These are some of the stages of grief when a message board scholar realizes that it's obvious they don't know what their talking
No grief here, but unempathetic embarrassment for you.
LOL. You can't be serious. Just because you don't understand what I'm saying you know feel frustrated. You should take some deep breathes
and try to understand these things instead of getting upset and then looking silly.
The problem is you've deluded yourself into believing that you have a clue about what you're talking about, and then you say illogical and incorrect
things and when people who call you out on it with "wait a minute, you're wrong", then you just go into the same defensive shell saying the exact
same things each time. You literally are a broken record and keep going back to the same argument.
Has nothing to do with my education, you're diverting the attention away from the issue. Facts are facts, and you're not bringing them forward.
What let's me know you don't understand is your 5 minute "google around" session. Anyone who understands things like black hole
thermodynamics, black hole entropy, microstates and macrostates wouldn't have to "google around."
Anyone who is versed in science can go read a scientific topic and usually understand it. You it seems would rather spend tons of time debating a
flawed viewpoint instead of educating yourself and making yourself seem less inept every time you post.
How exactly did you come about learning this stuff? Did you just suddenly pick up statistical mechanics without touching calculus?
If you understood these things when I said this earlier you wouldn't have to "google around" to know what I'm talking about.
It's not that I don't understand it, it's that you are taking a concept and moving it into a territory that has *nothing* to do with it. You delude
yourself into believing the confusing of people who know this stuff is them not knowing it, when in fact we are going "wait... you're wrong, how can
you even think this way?"
And even by that, it's not like this is some gray area like souls or heaven, this is you taking a scientific principle and skewing it beyond
Lets take a look at the following past your coin example because it doesn't demonstrate much that we don't already know:
If I throw my DVD Player into a black hole, the information will not be lost. The macroscopic DVD will be scrambled and unrecognizable but the
microstates that produced the macrostate (DVD Player) would be spread out over the event horizon.
So when you die, your macrostate body dies but your microstates don't and this information leaves the body as infrared radiation (Heat) at
This means absolutely nothing, because you can literally make anyone out of the microstates you're suggesting. I can even take it further and turn
everyone into basic quarks. This still fulfills your example because were again going down to a common denominator even further down that microstates,
but in reality its just a mess of states that you cannot make heads or tails of.Having all the microstates in the world does you nothing unless its
assembled into the exact same way it was before.
Likewise, it's like saying "oh well were all made of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen... and hydrogen! If we break all the bonds, we still have ourselves
there but were just in a soup.
Again this means NOTHING because it's just the building blocks.
The problem here is, you're not trying to understand what I'm saying. You're trying to show that you're a message board scholar. If you
would have took the time to read and absorb the information instead of writing about soul energy when I never mentioned it, the debate would be
elevated past I'm frustrated and I want to report you.
Dude get over the soul energy. You keep bringing it up because you have no points to rebuttal with
S = K log W means entropy is the logarithm of multiplicity. It's written on Boltzmann's tomb.
Again, you just don't understand. S = K log W and S = K In W both In and log means the natural logarithm. So both equations say that Entropy equals
Boltzmann's Constant times the natural log of multiplicity.
lmfao -- no. K log W DOES NOT EQUAL K ln W.
Try it on a calculator: Does 5 log 6 = 5 ln 6?
Its Ln, not In. It means 'natural Log". If you took any kind of math you'd know that they are not equal.
So we've confirmed you have not the slightest clue you're talking about in math, and you're trying to convey a statistical mechanics property? No
wonder you have no idea what you're talking about
Question for you:
So what happens when the IR is absorbed by someone standing near? The heat is transferred to someone else, and your microstate data is lost and
converted to something totally different. Now what?