The laws of thermodynamics

[LinuxGal]

The laws of thermodynamics:

1. You can't win, you can only break even.

2. You can only break even at absolute zero.*

3. You can never actually get to absolute zero.


* No, believers. this one is not violated by descent with variation culled by natural selection. Fifty points from Hufflepuff.

[Anomalocaris]

All that the Law of thermal dynamics says is but this: you are screwed.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The laws of thermodynamics:

1. You can't win, you can only break even.

2. You can only break even at absolute zero.*

3. You can never actually get to absolute zero.


* No, believers. this one is not violated by descent with variation culled by natural selection.  Fifty points from Hufflepuff.

Also to believers unless you can demonstrate these laws held before the formation of the universe you can't use them to argue for magic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've seen something similar, posted as 'Murphy's Laws of Thermogoddamics':

1. An object at rest will always be in the wrong place.

2. An object in motion will always be going in the wrong direction.

3. The amount of energy required to change either of the states will always be more than you wish to expend, but never so much that it makes the experiment non-feasible.

Boru

[Jehanne]

The laws of thermodynamics:

1. You can't win, you can only break even.

2. You can only break even at absolute zero.*

3. You can never actually get to absolute zero.


* No, believers. this one is not violated by descent with variation culled by natural selection.  Fifty points from Hufflepuff.

Also to believers unless you can demonstrate these laws held before the formation of the universe you can't use them to argue for magic.

As I have pointed out (and, any of our resident academics, feel free to disagree), we must, at the very least, live in a 5-dimensional Universe, three spatial, one time, with the 5th dimension being a hyper spherical or saddle type geometry where our Universe is expanding without a unique spatial center. No one can directly visualize this geometry, as we are trapped in our 3-dimensional World. This implies the existence of "new physics", which means that the God of the Gaps arguments are pointless.

[LinuxGal]

Also to believers unless you can demonstrate these laws held before the formation of the universe you can't use them to argue for magic.

As I have pointed out (and, any of our resident academics, feel free to disagree), we must, at the very least, live in a 5-dimensional Universe, three spatial, one time, with the 5th dimension being a hyper spherical or saddle type geometry where our Universe is expanding without a unique spatial center.  No one can directly visualize this geometry, as we are trapped in our 3-dimensional World.  This implies the existence of "new physics", which means that the God of the Gaps arguments are pointless.

Spacial dimensions have a continuous bidirectional structure.  The dimension of time has a light-cone structure with no-go regions outside of the cones.  This wasn't taken into account by, for example, H.G. Wells in "The Time Machine", he simply spacialized time.  A proposed fifth dimension would need to be accompanied by a precise foliation or not even the pre-print archive would accept your paper .

[Jehanne]

As I have pointed out (and, any of our resident academics, feel free to disagree), we must, at the very least, live in a 5-dimensional Universe, three spatial, one time, with the 5th dimension being a hyper spherical or saddle type geometry where our Universe is expanding without a unique spatial center.  No one can directly visualize this geometry, as we are trapped in our 3-dimensional World.  This implies the existence of "new physics", which means that the God of the Gaps arguments are pointless.

Spacial dimensions have a continuous bidirectional structure.  The dimension of time has a light-cone structure with no-go regions outside of the cones.  This wasn't taken into account by, for example, H.G. Wells in "The Time Machine", he simply spacialized time.  A proposed fifth dimension would need to be accompanied by a precise foliation or not even the pre-print archive would accept your paper .

I don't think that mathematicians have problems describing such structures, only visualizing them directly, which is true of all of us. I know that Albert Einstein worked on a 5-dimensional TOE; a picture of him at a blackboard with some other mathematical physicists is out there somewhere.

[polymath257]

Spacial dimensions have a continuous bidirectional structure.  The dimension of time has a light-cone structure with no-go regions outside of the cones.  This wasn't taken into account by, for example, H.G. Wells in "The Time Machine", he simply spacialized time.  A proposed fifth dimension would need to be accompanied by a precise foliation or not even the pre-print archive would accept your paper .

I don't think that mathematicians have problems describing such structures, only visualizing them directly, which is true of all of us.  I know that Albert Einstein worked on a 5-dimensional TOE; a picture of him at a blackboard with some other mathematical physicists is out there somewhere.

No difficulty at all describing them.

Most people can't *really* visualize 3D, let alone 5D. But 5D isn't that hard: just think in 4D and add one dimension.

[Anomalocaris]

I don't think that mathematicians have problems describing such structures, only visualizing them directly, which is true of all of us.  I know that Albert Einstein worked on a 5-dimensional TOE; a picture of him at a blackboard with some other mathematical physicists is out there somewhere.

No difficulty at all describing them.

Most people can't *really* visualize 3D, let alone 5D. But 5D isn't that hard: just think in 4D and add one dimension.

So 5D is just can’t cubed.

[polymath257]

No difficulty at all describing them.

Most people can't *really* visualize 3D, let alone 5D. But 5D isn't that hard: just think in 4D and add one dimension.

So 5D is just can’t cubed.

As the dimensions go up, the degree of visualization goes down, but the ability to use the math goes up.

In many way mathematically, 5D is easier than 3D. For example, the 5D Poincare conjecture was known LONG before the 3D version was proved.

3D is usually considered to be hardest because visualization starts to fail and there isn't enough 'space' to do the tricks higher dimensions allow.