Re: Big Crunch's Thermodynamics law may have slowed down Time?

On Apr 18, 4:57 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 17, 11:20 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 17, 11:48 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 17, 7:01 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 17, 10:48 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 17, 6:32 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:40 am, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 16, 5:13 am, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Let's say Time is a Pulse vector (since the space vectors do not
divide thus: f x m^3).
---------------------------------------------------

It's "hard" not to apply thermodynamics to mass(density) and 3D
space....

[...]

Explain the difference between Maxwell-Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein, and
Fermi-Dirac statistics then.

So are you saying that thermodynamics are also applied to 2d and 1d
vectors (tensors)?

No I am asking you to support your statement that thermodynamics is
not hard by demonstrating a basic bit of knowledge about it.

If you could read, it would be nice.

meaning it's EASIER (not easy) to apply it to 3d space then 2d or 1d
space.

I was merely asking you to support your assertion by demonstrating a
basic knowledge of the subject. I guess that was too much to ask.

Boy you're fast, I was about to remove this post.

Even if you ask Google really, really nicely to remove the post from
Google's archives, folks will still have seen how stupid you are. Plus
there are a shitload of forum<-->USENET interfaces that keep your drek
forever and ever.

Actually I'm sorry. Your Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is quite
related to the topic...I've been overposting I guess with little time
to over explore.

Try my new method of learning: shut the *** up and read a book.

Using my new method, you will be able to pick up concepts that are
written down in books. If you are skilled, you will even be able to
_talk_ about those subjects without making yourself look stupid to
those who know about said subjects.

(Bose-Einstein not as much since it's related to only one particle...)

Wrong. Bose-Einstein statistics are applicable to an arbitrary number
of particles - the only constraint is that they be Bosons.

So you never make typing mistakes. ...to only one group of particles
and I personally wouldn't call em real particles as compared to
fermions.

Still wrong.

Bose-Einstein statistics is applicable to _lots_ of things. Two
fermions can form a singlet/triplet state that has a net spin of 1,

and how the heck do you manage to "always" remember which has what
spin.

which is covered. Anything that has integer spin can be dealt with by
Bose-Einstein statistics.

didn't know how to spell "intricate" till I met you and other
creature....why is that?

well excuuuuuse me not to remember all these "intricate" details
instead of general(why are into discussion groups make I as you), and
to remember all that after you expect one to have read a zillion of
books.

Not noticing the distinction between "one group of particles" and
"only one particle" when talking about quantum statistics is a pretty
fucking big gaffe.


Correct but believe me please I knew that Bosons are not a particle
but a group of different particles (lengthy...typing see)...



No two fermions can occupy the same quantum mechanical state at the
same time. This results in "rigidness" or "stiffness" of fermions and
of fermionic matter (atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, etc), so
fermions are sometimes said to be the constituents of matter, and
bosons to be particles that ***transmit*** interactions (forces).

Not all matter is fermionic - witness the amazing differences between
Helium-4 and Helium-3, for example.

Vector bosons have nothing to do with this. Nothing at all.



as you once said "buh"....

I was simply stating that I excluded Bosons(and Bose-Einstein because
they are not real particles (matter) as compared to fermions ....thats
it, thats all (didn't care to apply the circumstances of
thermodynamics, mass, temperature to them)....



and besides as the subject of this posting says....I am not trying to
apply thermodynamics to 3d space (= particles and matter and your
bosons and your fermions) which is EASIER DONE....but to 2d vectors
(tensors), and only 2d if it's unrealistic but rather to apply
thermodynamics to 1d vector(string...rank_1 tensor).

So your comments about particle statistics was AWAY from the
principale of this post's focus which as from the start I said easier
for 3D space but I wish "if" possible to 1d (2d otherwise).

I said I'm sorry about your Maxwell-Boltzmann cause it seemed to
possibly apply (don't expect everyone to know about Maxwell-
Boltzmann).

Try my new method on Rief's Statistical and Thermal physics. If you
apply my new method sucessfully, you will actually understand some
thermodynamics rather than merely knowing some of the words.

You need to have an actual understanding of E&M before you can start
talking about tensors in E&M without being laughed at. Thermodyanmics
and the permeability/permittivity tensor have jack *** to do with
each other.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Quantcast