Thanks again...I am grateful to be part of such a small group on the cutting edge. It is too bad more do not subscribe but it is hard to follow even with some college physics. Those who watch and follow will be better prepared when the walls of modern cosmology come tumbling down.
@@DrWhom Actually, I have read Landsberg and he says pretty much the opposite of what D would have you believe. Maybe you should give it a read. And if it's too hard for you, too bad, you just are not part of the group on the cutting edge.
I barely comprehend thermal dynamics and the math...however I know that observation of actual occurrences, should always be considered correct over theories not proven by observation that go against what is actually observed. Temperature is always intensive! If in fact astrophysics is using incorrect math for calculations, I look forward to the time when great intellects recalculate all astrophysics that are not in compliance with the zeroth law of thermal dynamics. If information in Sky Scholar videos is incorrect, it would be impossible for most people with my ordinary knowledge to tell. If the information is correct , gradually others with adequate intelligence will see the light and our general understanding of the known universe that surrounds us, that we will only experience by the radiation from it, will at least be in compliance with the 4 laws of thermal dynamics. I enjoy all Sky Scholar videos even though I have neanderthal ancestry.
The interplay of extensive and intensive properties in thermodynamics as explained by PMR is another nail in Hawkings black hole theory... or any other black hole theory.
@@DrWhom black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, and dark energy fall into the category of pseudoscience. No dark matter has ever been detected. No black hole or neutron star as envisioned by those concocting the theory that matter can be driven into densities higher than the nucleus of uranium and remain stable has ever been observed. Dark energy is no different than unicorns. It's like a chimp being handed a calculus book when you ask a dark matter adherent to explain something like this. arxiv.org/pdf/1811.07930.pdf Another nail in the coffin for the standard model, another notch in the belt for plasma current physics. This is exactly the type of thing Alfven was talking about decades ago. And like Birkeland before him, new observations with better instruments are proving the plasma physicists correct.
@@DrWhom thanks for making my point. Rather than address the problem, avoid it altogether. You "dark" believers have no answers rooted in science for the observations from our wonderful electromagnetic detection devices. Our entire existence is experienced through electromagnetism. Light hits our retinas. Nerves send impulses electrically. Chemical bonds are electromagnetic. Heat transfer is electromagnetic. Radiation is electromagnetic. The solar wind is electromagnetic. Stellar jets are electromagnetic. Galactic jets are electromagnetic. Galaxies form along plasma currents . . . and it's all because of gravity. Indeed, chimps looking at a calculus text. The obvious simply does not register.
@Protophanes luddites like MacLOUD don't see the obvious. Centuries ago, it was "Earth, Air, Fire and Water" and now it's "strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational." In other words, MacLOUD and crowd haven't advanced in understanding any more than the ancient shamans who throw sticks on the ground in order to view into the future. If there is ever to be a unified theory this nonsense of "strong and weak nuclear forces" has to go. The notion that gravity is a separate field manifestation from that of electromagnetism must be overcome. It's all one thing . . . field.
@Protophanes this Sheldrake person is kanting in Kantian platitudes, i think. he is crafty like a fox before chickens who still think that they have their heads on. a "thinking Englishman" this is like saying "intelligent Australian!" lollol what did Wells write about one eyed men in the kingdom of the blind ?
oops! i just fell into the deep end... it will take some time to come to terms with all this, Dr. Pierre-Marie. what you say sounds well reasoned, but it involves a number of complex considerations. i will read your listed papers before attempting to understand. thank you! P.T. Landsberg, Thermodynamics with Quantum Statistical Illustrations & S.G. Canagaratna, Intensive and Extensive Properties: Underused Concepts are not available online, i think.
I love your channel and your paced and easier to follow explanation and clear voice lol i don't always understand things when you get into the formulas but its a great job your doing
i think that entroppy simply is a name for all the dinaminc behaviour of things in the universe that we humans don't see as simetric, ballansed, orderly... but if you, as i doo, look at this universe with the fractal eyes, entroppy is nonexistant. but we hear what you're saying dr.R, awesome!!!
Well obviously entropy is non-existant. No matter how small you go, if you have a billion particles in a cloud of plasma all wizzing around in their own "chaotic" fassion they still ALL have symmetry in their movement. Only that the symmetry is also divided by size. If you could look at every single particle individually you would see that everything is in perfect symmetrical order. Only that the path is divided in straight lines, curves, collissions etc. We call it entropy only because our (technological) senses cannot perceive the order behind it. From a purely logical standpoint a system of reference that is build upon entropy from the smallest base state cannot ever have any form of symmetry. You cannot build a castle out of quick sand. Yet the sun obviously has a symmetrical, spherical shape. If plasma is a state of pure entropy, then how would it even be possible to have any shape to it? By "shaping an entropy" you obviously force all particles to have a changed path and thus on the whole picture you no longer have an entropy. Thus looking at the entire universe - everything is moving in unison in a shaped form, thus the fractal universe is reflected by the movement of every single particle.
