by: Philip Marsh
After having reading many of these people's ideas, I was astonished that they had been in science majors at all, because they don't know the difference between ionic vs. covalent molecular bonds, nor the difference between rust and corrosion. Nor does X (fill in the blank, they all argue with the Dark Doctrines!) know the difference between energy and entropy. Nor does X see anything different about the Second Law of Thermodynamics vs. other physical laws, other than that he imagines the Second Law is just a "measurement," unlike, say, measurements of gravity. I guess X was never able to complete the degree program in chemistry.
After attacking deliberately non-technical but correct statements about rust by Tani Jantsang, X must have been non-plussed by Diane Vera's hard-science replies, including two mathematical definitions of entropy she quoted from one of the finest undergraduate physics textbooks used in engineering schools, one in fact I studied from in a degree program. When rebutted and caught with his pants down, displaying his ignorance and pretentiousness, X resorts to semantical quibbling and stilted, pompous verbal forms that he feels carry authority, such as "...entropy is nought but," etc. Or X attacks on subjects unrelated, or confuses posts that others made and accuses one of us of making them. Or takes a post from some physica newsgroup and posts it, not realizing that it's agreeing with what we are saying! X wants to argue, he wants to fight and he doesn't let up. This is sublimated rage he exudes. X comes in many forms - but "they are all One Thing," as Tani Jantsang would say: Klippoths. They sing the same song, or variations of it.
Vera saved me a lot of trouble: no need for me to repeat scientific technicalities she has already mustered to expose and refute these pretentious liars. Before being cornered and resorting to these stilted and pseudo-authoritative verbal forms, X actually begins each of his misguided discussions with more honest verbal forms that reflect their initial, seemingly real tentativeness and uncertainty, like when they hesitantly offered the mistaken "I believe" about "modern" chemistry and physics no longer recognizing ionic bonds, or the "if I understand it correctly," verbal forms he later abandons when he is "caught being stupid." As Vera pointed out, the distinction between ionic and covalent molecular bonds is more alive and well than ever, though the lexicon has changed: now they are sometimes called covalent and electrovalent (ionic) bonds. They are quite different.
If X had not been a liar or a failed chemistry major, or a wannabe "fill in the blank," he would have instantly known that what Tani Jantsang was saying was true, because in chemically combining to form simple molecules, like sodium chloride (ionic) or ammonia (covalent), atoms seek to exhibit or complete the outer electron orbital shell, such as is seen in the noble gases, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon, which have 2, 8, 18, 32, etc. atoms in a completed outer shell respectively (these are called "magic numbers" by chemists). Esoteric as hell, but commonplace as hell to a chemistry major. This happens in both ionic and covalent bonding, but the only way it can happen for some bonding atoms is for one atomic nucleus to strip electrons off another, thereby ionizing both. In the case of covalent bonding, the outer electron shells of all the bonding atoms involved in a molecule can complete themselves by all the atomic nuclei involved attracting and sharing the electrons. I spoke to Tani about this, and she was already aware of the fundamental chemical principle of how atoms, in combining to form simple molecules, "strive to become noble." X might think talking this way is stupid, but chemists themselves use this colorful expression, and I also once heard a student of materials engineering them say that rust "creeps," another perfectly understandable but much more common metaphor than "atoms strive to become noble."
Even after X realizes he was wrong or forgot, and he sagaciously discourses at length on the ionic vs. covalent nature of the molecular bond in iron oxide, sagely cautioning us that Tani chose a "bad" example," he still lets his pants slip for all to see his diminutive genitals as he continues to reiterate past bloopers no competent chemistry major could ever make, blunders no one has pointed out to him yet, like thinking that immersing a nail or iron in water causes it to rust. To a chemist, rust and corrosion are different. Rust is only one form of corrosion. Acid rain causes corrosion that has nothing to do with rust, though rust may be present. Technically, rust is only caused by air with moisture present. Immersion in water does not cause rust, but rather a much different form of corrosion with rust present. Those old "rusty" nails he spoke of bringing up out of a body of water are not rusty: they are corroded. Corrosion is not just a worse form of rust. This is not semantics, it is science. A chemist knows the difference. X does not. It is esoteric, once again, but not to a competent chemistry major. Even in the shipbuilding industry, knowledgeable technicians know the difference between rust and corrosion, and they speak of how magnesium plates (called "sacrificial anodes") bolted to a ships hull near the propeller prevent the propeller from becoming corroded, not rusted, a term they reserve for what happens on decks. This is not merely a semantical difference or verbal usage difference (the favorite province of the know-nothing who needs semantics to cover up his ignorance), it is a real chemical difference having to do with the fact that rust, unlike salt-water corrosion (or even fresh water corrosion) is a flake-like hydrated iron oxide that cannot be produced by full and constant immersion in water.
Vera pointed out that entropy is impliedly different from the other laws or "forces" in Nature because it "guides" all the rest. Tani Jantsang said this too. This is true: many physical events are explainable using only one or two forces or laws, but the law of entropy is always there too - all the time. X would be correct to think this does not make it really different from the other laws, however, i. e. simply because it "always applies." I would agree to this. However, there is a better reason than Vera gave (didn't she give enough scientific technicalities to expect more from her - sheesh!) why the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the "law of entropy") is so much different from all the laws: it is the only law of physical science - bar none - that is time irreversible. This is an astonishing fact: all the other laws of physics are invariable with negative quantities substituted for positive ones in their equations. If any of you have access to an old movie projector, watch a film in reverse. What you will see is the impossible, something never observed but not in any way barred by any physical laws - except one: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I won't take this any further because I just remembered: X is not a chemistry major, not a physics major, not anything!
