Conference Concludes Origin of Life Research Is at a Standstill

It is funny to see how atheists throw links to scientific pipe dreams at each other and some of atheists have no ability to read their own links. They cannot even read most simple sentences I make. They never can construct a meaningful reply, never can understand the basic reality they look at, but yet they throw nuclear physics at each other. This gigantic ability of an atheistic mind freely switching from T-cs to nuclear physics is unsurpassed. all you need to do is to believe that there is no God and you know everything from T-cs to nuclear physics.
All I can do is to demonstrate this greatness of atheistic minds.

 

You see, no atheist reading my statement and your reply can see that I said(you quoted) ALL or One system =/= all systems. But they all atheists think that I said ALL or One system =/= all systems and you have rebuffed my statement. Reality does not matter for atheists. Atheists live by delusion – earth is warming, etc.

Moreover, the fact that any (including specific) system belongs to ALL system, like an any shape or material fork or atheist belongs to ALL forks or atheists is absolutely inaccessible for atheists. I cannot explain anything or reason to atheists but I enjoy watching their perception of reality.

What did we start from? From me quoting atheists making statements that the 2nd was for closed only. From me proving that scientific community believes that the 2nd law is for closed systems only. From you confirming my proof with a plethora of your own links.
“However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system” http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441
This is the 1st link from the plethora posted by you here
http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-11.html#post3713223
“we can say that the thermal order can never increase
in a closed (isolated) system.” This is your 2nd link posted by you here http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-11.html#post3713223 where scientists equate isolated and closed systems in their eagerness to demonstrate total idiocy of science.

In spite of the plethora of link posted by atheists, in spite of their own statements repeated each and every time now they are sure, they know that they never argued there exists a closed system inside of the Universe. I cannot explain anything or reason to atheists but I enjoy watching their perception of reality.

I need to link to atheists arguing that negative cannot be proven…
Any reasonable person would realize, understand and close the problem after me posting
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_a_universal_tendency.html
where the giver of the 2nd law describes it as a Universal tendency of energy to dissipate in Nature. But, no, atheists keep on going and going and going like zombies on Energizer. Talking to zombies…

Let me guess, you now agree with me pointing to the fact that there is no closed system existing inside the universe? And you still state that the 2nd is for closed only? Thus the 2nd has no application inside of the Universe, does not work on the earth? I am sorry, nothing personal… but generally you type idiocy and I am afraid you know that and you do not care, at least because you know that whatever you type under a quote of my words would never be considered by any other atheist as an idiocy as long as it expresses atheism.


When I type formulations I have to forget that they are will be read and replied by atheists who have “no more insight into the language” I use “as their neolithic ancestors would have had.”
What can I do? And what can you do? When you go to a public school and the main subject it teaches you is atheism, and the same is for a college, the same for TV , media, movies etc etc. what can we do?

I have begged 5 times and I bolded my questions red, I have been begging you to address my statements and I have never gotten even a minimal attempt from you.
Now you beg me.
Only atheists reading our conversation can miss that atheism and science use different, opposite to T-cs reasoning and language; that atheism and science have different from T-cs goals. The main goal of science is to promote atheism. The main goal of T-cs is to build machines in the least expensive way.

Ask any atheist, How have you become an atheist? And you would hear – I have learned science.
Ask any Xn Why do we distribute alternating but not direct electricity, and you would hear ‘Because Lord Kelvin calculated through thermodynamics that it costs less $$ out of our pocket.’

