[QUOTE=ewmayer;368624]So what? Do you even have a sense of how rapidly the odds of appreciable 2nd-law violation decrease for a simple model system like "n pointlike ideal gas atoms in a finite 2-D box symmetric about the y-axis, with all atoms in the right half of the box (x > 0) at some initial time t0"? Unless you have a clue of how the odds of "all atoms again having x > 0 at some later time t, after enough time for quasi-equilibration to have occurred" vary with n increasing, it's ludicrous to invoke statistical thermodynamics as in any way supportive of your conjectured whole-universe 2nd law violation.
[/QUOTE]

To answer your first question (do you even...): yes of course, the odds
are so high it's almost impossible. But that key word is "ALMOST".
Since entropy and QT are based on statistics and probability, given
infinite future time, it should happen eventually. AT least by the
standard definition of entropy and later QT.

Wondering whether my entropy of the Universe being defined as
a constant infinite value prevented that fall to thermal equilibrium
last week.

Or whether more is needed on the "shape" and "volume" of the skin.

Or is everybody happy.

Is defining away the total entropy of the Universe as
being infinite hennce not changed by local increases
mathematically valid? Does it satisfy the physical issue
of there being no potential heat death of the Universe?
Does it sufficiently explain why no such heat death or
thermal equilibrium has occurred despite the infinite
past of the Universe (the original question)?

From another thread:
[quote]
In their view, information becomes increasingly diffuse, but it never disappears completely. So, they assert, although entropy increases locally, the overall entropy of the universe stays constant at zero.
[/quote]

Same basic idea as using constant infinity as the unchanging value
but infinity allows for local entropy increase without universa; impact.

Judging from the last half a dozen messages being from just one person, the monograph continues to be a topic of a heated debate.

From another thread:

Heck, it's just a view of cosmology.

And shouldn't there be one person in the room?

:smile:

Let me bring my contribution to this thread.
Of course, everyone contributes according with his own level...:smile: Maybe people should watch stuff like this and learn something from it, hehe, before making new theories :razz:
About gravity: (watch it to the end, is fun!)
[YOUTUBE]MTY1Kje0yLg[/YOUTUBE]

When his 2-d gravity simulator tore, he
"repaired a rip in the fabric of space-time."

With some thread. Funny.

That was pretty sweet. I liked the bit about the preferred direction of orbit. I couldn't quite explain it if I had to, but any physicist who knows about the "right hand rule" could say that this phenomenon is all over the place.

Far and away the most impressive thing was the two marbles orbiting each other WHILE orbiting the mass.

[QUOTE=LaurV;375103]Let me bring my contribution to this thread.
Of course, everyone contributes according with his own level...:smile: Maybe people should watch stuff like this and learn something from it, hehe, before making new theories :razz:
About gravity: (watch it to the end, is fun!)
[/QUOTE]

for the problem of getting all out of the center just use the mass near the edge and make it bring the rest to you.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;375145]That was pretty sweet[/QUOTE]Yeah, my only regret is that we didn't have many teachers like him in our times. Many of our teachers were more like "terminator" style... :smile:
P.S. I also loved the "mending the rip in the space-time" part, this was one of the reasons I put it here. The guy is not only a good pedagog but he is also funny. I would like to be in elementary school again and be in his class...