there's a bit more in physical reality than is in your post. it's why i refer
to the one-way flow of energy from order to disorder that is what's describd by
2nd Thermo (wdb2t)...
...and it is that 'energy' is just 'energy.
and the 'semantics' of this or that 'law of physics' do not, somehow, 'dictate'
to physical reality... rather, to the degree that any 'law of physics' diverges
from Truth, that 'law of physics' exists only as a imaginary 'wall' which,
rather than assisting and augmenting understanding, delimits and diminishes
understanding.
so, rather than 'seeing' 'heat', 'EM', 'strong' and 'weak' 'nuclear' stuff,
'gravity', 'kinetic', 'potential', 'etc.' 'energies', just transform everything
within physical reality into 'just' energy... and calculate upon this 'just'
energy stuff.
this is what Tapered Harmony does... which is why i have to say, 'what's
described by [2nd Thermo]'... 'what's described by [...]' is 'just' the
Universally-stereotypical way that 'just' energy flows.
and, because it's so, wdb2t constitutes a 'map' of Truth within physical
reality... all one who wants to discover Truth has to do is "follow the one
'map'" to Truth.
in doing so, all one has to do is carry awareness that, it can be, and
most-often is, the case that, because of locally-occuring energy dynamics, one
must 'go', on the one 'map', wide-rangingly. when one does so, the
locally-induced-'deviations' from universal wdb2t become readily-observable,
and, in their 'deveation' from the one 'map', they disclose themselves and,
simultaneously, verify the one 'map'.
everything within physical reality can, thus, be 'summed-up':
Love Truth, and Truth Loves one right-back.
i understand that this's a seemingly-'strange' saying, but that
seeming-'strangeness' occurs as a function of folks being familiar with 'laws
of physics' that, themselves, are only deviations from Truth's one-'map', and
which, therefore, as above, despite their deviating-ness, disclose Truth's
one-'map'.
K. P. Collins
>Subject: Re: SV: Capacity of the brain
>From: Brian Inglis Brian.dot.Inglis at SystematicSw.ab.ca>Date: Sun, 24 October 1999 06:21 AM EDT
>Message-id: <5HASOHZAgVLBVaW0NUFxy4Jisy6L at 4ax.com>
>>Think physics and reality. Temperature is just a measure of heat,
>which is a result of molecular motion. Applying energy to some
>substances causes the molecules to bounce around more: we
>perceive this as heat and measure it as temperature.
>>Heat propagates as molecules transmit energy to other molecules
>by bouncing against them, so heat conduction is limited by the
>speed at which these molecules can bounce, and transmit energy to
>adjacent molecules.
>>It's a lot slower and less efficient than shipping the energy
>around as E-M radiation, to affect the target molecules directly.
>>>Apply too much energy to any real substance and you don't get
>heat transfer, you get a change in the substance: a chemical
>reaction, an absorption of energy, not heat transfer.
>>Theoretically, you can calculate anything, but if you don't take
>into account the limitations of some conductive substance, it
>probably isn't heat transfer that you're calculating, just some
>ideal mathematical construct unrelated to reality.
>>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:31:28 -0400, "Bill Todd"
><billtodd at foo.mv.com> wrote:
>>>I'm not sure that's relevant: the *degree* to which the top-side of the
>>frying pan heats up is related to the heat capacity (if I recall the term
>>correctly - or perhaps it's specific heat?) of the frying pan - i.e., the
>>more heat it can absorb per unit volume for a given temperature rise, the
>>slower the temperature of a portion far from the heat source will rise. But
>>that doesn't prohibit instantaneous propagation (which would mean that the
>>far portion's temperature rise would *begin* immediately, regardless of how
>>slow it was).
>>>>- bill
>>>>Steven Vogel <spamvogel at iconn.net> wrote in message
>>news:38112AAB.1E02 at iconn.net...>>> Naturally, you're correct. As an experiment to prove your point, you
>>> could turn the burner on your stove on high. After ten minutes, put a
>>> cast iron pan on the burner and put your hand on the top of pan right
>>> away for ten seconds. After ten minutes, have the poster that said that
>>> heat travels faster than the speed of light put their hand on the top of
>>> the pan for ten seconds.
>>>>>> The person who doesn't scream has the better grasp of reality.
>>>>>> Bill Todd wrote:
>>> >
>>> > If heat in a substance does in fact propagate via the interaction of
>>> > particles and EM fields, it's hard to see how it could do so at a speed
>>> > faster than c.
>>> >
>>> > - bill
>>> >
>>> > Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:3810DBC3.3463B0BB at alcyone.com...>>> > > Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Well actually I am, but the equation is faulty. It is only a good
>>> > > > approximative model
>>> > > > of the physic characteristics of heat, not an exact description of.
>>> > >
>>> > > Well, no kidding.
>>> > >
>>> > > > Examine function describing heat distribution along the string.
>>> > > > Examine value of this function at t=epsilon (epsilon approaching 0)
>>> > > > especially "interesting" are the values of this function infinitely
>>> > > > far
>>> > > > from
>>> > > > point p. It is small but non-zero.
>>> > >
>>> > > This is doing the equation, not doing the physics.
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Erik Max Francis | icq 16063900 | whois mf303 | email max at alcyone.com>>> > > Alcyone Systems | irc maxxon (efnet) | web
>>http://www.alcyone.com/max/>>> > > San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
>>> > > USA | Fri 1999 Oct 22 (43%/950) | &tSftDotIotE
>>> > > __
>>> > > / \ Do not seek death. Death will find you.
>>> > > \__/ Dag Hammarskjold
>>>>Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>--
>Brian_Inglis at CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
> use address above to reply