You have only demonstrated that you have dropped the ball. Now you have to demonstrate that you have a comprehension of your action which would be slightly greater than that of the ball. That is: to answer what has gravity to do to your action and what your action has to do demonstrations in thermodynamics? Did you see my demonstrations?
Some of them one more time:

Originally Posted by Inquisitor :

- “Again, complexity may checked out , demonstrated – no need for scientific diatribe here. Any sane man can know that it takes more bits of information to describe moving and changing steam, then the given snowflakes; for the latter you can just write the simplest algorithm ‘’repeat the basic figure each 30 degrees reducing it 4 times by 25% from the center.’’ Even an insane one can check it out by folding a piece of paper and cutting a snowflake model out of it. Imbecility of scientists is immeasurable though.. I mean, common, people, don’t you see that scientists and intellectuals are garbage which should be cleaned out in schools and colleges? They have flooded your minds with garbage about complexity blah blah. You can check that by yourself by googling out millions of pages the imbeciles have produced only on Internet. . I mean, common, people, I say only things anyone except for evolutionists can check out by himself see with his own eyes.

Anyone who has an idea about programming would know that molecules in a drop of water MOVING in Brownian motion content more bits of info (are more complex), than FIXED molecules of a snowflake.

Can this basic truth, just one sentence clear you brain from the garbage loaded in it by scientists?

If not, - watch the few seconds video and answer - which one requires more bytes of your PC memory (and thus is more complex)?:
1. vapor(gas),
2. liquid (water), or
3. solids (crystals, snowflakes) ?
- [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-KvoVzukHo"]YouTube - States of Matter[/ame]

Mods, please make a poll.

Is it clear now people that science should be banned in public schools and universities? That scientists and intellectuals are garbage which should be thrown away immediately, for the sake of America?”
WOAH!

Do you see the difference between your ‘demonstration” and my demonstration? Try again. But remember, you are an atheist and atheists have no more clue about gravity than they have about the 2nd law.

 

When I posted my initial disagreement with your absolutely-certain assertion that the earth was going to die a heat-death, I thought you and I were probably kindred minds. You were arguing against some dunder-head who was interpreting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics like a creationist.

But now I'm watching you misunderstand and misquote real science. The above quote doesn't say that the oceans are going to completely evaporate immediately in 1 billion years, even though that's the inference you're making. And the above quote does not support your idea that the earth is going to die within 1 billion years. Indeed it says the earth will become inhospitable to life in 4 billion years. You continue to ignore evidence, you continue to ignore the scientific consensus, you cite works that aren't peer-reviewed, and you make assumptions based off of sources that aren't rigorous.

It's general consensus that the sun will go red-giant in 4-6 billion years, and that the earth will be destroyed or made inhospitable in that time. It's general consensus that it's possible (not certain) that we'll run into a much larger galaxy than our own -- Andromeda -- in half that time. It's also consensus that there's a small chance that galactic collision could send the earth out of orbit, or send another body into the earth, etc.

My contention stands. You have no scientific ground for asserting with absolute certainty that the earth will die a heat death. If you were truly of a scientific mindset, you wouldn't make such absolute claims in the first place, as science is about tentative claims, open to the possibility of countervailing evidence. I'm making a tentative claim backed by some evidence. You're making an absolute claim, backed by misquotations and lack of credible sources. I'll just leave it that. Hopefully we'll be on the same side next time.

 

We were talking and disagreeing about some scientific evidence regarding the death of the earth. Despite our disagreements, neither of us agrees with your bizarre and frankly ignorant claims about the basic laws of physics. And whoever said I'm an atheist?

 

You just have said again that you are an atheist.

 

What did I ask in your quote out of the context? I asked ‘where’. What would be an answer of a literate person? It would be ‘here/there’. Atheism is religion of illiterate, undeveloped and delusional minds.

I asked to demonstrate closed and isolated systems existing in the Universe. Your understanding of the reality is that it must be enough for you to proclaim that a big part of science is demonstration/experimentation but never to conduct such a demonstration. All I do is demonstration of atheistic perception of reality.

I did not ask to show me closed and isolated systems scientists talk so much about existing in Nature or you ever have to demonstrated
me one?

Atheists…. “”an increase in entropy has to always increase in the Universe”’

What does this phrase mean for atheists? Is there any atheists or agnostic who can even understand what is said here in the language of non-science, thermodynamics or kinetics?

