Kostic replied the following, three days ago (via email):
Hi Libb,
Glad to hear from you, especially about your accomplishments.
I understand you are busy with your endeavors, but if you decide to contribute to my Entropy Topical Collection, please let me know.
Regarding my "Zeroth Religion" I like to clarify for you the following, since it appears you misunderstood my intentions:
I am not a "true believer" but use "zeroth religion" metaphorically as something before, more fundamental than the "regular, first religion."
Likewise, terms creation (meaning formation) and recreation (meaning transformation) are used metaphorically to draw attention:)
Furthermore, I believe, see
http://Mass-Energy.MKostic.com that:
►All interactions in nature are physical and based on simple cause-and-effect conservation laws, thus deterministic and should be without any exceptional phenomenon. Due to diversity and complexity of large systems, we would never be able to observe deterministic phenomena with full details but have to use holistic and probabilistic approach for observation; therefore, our observation methodology is holistic and probabilistic, but phenomena have to be deterministic, not miraculous nor probabilistic.
►There is no proof that an electron, or any other elementary particle, has or does not have a structure. The concept of elementary particle is intrinsically problematic (just because we cannot observe or reason a structure which exhibits certain phenomena, does not mean it does not exist). Past and recent history proved us to be wrong every time. Particularly problematic is the current theory which requires elementary particle annihilation/creation (“miraculous creationism”) while using conservation laws. At the very least (in phenomenological view) the elementary particles should be conserved and be the building structure for other particles and systems. Note that many concepts (in modern physics) are "virtual" entities that are part of the mathematical theory, but are not directly observable.
►There is no such thing as a unidirectional force or a force that acts on only one body (no imaginary boundary vector-forces). Put it very simply: a forcing (force-flux cause-and-effect phenomena) acts between an interface of pair of objects (forced interaction: action-reaction, including process-inertial forces), and not on a single object. The Newton Laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics imply that all forces are mass-energy interactions (forced displacements with momentum and energy transfer and conservation) between different particulate bodies due to non-equilibrium (available energy or work potential, cause of forcing) towards the equilibrium.
►All matter must be somewhat elastic (can be compressed or stretched). If bodies could be perfectly rigid we'd have infinite forces acting with infinite speeds for infinitesimal times (if you pushed on one end of a perfectly rigid stick, the other end would move instantaneously). System components (bodies) that exert forces have to be massive (2nd Newton Law) and with accompanying reaction forces (3rd Newton Law).
In 2020 I updated/finished three papers:
The Second Law and Entropy Misconceptions Demystified. Entropy 2020, 22, 648 * (Full-text HTML online * PDF)
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/6/648
Maxwell's Demon and Its Faulaces Demystified, arXiv:2001.10083 [PDF] Harvard *physics4me*
“Heat Flowing from Cold to Hot without External Intervention” Demystified: Thermal-Transformer and Temperature, arXiv:2001.05991 [PDF] Harvard
[second email (followup)]
I forgot to draw your attention to my recent UPDATED posting at:
http://EM-Heat-Work.MKostic.com
OR
https://sites.google.com/site/professor ... /em-natureAll the best, Libb.
