So acknowledge the fact that neither heat nor energy will move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object? Or do you hold it as an article of faith based on a mathematical model that the net flow of energy is from warm to cold even though some energy flows from cold to warm?
Pehaps you actually did refer to the second sentence. To bad you didn't read it for comprehension. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. A photon is a unit of energy and enegy won't flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Again, do you accept that statement or do you take, as an article of faith, based on a mathematical model, that while it is true for net flows, it is not true in the absolute sense that it is stated?
That statement doesn't hedge its bets by even mentioning total energy flow. The statement is an absolute statement. No mention of gross, net, etc. The phrase "will not" doesn't contain any wiggle room. So once more, do you accept that energy WILL NOT flow from a cool object to a warm object or do you take it as an article of faith based on a mathematical model that some energy can flow from a cool object to a warm object?
The law doesn't mention net or total energy. The law states that energy will not flow from cool to warm. Will not doesn't mean some will move from cool to warm but most will move from warm to cool. You are right that statistical mechanics "tells me" something. The problem is that it doesn't show me anything or prove anything at all. It is a mathematical model. Like the mathematical models upon which climate science is dependent to the point that their output is taken as fact and presented as evidence even though observational evidence even though it is often in direct conflict with that so called evidence.
You can't handle chaos at all. Belief that you can is called mental masturbation. The second law is about heat transfer, not statistical probabilities, and mathematical models are not my friend. They serve a purpose but are no more reliable than the builder of the model and a model that says a thing that can't be verified is the next thing to useless.
As to embracing the modern world, no thanks. Post modern science is a sad, pitiful, inadequate substitute for actual science as so eloquently demonstrated by climate pseudoscience.
Outmoded. Interesting word, especially when used by someone trying to convince me of a thing when there exists not a shred of actual physical evidence to support that thing. Hold your faith if you like, but don't expect me to buy into it with you.
Understanding based on mathematical models that are not proveable? What sort of understanding is that exactly?
Proof by postulate? Assumption of truth without the bother of actual evidence? Like I said, post modern science is a sad, pitiful, inadquate substitute for actual science.
I didn't think so.
In two words, yes and no. Mathematical models are great if they can be tested and used as a basis for actual experimentation to derive whether they are in fact true or not. Faith in a mathematical model alone, is misplaced.
Every television tower, radio tower, mocrowave dish, etc, is an observable repeatable experiment proving that one field can reduce another. Why do you suppose such effort goes into their placement?