There is no atheist, who would understand that it is the same as stating that “entropy accelerates in the Universe”. And it is fun to watch how then atheists try to demonstrate gravity.

This planet is not in the Universe? The 2nd law is only for closed and isolated which do… exist… don’t exist.. in the universe? The 2nd law is not for this planet?

How many times I have demonstrated that water is more thermodynamically ordered and more complex information wise (statistical thermodynamics) than snowflakes?
http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-11.html#post3726801

But wait, I thought you just said that water is more ordered than a crystal. How can that be?

How many times I have demonstrated that water is more thermodynamically ordered and more complex information wise ( statistical thermodynamics) that a snowflakes?
http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-11.html#post3726801

Why do atheists always divert to entropy? Because they think it is a scientific complicated matter a cleaning lady cannot figure out so she has to think that atheists have higher mental abilities than she does; when in reality it is the opposite.

OK.

This question cannot be answered because it is void of any coherent logic. Starting from the fact that I never said that water is more ordered state because such statement is illiterate, idiotic, in thermodynamics they do not make such meaningless statements. In T-cs they do not say more; they say more than only. Only atheists and agnostics can believe that stating 5 is more may constitutive a human speech.

One more time. Water is more ordered than snowflake. Water is less ordered than steam. Heat flows from hot to cold, from more ordered state to less ordered (but more disordered) state. From steam to water, then from water to snowflake, then from snowflake to the state of 0K (absolute zero, zero Kelvin, the counting point of existence of the material world).

I don’t know how atheists and agnostic cannot see such simple, basic things. But the fact is they don’t and there is no possible way to convey anything to them.

How many times have I linked to Kelvin’s article on the 2nd law? There is no indication that it does survive in the 1st place, but the law demonstrates that it does not. Like you the Earth was born to die and so life on the earth.

http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_colour_and_design.html

The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words. (Applause.)

Lord Kelvin was a scientist. Kelvin did call himself a scientist. That was long before atheists overrun the Temple. Today he would be overturning the tables.

Proof:

Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion – Lord Kelvin.

The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism. - Lord Kelvin.

Ask any atheist today, how have you become an atheist? And you would hear – I have learned science.


Understand? Yes? No?








to be continued may be

 

I suggest you stop harping against atheism and take a Physics 101 course.

 

Ever heard of Complexity Theory and Emergence or perhaps Jon Conway's Game of Life? Long story short simple systems that have few and simple rules will tend to display complex behaviors. The emergence of complexity through cellular automata are proof of this and is evidence life is indeed emergent.

 

The big picture as in the Laws of Physics are emergent properties?

 

"within the current paradigm the speed being the root of observing 'energy' is incorrect (kinetic)."

You are aware the units for velocity are m/s right? And the units for kinetic energy are kg m / s?

 

I literally just got done doing thermodynamics. Inquisitor, you are about as far from having any knowledge about thermodynamics as Osama Bin Laden is to the gates of heaven. If you wan't i'll derive equations for the classical interpretation of thermodynamics on this very thread. After that I will discuss the problems of thermodynamics on smaller scales.

 

LOL.

First Law: E(thermal) = W + Q

If we were to make a pV diagram and graph out the isobaric, isochoric, isothermal, and adiabatic processes the total work of the system would be the area under the curve.

"The higher is pressure and T of steam the more work is produced by the machine" This is false as I will demonstrate.

Ideal-Gas Law: pV = nRT

Thermodynamic Processes

Isochoric: W = 0

Isobaric: W = pV

Isothermal: W = -nRT ln(vf/vi)

Adiabatic: -nCvT

All heat engines require a hot and cold reservoir. The heat transfer from the hot reservoir to cold reservoir is the change in work. As we will see the efficiency of such an engine isn't simple highest pressure and highest temp. An isochoric process is when the volume is constant, isobaric is when the pressure is constant, and isothermal temperature is constant.

