diffusion is considered to be a subclass of >> convection. > > Yes. People who say _this_ just _are_ incompetent. Only you are both the incompetent and the guy who is able to spell "convection" perfectly, but still being unaware of its physical meaning and modern usage of the term in the specialised literature :-D >> You have sniped now all that, but it is still available in the previous >> messages in this thread. > > Sure. And nobody is going to erase al that. Not me anyway. > >> >> > Second, just GIVE the >> >> > world that Perpetuum Mobilae. And the unlimited source of energy >> >> > that's so desperately needed. And stop blathering about it. But I >> >> > am quite sure that such a thing is impossible. >> >> >> No I have not claimed Perpetuum Mobilae nor other fantasies only in >> >> your brain. This is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of >> >> those topics, but you cannot even read the messages. >> >> > Huh .. ?? If heat can spontaneously flow from low temperature to high >> > temperature, as you have claimed, than I can devise an engine running >> > between those two (high -> low) temperatures. And have plenty of free >> > and costless energy. So you _have_ claimed a Perpetuum Mobilae. >> >> I REPEAT, do NOT attribute YOUR mistakes and silly claims to others. >> YOU have done *twice* the claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. Neither I >> nor the other authors of the references I alluded have done YOUR WRONG >> claims. >> >> I REPEAT, this is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those >> topics, but you do NOT read the messages sistematically correcting your >> silly claims about others. > > I REPEAT, that your claim that heat can spontaneously flow from low > temperature to high temperature IS EQUIVALENT with the claim that a > Perpetuum Mobile does indeed exist. Any undergraduate knows that. And > there is no *grand* theory that will help you out eventually. Your unability to READ is amazing. This is the third time that YOU make the silly claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. YOU and nobody more does. I understand perfectly that you are completely unaware of modern research in this field. And your ridiculous appeal to "undergraduates" only reflect your misconceptions. That could be accepted, but it is rather dishonest attitude from YOUR part when someone is sistematically negating your accusations and you insist on misatributing. I REPEAT, do not attribure your SILLY claims to other, specially when them are saying just the COONTRARY than you. In the middle of this discussion to nowehere (except to funny-land :-D) I have written the third part: Toward a grand theory of irreversibility. And posted it here :-D -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Han de Bruijn on 9 Jun 2010 04:36 On Jun 7, 5:49 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:33:19 -0700: > > On Jun 7, 12:56 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:30:36 -0700: > > >> > On Jun 7, 1:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > >> > [ .. snip things done .. ] > > >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:31:08 -0700: > > >> >> > No comment on personal attacks in the first place. > > >> >> First attacks as your previous "The Ultimate Arrogance" for > >> >> referring to available grand theories or "that many people are > >> >> incompetent" when discussing modern convenia in the field. > > >> > Those were attacks on a discipline, and on dumb group consensus, but > >> > no attacks on you personally. > > >> You wrote your "The Ultimate Arrogance" in direct reply to my phrase > >> about obtaining a *grand* theory of irreversibility. > > > Sorry .. I didn't know what's meant by a "grand" theory, at that time. > > Thought it was synonymous with an "ultimate" theory. I'll give you the > > advantage of the doubt here. And I'll withdraw the claim that devising > > such a theory is the ultimate arrogance. I'll keep the claim that your > > path towards such a grand theory is _not_ going to accomplish anything > > of value. > > You are free to continue disconected from modern research. I see no > problem with that :-D > >> You wrote your "many people are incompetent" in direct reply to my > >> phrase about how diffusion is considered to be a subclass of > >> convection. > > > Yes. People who say _this_ just _are_ incompetent. > > Only you are both the incompetent and the guy who is able to spell > "convection" perfectly, but still being unaware of its physical > meaning and modern usage of the term in the specialised literature :-D Convection is described by a linear first order differential operator. Diffusion is described by a linear second order differential operator. Second order is not equal to first order. As any undergraduate knows. The "specialized" science (fiction) literature you are referring to is simply wrong, if it is indeed reflecting what you say. I wouldn't even surprised if this is so, because so many places in modern science are infected by the virus called "lack of discipline". > >> You have sniped now all that, but it is still available in the previous > >> messages in this thread. > > > Sure. And nobody is going to erase al that. Not me anyway. > > >> >> > Second, just GIVE the > >> >> > world that Perpetuum Mobilae. And the unlimited source of energy > >> >> > that's so desperately needed. And stop blathering about it. But I > >> >> > am quite sure that such a thing is impossible. > > >> >> No I have not claimed Perpetuum Mobilae nor other fantasies only in > >> >> your brain. This is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of > >> >> those topics, but you cannot even read the messages. > > >> > Huh .. ?? If heat can spontaneously flow from low temperature to high > >> > temperature, as you have claimed, than I can devise an engine running > >> > between those two (high -> low) temperatures. And have plenty of free > >> > and costless energy. So you _have_ claimed a Perpetuum Mobilae. > > >> I REPEAT, do NOT attribute YOUR mistakes and silly claims to others. > >> YOU have done *twice* the claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. Neither I > >> nor the other authors of the references I alluded have done YOUR WRONG > >> claims. > > >> I REPEAT, this is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those > >> topics, but you do NOT read the messages sistematically correcting your > >> silly claims about others. > > > I REPEAT, that your claim that heat can spontaneously flow from low > > temperature to high temperature IS EQUIVALENT with the claim that a > > Perpetuum Mobile does indeed exist. Any undergraduate knows that. And > > there is no *grand* theory that will help you out eventually. > > Your unability to READ is amazing. This is the third time that YOU make the > silly claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. YOU and nobody more does. From _your_ second posting in this thread: <quote> There is also some wrong statements in that work. For instance, your claim that a flow of heat from a low temperature region to a high temperature region violates the Second law of thermodynamics is not all right. It was showed several years ago that a flow of that kind is compatible with the second law, when the truncated (approximated) equations for heat transport are substituted by their generalized cousins. </quote> Okay. Does this say that heat _can_ flow from a low temperature region to a high temperature region or not? Yes or No is a sufficient answer. [ .. blather deleted .. ] Han de Bruijn
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 11 Jun 2010 20:34 Han de Bruijn wrote on Wed, 09 Jun 2010 01:36:46 -0700: > On Jun 7, 5:49 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:33:19 -0700: > >> > On Jun 7, 12:56 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:30:36 -0700: >> >> >> > On Jun 7, 1:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> >> >> > [ .. snip things done .. ] >> >> >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:31:08 -0700: >> >> >> >> > No comment on personal attacks in the first place. >> >> >> >> First attacks as your previous "The Ultimate Arrogance" for >> >> >> referring to available grand theories or "that many people are >> >> >> incompetent" when discussing modern convenia in the field. >> >> >> > Those were attacks on a discipline, and on dumb group consensus, >> >> > but no attacks on you personally. >> >> >> You wrote your "The Ultimate Arrogance" in direct reply to my phrase >> >> about obtaining a *grand* theory of irreversibility. >> >> > Sorry .. I didn't know what's meant by a "grand" theory, at that >> > time. Thought it was synonymous with an "ultimate" theory. I'll give >> > you the advantage of the doubt here. And I'll withdraw the claim that >> > devising such a theory is the ultimate arrogance. I'll keep the claim >> > that your path towards such a grand theory is _not_ going to >> > accomplish anything of value. >> >> You are free to continue disconected from modern research. I see no >> problem with that :-D > >> >> You wrote your "many people are incompetent" in direct reply to my >> >> phrase about how diffusion is considered to be a subclass of >> >> convection. >> >> > Yes. People who say _this_ just _are_ incompetent. >> >> Only you are both the incompetent and the guy who is able to spell >> "convection" perfectly, but still being unaware of its physical meaning >> and modern usage of the term in the specialised literature :-D > > Convection is described by a linear first order differential operator. > Diffusion is described by a linear second order differential operator. > Second order is not equal to first order. As any undergraduate knows. > > The "specialized" science (fiction) literature you are referring to is > simply wrong, if it is indeed reflecting what you say. I wouldn't even > surprised if this is so, because so many places in modern science are > infected by the virus called "lack of discipline". In a previous message I wrote: "Moreover, you seem to be confounding the modern usage of the terms convention and advenction. Many people uses the term convention as including both advenction and diffusion. I.e. they treat diffusion as a subclass of convention." But