Neither do I. Nor do I write them. What you really mean, I guess, is that you do not read anything that might challenge the programs already instilled in your brain. That’s okay, and is the common characteristic of ignorant people throughout the world. And, ignorance is okay too. Enjoy it.
What is curious is that you are attempting to complain about my ignorance when you are asserting your ignorance both later in your post I am quoting and in the “Overwhelming evidence for design” thread.
I read plenty of books that challenge ‘the programs instilled in my brain.’ However, they are not books written by people who pretend to be experts in a field but really are not.
Thank you for noticing the simplification. My point was exactly that-- to simplify matters by proposing only three natural laws. In my book I go even further, proposing only two forces.
I am glad you recognize the oversimplification. Correcting it is another matter. And there are four fundamental forces: strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational. Perhaps you could ‘merge’ the two nuclear forces into one, though that would be wrong, and end up with three fundamental forces. I will not waste time reading something that you state from the beginning, before I open a page, is completely at odds with reality.
The 0th Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant. It is a consequence of the 2nd Law and does not facilitate understanding, so I ignore it. It did not exist when I learned classical physics in the sixties, and I assume it to be the consequence of too many irrelevant mathematicians fiddling with physics, an unfortunate trend.
I do not agree that it is irrelevant. If it were not relevant, then it would not be considered one of the laws of thermodynamics. You are showing quite some disdain for theories to be modified, did your Beon theory exist as it stands today when you first invented it, whenever that was? If it has been molded, I suppose then that you should hate your own theory because it was not perfect to begin with.
Your attempts to claim that you’ve introduced time into the laws of thermodynamics are puerile. Show the math.
These two certainly stem from the 1st Law
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation
Note the
time-dependence of these equations. Is that math enough for you, or would you prefer published journals? Or books? This PDF goes through some of the time-dependent, non-equilibrium thermodynamics (which I hope you recognize (a) the difference between non-equilibrium and equilibrium thermodynamics and (b) that the universe falls into non-equilibrium thermodynamics).
As you readily admit, you are simplifying things in your book. And by simplifying things, you are deriving largely erroneous solutions to ‘problems’ you personally have with physics. I hope that somewhere in your book you state that what you are writing/explaining is an over-simplification of the real world. If not, then you are genuinely, possibly intentionally, misleading your readers.
My book describes the nature of dark energy and its relationship to the process of creation. You’ll never know about that, however. Rejoice in your self-perpetuated ignorance.
But you are only
speculating what dark energy is
to fit your agenda. No rational being would accept your definition as absolutely true
just because you say so. You have no physical evidence to even suggest
what dark energy actually is. No one does. That evidence does not exist.
All of my ideas are speculative and hypothetical, as is the very idea of an omnipotent God. As part of the scientific tradition, I base all my ideas upon evidence, and claim that every one of them can be empirically verified. But since you can only parrot existing ideas and seem unqualified to examine others, how will you ever know that?
You are ideas can only be speculative, and thus no one should take your hypotheses very seriously. I seriously doubt your theory of dark energy → matter conversion could ever be proven
I’ll bet that you are the anonymous Amazon “reviewer” who posted a smarmy negative review for my book yesterday, without ever reading it, basing your review on other reviews. If so, you should be ashamed of yourself. I know that if this is so, you will not have the integrity to fess up. Of course, if not so, I apologize in advance for the implication that you might behave in such an infantile and tacky manner.
No I am not. I have not been on Amazon to look at your book, or any other non-physics book. I was on there a few days ago contemplating spending the $160 on Toro’s
Riemann Solvers text, but I did not write the negative review–generally, I do not review books regardless of my opinion of them as my opinion may not be common with the other reviewers and my opinion of a book can change (like Daijiro Yoshioka’s Stat Mech text, I hated it at first and now I enjoy it). While I do not write books (though I have thought of writing some physics texts, but that steals time from research
), I do know that negative reviews are miserable.
Given your intransigence about reading and your dogmatic, unimaginative style of thinking (all okay, of course!) I can only conclude that further conversations with you will consist of your recitation of two layers of dogma, religious and pseudo-scientific. I’m not up for that, so this will be our last exchange of communications.
Again, refer back to the first quoted line of yours in this post. You are the one who is being ignorant. Your views on physics and your religion are being challenged, so what do you do: follow your normal
modus operandi and quit.