The Brayton Cycle is the most efficient use of the above thermodynamic processes and is as follows:

Efficiency = W out / Qh (h means hot reservoir)

In the Brayton Cycle Qc (c means cold reservoir) = |nCp(T1 - T4)|

Efficiency Brayton = [1 - ((T4 - T1)/(T3 - T2))]

For adiabatic process P^(1-y)T^y = constant (y is a lower case gamma; ratio of Cp and Cv for ideal gases)

We get P1^((1-y)/y)T1 = P2^((1-)/y)T2

Isolating T gives:

T1 = [[P2^((1-y)/y) / P1^((1-y)/y)] T2]

= (P2/P1)^(1-y)/y 2 = max, 1 = min.

When we define Pressure Ratio:

T1 = rp^((1-y)/y)T2

After some algebra...

Efficiency Brayton = [[1 - [1/rp^((y-1)/y)]]

So there ya go. Your wrong. And the above is the proof.

 

S = Q/T

1. Entropy does NOT always increase.

 

Mmmk I've read enough of Inquisitor's UNBELIEVABLY EPIC UNEDUCATED posts and have come to a safe conclusion that EVERYTHING he has to say about thermodynamics is 100% WRONG.

Thermodynamics isn't science BLAH BLAH MUMBO JUMBO atheism BLAH BLAH MUMBO JUMBO entropy disorder order....LOL. mmk.

 

Are we discussing 1st or 2nd?

Ok. And what area would entropy? I am just asking because --- what have I been talking about?

What’s about Q? How is about another half of the equation you started to consider?
Isochoric: dQ =?

Isobaric: dQ =?

Isothermal: dQ=?

Adiabatic: dQ= ?

Only atheists looking at the whole picture see a half of it and judge the whole process. Atheism is the religion of shored, narrow minds.

See above – all Ethermal goes into change of inner energy (The gas becomes more ordered(potential) in the case of receiving E thermal - isochoric process.

Yeah, and what is T3?????????????? The higher T3 the higher is efficiency, The more work can be produced. Which is my statement. Look at T-S diagram for the sake of sanity. Atheists they look at one thing and see another thing which is not there….
And what’s efficiency in terms of entropy for a real cycle? What has the conversation been about?

This is another demonstration that atheists cannot understand simple sentences they quote. What did I say and you quoted? I said T. Which means temperature. Understand? Yes? No? I said the higher T the more potential (ordered ) is gas. Understand? Yes? No? Where is the T in your “proof” ? The only proof you have made is that atheism is a religion of illiterate, delusional minds. Why don’t you go to your atheist professor and show my posts and let him try?

Look: “Isolating T’”. Go back to T. Your efficiency is higher when the Pressure ratio is higher. The pressure ratio is higher when T2 is higher. For the sake of sanity – look at the T-S diagram. The higher is(are) T2 and/or T3 the bigger is the area of the cycle, the more work is produced. Can atheists ever look at the reality and see it like it is? They keep on proving that they not only understand simple sentences, they don’t even understand what the conversation is about. It is nice very nice, when some attempt to learn T-cs, and its pity instead learn only atheism because the latter is the only subject they teach in schools and universities.

Atheism always leads to aggression with no reason, to brainless hostility to fellow humans. Everyone can such expression of atheism here when atheists routinely quote a whole post and produce just a meaningless insult, ad hom, a fart:

http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-17.html#post3853881
http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-16.html#post3847803

Anyone reading (except for atheists) can see that they have never addressed demonstration made by me, but all their great intellect can produce is a meaningless spew in the sky like this: http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-17.html#post3853976

What can one reply to such a beautiful in its fullness exhibition of atheism?

 

When you respond to me I require you to use well thought out coherent sentences. Please try and at least pretend to be intellectual with your responses.

t1 -> t2 = t3 -> t4.

It's called a cycle. What about Q? Q = MCvT or MCpT.