you insist on your ad hominem attacks. Ok, let me expose you once again :-D Advection is described by a linear first order differential operator. Diffusion is described by a linear second order differential operator. Convection take place through both diffusion and by advection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection See it happened that people knows the difference between first order and second order, just you were confused by modern conventions :-D >> >> You have sniped now all that, but it is still available in the >> >> previous messages in this thread. >> >> > Sure. And nobody is going to erase al that. Not me anyway. >> >> >> >> > Second, just GIVE the >> >> >> > world that Perpetuum Mobilae. And the unlimited source of >> >> >> > energy that's so desperately needed. And stop blathering about >> >> >> > it. But I am quite sure that such a thing is impossible. >> >> >> >> No I have not claimed Perpetuum Mobilae nor other fantasies only >> >> >> in your brain. This is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance >> >> >> of those topics, but you cannot even read the messages. >> >> >> > Huh .. ?? If heat can spontaneously flow from low temperature to >> >> > high temperature, as you have claimed, than I can devise an engine >> >> > running between those two (high -> low) temperatures. And have >> >> > plenty of free and costless energy. So you _have_ claimed a >> >> > Perpetuum Mobilae. >> >> >> I REPEAT, do NOT attribute YOUR mistakes and silly claims to others. >> >> YOU have done *twice* the claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. Neither I >> >> nor the other authors of the references I alluded have done YOUR >> >> WRONG claims. >> >> >> I REPEAT, this is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those >> >> topics, but you do NOT read the messages sistematically correcting >> >> your silly claims about others. >> >> > I REPEAT, that your claim that heat can spontaneously flow from low >> > temperature to high temperature IS EQUIVALENT with the claim that a >> > Perpetuum Mobile does indeed exist. Any undergraduate knows that. And >> > there is no *grand* theory that will help you out eventually. >> >> Your unability to READ is amazing. This is the third time that YOU make >> the silly claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. YOU and nobody more does. > > From _your_ second posting in this thread: <quote> > There is also some wrong statements in that work. For instance, your > claim that a flow of heat from a low temperature region to a high > temperature region violates the Second law of thermodynamics is not all > right. > > It was showed several years ago that a flow of that kind is compatible > with the second law, when the truncated (approximated) equations for > heat > transport are substituted by their generalized cousins. </quote> > > Okay. Does this say that heat _can_ flow from a low temperature region > to a high temperature region or not? Yes or No is a sufficient answer. But if I answer *that* you will reply again with the same misunderstanding than you have sistematically repeated in last messages. It is better to do some 'reverse enginnering' to show that again you are the incompetent :-D It is clear as crystal that you took my claim about heat flow and ignored all the rest. You ignored my claim about how was showed to be compatible with the second law and you ignored also my claim of that one must use the generalized equations for heat transport. Instead, you took the claim about generic heat flow and introduced it into the truncated equations that you use, without worring about their ranges of validity. And then over the basis of that mistake you got that the second law is violated and over that new mistake you did the silly claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. No happy about all that, then you started to attribute your silly claims to others who *never* did :-D -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Han de Bruijn on 12 Jun 2010 14:06
On 12 jun, 02:34, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Han de Bruijn wrote on Wed, 09 Jun 2010 01:36:46 -0700: > > > On Jun 7, 5:49 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 04:33:19 -0700: > > >> > On Jun 7, 12:56 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:30:36 -0700: > > >> >> > On Jun 7, 1:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > >> >> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > > >> >> > [ .. snip things done .. ] > > >> >> >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 07:31:08 -0700: > > >> >> >> > No comment on personal attacks in the first place. > > >> >> >> First attacks as your previous "The Ultimate Arrogance" for > >> >> >> referring to available grand theories or "that many people are > >> >> >> incompetent" when discussing modern convenia in the field. > > >> >> > Those were attacks on a discipline, and on dumb group consensus, > >> >> > but no attacks on you personally. > > >> >> You wrote your "The Ultimate Arrogance" in direct reply to my phrase > >> >> about obtaining a *grand* theory of