illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: December 02, 2007, 01:54:43 AM » |
|
What you just described would be particles/event.
Just as I thought, you're making it up as you go.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #46 on: December 02, 2007, 04:43:02 AM » |
|
That would be the inverse form.
When you say "making it up", are you suggesting that two or more particles need not be involved in an interaction? Are you suggesting that chemical reaction kinetics occur without benefit of collisions between atoms and molecules? Are you saying that my equation is incorrect? If so, what is correct?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #47 on: December 02, 2007, 07:52:13 PM » |
|
When I say you're making it up, I mean that every time I show where something doesn't work out, it's all of a sudden an inverse of something we're supposed to be looking at.
BTW, an inverse is not just another 'form' of a number. That's like saying 1/5 is another 'form' of 5, and it isn't.
To say that events/particles is just another 'form' of particles/event is ludicrous.
What exactly does events/particle mean? How many 'events' is each particle a part of? Is this over the life of the particle?
Please clarify what you mean by particles. The use of Planck time implies that we'll be dealing with something that can travel at the speed of light (Plank time is derived from among other constants, C). Which is why it is used in describing the time it takes a photon to travel a Planck length.
Yet I could have sworn that just a few posts ago, you were talking about molecules and atoms again. Are you assuming that the 10^81 atoms in the observable universe (btw, we both know that this is a sample, and cannot be used in place of the population, and have valid results) can travel at the speed of light, or is there some other reason for multiplying them by the inverse of the time it takes light to travel a Planck length?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 02, 2007, 08:22:07 PM by illy »
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #48 on: December 02, 2007, 08:19:25 PM » |
|
My formula and result has not once changed. Not once. The numbers are fixed and so is the result. Since they have not changed from the beginning and you don't claim an error in the result, you don't seem to have a leg to stand on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #49 on: December 03, 2007, 02:16:00 PM » |
|
For the result to have error (at least for us to be concerned with that error), the formula first needs to be valid. You have not shown that this is the case.
Your formula has changed, multiple times. The Planck constant, Planck time, and the inverse of Planck time are all separate things, they cannot be used interchangeably, and it is much more than a lack of precision when they are being used as interchangeable.
So, how many 'events' is a particle involved in?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2007, 03:53:44 PM » |
|
I believe I have shown it to be valid. I have already admitted that my descriptions were imprecise in describing the use of Planck time in the formula I provided. The formula itself did not change just my description of the formula.
Each macro particle (atom) can interact and therefore be involved in an event at most once per Planck time. Plank time is the theoretical minimal time between macro interactions since neither energy nor matter can travel faster than light in a vacuum and the Planck distance is the theoretical minimum distance over which macro-events can occur. Therefore the inverse of Planck time is the maximal limit of the frequency of macro interactions per second. The practical limit is much less than this value but the formula is seeking a maximal limit.
Each macro event requires two or more particles. The maximal number of events is 1/2 event per particle. Once again the practical average is less than this but I am after the maximal value.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2007, 09:39:21 PM » |
|
Your claim that each 'particle' is only involved in 1/2 'event' is blatantly false. Considering that some 'particles' (again, these are not equivalent to atoms and any attempt to treat them as such leads to gibberish like what we've been seeing here) are energy, and thus cannot be created or destroyed, I think you'd have a very hard time showing that each one has been involved in '1/2 of an event'.
Assuming that each 'event' involves two 'particles', to assume that the inverse is valid, and use 1/2 for 'events/particles' assumes that each 'particle' is only once, half of an event. This is a boldface contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics.
Good luck with that one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #52 on: December 05, 2007, 04:42:15 AM » |
|
Your claim that each 'particle' is only involved in 1/2 'event' is blatantly false. Considering that some 'particles' (again, these are not equivalent to atoms and any attempt to treat them as such leads to gibberish like what we've been seeing here) are energy, and thus cannot be created or destroyed, I think you'd have a very hard time showing that each one has been involved in '1/2 of an event'.
Assuming that each 'event' involves two 'particles', to assume that the inverse is valid, and use 1/2 for 'events/particles' assumes that each 'particle' is only once, half of an event. This is a boldface contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics.
Good luck with that one.
Illy, good luck with your outragous arguments. It should be clear to all what you are doing by carelessly continuing in your errors. If anyone else has a genuine concern over this estimate of the universal probability limit please chime in, otherwise I am done here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #53 on: December 05, 2007, 08:53:52 AM » |
|
Running away, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,062
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2007, 10:20:08 PM » |
|
It really is a shame that this thread is drawing to a close without the complete equation for the 'upper probability limit' having been presented.
I guess we at IAP will just never know how many 'events' are possible in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #55 on: December 06, 2007, 08:52:17 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #56 on: December 06, 2007, 05:02:53 PM » |
|
Not certain what your issue is with independency and probability distribution as it relates to probability limits. Likewise I'm not certain where you think Kaufman demonstrates any error I may have made. in probability analysis. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #57 on: December 06, 2007, 06:00:25 PM » |
|
Not certain what your issue is with independency and probability distribution as it relates to probability limits.
INdeed, and since you don't know, maybe you should be more careful with your wild claims. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #58 on: December 06, 2007, 06:54:27 PM » |
|
Not certain what your issue is with independency and probability distribution as it relates to probability limits.
INdeed, and since you don't know, maybe you should be more careful with your wild claims. I should be more careful with my claims because I can't forsee the imaginations of a materialist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #59 on: December 06, 2007, 08:37:43 PM » |
|
Not certain what your issue is with independency and probability distribution as it relates to probability limits.
INdeed, and since you don't know, maybe you should be more careful with your wild claims. I should be more careful with my claims because I can't forsee the imaginations of a materialist. Indeed, you can only see the dogma of your religous beliefs. The ones that you choose to see based on your presuppositionalism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
