On Jan 27, 2:22 pm, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/27/2012 3:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 11:11 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:
> >> On 1/26/2012 5:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>>>> Ok, so how does it effect the entropy of the structures? The red
> >>>>> house, the white house, and the mixed house (even if an interesting
> >>>>> pattern is made in the bricks), all behave in a physically identical
> >>>>> way, do they not?
> >>>> No they don't.  They reflect photons differently; which is why you could 
> >>>> use the pattern
> >>>> to send a message.
> >>> True, although it's only relevant if you have photons to reflect. If I
> >>> turn out the lights (completely) does that change the entropy of the
> >>> red house? What if I turn the lights back on, has entropy been
> >>> suddenly reduced? Would a brighter light put more information or less
> >>> entropy onto the white house than the red house, ie, does the pattern
> >>> cost something in photons?
> >> Yes.
> > That doesn't make sense to me. I think if two houses had two different
> > patterns with the same numbers of each brick, neither one could
> > possibly have a different cost in photons than the other. In a house
> > of four bricks, Red Red White White cannot have a different photon
> > absorption than Red White White Red.
> >>> I'm just curious, not trying to argue with you about it. On a similar
> >>> note, I was wondering about heat loss in a vacuum today. With the
> >>> second law of thermodynamics, it seems like heat could only dissipate
> >>> by heating something else up. If there was nothing in the universe
> >>> except a blob of molten nickel, would it cool off over time in an
> >>> infinite vacuum? It seems like it wouldn't. It seems like you would
> >>> need some other matter at a different temperature to seek a common
> >>> equilibrium with. Or is the heat just lost over time no matter what?
> >> The heat would be lost by infrared radiation.
> > Lost to where? Energy is neither created nor...lost.
> The reason I seldom respond to your posts is that you seem unwilling to put 
> any effort
> into understanding what is written to you.

I understand completely, and I apologize, but I am not here to
understand second hand summaries of authoritative knowledge form the
past. I am only interested in first hand, common sense realities
because my hypothesis presents a radical challenge of the post-
Enlightenment and pre-Enlightenment worldviews. EVERYTHING must be
questioned anew.

It's hard to find any first hand information on experiments on the
basics of modern physics as the accounts all take the interpretation
as a foregone solution. You never see any documentation of double slit
tests which don't presume photons to begin with. If I had access to a
lab there are a lot of experiments I would want to run that might be
revealing in a completely new way.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to