Dr. Robitaille, some feedback.... I particularly like this video because it explains the terms and definitions. Thus the concepts are more within reach, that is, it becomes easier to grasp the concepts. I know this is difficult to do with some of the more advanced topics. You cannot easily explain all the definitions and concepts in a relatively short video. However, if you could do this it would be wonderful for me at least. My only background in physics is 4 physics courses at university; I'm a computer science and electrical engineering major. I realize that you cannot "hand hold" folks such as myself. I'm just trying to find a way to get a solid grounding in the concepts that underpin all of the topics you present.
I am so confused about pressure is being an intensive property.I know the rule of ratio of two extensive propery is intensive and formula of pressure P=F/A makes sense.However , as you know there is another definition of intensive property which does not chance by the amount or @t the light of this definition take beaker which is full of 100 ml of water.And knowing that liquid pressure is P=ρgh , we pour down half of the water and only 50 ml of water remains and our ''h'' will be get smaller.If the ''h'' gets smaller pressure will decrease too.Any ideas at what point am I making a mistake?
even though it seemed silly at first, this question is a really good one. we cannot get away from concepts, but we can, or at least we should be able to, select from among the most sensible and the most reasonable ideas that we can construct.
@@hyliemeissa4438 it was impossible. How can a photon carry energy is it has no mass? Well, I don't believe in photons... And the Einstein's scientism freaks are mathmagicians
and then theres "entangled particles" in/of isolated systems, hows that for a needle in a balloon stack. are there calculations for this effect when calculating for entropy in one of those systems and are they now in fact one, entangled system? and if thats the case then we're all connected.... whhoooaaaaaoohhhhh... i just realized i love you guys. or maybe entanglement is just more bull in which case, its over between us... *opens dating app* "harmonic resonance" *swipes right*
I sure hope you're right about the Sun. But for me, I don't like laws in science. They are just trends that I call mnemonic devices. Then, everything with a constant, to me, probably means that you have incidental variables oriented to approximate a curve, then the constant scales that curve to perfection, so it's a scale factor. I think if you are dealing with causality, you don't need a constant to scale anything. No one know what gravity is or what causes it, but they sure can describe it. That is not enough for me.
P.M. Imagine that some new science indicates that 'all is not well with the laws of thermodynamics'. If you had to re-consider one, any one, of the 0-4th laws, which would it be, and why?
@Protophanes Virilio would call Hawkins a spastic normalised with a mobility scooter. cremation would have been more fitting. "theoretical physics" is zombie science.
Challenge! We assume the values are constant for the sake of the mathematics. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has discovered that they vary. Especially the speed of light and big G. We must not allow mathematics to dominate physics.
Intensive magnitudes like speed, acceleration are made out to be extensive by vector representation.. Temperature colour hue brightness made out to be extensive by by means of bivector or areal quantification , heat oressure or mercury expansion pressure at a depot is intensive but the fadiation pressure flux through a region is inversely extensive . We must choose a fixed position to measure intensive magnitudes whereas extensive magnitudesde facto are dynamically measured. Involved with positional change
Here is another example of violation of the laws of thermodynamics by astronomers and cosmologists: Stephen J. Crothers and Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Unruh effect: insight from the laws of thermodynamics, 2018 Annual Meeting of the APS Mid-Atlantic Section, November 9-10, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAS18/Session/B01.18 vixra.org/pdf/1811.0157v1.pdf
Thanks again...I am grateful to be part of such a small group on the cutting edge. It is too bad more do not subscribe but it is hard to follow even with some college physics. Those who watch and follow will be better prepared when the walls of modern cosmology come tumbling down.
@@DrWhom Do go on....lots of trolls here, few willing to step into the arena...
@@DrWhom Actually, I have read Landsberg and he says pretty much the opposite of what D would have you believe. Maybe you should give it a read. And if it's too hard for you, too bad, you just are not part of the group on the cutting edge.
