XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am 28.02.2024 um 23:22 schrieb Huy Kántor Hegedűs:

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am 26.02.2024 um 21:57 schrieb Piotr Babchenko Bakulev:

Thomas Heger wrote:

For equal time throughout the entire universe we would need a 'master >>>>> clock', which would synchronize all clocks in existence. But no such >>>>> thing does (apperently) exist and that's why time is local and clocks >>>>> depend on the local environment and count something there.

actually it does, it's called Entropy. The time difference in
relativity you get only when you observe non_locally. Very funny
indeed. As for instance

Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.

the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look at this:

No, because both terms are related, but not equal.

Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.

They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started talking about entropy.
Radiation is essentially force.
With distance it becomes nearly zero from its source.
Creating the overall background radiation.

Heat dissipates, hence entropy increases.

But that is not time.

The concept of time is actually based on counting events, about which we assume, they would occur always with the same frequency.

That was the year or the day in ancient times and later the hour and the second.

Much later men counted the waves in certain kinds of exitations of
certain atoms.

But in all cases a process of counting was meant, where the underlying frequency was assumed to be universally constant.

But: that is problematic, because actually we don't know, whether these frequencies are universally constant or not.

This is so, because the second is defined and measured by the same
process, which frequency we like to measure.

TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

Thomas Heger wrote:

Am 21.03.2024 um 14:05 schrieb bertitaylor:

Sure, the increase of entropy over time is a known fact.
But that does not say very much about time itself, because time is
required for the increase of entropy in the first place.

the Entropy 𝗜𝗦 time. Please stop 𝗻𝗼𝘁 undrestanding tensors. Look
at this:

No, because both terms are related, but not equal.

Second law of thermodynamics means actually heat distribution.

They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started
talking about entropy.

Heat transfer is possible in three different ways:

transport of heated media (convection)
dissipation of heat within some sort of stuff (conduction)
radiation

Therefore it is not true, that thermal energy is always transported by radiation.

I did not say that. What did I say? ">> They had no clue about the radiant nature of heat when they started

talking about entropy." Heat engines, laws of thermodynamics (1824) antedated Maxwell and JC Bose.

Radiation is essentially force.

Well, but no.

It is force all right, going by fields magnetic and electric which relate to force. If we believe in aether, radiation as travelling electromagnetic waves using aether medium, etc.

Actually you (apparently) mean 'fields' with 'essential'.

When I say heat, I mean radiant force, coming from electromagnetic fields, that exert force when something material is impacted.

To call a field 'force' is totally wrong.

A field causes a force when impacted as I said. The notion of force very much attends an electric field. Look up the basics, relating to classical physics.

The term 'force' stems from the measurement of a field. But fields exist without measurement.

Fields are practical, not theoretical, in classical physics. What exists without measurement cannot be deemed scientific. That way, unicorns, pixies, etc. exist by definition with no need for measurement.

Wherever there is electric force, pushing a current, or affecting charges otherwise, there has to be an electric field.

So, if I decode your statement properly, you like to say, that heat
transfer by radiation utilises the em-field.

No, radiation is travelling electromagnetic waves using the aether medium. Wherever this radiation is obstructed, electric forces (leading to voltage potentials) on the surfaces are created, creating currents, that cause the sensation of heat. to humans.

In short, the em-field is not like a soccer field. It is time and space varying electric field spread out from the radiator, to infinity, lessening with distance with the inverse square law.

That would be actually correct.

With distance it becomes nearly zero from its source.
Creating the overall background radiation.

Now you want to explain CMBR?

Easy. The fields from all the stars in the universe add up to form background radiation, universal, and composed of all frequencies. They make electronic oscillators possible. And nanotech too, with nanovoltages to drive nanomachines. The fields from
those stars at infinity are zero, most of it from the nearby stars and galaxies.

bt

I personally think, that CMBR has nothing to do with the big-bang, but
is caused by the gravitational field of the Earth.
....

TH

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)