[Fis] Energy and Entropy.On the value of visual representations

Wed Jan 13 11:11:08 CET 2021

Dear Karl,

I was greatly interested to see your response to what was clearly a deeply
felt need for a visual presentation of your ideas. I have felt the same need
for a graphical representation of the logical evolution of real processes
that I call the logic in reality. At this point, the differences in our
results can be attributed to the different nature of the elements (or
proto-elements) we are trying to represent, and not only their position. In
other words, I am primarily concerned with the force field and its entities
as they exist, exactly as you say, outside the epistemic objects (epistemons
in the term of Barham) and the numbers which represent them. The join of
these two approaches, at the real and conceptual interface of the quantum
and macroscopic worlds in the dualities of electromagnetism, seems almost
obvious.

I hope you will consider this a reason to look at what I have written on
this subject, which I will be glad to send to you on request.

Best wishes,

Joseph 

  _____  

From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Karl Javorszky
Sent: mercredi, 13 janvier 2021 08:26
To: Marcus Abundis
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Energy and Entropy

Hi Marcus, Stan, colleagues,

Thanks for clarification on the literature.

Taking a deep breath and courage, let me suggest to this society of
incredulous believers an explanation which connects entropy conceptually to
space axes, natural numbers and electromagnetism. 

The model one can play with at www.tautomat.com shows 2 spaces which have
(2*3) nice rectangular axes and furthermore 2 planes (2*2 axes).

The left, A & right, B spaces are created / tensored by axes used for being
reordered to and from: A: (a+b,a), (b-2a,a), (a-2b,b-2a); B:
(a+b,b),(b-2a,a-2b), (a-2b,a), which yield axes a+b, b-2a, a-2b, in their
aggregated form, C.  The two transcending planes are created by rectangular
axes: E: (ab),(b-a,b-2a) and M: (a,a-2b),(b-a,a).

The transcending planes E and M transcend both the two fundamental
rectangular spaces A and B, and the unified and aggregated space C.  The
coordinates planes E, M assign to the elements are not in a system with
rectangular axes, and the places the planes E, M assign are not  unique, but
rather along a level/surface/sheath.

The influence the planes E, M exert on the assembly cause such
proto-elements which are not anchored in a spatial grid to leave the 3D
space created by the axes, and appear as a force field outside of the
objects. The non-magnetic, non-electric interference of the two transcending
planes can well be interpreted as causing a distribution of constituents of
the assembly into the form of an evenly distributed multitude. 

These words here are definitely not the ultimate and exact formulation of
the suspicion. The suspicion is that entropy shows the effect of an
influence, which influence is created by the assignment of places for
elements, just like in the case of gravitation. While the gravitation, and
generally the main rectangular axes, modify the spatial coordinates of
objects, the electromagnetic planes modify the spatial coordinates of such
particles of objects, which are not sufficiently solidly intertwined with
the particles that are subject to spatial referencing.

Hope that the concept gets across and please help by evolving better
formulations for the hypothesis.

Best

Karl

Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 13. Jän. 2021, 06:22:

Karl – it was no rhetorical embellishment . . . 

If you go to Wikipedia and search 'energy' you will find 12 forms listed
there. At other times I have seen as many as 16 listed, this listing changes
from time to time. If you go to Scholarpedia and search energy, you will
find NO entries. Scholarpedia is more rigorous in reviewing and admitting
material. If you go to the US Energy Information Agency (aie.gov) you will
see 9 forms listed. Most sites make vague references to 'many forms of
energy exist, some of which are . . . ' Still, this means there is no firm
scientific framing for 'energy'. 

Stan – I am sorry if my notes still seem unclear to you. I was attempting a
more civil tone in my replies, something better than your 'Your statement
concerning "typify" is nonsense.' Perhaps this weakened my point. For
example, if you go to Scholarpedia and search entropy you will find seven
types of entropy listed – entropy is 'typified' in (at least) seven
different ways. Your note 'Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the
same way.', even as something 'formal only' is actually nonsense, failing to
recognize the current state of affairs.

Further, entropy is always 'driven' by something, making force-energy a
directly related concept. Thus, *just in physics* (ignoring other areas of
research) with the uncertain nature of force-energy entropy is equally
uncertain. Your assertion on physics equally failed to recognize the current
state of affairs in physics.

That said, I still hope to see more notes from our featured New Year's
speaker . . . 

Marcus

-- 
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20210113/ed767851/attachment-0001.html>