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 13 Jun 2010 15:32 On 12 jun, 21:01, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Han de Bruijn wrote on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:06:37 -0700: > > > 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. > > Ok, you lose another oportunity to say "oops!". > But since you insist on being exposed, let me help you... > > Evidently it is not needed expansion or cleanup in the part where the concept > of advection and the modern concept of convention are defined: > > "In the context of heat and mass transfer, the term "convection" is > used to refer to the sum of advective and diffusive transfer.[1] > > The reference [1] is a standard textbook in heat transfer. And its author > is unlike you well-known for his contributions to the field of heat transfer, > specially of the diffusive class :-D > > Evidently you have not that reference. However, you can still follow the link > to advection > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advection > > where you are taught *the same* once again: > > "Advection is sometimes confused with the more encompassing process convection, > which encompasses both advective transport and diffusive transport in fluids. > Convective transport is the sum of advective transport and diffusive transport." > > It is now when you would say "oops" because in despite of your ridiculous accusations > people knows the difference between first and second order :-D Okay. I have here right before my eyes THE book by S.V. Patankar named "Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow". Now guess what _we_ find in _that_ book: chapter 5: CONVECTION AND DIFFUSION. Just as I'm telling you all the time. No oops, we are just reading different books, it seems. Time to relax a bit: Convection AND diffusion is called "confusion" in some circles. Quite appropriate. We can settle this by admitting that we retrieved our information from different incompatible channels. We cannot settle the second subject because you still refuse to answer a simple question with yes or no. As far as I'm concerned, the thread ends herewith and I'll give you the last word. Oh yeah, and you've accomplished that I'm now reading a book by Ilya Prigogine, named "La Fin des Certitudes" (1996). > >> 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. > > But if I answer *that* YOU will reply again with the same misunderstandings 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 (YOU are an open book for me) 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 > (*approximated*) 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/ca... Han de Bruijn
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 13 Jun 2010 19:02 Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:32:01 -0700: > On 12 jun, 21:01, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Han de Bruijn wrote on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:06:37 -0700: >> >> > 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. >> >> Ok, you lose another oportunity to say "oops!". But since you insist on >> being exposed, let me help you... >> >> Evidently it is not needed expansion or cleanup in the part where the >> concept of advection and the modern concept of convention are defined: >> >> "In the context of heat and mass transfer, the term "convection" is >> used to refer to the sum of advective and diffusive transfer.[1] >> >> The reference [1] is a standard textbook in heat transfer. And its >> author is unlike you well-known for his contributions to the field of >> heat transfer, specially of the diffusive class :-D >> >> Evidently you have not that reference. However, you can still follow >> the link to advection >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advection >> >> where you are taught *the same* once again: >> >> "Advection is sometimes confused with the more encompassing process >> convection, >> which encompasses both advective transport and diffusive transport >> in fluids. Convective transport is the sum of advective transport >> and diffusive transport." >> >> It is now when you would say "oops" because in despite of your >> ridiculous accusations people knows the difference between first and >> second order :-D > > Okay. I have here right before my eyes THE book by S.V. Patankar named > "Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow". Now guess what _we_ find in > _that_ book: chapter 5: CONVECTION AND DIFFUSION. Just as I'm telling > you all the time. > > No oops, we are just reading different books, it seems. Time to relax a > bit: Convection AND diffusion is called "confusion" in some circles. > Quite appropriate. We can settle this by admitting that we retrieved our > information from different incompatible channels. But since I already said this to you, it is evident that you do not read. I said you: "Many people uses the term convention as including both advenction and diffusion. I.e. they treat diffusion as a subclass of convention." And after said you: "In any case, this are only conventions and naming." And in another message said you: "As said it is only a question of conventions and naming. In principle you can call them alpha and beta, that is unimportant." It does not matter if you want to use the older convention for the names. But it was very silly when you started ad hominem attacks over people using different conventions than you. In a modern convention: CONVENCTION = ADVECTION + DIFFUSION. (...) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 13 Jun 2010 19:04 "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:02:47 +0000: > Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:32:01 -0700: > >> On 12 jun, 21:01, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >>> Han de Bruijn wrote on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:06:37 -0700: >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> Ok, you lose another oportunity to say "oops!". But since you insist >>> on being exposed, let me help you... >>> >>> Evidently it is not needed expansion or cleanup in the part where the >>> concept of advection and the modern concept of convention are defined: >>> >>> "In the context of heat and mass transfer, the term "convection" is >>> used to refer to the sum of advective and diffusive transfer.[1] >>> >>> The reference [1] is a standard textbook in heat transfer. And its >>> author is unlike you well-known for his contributions to the field of >>> heat transfer, specially of the diffusive class :-D >>> >>> Evidently you have not that reference. However, you can still follow >>> the link to advection >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advection >>> >>> where you are taught *the same* once again: >>> >>> "Advection is sometimes confused with the more encompassing process >>> convection, >>> which encompasses both advective transport and diffusive >>> transport in fluids. Convective transport is the sum of advective >>> transport and diffusive transport." >>> >>> It is now when you would say "oops" because in despite of your >>> ridiculous accusations people knows the difference between first and >>> second order :-D >> >> Okay. I have here right before my eyes THE book by S.V. Patankar named >> "Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow". Now guess what _we_ find in >> _that_ book: chapter 5: CONVECTION AND DIFFUSION. Just as I'm telling >> you all the time. >> >> No oops, we are just reading different books, it seems. Time to relax a >> bit: Convection AND diffusion is called "confusion" in some circles. >> Quite appropriate. We can settle this by admitting that we retrieved >> our information from different incompatible channels. > > But since I already said this to you, it is evident that you do not > read. > > I said you: > > "Many people uses the term convention as including > both advenction and diffusion. I.e. they treat diffusion as a subclass > of convention." > > And after said you: > > "In any case, this are only conventions and naming." > > And in another message said you: > > "As said it is only a question of conventions and naming. In principle > you can call them alpha and beta, that is unimportant." > > It does not matter if you want to use the older convention for the > names. But it was very silly when you started ad hominem attacks over > people using different conventions than you. In a modern convention: > > CONVENCTION = ADVECTION + DIFFUSION. Typo: CONVECTION :-D > (...) -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Han de Bruijn on 14 Jun 2010 03:13
On Jun 14, 1:02 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Han de Bruijn wrote on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:32:01 -0700: > [ .. snip things done .. ] > > > Okay. I have here right before my eyes THE book by S.V. Patankar named > > "Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow". Now guess what _we_ find in > > _that_ book: chapter 5: CONVECTION AND DIFFUSION. Just as I'm telling > > you all the time. > > > No oops, we are just reading different books, it seems. Time to relax a > > bit: Convection AND diffusion is called "confusion" in some circles. > > Quite appropriate. We can settle this by admitting that we retrieved our > > information from different incompatible channels. > > But since I already said this to you, it is evident that you do not read. > > I said you: > > "Many people uses the term convention as including > both advenction and diffusion. I.e. they treat > diffusion as a subclass of convention." > > And after said you: > > "In any case, this are only conventions and naming." > > And in another message said you: > > "As said it is only a question of conventions and naming. In principle > you can call them alpha and beta, that is unimportant." > > It does not matter if you want to use the older convention for the names. > But it was very silly when you started ad hominem attacks over people using > different conventions than you. In a modern convention: > > CONVENCTION = ADVECTION + DIFFUSION. We agree on this issue now. You are innocent. But there ARE people who claim that - in your parlance - _advection_ is a subclass of diffusion (i.e. they think they can transform advection into sort of diffusion, for the purpose of easier numerical calculation). And for those people my verdict still stands: that _they_ are incompetent. I thought for a moment that you were one of them. Sorry. Han de Bruijn |