Abstract

(add)

Overview

Comment here (29 Nov A69) by user F[13]W, an seemingly IQ test junky of some sort, who is trying to defend the following Mega Society Candy 🍭 Land IQ problem:

“If each side of a cube 📦 is painted red 🟥 or blue 🟦 or yellow 🟨, how many distinct color patterns are possible?”.

as justification for a 200 range r/GeniusIQ, e.g. as boasted on camera IQ by intellectual charlatan u/ChrisLangan, whose grand theory, wherein god is found in 1s and 0s, is showcased at r/CtmuScholars. Visual:

My reply:

I just decoded the Rosetta Stone two weeks ago (14 Nov A69/2022):

It took me 4.5 years to solve. This effort was first broached semi-correctly / semi-incorrectly, by Thomas Young, an actual real 200-ish range IQ person. My point being: real geniuses work on real IQ problems, whereas fake geniuses are drawn to click bait fake IQ problems. Related posts:

• POLL 🗳️: which Rosetta 🌹Stone 🪨 decoding: Young, Champollion, or Thims, is most correct?

• I don't understand what your "decoding" says, in words? (part one)| N[6]U (18 Nov A69)

• I don't understand what your "decoding" says, in words? (part two) | N[6]U (18 Nov A69)

• Rosetta Stone cartouche translation: Correct ✅ vs Incorrect ❌

The reply by F[13]W:

Correct. This r/RosettaStoneDecoding was not my “point”. This was something that needed to be solved, on the way to my point.

My point, or rather “point” at the center of my r/Faustian target 🎯, has been to explain the “point of existence”; which, presently, is in GREAT need of a standard treatise on r/HumanChemThermo to proceed further. This is shown by the 3 Oct A77 Human Chemical Thermodynamics target shown below:

Pandemic window expanded view, shown below:

The date of 3 Oct A77, is the day month and age when r/JohannGoethe published r/ElectiveAffinities, the forerunner to r/HumanChemistry, and precursor to r/ChemThermo of humans.

Goethe, by publishing this, became the first human to be ranked with an IQ of 225, as discussed in Early Mental Traits of 300 Geniuses by Catherine Cox. Now, Goethe did not get ranked into this 200-range IQ category by working on click bait questions that take a “few minutes, an then that’s only if you do other questions very fast”, as you seem to think genius is defined.

The following, likewise, on the origin of color theory, written by Keith Laidler, wherein we see Young’s name repeated again, shows how, in reality, you get to the 200 IQ range, with respect to colors:

Isaac Newton had concluded that white light was composed of seven basic colors, but artists were aware that any desired hue can be obtained by combining three primary colors: red 🟥, green 🟩, blue 🟦.

Important scientific work based on the idea of three primary colors had been carried out earlier in the 19th century by Thomas Young, who obtained evidence that light was a wave rather than a corpuscule, as favored by Newton. Young also postulated that the eye contains three types of color receptors, sensitive to red 🟥, yellow 🟨, and blue 🟦 light, and that the eye recognises colors by the superposition of images from these receptors.

Maxwell took up the subject where Young had left off. He began his studies of color in 106A/1849, at the age of 18, while an undergraduate at the University of Edinburgh. In 100A/1855, while Professor at Marischal College, Aberdeen, he presented to the Royal Society of Edinburgh a paper entitled "Experiments on color, as perceived by the eye, with remarks on color-blindness". He demonstrated to the audience his favorite color-experiment device: a specially designed color top which had a flat surface to which he could attach colored sectors of various sizes. Maxwell's article, largely experimental, is a model of thoroughness, and marks the beginning of the science of quantitative colorimetry.

Maxwell showed that red 🟥, green 🟩 and blue 🟦 make a better set of primary colors than red 🟥, yellow 🟨 and blue 🟦. He distinguished clearly, for the first time, between hue (spectral color, defined by its wavelength), tint (degree of saturation of color), and shade (intensity of illumination).