I barely comprehend thermal dynamics and the math...however I know that observation of actual occurrences, should always be considered correct over theories not proven by observation that go against what is actually observed. Temperature is always intensive! If in fact astrophysics is using incorrect math for calculations, I look forward to the time when great intellects recalculate all astrophysics that are not in compliance with the zeroth law of thermal dynamics. If information in Sky Scholar videos is incorrect, it would be impossible for most people with my ordinary knowledge to tell. If the information is correct , gradually others with adequate intelligence will see the light and our general understanding of the known universe that surrounds us, that we will only experience by the radiation from it, will at least be in compliance with the 4 laws of thermal dynamics. I enjoy all Sky Scholar videos even though I have neanderthal ancestry.
Thermodynamics is one of the eternal truths. And as always, the truth is simple.
The interplay of extensive and intensive properties in thermodynamics as explained by PMR is another nail in Hawkings black hole theory... or any other black hole theory.
@@DrWhom black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, and dark energy fall into the category of pseudoscience. No dark matter has ever been detected. No black hole or neutron star as envisioned by those concocting the theory that matter can be driven into densities higher than the nucleus of uranium and remain stable has ever been observed. Dark energy is no different than unicorns. It's like a chimp being handed a calculus book when you ask a dark matter adherent to explain something like this.
arxiv.org/pdf/1811.07930.pdf
Another nail in the coffin for the standard model, another notch in the belt for plasma current physics. This is exactly the type of thing Alfven was talking about decades ago. And like Birkeland before him, new observations with better instruments are proving the plasma physicists correct.
@@DrWhom thanks for making my point. Rather than address the problem, avoid it altogether. You "dark" believers have no answers rooted in science for the observations from our wonderful electromagnetic detection devices. Our entire existence is experienced through electromagnetism. Light hits our retinas. Nerves send impulses electrically. Chemical bonds are electromagnetic. Heat transfer is electromagnetic. Radiation is electromagnetic. The solar wind is electromagnetic. Stellar jets are electromagnetic. Galactic jets are electromagnetic. Galaxies form along plasma currents . . . and it's all because of gravity.
Indeed, chimps looking at a calculus text. The obvious simply does not register.
@@t00by00zer you have it dialed! 😎
@Protophanes luddites like MacLOUD don't see the obvious. Centuries ago, it was "Earth, Air, Fire and Water" and now it's "strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational." In other words, MacLOUD and crowd haven't advanced in understanding any more than the ancient shamans who throw sticks on the ground in order to view into the future.
If there is ever to be a unified theory this nonsense of "strong and weak nuclear forces" has to go. The notion that gravity is a separate field manifestation from that of electromagnetism must be overcome. It's all one thing . . . field.
@Protophanes this Sheldrake person is kanting in Kantian platitudes, i think. he is crafty like a fox before chickens who still think that they have their heads on. a "thinking Englishman" this is like saying "intelligent Australian!" lollol what did Wells write about one eyed men in the kingdom of the blind ?
I needed this lecture so badly, thank you Dr!
oops! i just fell into the deep end... it will take some time to come to terms with all this, Dr. Pierre-Marie. what you say sounds well reasoned, but it involves a number of complex considerations. i will read your listed papers before attempting to understand. thank you!
P.T. Landsberg, Thermodynamics with Quantum Statistical Illustrations & S.G. Canagaratna, Intensive and Extensive Properties: Underused Concepts are not available online, i think.
@@DrWhom lol i didn't want to rent a copy and i would not pay Nature money for anything !
I love your channel and your paced and easier to follow explanation and clear voice lol
i don't always understand things when you get into the formulas but its a great job your doing
Thanks Dr R
Thanks, Dr. Robitaille and Happy Thanksgiving from Eastern Pennsylvania!
Is this the most important video on youtube? Extensively, yes, I think it intensively is.
Great work ! Dr. Robitaille will put cosmology back on its tracks. Just a curious person no college degree here.
Robert Heinlein referred to thermodynamic as "thermo-goddmmits." I shrugged and read on still oblivious to what he meant--now I understand.
i think that entroppy simply is a name for all the dinaminc behaviour of things in the universe that we humans don't see as simetric, ballansed, orderly... but if you, as i doo, look at this universe with the fractal eyes, entroppy is nonexistant. but we hear what you're saying dr.R, awesome!!!
Well obviously entropy is non-existant. No matter how small you go, if you have a billion particles in a cloud of plasma all wizzing around in their own "chaotic" fassion they still ALL have symmetry in their movement. Only that the symmetry is also divided by size. If you could look at every single particle individually you would see that everything is in perfect symmetrical order. Only that the path is divided in straight lines, curves, collissions etc. We call it entropy only because our (technological) senses cannot perceive the order behind it.
