Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Proof That Poincare Cycles Are False.


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 11:39 AM

First, I would like to define my definitions.

 

I do not use the term "heat death" for anything. This is because this is a word with multiple opposite implications. It could imply the "death of heat" or the "death of the universe by heat."

 

Thus, my definitions are hot and cold.

 

Hot: referring to maximum motion in a system.

 

Cold: Referring to zero motion in a system.

 

I do not use the definitions Chaos or Order, because something with high vibrations (high motion) could be orderly and synchronized, and a cold system with zero motion could be spaced unevenly and disorderly arranged.

 

My experiments with Box 2d physics used different parameters.

 

When atoms were given a restitution of 1 (No energy lost our gained during bounce) The system's average speed (average speed of each molecule) began to approach zero rapidly. This would imply the universe will eventually become colder and colder. This means that Poincare cycles are impossible (unless the motion creation device is invented).

 

When atoms were given a restitution of 1.05 (To compensate incase of Box2D errors) the system started with an average speed (temperature) of 16, then stayed at about 12 permanently. When atoms were given a restitution of 1.01, they lost temperature rapidly and stayed at about 9.

 

Care was taken to make sure that the friction and all forms of damping was set to 0.

 

This experiment implies that even with flubber characteristics (energy created) you will still get a cold system over time. Thus there is no chance (other than advanced evolution creating anti-cold inventions) that will reduce the cold of a system.

 

Also, I would like to change the medical word "cold" to a "mucus causing virus sickness". Because when I say anti-cold inventions, people may think I mean an invention to stop mucus, when what I mean is a heat-generating motion creation device.



#2 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 04:51 PM

First, I would like to define my definitions.

 

 

I have one questions.

 

Why not just use the definitions from the dictionary instead of creating your own definitions?  If you want other people to understand you, it would be easier and more efficient to use the common language used by other people. 


Edited by Farming guy, 22 April 2017 - 04:01 AM.


#3 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 11:18 AM

I have one questions.

 

Why not just use the definitions from the dictionary instead of creating your own definitions?  If you want other people to understand you, it would be easier and more efficient to use the common language used by other people. 

On science forums.net I complained about STEM terms and dictionary terms being outdated and misleading.

Thus I am to improve the quality standards concerning words and society.

For instance, "Cold" and "cold" are two scientific words with different meanings. I aim to reduce this an optimize our language to improve the quality of our future.



#4 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 04:55 PM

On science forums.net I complained about STEM terms and dictionary terms being outdated and misleading.

Thus I am to improve the quality standards concerning words and society.

For instance, "Cold" and "cold" are two scientific words with different meanings. I aim to reduce this an optimize our language to improve the quality of our future.

My physics and thermodynamics classes were over 20 years ago, so forgive me for being outdated, but what I was taught was that "hot" and "cold" are relative qualities, where heat itself is a physical property.  Water ice for example may be colder than liquid water, but both have the property of "heat".  Liquid water has to lose some of it's heat for the phase change to take place, and that heat is given to it's surroundings.  


Edited by Farming guy, 22 April 2017 - 05:10 PM.

  • JMJones0424 likes this

#5 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 23 April 2017 - 01:28 PM

My physics and thermodynamics classes were over 20 years ago, so forgive me for being outdated, but what I was taught was that "hot" and "cold" are relative qualities, where heat itself is a physical property.  Water ice for example may be colder than liquid water, but both have the property of "heat".  Liquid water has to lose some of it's heat for the phase change to take place, and that heat is given to it's surroundings.  

More specifically, heat depends on substance.

A table is a solid, but warmer than ice.

So movement alone cannot tell you the heat.

But this experiment all the particles were the same substance, so we know that Poincare is false and heat always decreases (even in flubber scenarios.)



#6 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 23 April 2017 - 05:44 PM

Okay, now I am realizing that my memory is incomplete, and I'm going to go dig up some old textbooks before I comment further.  Sometimes we old fogeys  tire of looking at a computer screen or smartphone.



#7 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 04:30 AM



More specifically, heat depends on substance.

A table is a solid, but warmer than ice.

So movement alone cannot tell you the heat.