Entropy is a state variable. You don't integrate it.

Solids have less entropy than liquids and liquids have less entropy than gases. Adding energy to a system INCREASES the entropy. Macroscopic systems evolve irreversibly toward equilibrium. Entropy and work are two completely different concepts that you are confusing on a grand scale.

 

Go get a formal education bro. Rambling on about atheism and thermodynamics makes you look like an armchair lunatic.

 

I will respond to you're nest dumb comment before you post it.

I'm imagining it's going to be something like this: BLAH BLAH MUMBO JUMBO energy increases entropy... BLAH BLAH ATHEISM THERMODYNAMICS...EVOLUTION NO HAPPEN...

Order spontaneously emerges from disorder. FACT.

 

Logical fallacy - irrelevant conclusion.

Logical fallacy - genetic (irony) fallacy.

Logical fallacy - irrelevant conclusion.

 

IF you take the Bible seriously you say. WHo does? Only those who can't see the many flaws and the deceit in it.

If you prefer the Bible to science how about you stop watching TV and stop using motor vehicles as science created tem, not the Bible.

Do try and be consistent. Enjoy your walk and your reading.

 

When you respond to me I ask, but for do not expect from an atheist, just to respond to me; try at least once to hold back on ad homs and respond to my statements, not to strawmen, not your own fantasies. You can do it in any way you can, as always I will do all my best to make a sense out of it.
Since you have not pointed to any sentence which could be inaccurate and most people understand my sentences, I have to announce the same diagnosis – a routine expression of atheism, a mindless ad hom. Nice start.

Oh, you quote me but never read my words. Nice way to conduct a conversation. As well you could ask me to pretend or try to be an atheist. You make so much sense as usual.

Is it an objection or notice… to what? In the cycle you suggested for (not related to the subject) consideration T2 =/= T3.Have you mistyped or have you expressed illiteracy as usual? I want to see it as mistypo, but it is not what is called a cycle. A Cycle is 1->2->3->4>1. Understand Yes? No? 1->2->3->4 is an open process. Understand Yes? No?

Did not I express myself clearly? Let me repeat: Why did you omit it so that I had to point to your omission, to the major flaw in your consideration?

If you don’t integrate a variable, then what in the world do you integrate? Facepalm.

Why do atheists always divert to entropy? Because they think it is a scientific complicated matter a cleaning lady cannot figure out so she has to think that scientists have higher mental abilities than she does; when in reality it is the opposite.

You are all confused in your view of reality and you’re confusing the cleaning lady.

1. The discussion is about a spontaneous process, the one which, as it is argued, can or cannot result in increase in complexity or thermodynamic potential/order and thus, life. Your cycle and arguments have NO relation to a spontaneous process, as I had pointed.

2. You make your calculations for the working body, NOT for the thermodynamic system.

3. The conversation is NOT about an ideal working body.


4. how many times did I ask – who is adding energy and who is adding energy to the one who is adding and who in his turn… is it the atheistic god of absurd?

Did I ever get one of your pack of fanatics even trying to address my Q?

5. Where in the unrelated to the discussion process your have brought is spontaneous process? From what point to what? Or it is nowhere?



One thing is a working body, another thing is a thermodynamic system including the working body. In your irrelevant consideration I’ve answered to, the system is the hot reservoir (Qh), working body gas, and the cold sink (reservoir) (Qc). Adding/ refilling Qh to the system is not happening in YOUR IRRELAVANT consideration.

In your consideration you are talking about an ideal cycle of an ideal working body. Your S cannot increase without a decrease and vice versa. It starts from 1 and comes back to 1. dS= 0 in your cycle, because it is an ideal cycle. ‘’It is called cycle.’’ Understand? Yes? No?

(The real gas it does not come back exactly to 1. dS>0)

And so on….

