4tis

Skeptic and general random walker. (In case you wondered about the name, I used to post on the Fortean Times board. :-) )

[4tis @4tis]

@powerpig You’re equivocating between 2 unrelated meanings of closed.

A closed thermodynamic system is isolated from matter/energy exchange. A closed formal system is an axiomatic logical structure.

A gas in a box is not a Gödelian formal system just because maths is used to describe it.

[4tis @4tis]

@RealAlexJones He isn’t an MP.

[4tis @4tis]

@BSVCasey @JasonBoredAgain @EffYuuSeeKhay @nickwortley3 @theswansjr @BgansEth @RileySirus But it is erratic on long timescales. Pole drift, secular variation, intensity changes and reversals are all measured phenomena. The field is only relatively stable on human timescales, not physically static.

[4tis @4tis]

@powerpig You’re making a category error (among other things). A gas in a box is not a formal axiomatic system, so the incompleteness theorem doesn’t apply.

[4tis @4tis]

@BSVCasey @JasonBoredAgain @EffYuuSeeKhay @nickwortley3 @theswansjr @BgansEth @RileySirus It does have a source: electric currents in the conducting outer core. Magnetic fields do not require ferromagnetism. A dynamo mechanism is sufficient. That’s basic electromagnetism, not “magnetised molten iron”.

[4tis @4tis]

@BSVCasey @JasonBoredAgain @EffYuuSeeKhay @nickwortley3 @theswansjr @BgansEth @RileySirus So much confusion. The magnetic field isn’t that of a ferromagnet with a phase transition involving little magnetic dipoles.

[4tis @4tis]

@anchoredso37497 Evolution requires reproducing organisms with heritable traits and variability. It doesn’t care how those organisms got there. Maybe God did it?

[4tis @4tis]

@JonathanSpark15 @bobepais @CreationMuseum In what way has God always existed? I gave you one suggestion, “God has existed for all time”. What do *you* mean be God having always existed?

[4tis @4tis]

@JonathanSpark15 @bobepais @CreationMuseum In what way has God always existed? For all time?

[4tis @4tis]

@Galatians110Guy @NotEvolution1 Though Grok agrees with me. ;-)

[4tis @4tis]

@Galatians110Guy @NotEvolution1 Let’s be honest, can you actually find a definition of potential energy that matches what you claim it is, and that isn’t the result of you having a chat with Grok?

[4tis @4tis]

@Galatians110Guy @NotEvolution1

[4tis @4tis]

@Galatians110Guy @NotEvolution1 I did read your link. Did you read the definition of “potential energy”?

[4tis @4tis]

@daveteymouri @PostLeftWatch You don’t know the origin of the term and who used it?

[4tis @4tis]

@blucat2 @veritasium Sure, but which laws of physics are you claiming don’t apply to living things like plants?

[4tis @4tis]

@blucat2 @veritasium So which laws of physics don’t apply to plants?

[4tis @4tis]

@blucat2 @veritasium Sure, there appears to be more variety in the kinds of structures that we can observe, but remember your original tweet. Physics doesn’t differentiate between living and non-living things.

[David J Ritter @blucat2]

@PhysInHistory The second law is wrong for living systems. Take a forest. It is certainly more complex than anything from the big bang until recently. It is self organising, self sustaining, and will repeat and live as long as the weather allows. Life is getting more complex, not less.

[4tis @4tis]

@blucat2 @veritasium To make a claim about something increasing you need to be able to quantify it, otherwise you can’t say that the value is greater today than it was yesterday.

If you can come up with a way of quantifying “order” then that would be a start.

[4tis @4tis]

@blucat2 @veritasium Brian Cox is not claiming heat death is mathematically “proven”. It is an inference from applying thermodynamics and cosmology to the observed universe.

[4tis @4tis]

@blucat2 @veritasium But the 2nd law applies to entropy in the scientific sense. It’s like claiming that electric charge isn’t conserved if you don’t use the scientific definition of electric charge.