But this experiment all the particles were the same substance, so we know that Poincare is false and heat always decreases (even in flubber scenarios.)

No, heat is not a property of matter like solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.  A table is most certainly solid on Earth, but a table placed at the South pole is just as solid as the table in my dining room, though the two are on opposing sides of zero degrees Celsius.  Movement alone can't tell you the heat of an object, because heat is not a measurement of atomic movement.

 

How can you determine that anything exists at "maximum motion in a system"?  Are you claiming that the only hot particles are those that move at the speed of light?  If so, then your definitions have deviated significantly from what others refer to when they use the term "heat".  Likewise, why is "cold" a description of zero motion?  It seems to me that you have appropriated descriptive terms for relative heat values in order to refer to extremes.  I don't find this appropriation useful.

 

I don't know where you are coming from when you incorporate this already nonsensical idea into entropy.  What are your experiments with "Box 2d physics"?  What experiment shows that "When atoms were given a restitution of 1 (No energy lost our gained during bounce) The system's average speed (average speed of each molecule) began to approach zero rapidly."?  What do you mean when you claim that an atom has "No energy lost our gained during bounce"?

 

WTF are you claiming?  Are you honestly claiming that Angry Birds is an accurate representation of physical matter?


Edited by JMJones0424, 24 April 2017 - 04:36 AM.

  • Farming guy likes this

#8 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2835 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 05:01 AM

First, I would like to define my definitions.

 

I do not use the term "heat death" for anything. This is because this is a word with multiple opposite implications. It could imply the "death of heat" or the "death of the universe by heat."

 

Thus, my definitions are hot and cold.

 

Hot: referring to maximum motion in a system.

 

Cold: Referring to zero motion in a system.

 

I do not use the definitions Chaos or Order, because something with high vibrations (high motion) could be orderly and synchronized, and a cold system with zero motion could be spaced unevenly and disorderly arranged.

 

My experiments with Box 2d physics used different parameters.

 

When atoms were given a restitution of 1 (No energy lost our gained during bounce) The system's average speed (average speed of each molecule) began to approach zero rapidly. This would imply the universe will eventually become colder and colder. This means that Poincare cycles are impossible (unless the motion creation device is invented).

 

When atoms were given a restitution of 1.05 (To compensate incase of Box2D errors) the system started with an average speed (temperature) of 16, then stayed at about 12 permanently. When atoms were given a restitution of 1.01, they lost temperature rapidly and stayed at about 9.

 

Care was taken to make sure that the friction and all forms of damping was set to 0.

 

This experiment implies that even with flubber characteristics (energy created) you will still get a cold system over time. Thus there is no chance (other than advanced evolution creating anti-cold inventions) that will reduce the cold of a system.

 

Also, I would like to change the medical word "cold" to a "mucus causing virus sickness". Because when I say anti-cold inventions, people may think I mean an invention to stop mucus, when what I mean is a heat-generating motion creation device.

Perhaps you could help the discussion by explaining what you mean by a "PoincarĂ© cycle". I see - from looking it up: I am not a cosmologist -  that there is some cosmological reasoning involving thermodynamics and Poincare's Recurrence Theorem. For example it seems Tipler wrote a paper in Nature in 1979, saying one would not get recurrence in a closed universe governed by general relativity. Is that what you are referring to? If so it would seem Tipler has anticipated you by a few decades. Or are you driving at something else, perhaps?



#9 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2835 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 05:08 AM

My physics and thermodynamics classes were over 20 years ago, so forgive me for being outdated, but what I was taught was that "hot" and "cold" are relative qualities, where heat itself is a physical property.  Water ice for example may be colder than liquid water, but both have the property of "heat".  Liquid water has to lose some of it's heat for the phase change to take place, and that heat is given to it's surroundings.  

I would say rather that heat is a quantity and temperature is the property that we commonly measure. I think what you are referring to is Latent Heat (of fusion in the case of the water-ice transition), by which a substance can release heat without any change in temperature, if it is undergoing a phase change.


  • JMJones0424 likes this

#10 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 11:46 AM

I would say rather that heat is a quantity and temperature is the property that we commonly measure. I think what you are referring to is Latent Heat (of fusion in the case of the water-ice transition), by which a substance can release heat without any change in temperature, if it is undergoing a phase change.

yes, of course, you are right, I did feel like I was forgetting something.  Heat itself is energy.