Facepalm. This your own equation:
http://www.mikeblaber.org/oldwine/chm1045/notes/Gases/Kinetic/Gases08.htm

Understand? Yes? No?
We generally consider the systems on the microscopic level, like kinetic energy of the molecules in my demonstration. Did you watch the demonstration? Yes? No? What does mean evolve? Is it anything else but not another semantic trick conducted in order to pull T-cs to evolution?
Since what year did T-c systems start to evolve?

Otherwise your statement is not different from my statement, and you understand neither yours nor mine.

Where am I? How am I? As usual you guys spit meaningless accusations and never have a thought that you are expected to back up them with something in an intelligent conversation.

Look:


Go to YOUR cycle in the T-S diagram. Project 1-2 process straight down to the axis S and mark the point on the axis S as Smin. Project 3-4 process straight down to the axis S and mark the point on the axis S as Smax.

Hold on, let me google to bring it to the screen for a chance if you can’t do it in your mind…
http://www.mae.wvu.edu/~smirnov/mae320/figs/F9-10.jpg

here b is my Smin and a is my Smax – my way is accurate because we are talking about entropy S and min/max – I will not rewrite, those who can understand do understand.

Note: Do you see how 2’ and 3’ prove my point that you have no literacy in T-cs? Did you understand that in my previous post? Do you see the illustration of my point in the result of random googling?

Originally posted by me and quoted by you:
“Look: “Isolating T’”. Go back to T. Your efficiency is higher when the Pressure ratio is higher. The pressure ratio is higher when T2 is higher. For the sake of sanity – look at the T-S diagram. The higher is(are) T2 and/or T3 the bigger is the area of the cycle, the more work is produced”.

Understand? Yes? No?

Let’s make it easier. Forget about your failure. Erase 2’ and 3’, erase my proof and leave your original process expressed in your equations.

You should see that in your process: 1->2, S=const.; 2->3, S increases. ; 3-4, S=const. ; 4->1 S decreases. The cycle ends in 0 change of S, because it comes to the point where it started, being ideal. Understand? Yes? No?

A. Now calculate the area inside lines Smin- 2-3-Smax. It is all energy available. (Calculating you INTEGRATE ∫TdS, - what else are integrals for?)
B. Now calculate the area Smin-1-4-Smax. This is energy not used (wasted). (Calculating you INTEGRATE ∫TdS, - what else are integrals for?)

Subtract B number from A number. What do you have in the result? Any clue? Yes? No?

In the result you have the amount of Work produced. Do you see the connection between S and W now? Yes? No?

Now do (A-B)/A – In the result you have efficiency of the cycle.

For Work to be positive=produced Smax-Smin has to be, which mean has to be positive, dS>0.

And this is unfair, because all you want to do is to confuse the cleaning lady by mathematics. Nobody is interested to read diagrams or math. N-O-B-O-D-Y.

Efficiency is area 1-2-3-4 divided by area Smin-2-3-Smax, and it is always less than 1. The 2nd law states exactly that. You cannot divert all Qh to W, but some of it goes to Qc, says the giver of the 2nd law.

In all of all, you have not made a single objection to my statements regarding T-cs/equations.

None.
Zero.
Zilch.

It tells, isn’t it, people?
But instead you’ve just made another exhibition of atheism. All the same. When atheists send me to take physics 101 as the only possible reply they can make, what can I say?


Oh, another thought… Do you understand at all what I’ve been pointing to? Do you think you can try to follow? Did they make you crawl on your knees over real T-S, i-P diagrams plotting processes or it was atheism and only atheism?


Posted by you:

http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-17.html#post3855859

http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-17.html#post3855839

Two more priceless exhibitions of intellectuality of atheism are added to the collection.

Look at the only tool atheists have been using in order to win a debate.. Why do atheists always win a debate? Because no matter what are arguments and facts they always can pull their pants down, turn around and produce a fart and a giggle. Very intellectual.

Oh, I have just missed this one. http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-life-research-standstill-17.html#post3855859

Adding to the collection.

