What gives with rat avatar?

[rat_avatar]

septimus.

Buck Godot probably hit this the best with ‘someone is wrong on the internet’, and I except that.

In General questions, don’t try to get me to accept claims without cites especially when they score high on the physics Crackpot Index including cases such as:

[ul]
[li]5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.[/li][li]5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.[/li][li]5 points for each mention of “Einstien”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”.[/li][li]10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).[/li][li]10 points for each statement along the lines of “I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations”.[/li][li]10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn’t explain “why” they occur, or fails to provide a “mechanism”.[/li][li]20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.[/li][li]50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.[/li][/ul]

You could have rephrased this false statement:

@septimus

Suppose an atom of hydrogen and an atom of tritium travelling at the same speed collide head-on; assume perfect elasticity.

The tritium will come to a standstill, while the hydrogen rebounds at twice its initial speed. Correct so far?

We’re not talking about statistical averages involving large numbers of particles and large numbers of collisions. Neither the Law of Large Numbers nor the empirical fact that we see lower entropy in the past is in dispute. The question involves the Arrow of Causality, if any, at the most microscopic level.

You didn’t even use a closed system, ignored what “microstates” were and even ignored kinetic energy for a macroscopic description. Nothing you offered dealt with thermodynamics at all, but you wanted me to accept it as factual.

@septimus

Much discussion about the arrow of causality uses circular reasoning.

It seems to me that once you link the arrow of causality to the thermodynamic arrow, you’ve given up on an “absolute” arrow. Stephen Hawking once thought that time’s arrow would reverse during a contraction to the Big Crunch. Although he may have revised this opinion, the fact that he once believed it makes one skeptical of overly-glib refutations. (And he revised his opinion not out of a belief in a fundamental Time’s Arrow but because his calculations showed him entropy would continue to increase during the contraction.)

The Second Law is closely related to the Law of Large Numbers — a container with trillions of molecules will move toward equilibrium. But what if the container has only 2 or 3 molecules? It’s almost as likely to lose entropy as to gain entropy. If it loses entropy for a few seconds, would you say that its local arrow of time reversed?

Lets look at the rules stick for GQ:

7. Guesses, WAGs, and speculation. We permit some educated guessing. Truly wild guesses aren’t especially helpful. We have some experts who post here. If you don’t have much information, give an expert a chance to answer by waiting until a question is about to fall off the first page before making a guess. If you post a factual claim, be prepared to back it up with a citation. If someone asks for a citation, don’t take it personally, we’re trying to get to the facts here, and that’s how it’s done.

Lets see, I asked multiple times:

@rat avatar

As this is GQ how about just providing me with a cite as you are edging between the micro and the macro world and the postulate that will be accepted vary dramatically based on the domain you are trying to make the claim in.
…
But as I said there is fast movement here, if you have experimental proof that these issues have implications in the real world provide a cite please.

@rat_avatar

Note you ignored my cite too, which did show that:

I can’t format the math on this board to show it, feel free to explain why you think my cite is wrong.

It isn’t my fault that you can’t read rules, but as you were setting up a “thought experiment” in a crackpot fashion that was based on false premises, yes I was not going to let it go.

The fact that you couldn’t even muster up a SINGLE cite yet resorted to personal attacks is the problem there.

@septimus

Hello Mr. Avatar. This whole discussion is very reminiscent of another recent thread where we talked past each other. Not mentioning specific names, one of us seemed unwilling to acknowledge what the other said, preferring to debate strawmen of choice.
Nobody’s seeing a paradox. Somebody is testing to see if you understand the statistical nature of the 2LoT.

At this point, all I can do is repeat my effort to keep the dialog on-track, using larger and larger fonts until it appears you’ve caught up.

You could have provide a cite and helped me learn the errors of my ways.

I won’t apologize for failing to role over and accept a bullshit theory you can’t support, I actually provided you with cites that would help you understand your question here.

@septimus

Or better yet, since there are dozens on the Board who know far more physics than I do, we can hope a 3rd party comes along and arbitrates our “dispute.” Be aware that I am not proposing anything novel; I’m obviously not expressing my point(s) with adequate clarity but there’s nothing I’m trying to say that can’t be found — were I inclined to search for it, which I’m not — in the writings of famous physicists.

Perhaps if you weren’t so fucking fragile when dealing with the concept that maybe you don’t know everything you would actually read some of my links and realize why your claim was baseless and factually incorrect.

I would have actually been happy for you to demonstrate why I was mistaken, if you can’t personally deal with people asking you to back up your claims perhaps you should stick to IMHO.