John Cuthber

OK, How does "This Paper" explain spontaneous endothermic reactions? Also, don't pretend that telling me to read it answers the question. Answer the question here in this thread.

"A two inch cube of polonium-210 would emit 140kW" That's about 600 ml of volume. The density is about 9 so It would weigh about 6. Kg 1 mg is about 4 curies So you have 24 MCi of radioactive material About 50mCi killed someone and that dose is estimated as about 200 times the lethal dose. So the lethal dose is about 250µCi So 24,000,000 Ci is about 100,000,000,000 times the lethal dose for a human. And, in the event of the spacecraft exploding... And don't forget that with 210 Po the generator has a half life of about 6 months (data from wiki, but any errors in maths are my own responsibility.

Why? What's the point of telling you again? You plainly didn't pay attention when DJBruce told you in the second post in this thread. You ignored it again when Janus pointed it out. Still, just in case the thrid repetition gets the message through to you: Division by zero is not defined.

Whereas you are only wrong on one level. The fact that division by zero is not defined and so your "explanation" of the universe has no meaning.

I'm not a big bible scholar. I know that Leviticus had stuff to say about homosexuality but as far as I know Obama didn't ever say he was a "Leviticusian." What does the bible say that Christ actually said on the issue?

The idea is like trying to put a pin into a balloon to let just a bit of the air out.

Well, I can't answer for Mississippichem, but I think it's random symbols.

It might be possible to get this to work, but I'd give some serious thought to the risk of generating a mixture of oxygen and gas.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you pretend that spontaneous endothermic reactions are irrelevant to a discussion of entropy. Answer the question.

I suspect the difference in terminology arose the other way round. When people first studied animal behaviour (and the things you talk about are not restricted to primates) they knew perfectly well that those behaviours were also found in humans. But it wouldn't have looked very good in the learned journals to describe the animals as "out on the pull" or whatever.

No it isn't. but perhaps you should start ( as the rules require) by answering the question put to you earlier. How do you explain spontaneous endothermic reactions?

If I see a man in the street then what actually happens is that I receive radiation reflected from him. There's a small lag because it takes time for the light to reach my eyes. Would you then say "if you want to make up a story about how that came from something in the past (a man in the street) that was never observed, it is taken by faith that it happened if you believe it"? Why do you think there's a difference?

Do you realise that you are not making sense. I pointed out that I have directly observed the radiation from the big bang. Your reply is " it was never observed ". Plain wrong. It has been observed many times in a whole variety of ways. Just plain denying the truth doesn't help you here.

""a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," did anyone see/observe with an electron microscope/ohm meter/hplc etc etc the "big bang"" Nope, I saw it with my television set. A good part of the "snow" you see between channels on a tv is the cosmic background radiation- the afterglow of the big bang. What did you think your point was? Anyway, perhaps more importantly. In the dame way that all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles. All religions are sets of beliefs, but not all sets of beliefs are religions. The difference is faith- if you believe something without evidence then it's most probably a religion. That's especially likely if you are going to carry on believing it, even when it's shown to be wrong.

You need to do a lot more research before you carry on playing with explosives.

Some time ago in the lab I spilled some trimethyl-pentane on the bench. It evaporated quite quickly- much more so than water would have done. This is because, at room temperature the water has a much lower vapour pressure. The two liquids have pretty much the same boiling points. Why do you think the gradient of the vapour pressure vs temperature curve is so much steeper for isooctane than for water?

LOL

To be honest, after 20 years of never having had occasion to use it, I can't remember the derivation of the expression. But I can show you where I read it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Entropy-Energy-Levels-Oxford-Chemistry/dp/0198554893 If you get a copy (and I'm sure any book on statistical mechanics would do the job just as well) then you can see the answers to your questions. "1、 what is K ln (W) ？ 2、 why the factor is k ? " It's not a thick book, and most of the explanations are fairly clear. Perhaps you would like to show exactly where they are wrong.

Sorry, but I think you will need to explain what you are looking for.

"Can 0/0 explain the universe?" No.

So, the answer to my question "Can you show data that strictly rules out zero?" is "No". Fair enough, but why clutter up the place with that stuff about Tesla? Did you think it helped in some way? And, for the record, you still introduced "V ether " with no justification. That's not even close to being science.

Lots of words. None of them stops me calculating K ln(W). In a way, it even helps. Here's a quote from the wiki page about Liouville's theorem "Physical interpretation The expected total number of particles is the integral over phase space of the distribution: A normalizing factor is conventionally included in the phase space measure but has here been omitted. In the simple case of a nonrelativistic particle moving in Euclidean space under a force field with coordinates and momenta , Liouville's theorem can be written This is similar to the Vlasov equation, or the collisionless Boltzmann equation, in astrophysics. The latter, which has a 6-D phase space, is used to describe the evolution of a large number of collisionless particles moving under the influence of gravity and/or electromagnetic field. In classical statistical mechanics, the number of particles is very large, (typically of order Avogadro's number, for a laboratory-scale system). Setting gives an equation for the stationary states of the system and can be used to find the density of microstates accessible in a given statistical ensemble." The number of microstates is the w that I need to calculate the natural log of and multiply by Boltzmann's constant to get the entropy.

What's the point of this thread? As far as I can see all the issues were already covered here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61324-science-proves-twin-towers-were-demolished/ And here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/24987-911-wtc-molten-metal/ And here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/17133-is-this-thermite/page__hl__thermate And in each case the science says the same thing.

In what circumstances do you suppose that K ln (W) does not exist? As far as I can tell there are no relevant circumstances, so your suggestion is based on a false premise.

When the last copy of that paper crumbles into dust S will still be K ln (w) , just as it always has been.