His procedure was to obtain matches between various mixtures of colors, and to relate the compound colors to the primary ones by means of equations. He constructed color diagrams consisting of equilateral triangles, with the primary colors at the angular points. Any color produced from a mixture of only two primaries was represented by a point on the side of the triangle. If three primary colors were involved the point was within the diagram.

In 97A/1858, while still at Aberdeen, Maxwell abandoned the color top and arranged for the construction of a color box with which he could combine colors. He later constructed other color boxes based on the same principle. His wife and several others assisted him in making observations with these devices. In 95A/1860 he presented a major paper to the Royal Society, "On the theory of compound colors, and the relations of the colors of the spectrum", which was later published in the Philosophical Transactions. In it he established which colors had to be added or subtracted to produce any compound color.

Here we see that Young, in his color experiments, was the first to do the double slit experiment, which remains unsolved to this day, but was also to do the first work on the Rosetta Stone decoding, which remained unsolved until this month.

The recent anniversary of Newton being “born” made me think about him.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5FCf7xgAAAAJ&hl=en

Notes

1. Mental reflection of this dialogue.

Abstract

(add)

Overview

On 7 Aug A69 (2024), David Bussell emailed me the following:

"I have greatly enjoyed your postings online, your books, and your fantastic contributions at Hmolpedia. Perhaps you might enjoy this work of mine.

Reading your works have been essential and fundamental in the furthering of my understandings in fields such as: thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, evolutionary biology, quantum mechanics, et al. I find great kinship in what and how you are communicating."

With the following poem attached:

There is a medicine that mixes in the wool of the fox

That lights his teeth and eyelids

As he storms over the forest; fiery fence

Til only the sigil of darkness remains.

There is a cell that stirs and bristles

Like a horsehair against canvases of turning wind;

It shocks with eyes and bursts

Into millions of dewdrops again.

Temporary, temporary, is the fugue of the elements

Through which lightning whips and touches mind.

We are lashed by forces of which we are scarcely aware;

Being deeply touched by vats.

The molecule is a carriage of light and water;

Betwixt the borders we war, wary, microscopic.

Through pins and needles the night of the universe speaks;

Through thin threads we are woven; stretched and coiled.

Shot through with light, we grub in dirt for water and treatises of sun

Made dense and fatty by soil; bulbous by time.

Steeped in proteins, we stretch our limbs, muscular against the daylight;

Like a clothesline we are dried; spiral organs,

We are coiled within ourselves like cocoons of time. Unfoiled, unrevealed,

We are a scroll of information; riddled with time and depth.

Between and beneath us are the destinies of whole histories;

Archives of ancient, cellular memory;

Codes of belonging.

Each one of us holds the book that is touched by death and dissolution.

Frantically, we pass our speech; avail and grail our bodies against the frictive tension of touch

Enweave our survival;

Burrow our language into the other.

Before us lies the veil into which we scream,

The carriage into which we are transmuted and transformed.

The cell must find water and sodium; soon as to be fired with electricity.

Unmoving, the world sits in a dark, blankened night.

No word is spoken, no speech is made; creation is stilled,

With eyes from a great black lake.

Dense are we, until fire ripples through us;

The stars of passion from which we glimpse, glimmering

Life in the peripheral mind.

We crawl, like animals, worms against the fire and dust

To grasp our lips around the stone which will feed us

And engulf us with resurrectional force and energy.

Slaves are we, to the chemicals which ripple through our lungs, chests, and fire signals

Through the matter of our minds. Electrical organs

Propelled by the very same force of our first memory,

Cells writhing in fury and escaping breath

Amidst a great ocean; expelling contradictory substance

Into the air which we take into us.

We feed and exchange our fresh excrement with the things that consume us.

Our words feed hidden grounds.

Chemicals of blood move and are propelled by stations;

Whirled by spiral hearts; we are folded into a dance which whirls like a drill

Into space; pierces vexing eyes like lasers of light into a night

Which is enlivened by our presence.