#11 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 11:50 AM

 

 

I don't know where you are coming from 

 

WTF are you claiming? 

See what happens, quickquestion,  when you don't stick with the language usage generally accepted by those that might read what you post?


Edited by Farming guy, 24 April 2017 - 11:51 AM.

  • JMJones0424 and exchemist like this

#12 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 11:59 AM

See what happens, quickquestion,  when you don't stick with the language usage generally accepted by those that might read what you post?

In order to satiate JMJones' angry rant, and clear up any confusion he has, I shall call it temperature from now on.

 

"Heat is the form of energy that is transferred between two substances at different temperatures. The direction of energy flow is from the substance of higher temperature to the substance of lower temperature. Heat is measured in units of energy, usually calories or joules. Heat and temperature are often used interchangeably, but this is incorrect. Temperature is the measure of hotness or coldness of matter. Stated another way, temperature is the average kinetic energy per molecule of a substance. Temperature is measured in degrees on the Celsius © or Fahrenheit (F) scale, or in kelvins (K). In simplest terms, temperature is how hot or cold an object is, while heat is the energy that flows from a hotter object to a cooler one. For example, the temperature of a cup of coffee may feel hot if you put your hand around it. It is hot because heat from the coffee is transferred to the cup."

 

 

Perhaps you could help the discussion by explaining what you mean by a "PoincarĂ© cycle". I see - from looking it up: I am not a cosmologist -  that there is some cosmological reasoning involving thermodynamics and Poincare's Recurrence Theorem. For example it seems Tipler wrote a paper in Nature in 1979, saying one would not get recurrence in a closed universe governed by general relativity. Is that what you are referring to? If so it would seem Tipler has anticipated you by a few decades. Or are you driving at something else, perhaps?

Poincare implies a universal recurrence. I say this is not possible unless you have a free-energy machine that creates temperature and heat. My observations indicate that the overall temperature of the universe will decrease from it's original state, and never return to its original high temperature. Which is unfortunate because, I hate the cold.


Edited by quickquestion, 24 April 2017 - 12:01 PM.


#13 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2835 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:27 AM

 

Poincare implies a universal recurrence. I say this is not possible unless you have a free-energy machine that creates temperature and heat. My observations indicate that the overall temperature of the universe will decrease from it's original state, and never return to its original high temperature. Which is unfortunate because, I hate the cold.

Eh? Poincare's recurrence theorem is described here: https://en.wikipedia...urrence_theorem

 

It does not make any claim about the universe.

 

Tipler's paper considers the theorem in relation to a closed universe subject to GR and apparently concludes (though I can only access the abstract of it) that such a universe would not meet the conditions for recurrence. That was  in 1979. 

 

So it would seem you are arguing against a proposition that nobody is making. 


Edited by exchemist, 25 April 2017 - 01:27 AM.


#14 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:05 AM

While you're redefining your definitions in order to satiate my anger, perhaps you'd like to try another-



I do not use the term "heat death" for anything. This is because this is a word with multiple opposite implications. It could imply the "death of heat" or the "death of the universe by heat."

 

Thus, my definitions are hot and cold.

Here, you exhibit a complete misunderstanding of what the term heat death means.  It is referring neither to the death of heat, nor to the death of the universe by heat.  Neither heat nor the universe are living things.  They cannot die.  "Heat death" refers to the ultimate fate of the cosmos when entropy is maximized and there is no longer possibility of generating heat through thermodynamic processes.  At this point, there is no longer any place in the universe where chemical reactions (and I suppose nuclear reactions?) can take place.  It does not help to substitute temperature for heat in your argument, as your argument is nonsensical.

 

Because entropy in an open system like the universe is a one-way street, it follows that if the universe does not contract, then there will be a heat death, as there will be a time that it is no longer possible for heat to move from one atom to the next.  I do not have the capability to argue against this point, but I do have the capability to know that your argument here is decidedly ignorant.


Edited by JMJones0424, 27 April 2017 - 12:10 AM.