The Details of Thread Theory

[altonhare]

Alton said:
The hypothesis is that the rope is the fundamental, primordial entity. There are no smaller parts.
You renegging on the alternate "chain" hypothesis?

Nope, this is the "thread theory" thread. The chain idea is my variant. Bill Gaede has a book, an article in a book, and a series of vids however. It is also at once more palatable to the new eye/mind than the chain idea.

Well then if you think the detectors are inaccurate then how can you say these are threads?

Read carefully much?

If it isn't accurate then it's not evidence for anything.

[altonhare]

Alton said:
There is no "free energy". The only perpetual motion machine is the entire U.
Say, what's your take on the second law of thermodynamics?

I'm not big on laws.

[altonhare]

Alton said:
There is no "free energy". The only perpetual motion machine is the entire U.
Say, what's your take on the second law of thermodynamics?

I'm not big on laws.

Sorry, that wasn't very helpful. I'm just tired of this and that equation being granted the title "law", as if it were irrefutable and immutable.

My short answer is that the 2nd concept of thermodynamics is a useful empirical rule for dealing with sub-universe sized macroscopic systems.

The universe is a closed, isolated system. Motion is conserved in such a system. Nature doesn't care if that motion is useful to us or readily apparent to us, Nature just cares that the balance sheet matches *exactly*.

Besides, entropy is a concept, it has no power to perform actions such as increasing or moving.

[rcglinsk]

The neat thing about the second law of thermodynamics is that it's a system specific law. If one cannot draw a boundary around the system (which may be true of the whole universe) then the second law does not apply.

[altonhare]

The neat thing about the second law of thermodynamics is that it's a system specific law. If one cannot draw a boundary around the system (which may be true of the whole universe) then the second law does not apply.

Good point. The 2nd law requires the system to be surrounded by 'an' infinite "sea" i.e. thermal reservoir. Since there are no infinite objects in reality this scenario is physically unrealizable. Even more to the point, since the universe is "everything that exists" then there can be no existing thermal reservoir surrounding it. Such a thing, not being part of the universe, wouldn't exist.

[webolife]

The "infinite sea" concept presupposes that residual heat is some kind of stuff radiating outward...
On the other hand, we experience heat most intensely as we approach [I like Alton's word "converge" here]
on an active point of polity. This brings up the novel view that entropy is "centropy", ie the convergent force field... having set this, we come to understand that the net effect of any energy exchange is "gravitational" in the sense that it is convergent on the polity point, ie a net loss of potential energy "always" occurs... aka the 2nd law of thermo.
This [convergence] may describe the universe as a whole, so this view of entropy would apply to it.

[altonhare]

The "infinite sea" concept presupposes that residual heat is some kind of stuff radiating outward...
On the other hand, we experience heat most intensely as we approach [I like Alton's word "converge" here]
on an active point of polity. This brings up the novel view that entropy is "centropy", ie the convergent force field... having set this, we come to understand that the net effect of any energy exchange is "gravitational" in the sense that it is convergent on the polity point, ie a net loss of potential energy "always" occurs... aka the 2nd law of thermo.
This [convergence] may describe the universe as a whole, so this view of entropy would apply to it.

The # of ropes per unit volume around an atom (or aggregations thereof) decreases as the inverse square of the distance I am from that atom (or aggregation thereof). So as I approach the "heat" I feel becomes more intense because the rope density is higher.

The problem with the "infinite sea" model is that there is no "infinite sea" around the universe, since the universe is already everything that exists.

The counterargument is that the universe itself is actually infinite in extent. Not only is this a contradiction in terms but it also leads to the following conclusion. Any incremental/finite increase in entropy will be dispersed over an "infinite" volume, and so will become "infinitely" dilute, thus having no effect on the overall system.

So as I said in my earlier post, the 2nd "law" is applicable to sub-universe sized macroscopic systems, where we can approximate the earth's atmosphere as an "infinite sea" mathematically.