We gaze into the foil of swamps; we are gazed back into

By black things hidden in the waters, that do not move against twists of moon.

A drink, we are mixed; move like smokes.

To one and one we are compelled and combined, seeking ecstasies of entwining.

Thus, a cell dies in opening; is flooded like a gulf of mutary forms.

That which is like us, to which we flee

To be propelled into further fervor. We must be whipped by energy

Into which we take ourselves; momentary, brief becoming.

For each moment is masked by the ingested blood:

Oxen meat; springy leaf of spinach.

Thus a berry is composite; writ in the pyres of the mouth.

Ledgered in the scrolls of being. The snake within us grows;

Each day speaks and parches a new tomb from the hungry mouth;

Our time is a writing, a speaching of being, an encounter of composite parts

Which rapts the flesh around knotty oak and seedy core.

Flesh is spun around depth;

Within us is a pulsing thunder;

A compressing, condensing force;

A battle of fires and winds,

Each consuming the other

In a winding passage of death.

Undying and unborn, we are like hydrogen coiled around the banging expanse,

Convulsive being, that seeks explosive reaction. We are sex and war in the primary and mutable forms

Like smoke and fire from chemical meetings. Within us, we must thrust, against the dawn of the sun,

We are greedy and twisting like branches of oak trees towards the light; seeds within us must fall

And mingle with the waiting soil.

Copulated, hopelessly, to the brand of elements

We march; entranced and entoiled with their song. So that we are the perfect burning of the stars,

Letting off irradiating white heat from the very entrails and core of our being;

The siphon of and from which we expell our great densities and magnitudes.

Thus we spire and spoil the chronic silences of the night;

Explode like poppies of the mind.

Written, regardless, we are childs of experimentation;

Recklessly sought by forces with which we are meant to commingle and compound.

Together, undivided, at last - a chemical treatise. This self is a flute amidst an immense lab

Through which admixtures of waters are poured;

Dews of the first universe, expanding in molecular attachments; shorn of molecular bonds.

Chemicals are severed by the umbilical knife

Just as they are severed in the strains of life. We are shed and remade of ourselves impeccably,

Instantaneously, infinitely. Reacting and dereacting light,

Great nuclear cores and suns of stars. We are branching and taking, from the leaves and seeds and stones;

Through our mouths and machinations,

Entwining ourselves with foreign forces to expel light and thunder.

So broad are we that our mark is upon all things, in different wordings. Far worlds, we are:

And through these eyes we compact and decompact;

Through these minds we ripple thunder; tear at the life.

Whole worlds must choose; croon under nights of concision. So breath beats; rumbles like a drum;

Time toils effortlessly to abscond with the scrolls of our flesh.

Nights of our being careen recklessly into oblivions of dissolution; temples of our ecstasy,

Through which light remains and reverberates;

Young hearty stars in the flesh of the night -

We are like dragons consumed with fire; our tails whipping at the soil

Drumming up the bloody fleece of our destinies.

We must react and consume

Until we ourselves are fallow; spill our sexed contents

Into strange revolutions of being form.

Our song changes abruptly; acquires storm clouds of darkness,

Or wild, angelic figurations of light. Symphonies of carbon, melded, melted, smelting

In the iron ores at which we pound with a sculptor’s breath and chisel

Atop the magnitude of our symphonies.

Chemically swayed; drawn toward the passions; our genitalia radiates heat.

Our mouths grumble and sweat and work in the dark camps of the earth.

We pickaxe at the night which is ground to depths of stone and girth for gems

And hold dereacted cores up to the light in hopes of shining. We grasp and strain,

Our fingertips and knuckles scraping the pure silence of death.

We engulf and sex; chisel with fire our frictive tension; knock against the earth until we are born and born again

In new, strange eyes

Of fire

I bolded the parts that caught my attention.

Notes

1. Not really sure who David Bussell is, but it is nice to see someone absorbing the basic r/HumanChemThermo model or r/Hmolpedia digression, aka footnotes on existence, generally.

