Of course I am being lazy with grammer - but you know what I meant and it is common to say "law A predicts..." rather than "Sceintist predicts using Law a...". You are being silly.
Of course youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re being lazy A.Sphere. And of course IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not being silly for pointing it out. And of course I know what you meant, though responsibility gets the better of me here. And none of the above excuses your misusage, because to do so would give further support to such a grammatical mistake. You see, there are those who donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand that the usage in such a way is not what is intended by the user (if indeed, it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t intended). So to continue unchecked would be as big a mistake as the original.
Being silly would be in the accepting grammatical errors on any explanations that are supposed to be used in an educational sense. Silly would be in following the lemmings off the cliff of Ã¢â‚¬Å“everyone does it, so I should as wellÃ¢â‚¬Â. Silly would be calling someone silly for correcting you in your error. Just because people perpetuate a mistake by compounding it in further usage, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make the one who corrects that mistake silly A. ShpereÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ That would be silly
Which term? Saying that some law predicts something? I have read that in scientific journal articles Ron. It is very common place. In fact, you can google it and immedietely get ".edu" addresses that use the phrase as I did. This is a ridiculous discussion anyway and quite silly for you to bring up - it doesn't add to this discussion at all.
Let me explain it to you slowly A. Sphere, because I want to insure that you get it this time around. Regardless of how many make the same mistake, it is still a mistake. And itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s never ridiculous to correct a mistake. No matter how many times you can find it in scientific papers, it is still a mistake.
You see I take complaint with your use of the word "Fully". It is not an easy concept to understand fully - not even with extensive education in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. I would never be so arrogant to assume that I fully understood anything. It isn't silly obviously - as there is research still being done that concerns the second law. I find it amazing that you fully understand it - even the cutting edge stuff. My hat off to you!
You can be taken aback, be in shock, and take complaint with my use of the word FULLY if you wish. But, it is none the less a correct statement when taken in the context of my usage. When I said Ã¢â‚¬Å“ANYONE, scientist or not, can FULLY understand the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics as applied to practical application in everyday life.Ã¢â‚¬Â ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s exactly what I meant. You can attempt to make it more difficult by positing it in a theoretical and un-empirically provable way such as your opinion on a galaxy you have never been to. But, we can physically test the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics in every day life, and have hard evidence of those experiments to back it up.
I've already discussed how the 2LoT gives us info about open systems. Remeber - the thermodynamic limit, macroscopic scales. It is defined for an isolated system. Read any textbook on thermodynamics - I am not making this stuff up. However, an open system that is above the thermodynamic limit has entropic behavior that approaches the theoretical values predicted by the 2LoT. This is how it is used. Ask any engineer or scientist.
Mathematics is a language. We invented it. Thats like saying that we didn't invent the word love because the emotion that is love existed before language.
We didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t invent mathematics anymore than we invented love A.Shere. We only invented the words we use to describe them. Thought I can understand why your world view would want you to deny these truths. The Laws of Mathematics were here before we were.
Mathematics isn't some physical thing - its an abstract grouping of symbols with syntax that allows people to describe natural processes in a succint way. The natural processes exist without the language that is mathematics.
Actually mathematics is a physical thing A.Sphere. Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. If I had ten apples and sold them for a dime apiece I would have one dollar. All physical items and all used to prove the laws of mathematics.
The only time mathematics is abstract, is when you are attempting to provide an abstract answer.
Wait so sentience is required to make something? Nature - meaning natural processes - makes thing all of the time. Rivers, babies, stars, fires, ice, gas, etc. And again - to say a law predicts something is common place in the biz and I still claim that to even have brought it up as if it has any bearing on this conversation was silly.
And again - to say a law predicts something is common place in the biz, is just latching on to a lemmingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s need to follow the mistakes of the crowd.
It has plenty of bearing on the conversation (whether or not you Ã¢â‚¬Å“take complaintÃ¢â‚¬Â to it). And to deny so would simply be silly!