Edit. Atheists keep on coming with more and more ad homs and strawmen. Adding pegasuss.

 

Who said I was an Atheist? I'm going to have to simply make a video for you. Obviously you have absolutely no educational history of Physics whatsoever.

 

Please tell me you did not just say you integrate a STATE variable...



Is this what happens when Armchair Physics meets the religious?

 

I said:” Look at the only tool atheists have been using in order to win a debate. Why do atheists always win a debate? Because no matter what are arguments and facts they always can pull their pants down, turn around and produce a fart and a giggle.”

“arguments and facts” include the fact of education. One may have the highest formal education, but why do atheists always win a debate? Because no matter what is one’s education they always can pull their pants down, turn around and produce a fart and a giggle.


The fact of one’s formal education in physics and T-cs does not matter for atheists. I just posted a link to the work of Kelvin – the giver of the 2nd law on the matter of the discussion. ( I have not submitted any kind of my own opinion or impression yet, I am just watching the scientific community trying to get Kelvin, the giver of the 2nd law.) Has his education and his article on the 2nd law made even a dent in religious fanaticism of atheists? Yes? No? How many times did I ask mods to make a poll?

I told you: “atheists reading your reply will be sure that you have answered the point even if all of them see with their own eyes that you have not. This is how atheistic minds work.

I just like to expose psychological problems of atheists. So thanks again for helping.


There is not a single agnostic or an atheist who reading your words wouldn’t think and know for sure in his mind that you got me. ”

Also I told you and bolded it for you “In all of all, you have not made a single objection to my statements regarding T-cs/equations.

None.
Zero.
Zilch.
It tells, isn’t it, people?”

There is not a single agnostic or an atheist who reading your words wouldn’t think and know for sure in his mind that you got me by defining S as a STATE variable. All atheists and agnostics are opening champagne.

The facts which are inaccessible for minds of atheists and agnostics are:

Defining S as a state ( ONLY) variable and applying such a definition to the irrelevant to conversation process is an expression of atheism, which in simple words is an idiocy.


I can google and post a few related results confirming that ANY variable can be integrated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral
“Integration is an important concept in mathematics …Given a function ƒ of a real VARIABLE x and an interval [a, b] of the real line, the definite integral is defined informally to be the net signed AREA … “

What did I tell you?

And 2 more questions:
Have you taken a sinple integral ever in your life in odrder to to understand what is formal education?
Have you ever taken a triple integral (posted by Lord Kelvin) in order to claim that you have some formal education?

I can google and post a few related results showing how entropy IS integrated
http://www.thebigger.com/chemistry/...thermodynamics/explain-the-entropy-principle/

‘’Thus it may be concluded that entropy … can never decrease. It always increases with every irreversible process and remains constant when the process is reversible. This is known as principle of entropy increase or in other words the entropy of principle.’’
What did I tell you?

I also suggested that if you claimed that you were just done with Thermodynamics to bring my posts to your professor and have him ( you should have the right to demand if you’ve paid him) to get me.

Why have I done this? I don’t know. Any educated person can see that I just have repeated myself. Any uneducated person with common sense can see that it was not needed because you made no attempt to counter the basic equation of T-cs with another exhibition of illiteracy.

I think I have done this in order to demonstrate the winning argument of scientists and intellectuals - no matter what are arguments and facts they always can pull their pants down, turn around and produce a fart and a giggle – coming as a reply to math and physics.

Do it again.

 

Integrating a state variable is nonsensical because it doesn't matter how point a reaches point b. Thats the definition of a state variable. As for the rest of your anti-intellectual and irrelevant rants about Atheists, Agnostics, and Thermodynamics, I am not going to waste my time communicating to someone that has lost all connections with reality. This is the precise reason why those in academia only communicate with others in academia about the sciences, it's because dealing with morons like yourself is frustrating as hell. People say it's elitism but it clearly isn't.