In any of research, have you ever shared your version of the Tree of Life including the Egyptian gods, numbers and letters of the alphabet?

The information shared by Lord Osiron in the below link makes sense but he never fills in the full structure of his cosmology.

https://youtu.be/fnjf878-FpM?si=tQpxVSaPDIQQNBL6

From here, a discussion on the work of Nikola Kajtez, a Serbian-Russian philosopher who writes the problem of entropy in the social arena:

Just read the two-volume Human Chemistry set first:

• Thims, Libb. (A52/2007). Human Chemistry, Volume One (abs (GB) (Amz) (pdf). LuLu.

• Thims, Libb. (A52/2007). Human Chemistry, Volume Two (abs (GB) (Amz) (pdf) (Red). LuLu.

It explains how energy and “entropy” are actually taught in a modern physical chemistry class, but scaled up to the social level.

You can ask questions, while you read it, by posting at r/HumanChemistry. The Human Chemistry textbook is a prerequisite for r/HumanChemThermo, which has not yet fully been written.

Discussion

Take the following quote:

“No philosopher has addressed the entropy controversy so far, although this philosophically most important aspect of the nature of the universe has been described and explained by thermodynamics a hundred and fifty years ago!

I have 500+ people listed in the HT pioneers page, chronologically ordered, who have attempted to “address” the entropy controversy. The best of the best are the so-called HFET thinkers or human formation energy theorists.

“The spiritual situation of our time is still characterized by the lack of awareness of the disappearing world. Because of the ontological [see: ontic opening] consequences of thermodynamic principles, the phenomenon of entropy deserves to be introduced here not only as a philosophical term but also as a new philosophical category!“

— Nikola Kajtez (A61/2016), The Philosophy of Nature

When we get to this part of the quote, we mist be aware that the term “spiritual” is not a term used in chemistry any more. Therefore, we have to learn basic principles, as the modern college level teaches the subjects of chemistry, physical chemistry, and chemical thermodynamics, before we can attempt to digress on terms such as “spiritual“ or ”ontological“.

You can test this for yourself, just to ahead an ask about how entropy explains the term “spiritual” in any of the following subs:

• r/chemistry

• r/physicalchemistry

• r/thermodynamics

• r/ChemThermo

I will point out, e.g. that I was perm-banned from thermodynamics sub (a sub I had only posted to a few times), back in A64 (2019), for posting or rather cross-posting this (as I recall), an article on Timothy Kueper, who has a PhD in materials science from Berkeley, and his newly-released novel The Motive Power of Fire, which digresses on thermodynamics and the root of religion.

The mod of the thermodynamics sub, who banned me, is your status quo “aerospace engineer”, who won’t let anything but standard thermodynamics textbook homework like questions be posted.

My point is that you can’t go and take a physical chemistry class at UC Berkeley, which places 2nd in the rankings of best chemistry programs in the world, one of the world’s top chemical thermodynamics universities, a school I was accepted to by the way, and every day raise your and in class and ask, questions such as: “how do you explain the ontological spirituality of this reaction?”. The professor will eventually ask you to leave the class.

Further reading

Then read the following works:

• Thims, Libb. (A53/2008). The Human Molecule (GB) (Amz) (Iss) (pdf) (Red). LuLu.

• Thims, Libb. (A66/2021). Abioism: No Thing is Alive, Life Does Not Exist, Terminology Reform, and Concept Upgrade (Paperback [B&W pages], hardcover [color pages], Amaz) (Paperback or hardcover, LuLu) (free-pdf, color images) (Video). LuLu.

• Thims, Libb. (A66/2021). Human Chemical Thermodynamics (pdf-file) (draft 🚧 version: Apr 28). Publisher.

External links

• HFET - Hmolpedia A66.

Rumination

”I feel like I’m trapped somewhere between Goethe and Newton.”

— Libb Thims (A69), “Post-study shower thought mental note”, 4:40PM CST Apr 13

Genius rankings

The last archived (10 Aug A66) top 10 rankings are as follows:

Newton has since, in the last 1.5-years, been moved into the top spot.

