It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Entropy and Life after Death

page: 3
6
share:

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:50 AM

First, I will not state my background because that's irrelevant. You have showed that people try to use degrees real or fake to try to say,"Look I have a thousand degrees so I must be right even though if what I say sounds like nonsense."

I wrote this thread so most people can understand just using reason and logic. The problem you're having is that you're trying to debate these issues on a scientific level but you don't understand these things so I can type until I'm blue in the face and you will still come back in the next post asking for proof.

I don't mind debating these issues on a scientific level but you have shown you're not trying to understand the science because you're worried about a message board debate rather than trying to learn something.

I've answered your questions and then some. Like the debate about S = K log W and S = K ln W. Both mean Entropy equals Boltzmann's Constant times the log of multiplicity. You can even see it written on the man's grave, yet you still will not accept it because again you're not trying to understand these issues , you're trying to debate these issues without understanding them.

edit on 16-5-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by neoholographic

First, I will not state my background because that's irrelevant. You have showed that people try to use degrees real or fake to try to say,"Look I have a thousand degrees so I must be right even though if what I say sounds like nonsense."

I wrote this thread so most people can understand just using reason and logic. The problem you're having is that you're trying to debate these issues on a scientific level but you don't understand these things so I can type until I'm blue in the face and you will still come back in the next post asking for proof.

I don't mind debating these issues on a scientific level but you have shown you're not trying to understand the science because you're worried about a message board debate rather than trying to learn something.

I've answered your questions and then some. Like the debate about S = K log W and S = K ln W. Both mean Entropy equals Boltzmann's Constant times the log of multiplicity. You can even see it written on the man's grave, yet you still will not accept it because again you're not trying to understand these issues , you're trying to debate these issues without understanding them.

edit on 16-5-2012 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

I'm asking you to prove the science to me. Stop cherrypicking my questions. Answer what I posted please with proof.
Please answer my previous post, no cherrypicking this time, or else I'll notify one of the administrators.

Edit: Before you claim the links prove your stuff, I read over them and they dont. But if you believe they do, please post them so when mods come to critique this thread they can discern if you're trolling or not.
edit on 5/17/12 by NuclearMitochondria because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:03 PM
Double post
edit on 5/17/12 by NuclearMitochondria because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:33 PM

You sound silly crying about the moderators and trolling.

I cherrypicked nothing. I explained it to you over and over again in the previous post and if you don't understand and you don't want to try and understand, that's your problem. For instance you said:

This led some like Susskind to the Holographic Principle.(me)

You say you looked at the previous links and you still asks this silly question. I posted a link for a lecture from Susskind called:

Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram

Again, you don't understand these issues and you're not trying to understand these issues. So take the time to read the earlier posts and watch the links that I have posted and we can avoid your redundant questions. Just take more than 2 minutes or do more than just "google around" to try and understand what you want to debate.

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:18 PM

There are still three more questions I posed in my post. Stop cherry picking,

What time in the youtube video are you referencing? I'm not sitting through an hour of material. Since you've obviously watched it, can you go through and get the time I'm supposed to go through? Thanks.

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:33 PM

You obviously don't understand and you don't have the patience to understand. Why ask for proof of something and then complain it's too long to watch? Everything can't be known when you just "google around."

An hour video is too long when you claim you want proof? You have to have the attention span of a 1st grader if you can't watch a video that's just an hour. I have sat through 3 hour lectures (with breaks of course). If you really want to learn and understand something an hour isn't anything.

It's sad people can watch Dancing with the Stars or Khloe and Lamar but complain about watching something as riveting about the nature of reality. And you claim to have all these degrees?

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 06:39 PM

Oh no! I have such a busy real life that my inability to watch a one hour video makes me impatient!

You still didn't answer my other three questions, and that was a major question dodge on your first source. Be logical, not everyone has the time to watch a one hour video. Just because you have nothing better to do doesn't mean I do as well. Plus in addition, you cherry pick and question dodge, why should I potentially waste an hour of my time?

Do you think at debates, someone says "well go watch this one hour video while we sit here"?
Of course not.

You get to the meat of the issue, don't dance around it now.

new topics

top topics

6