The idea that the values (numbers) in the two equations for entropy that Vera cited are not measurements of anything, but just "measurements," is as absurd as to say that the values in Newton's law of universal gravitation are just measurements, not measurements of anything, or even as absurd, as I think Filan pointed out, as saying that a child's height is not the measurement of anything - "only a measurement." If we are to believe X, there are many things we can measure, but they are not measuring anything. They are just free-floating numbers, I suppose, whose value we alone determine, a measuring process or performance by us. This is impossible: as Heisenberg tried to teach everyone, all measurement is an interaction of a measuring device and something being measured. This is fundamental to all physical science now. Once again, I have to concur with Filan who said this is reminiscent of a lot of un-Satanic nonsense he has read, as if X is saying we are measuring or merely talking about the measuring process itself, or something equally silly and confused.
X seems to think that there can be no change at all unless there is entropy, that change occurs and is real, but measuring it and calling it entropy adds nothing to the description of what is real, since this is just a measuring process and nothing real. The fact is, change without entropy is a perfectly conceivable state of affairs, though, as I said, we never see it, and that is why it is called a "law." If you want to see what it might be like to have change without entropy, do as I said above: watch a film in reverse.
I would very much like to meet X so he can show me how he uses entropy to do useful work with his computer. If he has found such a way, I will be the first to beat a path to his door to form a business combine with him to sell this truly revolutionary engineering feat on a par with a perpetual motion machine, as Vera has pointed out. All that I have seen so far in the computer industry is how very great amounts of energy are expended by manufacturers of computer hardware and software to produced better quality products more resistant to entropic database deterioration, equipment failure, etc. The more resistant to such entropic effects, the more costly the product, which is understandable, because a better quality product (more resistant to entropic effects and deterioration) takes more energy to produce, which is reflected in its price. X apparently thinks these price-adds for a better product are cheats: they are merely for some sort of more "measuring process" involved in the models which are offered as a company's "top-of-the-line."
The entire discussion on X's part is reminiscent of something I have both witnessed and read about among the Christian dualist (no-mind) types, proving once again that Tani's comparison and even equating of the two is valid: whenever confronted by the amazing facts and laws of this wondrous and profound non-anthropomorphic cosmos, these Christian Scholastics, Roman Church Archbishops, and idiot dualists (shit-disturbers) all get the same blank and troubled look on their faces, as if you are saying something that just makes no sense to them about "what is," and must be otherwise. Dr. Michael Aquino himself did this when confronted with the Big Bang theory of cosmogony. It must all, he feels, be otherwise, in keeping with his purely imaginary laws of working toward what he calls a "subtle, complex, 'unified field theory' of perfection: of truth as it is, conscious existence as it is...the very essence of consciousness and individuality." Sound a lot more like a theologian, like St. Thomas Aquinas, Berdyaev, Tillich or Niebuhr? They all really feels they are making sense here, and I know what they is saying, but they are not saying anything about the cosmos or Nature or Satan. But they imagines they are. They are really really saying something only about themselves, something of biographical value and interest, just like theologians are always doing. This is the kind of pompous grandiosity and inflation of speech identified on the Internet by Clifford "Cthulhu" Low as characteristic of Christian theologians.
In Roots One of Satanism I showed how the Christian world tried to co-opt Plato and thereby threw out the baby with the bathwater. What the TOS, Kevin Grant, all of them are doing is co-opting words from modern physics, such as "unified field" and using them in a wholly non-realistic way. They can't tell the difference. As Tani would say: Grasp the Enormity: they can not know that they do not know. In such matters, things are not merely opinion. They are either absolutely true or absolutely false: there is no debating such things.
With one glance e.g., at the TOS version of the origins of man and theory of evolution one is treated to something identical in format to "Creation Scientist" views. These are the kind of "non-thinking" forms such people dream up: and they can't tell the difference. The COS also has an origin of man evolutionary theory. I believe they refer their members to DARWIN and/or others of equal sanity. Man is an animal, exactly like any other. That's COS. There is nothing special about man, in fact man might be the only animal that has specimens that are completely thanatos. Such specimens would die among other animals.
In looking down upon the doctrines of COS as "simple" all the X's lose sight of the basic reality being spoken in "simple terms," to people by LaVey. Keep in mind: it was when Tani Jantsang chose to use baby talk to define chemistry and physics that the TOS members and others were exposed as not knowing anything about anything real; and further being too demented to even realize they don't know. Surely, it is easy to know if you don't grasp a thing: you can feel it. But if you are severed from feeling centers (alexithymia) then you can't feel it. The Platonic doctrine that Christians tried to co-opt states what modern neurology states. Without the feel of it, you can not even have the abstract thought about it and come out with anything resembling logic. Empirical and irrefutable hard sciences have come forth today to prove us right and, finally, dismiss the rest of the liars.
Copyright 1999-2004 by Philip Marsh