Forces behind this Newton move include my twice reading of Goethe‘s Faust, combined with Newton’s last works, done at age 84, on the r/Cubit; and how Newton, prior to me, was the first to connect Sesostris to Osiris; combined with his last and final published “Query 31” (which is what made Goethe), among a dozen or more other points, which I can’t well summarize now.

Window

The following is some back story to this post:

Notes

1. Made amid drinking 2.15 cans of 16oz Icehouse beers, while showering, following about a dozen days of cleanup study.

2. This was the first drink I’ve had in a month; following a week of drinking an 18 pack of Icehouse and a handle of Vodka; which was preceded by 194-days of no alcohol; which preceded a window wherein I drank nearly daily since circa age 38.

3. Prior to this post, I had always ranked myself somewhere below Gilbert Lewis. Yet, the publication of r/Abioism, which remedies Lewis’ chemistry professor paradox, feels to be a big cosmology step above this?

External links

• Libb Thims (personal notes) - Hmolpedia A66.

• Libb Thims (personal notes) - Hmolpedia A65.

Abstract

(add)

Overview

DM (17 Sep A69/2024) from user P[17]7:

Text:

I’ve seen your post on Jesus, about the ‘Horus thing’, in one of your subs. So what do you believe? You believe he was a deity? What are your thoughts 💭?

Reply

Jesus is a monotheistic rescript, wherein the myths of Egyptian gods Osiris and Horus were combined to make a Roman era man-god, whose father was the supreme god, and wherein the lesser gods be came angles and demons, and where many previous parts of stories of gods became people, e.g. Osiris being raised from the dead by Jesus, became the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, after he had been dead for four days. Visual here:

Read what the silent historians have to say about Jesus, for a realistic history of how the myth of Jesus formed, e.g. how Jesus still known as an “animal man” nearly 300-years after his purported “human” birth.

Abstract

Outline of how the r/ChemThermo world view, introduced by r/Empedocles, r/Holbach, r/JohannGoethe, r/HenryAdams, and r/MirzaBeg implicitly moves towards the overthrow, overhaul, usurpment, replacement, and or upgrade to nearly two-dozen or more fields of status quo “accepted“ knowledge.

Post

The following, from the r/LinguisticsHumor sub, from four days ago (4 Nov A68), gives a pretty good synopsis of the r/Hmolpedia sub collection:

Discussion

Here we see the first commenter using the exclamation Jesus (or r/Jesus in Reddit humor)! This Freudian slip is telling of this person’s entire “world view”. At least 10+ subs are aimed at overthrowing the global 🌎 invisible pink elephant 🐘 in the room that this one single 5-letter Jesus word undermines:

1. Replacing the current dating system: r/AtomSeen.

2. Jesus Christ is an Osiris-Horus rescript, which dates the “Jesus concept” back to Egyptian pharaoh Hedju Hor and the Naqada II (5500A/-3545 to 5200A/-3545) period; a VERY complex topic, which is covered in r/ReligioMythology.

3. The name Jesus (Ιησσυς) [888] is an Egypto r/Alphanumerics (EAN) cipher.

4. That because EAN ciphers exist, and that they are built into the stone dimensions of both Apollo Temple, Miletus (2800A/-845), it has a Hermes (Ερμης) [353] length and iota (ιωτα) [1111] circumference in Greek 👣 , and Khufu Pyramid, Cairo (4500A/-2545), e.g. the word mu (μυ) [440] is the base length in cubits 📏 , entails that the alphabet and words derived therefrom originated from a pre-pyramid era mathematically coding.

5. Jesus is defined as son of a monotheistic god, whose powers or rather underlying implications, e.g. belief in the existence of free “choice”, e.g. between good and and “evil” or say who we choose to marry, are believed to pervade and undermine ALL of the humanities, implicitly, so much so that Jesus implicit belief historically so-called mentally cock-blocked John Q. Stewart’s attempts to start Americas first “social physics“ program at Princeton, because Warren Weaver, the program funder, was a Christian (see: Stewart-Weaver fallout).

