Amedeo

Now that you have received sufficient explanations to the effect that those two laws are irrelevant to your query about disorder and order,

I like to take up your questions in the spirit of fun and see whether we can have a laugh or two.

The dissipation entailed by the second law of thermodynamics is not a disorder process, unless by "disorder" you mean "disorganization" or "disintegration" or "desystematization." Dissipation will do.

In order not to get lost in abstractions, let's think of electro-magnetic waves [hot and bright to our senses]. Now, "dissipation" is practically equivalent to light lost (scattered) in space, for when light hits a body, it is partially absorbed or produces effects. In either case, it gets "incorporated", but , given the geography of things, obviously more is dissipated than is incorporated.

To imagine dissipation is to imagine an open and unbustructing space wherein light advances in "straight lines". Should it advance curvilinearly, there will eventually be 'globes of energy' with results which cannot be predicted from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (We don't have yet the third law of thermodynamics which will speak of spiraling e-m waves either on a large scale -- such as the one implied by the present discourse -- or on the smallest possible scale [which has been observed following the violent collision of quartz crystals: some light emerges in straight lines, other light curls on itself and for a while can hover in the air... like a microscopic UFO phenomenon.)
(As the opposite of dissipation is integration or bulk formation, the 3rd Law would not contradict the 2nd. After all, if there is dissipation, we have already granted that there are bulks of energy or matter that CAN dissipate. //Some physicists have already preached my insanity for suggesting that there is a third law of thermodynamics at work in nature: they have never heard that dissipation proceeds from integrated things. So, beware of agreeing with insane men!)

I can understand why you brought up the third law of motion, but here your error has been in presuming that the laws of mechanics apply to electromagnetism, that is, in presuming that for the forward action of light/heat, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If light were radiating in a physical medium, then certainly radiation or dissipation would result in a reaction, in the opposite direction, that would equal the speed of light! But this reaction would be one of motion; it would not consist in the integration of anything, or would it? Well the hypothetical medium or aether would be moving centripetally toward the source of the light emitting body, which would be like fuel for a star or the sun, so that it would nearly maintain a constant quantity of energy/mass. Is the sun perhaps both an emitter and an integrator??? Let's not speculate any further, for the fun of it, lest we are deemed more insane that we already are.

At the same time, our learned scientists respect the Michelson experiment which allegedly proved that there is no aether: he found no evidence [or practically no evidence] that the constant speed of light is slowed down while traversing aether. But you see, Michelson forgot about the Third Law of Motion that you brought up. He should have concluded, from the slight slowing down that he observed , that aether was being displaced in an opposite direction, and that eventually a "ray" of light will stop advancing (and will stop having an opposite reaction). The jury is still out on the Michelson observed slight slowing down of light and, therefore, on the applicability of the laws of mechanics to light; and on perpetual rectilinearity of light-radiation (which assumes a Euclidean space... while everybody is jumping for joy about the really curved physical space-time). You figure it; I can't.

Tubbykins

That's about the only statement of yours that makes sense in this post.

What are you trying to do by playing with synonyms? Why not use commonly accepted language?

This looks like nothing more than obfuscation to hide your lack of actual knowledge of the subject.

Would you please stop viewing physical processes anthropically? That's not a good way to do objective science.

Again with the E&M/cosmology/quartz schtick. Were is your falsifiable evidence for your claims?

So you admit you are insane? For the record, I never called you insane. I called you ignorant of modern physics, and have implored you to ameliorate that fact. I even provided a link to a wiki on t'Hooft, which linked to one of his free teaching resources.

And this post only provides more evidence of your ignorance.

I do not have to alleged that you are insane, if you readily admit it. I do allege that you need a few years of college physics, at bare minimum.

I'll let Pauli handle this (in fact, Amedeo's entire post), with as much charity as I can muster.

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
-- Wolfgang Pauli, Austrian physicist (1900-1958)

cheers

Tubbykins

Amedeo

AMENDED REPLY

Sarpedon

split from S&S

invisible trousers

0.9... != 1

Amedeo

the limit of 0.99999......is 1.

you cannot ADD what is not finite: the addition can never be accomplished.

to say that 0.999.... =1 is to deny the infinity of
9/10 + 9/100+ 9/1000 etc. The number "1" is finite.

Of course one can pretend that 0.999... 1. There are legal fictions, mathematical fiction, and prophetic fictions..., which are not recognized as fictions (by the believers).

MrFrosty

No manner T___T

apaosha

apaosha is confused ....

*breaks down crying*