[junglelord]

I think its a bit ingenous to suggest that the ropes can account for heat. Sorry, but I fail to see how that translates.
What about zero point, super cold atoms? They have more ropes, being closer together, while as you say, the ropes dissipate at the inverse square, so how could a gas, being further apart, have more ropes and heat?

[altonhare]

I think its a bit ingenous to suggest that the ropes can account for heat. Sorry, but I fail to see how that translates.
What about zero point, super cold atoms? They have more ropes, being closer together, while as you say, the ropes dissipate at the inverse square, so how could a gas, being further apart, have more ropes and heat?

Firstly, I think you mean [url2=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=disingenuous]disingenuous[/url2].

Secondly, to answer your question, the # of ropes (N) per unit volume (V) around an object decreases as the inverse square of the distance (D) from that object, but the torsion along one rope propagates undiminished (or undiminished enough that it is negligible for this particular discussion). So if I am 1 unit distance from the object under study I may have 10^9 ropes intersecting my detector. Each one has a frequency f (f = # of links in a rope n per unit length L). The "heat" or "energy" I detect is proportional to 10^9*f. If I move one unit distance further away the # of ropes converging on my detector is now 2.5E8 and the "heat" or "energy" I detect is proportional to 2.5E8*f.

I think the difficulty/confusion you're having is to distinguish between "geometric" intensity density Ig=(N/V), which goes as the inverse square of the static distance D, and "invariant" total intensity It=N*f.

"Cold" just means the object's ropes are at a lower frequency, and vice versa for "hot". A very very hot object can feel very cold if you are far away. A very cold object can feel hot if you are very close to it. Case in point, the sun. Standing on Pluto the sun seems very cold. Another case in point, my stove. Standing very close to it, it feels hotter than the sun. However I know that N(sun)>>N(stove), even if f is the same for both, so I know that It(sun)>>It(stove) even though Ig(sun)<Ig(stove) where I happen to be standing.

Another point to make, gas molecules are considered "hot" because they are moving fast. This is more of a human convention than anything else, because atoms that move fast tend to "feel hot". We could just as well say that thorium (234) is "hot" because it emits "gamma rays", although it certainly would not "feel hot".

[webolife]

In the case of thermometry, or "feeling hot", the receptor becomes the point of polity, thus the "thread density" increases as the "hot" objects converges on that receptor. In my view [RA Smith's theory], I would say vector density, but there is a strong correlation in the explanation of both theories, despite the differences. An important difference would be that my vector/rays "radiate" but are not emitted.
What do you think of that short explanation, Alton?

[altonhare]

In the case of thermometry, or "feeling hot", the receptor becomes the point of polity, thus the "thread density" increases as the "hot" objects converges on that receptor. In my view [RA Smith's theory], I would say vector density, but there is a strong correlation in the explanation of both theories, despite the differences. An important difference would be that my vector/rays "radiate" but are not emitted.
What do you think of that short explanation, Alton?

I'm not sure what you mean by "point of polity". Everything else I understand and agree with. Threads are not "emitted" either. Atoms/ropes are just continually pumping/torquing. Harder/faster pumping we call "hot" or "high energy" and vice versa. At least, that's what she said.

[tangointhenight]

So you have any proof of these ropes?????

I'm still waiting for some experimental proof.

Your ropes seem to function like a religion people believing in what they do not know exists.

[Plasmatic]

Tango, do you believe in magnetic fields or particles?

[altonhare]

So you have any proof of these ropes?????

I'm still waiting for some experimental proof.

Your ropes seem to function like a religion people believing in what they do not know exists.

Why don't you name your criterion for "proof".

[junglelord]

Thats not a good reply alton.
If you do not know what proof is and/or have none, then the grammer game is a good game for a politician.
If you did have proof, then other then talk about it, show us the DATA SETS.

For instance, all this talk about the strong nuclear force, and the gluons that mediate it, but no one can show a gluon.

Plasmatic, magnetic fields are real, particles have a wave duality and therefore are neither.