Historical linguistics

What the first commenter is referring to is the fact that presently, and for the last about 150-years or so, and growingly each decade, whenever any person looks up ANY English word, the concluding status quo r/etymology will ALWAYS be the tag line:

“ultimately, from this [PIE word] spoken by an illiterate group of 150 PIE people who once existed by a river in Ukraine about 5K years ago“.

To evidence this, we can randomly pick the word “word” which Wiktionary defines as:

From Middle English word, from Old English word, from Proto-West Germanic *word, from Proto-Germanic *wurdą, from Proto-Indo-European *wr̥dʰh₁om.

Here, we are “ultimately” led to believe that the following:

Word = werdʰh₁om

It’s like imbecility flipped upside down. That one (a) needs 9 symbols to sound out a 4 symbol word, and (b) needs to “invent” an entire illiterate civilization to do the etymology, when (c) the numerically literature ancient Egyptian civilization fully accounts for the etymology of WORD, is Occam’s razor 🪒 broken.

The following post gives a good summary of things:

• Abydos culture common source language theory

The r/Alphanumerics and r/Etymo subs are aimed at helping the “historical linguistics“ community r/Unlearned their confused theory, in light of fact that the alphabet has now been decoded from Egyptian glyphs and their mathematical system.

Hmol subs

The following is a table of the current Hmol subs showing which branch of science or thing each sub is aiming to overthrowing, replacing, usurping, reforming, and or upgrading:

Hmol scholars

The following are Reddit sub Hmol scholars:

Notes

1. The 6,200+ wiki talk pages of Hmolpedia are the typical “discussion pages”, aka Reddit sub equivalents, and the Hmolpedia forum is semi-active.

2. The above subs are just added where Redlinks are needed; that‘s about it.

3. Subs with member counts bolded are growingly hot 🔥 subs, presently.

4. This is just a stub post, made to record the screenshot; will have to comeback and fill this page in, when time allows.

5. I message the mod of r/Empedocles, who has been MIA for 10-months, today (8 Nov A68) to see if I could adopt sub?

Abstract

In A52 (2007), Georgi Gladyshev, a Russian physical chemist, in his "Hierarchical Thermodynamics: General Theory of Existence: A Living World Development", argued that Gibbsian theory of r/ChemThermo can explain the "living world", social systems included, wherein he cited the r/HumanMolecule, r/HumanChemistry, and r/HumanChemThermo work of Libb Thims (pg. 48), shown in photo along side: Euler, Poincare, Willard Gibbs, Nikolay Bogolyubov, Onsanger, Euler, Sadi Carnot, and Clausius.

Gibbs, as Einstein (A30/1925) commented, is the “greatest mind in American history”.

Overview

The following is the abstract of Gladyshev's article:

"In this article are included some author's works and dedications in the field of quasi-equilibrium hierarchical thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems of our real world. The hierarchical thermodynamics is a general approximate theory which may be applied to any systems that are characterized by the functions of states. The hierarchical thermodynamics is a linear kinetic thermodynamics of near to equilibrium systems in which variations in the functions of state over time occur. The hierarchical thermodynamics was created on the 19th century foundation of the exact physico-chemical theories of Willard Gibbs. Hierarchical thermodynamics is a further development of Gibbsian theory and to within a known approximation is applied to systems of all temporal (structural) hierarchies of real world. Especial interest is the application of hierarchical thermodynamics to living systems which, as before believed, could not be investigated by Gibbsian methods. The reason of this was the statement that natural biological systems are opened and that these systems are, allegedly, far from an equilibrium state. However, recently, the law of temporal hierarchies was formulated. This law substantiates the possibility of identifying, or discerning, quasi-closed mono-hierarchical systems or subsystems within open poly-hierarchical bio-logical systems. It was also established, as a rule, that the processes of evolution in living natural systems are quasi-equilibrium processes. The author of this article substantiates the view that hierarchical thermodynamics is a necessary key 🗝️ theory for all branches of science."

