[Vo]:Re: Top Ten Viewed Quora Writers List on Time Dilation.

[Harvey Norris]

The site says the ten most viewed answers in the last 30 days. Yesterday I was 
tenth at 220 views. Today I see someone replaced me with 223 views. But my new 
standing is now 19th at 110 views. I don't understand how they count things 
here if the views can just change to half their former value. Actually I see 
what must be happening here. My three cited answers all have the word "time 
dilation" in their title. Some kind of search engine must pick up on this. But 
looking at the three answers I had in my category there was ~200, 500 and 300 
views which was over 1000. The new replacement in the top ten also had over a 
thousand views from his cited seven answers, but evidently in quora's 
measurement system, once they put you in the top ten; you get a double credit 
from the amount of actual views being recorded. What probably happened is that 
some one in the academic world said we can't have HDN in the top ten so twist 
some screws and pull some levers and make him magically disappear from the top 
ten list. Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ 

On Monday, June 5, 2017 12:01 PM, Harvey Norris  wrote:
 

  Just made it to the bottom of the list.Most Viewed Writers in Time Dilation - 
Quora
  
|  
|  
|  
|   ||

  |

  |
|  
|   |  
Most Viewed Writers in Time Dilation - Quora
   |   |

  |

  |

 
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

   

[Vo]:Re: Top Ten Viewed Quora Writers List on Time Dilation.

[Jones Beene]

Harvey Norris wrote:

 Just made it to the bottom of the list.
Most Viewed Writers in Time Dilation - Quora 



Good work Harvey. I was looking to see if Fran Roarty made this list 
with his Casimir/time dilation connection - but did not see anything. 
Guess you have to post your thinking directly to that group to get counted.


Anyway this broader subject reminded me of why the second law of 
thermodynamics needs semantic attention once again. Nowadays, the LoT is 
often worded to state that the total entropy of an isolated system can 
only increase over time. This is better than saying energy cannot be 
created or destroyed, but still - it is lacking in coverage - in a 4D 
Universe. There are a few examples of Maxwell's demon and Feynman's 
Brownian ratchet which are being paraded about (google either subject). 
And ZPE is generally relegated to another dimension. The Law is in 
jeopardy and needs a tweak.


Typically, entropy must remain constant when every larger system or 
superset is considered, or in a state of equilibrium in a single 
dimension such as when undergoing a reversible process. Unless we can 
balance gain in one subsystem against loss in another, there is a 
problem... and this becomes evident with Dirac and the sea of negative 
energy, to the degree that we are dealing with anything less (or more) 
than 3-space. We should put Dirac on a higher pedestal than the LoT 
which is still a generalization, not a Law.


Historically, the second "law" was an empirical finding with no real 
justification, one which was accepted as a law over time by default, 
since statistical thermodynamics offered no contrary evidence. That is 
no longer the case and contrary evidence is showing up around the edges. 
Dirac, or Dirac-reinterpreted, may hold the answer to a better definition.


Query: does a deeper heat sink violate a physical Law?  ANS: Only if we 
revert to the older version, where energy cannot be destroyed or created.


Indeed, it appears that energy can indeed be destroyed... and destroyed 
in such a way that energy elsewhere appears to have been created 
disproportionately.


Time will tell, so to speak.