From a purely logical standpoint a system of reference that is build upon entropy from the smallest base state cannot ever have any form of symmetry. You cannot build a castle out of quick sand. Yet the sun obviously has a symmetrical, spherical shape. If plasma is a state of pure entropy, then how would it even be possible to have any shape to it? By "shaping an entropy" you obviously force all particles to have a changed path and thus on the whole picture you no longer have an entropy. Thus looking at the entire universe - everything is moving in unison in a shaped form, thus the fractal universe is reflected by the movement of every single particle.
@@DrWhom Lol... 3 year old comment. ^_^
@8:37
Another airtight clip. I have to say your particular choice in dress is superb.
Dr. Robitaille, some feedback.... I particularly like this video because it explains the terms and definitions. Thus the concepts are more within reach, that is, it becomes easier to grasp the concepts. I know this is difficult to do with some of the more advanced topics. You cannot easily explain all the definitions and concepts in a relatively short video. However, if you could do this it would be wonderful for me at least.
My only background in physics is 4 physics courses at university; I'm a computer science and electrical engineering major. I realize that you cannot "hand hold" folks such as myself. I'm just trying to find a way to get a solid grounding in the concepts that underpin all of the topics you present.
Very important statements.
I am so confused about pressure is being an intensive property.I know the rule of ratio of two extensive propery is intensive and formula of pressure P=F/A makes sense.However , as you know there is another definition of intensive property which does not chance by the amount or @t the light of this definition take beaker which is full of 100 ml of water.And knowing that liquid pressure is P=ρgh , we pour down half of the water and only 50 ml of water remains and our ''h'' will be get smaller.If the ''h'' gets smaller pressure will decrease too.Any ideas at what point am I making a mistake?
Whatever the h, if g=0 (0 gravity) P will stay the same
What is the Sun?
even though it seemed silly at first, this question is a really good one. we cannot get away from concepts, but we can, or at least we should be able to, select from among the most sensible and the most reasonable ideas that we can construct.
I once tried to find out what energy is..
@@RUclips_Satan did you find out what it was? the Einsteins claim that E is something else. i am not mystified :)
@@hyliemeissa4438 it was impossible. How can a photon carry energy is it has no mass?
Well, I don't believe in photons... And the Einstein's scientism freaks are mathmagicians
Spacetime and shit 😂
Time is a mental concept. It's always now.
I'm sure the freaks think they can measure time. Just give them a minute!
and then theres "entangled particles" in/of isolated systems, hows that for a needle in a balloon stack. are there calculations for this effect when calculating for entropy in one of those systems and are they now in fact one, entangled system? and if thats the case then we're all connected.... whhoooaaaaaoohhhhh... i just realized i love you guys.
or maybe entanglement is just more bull in which case, its over between us... *opens dating app* "harmonic resonance" *swipes right*
I sure hope you're right about the Sun. But for me, I don't like laws in science. They are just trends that I call mnemonic devices. Then, everything with a constant, to me, probably means that you have incidental variables oriented to approximate a curve, then the constant scales that curve to perfection, so it's a scale factor. I think if you are dealing with causality, you don't need a constant to scale anything. No one know what gravity is or what causes it, but they sure can describe it. That is not enough for me.
P.M. Imagine that some new science indicates that 'all is not well with the laws of thermodynamics'. If you had to re-consider one, any one, of the 0-4th laws, which would it be, and why?
@Protophanes Virilio would call Hawkins a spastic normalised with a mobility scooter. cremation would have been more fitting. "theoretical physics" is zombie science.
Challenge!
We assume the values are constant for the sake of the mathematics.
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has discovered that they vary.
Especially the speed of light and big G.
We must not allow mathematics to dominate physics.
Intensive magnitudes like speed, acceleration are made out to be extensive by vector representation.. Temperature colour hue brightness made out to be extensive by by means of bivector or areal quantification , heat oressure or mercury expansion pressure at a depot is intensive but the fadiation pressure flux through a region is inversely extensive . We must choose a fixed position to measure intensive magnitudes whereas extensive magnitudesde facto are dynamically measured. Involved with positional change
Here is another example of violation of the laws of thermodynamics by astronomers and cosmologists:
Stephen J. Crothers and Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Unruh effect: insight from the laws of thermodynamics, 2018 Annual Meeting of the APS Mid-Atlantic Section,
November 9-10, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAS18/Session/B01.18
vixra.org/pdf/1811.0157v1.pdf
it is a difficult to understand but truly this is a big problem in what is now called astrophysics
You just decreased entropy in my brain
Big red crosses everywhere, i like that :-)
found this while searching out these papers
arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0210037.pdf