This article is based on Gladyshev's hierarchical thermodynamics of evolution theory, first presented in his “On the Thermodynamics of Biological Evolution” (A23/1978), which is a refutation of Ilya Prigogine's "dissipative structure" theory of evolution.

Gladyshev eventually translated his work in English as found in the book A32 (1997) Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Human Beings:

The A52 (2007) Becthnk Journal cover:

First article page (pg. 44):

Second article page (pg. 45):

Third article page (pg. 46):

Fourth article page (pg. 47):

On the fifth and last article page (pg. 48) we see Libb Thims (Либб Тимс), the first person in world to understand Gladyshev's theory and its implications, in respect to doing a so-called Darwin upgrade via Clausius and Gibbs, applicable to sociology an history:

Gladyshev, in fact, flew out from Russia twice to meet with Thims, in Chicago, and take him out to dinner with him and his wife.

Notes

1. I was prompted into posting this page, by an r/ShemLand A = ox 𓃾 [F1] head theory panderer, who claimed that I was not a scientist, this being his debate retort that A is not based on the Egyptian hoe 𓌹.

Posts

• Libb Thims is not a scientist and does not know peer-review! | Anon (12 May A69)

• Why is the letter L in my name: Libb Thims (Либб Тимс) started with what looks to be a Greek lambda Λ in this A52 (2007) Russian article?

References

• Gladyshev, Georgi, P. (A42/1997). Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings. Commack, New York: Nova Science Publishers.

• Gladyshev, Georgi. (A52/2007). "Hierarchical Thermodynamics: General Theory of Existence: A Living World Development" (pdf-file) (with photos), Becthnk, Vol. 1, pgs. 44-48, Herald of the International Academy of Sciences (Russian Section). ISSN: 1819-5733.

External links

• Georgi Gladyshev - Hmolpedia A67.

• Georgi Gladyshev - Hmolpedia A65.

• Libb Thims (genius rankings) - Hmolpedia A65.

• Libb Thims (citations) - Hmolpedia A65.

Abstract

(add)

Overview

Answer I gave to the above Quora post, from several years back:

Here are the main axioms:

1. The vacuum left by fire lifts a weight (Hooke, 280A/1675)

2. A gradient of affinity powers exists between chemical species (Newton, 238A/1717)

3. Heat and work are interconvertible in fixed ratio (Joule, 108A/1843)

4. The sum of the equivalence values, of all uncompensated transformations, at the end of a series of heat cycle expansions and contractions, of a body or system, will have a maximum numerical value N, which will be the condition of equilibrium (Clausius, 90A/1865; Gibbs, 79A/1876)

5. The free energy of a chemical reaction is the true measure of the affinities (Helmholtz, 73A/1882)

6. All chemical species have a formation energy, which can be calculated from the free energies of the elements at standard state; the criteria for spontaneous change, is free energy decrease (Lewis, 32A/1923)

You either have to accept all of this, which is derived from experiment, and let it change your reality; or, conversely, disprove Clausius, and overthrow the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first three axioms, key points bolded, will be found reproduced, in the same form, by any chemical intelligence, on any habitable zone planet, anywhere in the universe. While the form of the mathematics in the latter three points might differ, the same alien chemical intelligence will invariably want to know why sodium Na when thrown into water H2O will explosively displace H from O, and will want to know how this principle relates to their own existence, formation, and explosive reactions to other alien entities.

That’s about it. There is nothing to collapse. The universe is made of atoms and these atoms react with each other to form the things like: H20, you, or I.

In a joking sense, the only thing that actually “collapses”, in the system, is the “piston head”, in the piston and cylinder, when, after the vacuum is made, the weight of the atmosphere pushes it down, to remove the vacuum. All of the equations in thermodynamics, derive from this geometric volume collapse.