irreversibility. > > >> > Sorry .. I didn't know what's meant by a "grand" theory, at that > >> > time. Thought it was synonymous with an "ultimate" theory. I'll give > >> > you the advantage of the doubt here. And I'll withdraw the claim that > >> > devising such a theory is the ultimate arrogance. I'll keep the claim > >> > that your path towards such a grand theory is _not_ going to > >> > accomplish anything of value. > > >> You are free to continue disconected from modern research. I see no > >> problem with that :-D > > >> >> You wrote your "many people are incompetent" in direct reply to my > >> >> phrase about how diffusion is considered to be a subclass of > >> >> convection. > > >> > Yes. People who say _this_ just _are_ incompetent. > > >> Only you are both the incompetent and the guy who is able to spell > >> "convection" perfectly, but still being unaware of its physical meaning > >> and modern usage of the term in the specialised literature :-D > > > Convection is described by a linear first order differential operator. > > Diffusion is described by a linear second order differential operator. > > Second order is not equal to first order. As any undergraduate knows. > > > The "specialized" science (fiction) literature you are referring to is > > simply wrong, if it is indeed reflecting what you say. I wouldn't even > > surprised if this is so, because so many places in modern science are > > infected by the virus called "lack of discipline". > > In a previous message I wrote: > > "Moreover, you seem to be confounding the modern usage of the terms > convention and advenction. Many people uses the term convention as > including both advenction and diffusion. I.e. they treat diffusion > as a subclass of convention." > > But you insist on your ad hominem attacks. Ok, let me expose you once > again :-D > > Advection is described by a linear first order differential operator. > Diffusion is described by a linear second order differential operator. > > Convection take place through both diffusion and by advection > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection Quote: This article is incomplete and may require expansion or cleanup. > See it happened that people knows the difference between first order > and second order, just you were confused by modern conventions :-D > >> >> You have sniped now all that, but it is still available in the > >> >> previous messages in this thread. > > >> > Sure. And nobody is going to erase al that. Not me anyway. > > >> >> >> > Second, just GIVE the > >> >> >> > world that Perpetuum Mobilae. And the unlimited source of > >> >> >> > energy that's so desperately needed. And stop blathering about > >> >> >> > it. But I am quite sure that such a thing is impossible. > > >> >> >> No I have not claimed Perpetuum Mobilae nor other fantasies only > >> >> >> in your brain. This is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance > >> >> >> of those topics, but you cannot even read the messages. > > >> >> > Huh .. ?? If heat can spontaneously flow from low temperature to > >> >> > high temperature, as you have claimed, than I can devise an engine > >> >> > running between those two (high -> low) temperatures. And have > >> >> > plenty of free and costless energy. So you _have_ claimed a > >> >> > Perpetuum Mobilae. > > >> >> I REPEAT, do NOT attribute YOUR mistakes and silly claims to others.. > >> >> YOU have done *twice* the claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. Neither I > >> >> nor the other authors of the references I alluded have done YOUR > >> >> WRONG claims. > > >> >> I REPEAT, this is not just a reflect of your deep ignorance of those > >> >> topics, but you do NOT read the messages sistematically correcting > >> >> your silly claims about others. > > >> > I REPEAT, that your claim that heat can spontaneously flow from low > >> > temperature to high temperature IS EQUIVALENT with the claim that a > >> > Perpetuum Mobile does indeed exist. Any undergraduate knows that. And > >> > there is no *grand* theory that will help you out eventually. > > >> Your unability to READ is amazing. This is the third time that YOU make > >> the silly claim about /Perpetuum Mobilae/. YOU and nobody more does. > > > From _your_ second posting in this thread: <quote> > > There is also some wrong statements in that work. For instance, your > > claim that a flow of heat from a low temperature region to a high > > temperature region violates the Second law of thermodynamics is not all > > right. > > > It was showed several years ago that a flow of that kind is compatible > > with the second law, when the truncated (approximated) equations for > > heat > > transport are substituted by their generalized cousins. </quote> > > > Okay. Does this say that heat _can_ flow from a low temperature region > > to a high temperature region or not? Yes or No is a sufficient answer. > > But if I answer *that* you will reply again with the same misunderstanding than > you have sistematically repeated in last messages. No. Just answer *that*: Yes or No. Nothing else. [ .. rest of lawyer style "argument" deleted .. ] Han de Bruijn |