[Bored chemist]

No

M + M = M    and S + S = S

OK, hwy are you assuming that both M and S are zero?
Previously you said S was 1.

Are you trolling, or just really really bad at maths?

[guest39538]

1 + 1 = 1

m + m =  m = 1

S + S = S  = 1

Where is the 0 ?

[Bored chemist]

1 + 1 = 1

'nuff said.

[Bored chemist]

Where is the 0 ?

It's the only number for which S + S =S
0 +0 =0 works
No other number does.

[guest39538]

I thought chemists suppose to know that  two things merged/combined,  become one.   

1+1=1

1 rain drop +  1 rain  drop merged does not equal 2 raindrops . It equals one .

[The Spoon]

1+1= 1

Yet you post in another thread:

attached is a pdf presentation proposing a hypothesis that tries to quantize gravity

1+1=2

Couldn't be more simpler

To answer BC's question as to whether trolling or bad at maths , obvious trolling from the self confessed 'King of the Trolls'

[Bored chemist]

I thought chemists suppose to know that  two things merged/combined,  become one.   

Chemists understand that when you combine two things you get something different, not the same thing.
Mathematicians understand the same thing.

In the case of raindrops, meteorologists understand that raindrops are formed from the combination of droplets that are too small to fall as rain because the up-draft in clouds keeps them airborne.

The only one who doesn't understand this seems to be you.
 

[guest39538]

I thought chemists suppose to know that  two things merged/combined,  become one.   

Chemists understand that when you combine two things you get something different, not the same thing.
Mathematicians understand the same thing.

In the case of raindrops, meteorologists understand that raindrops are formed from the combination of droplets that are too small to fall as rain because the up-draft in clouds keeps them airborne.

The only one who doesn't understand this seems to be you.
 

Congrats on getting me banned elsewhere,  for about the 20th time. 

You  must  be infatuated with me.

Two drops of water that join together in a cup become one, you are so silly at times.

[guest39538]

1+1= 1

Yet you post in another thread:

attached is a pdf presentation proposing a hypothesis that tries to quantize gravity

1+1=2

Couldn't be more simpler

To answer BC's question as to whether trolling or bad at maths , obvious trolling from the self confessed 'King of the Trolls'

Yeah that's right, I am king of the trolls and also the king of science because I know more than science.  The end

Go away, you and chemist are like stalkers,

[Bored chemist]

Go away

It's very easty to stop me replying to all  your posts and pointing out the holes in them.
Stop posting stuff that's full of holes.

I know more than science.

If you know so much, why don't you post it instead of the trash you have posted so far?

[Bored chemist]

Congrats on getting me banned elsewhere,  for about the 20th time. 

I doubt I have got anyone banned anywhere.
I also don't think I post on anything like 20 fora.
You are not being rational.

You  must  be infatuated with me.

No.
I just like to try to set the record straight about science by  pointing out the nonsense in your posts here. This is meant to be a science forum. It would be better if you stopped cluttering it up with dross.

Two drops of water that join together in a cup become one, you are so silly at times.

And what do you think "S" is in your post?
It's conventionally used to represent entropy.
Entropy does not behave like raindrops.

[guest39538]

And what do you think "S" is in your post?
It's conventionally used to represent entropy.
Entropy does not behave like raindrops.

S is entropy like it suppose to mean.

A raindrop is made of atoms, the atoms and the raindrop have an entropy.  I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.

[Bored chemist]

OK, entropy follows the normal rules for arithmetic.
1 + 1 = 2
So you are wrong (as usual).

I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.

I suggest you get a mirror.

[guest39538]

OK, entropy follows the normal rules for arithmetic.
1 + 1 = 2
So you are wrong (as usual).

I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.

I suggest you get a mirror.

Your not considering that two drops of water have the same viscosity so have no problem merging to become one.

[Bored chemist]

OK, entropy follows the normal rules for arithmetic.
1 + 1 = 2
So you are wrong (as usual).

I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.

I suggest you get a mirror.

Your not considering that two drops of water have the same viscosity so have no problem merging to become one.

I am ignoring a whole suite of measured properties and comparing entropy to the group in which it belongs.
Density, for example, is an intensive property.
A drop of water has the same density as 2 drops, or a bucketful.
Viscosity, refractive index, dielectric constant and temperature ( as well as many others) do the same.

However, entropy is an extensive property.

This has been known about for a long time; the words intensive and extensive in this context were coined about a hundred years ago.

So, as usual the problem is that I know science, but you don't.

Do you enjoy looking foolish?
If not, I suggest that you learn more and post less.

[guest39538]

OK, entropy follows the normal rules for arithmetic.
1 + 1 = 2
So you are wrong (as usual).

I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.

I suggest you get a mirror.

Your not considering that two drops of water have the same viscosity so have no problem merging to become one.

I am ignoring a whole suite of measured properties and comparing entropy to the group in which it belongs.
Density, for example, is an intensive property.
A drop of water has the same density as 2 drops, or a bucketful.
Viscosity, refractive index, dielectric constant and temperature ( as well as many others) do the same.

However, entropy is an extensive property.

This has been known about for a long time; the words intensive and extensive in this context were coined about a hundred years ago.

So, as usual the problem is that I know science, but you don't.

Do you enjoy looking foolish?
If not, I suggest that you learn more and post less.

Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is, I am not doing all the work , that is not fair it is not my job, I do not get paid for my time.  I may be going off-line about Monday, internet going off as I am poor and my children come first, So if I do or go off before hand , I wish you all well and happiness and good luck for the future.

[Bored chemist]

Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,

Liar.

Google can find no reference to the phrase.
You have not told us about it.
You are making stuff up

I am not doing all the work , that is not fair it is not my job, I do not get paid for my time. 

If you had done any work that would be apparent- it would show in the evidence you have supplied.
But you have provided none. All you have done is cite yourself as evidence of your own beliefs.

My job is something else. It's nothing to do with posting here.
I post here for no reward except the satisfaction of trying to keep the dross  out of the mainstream.

You have not been doing any work. I have done some.
I looked at the science regarding extensive and intensive properties.
If you had done that you wouldn't have wasted the bandwidth you did.

If you really have children who depend on you , and yet you spent time and money posting nonsense here then you did them an obvious disservice.
Only you are responsible for that.

[guest39538]

Liar.

Google can find no reference to the phrase.
You have not told us about it.
You are making stuff up

Nice try, I have give you enough, you does not mean you personally Mr C , you know that.   It is not my fault if you can't spot the pieces I have put in threads.  I had to go through loads of  science jigsaw pieces to build my picture. It took over ten years.
I know what I know , I happy for me, not for you or anybody else, it is my knowledge I have learnt . I am feeling quite proud of myself. 
Think I am bad at ''destroying'' science, the next generation of me, my daughter who is only eleven, will be the  new improved model of me. Not because I teach her my ideas, but because she is really smart.  I tried to tell her earlier that time slowed down in speeds up and is called time dilation.  She destroyed me in about 2 minutes using music lengths and tempos.  A length is a length she said and counting fast or slow makes no difference to the length.
I tried to defend time dilation, she said no and counted fast then slow to prove me wrong.  I have told her nothing of my ideas because of her education, they are going to have their hands full indeed when she goes to high school in September. She can do maths and is highly respected by her teachers, watch out future.

[Bored chemist]

Nice try, I have give you enough, you does not mean you personally Mr C , you know that.

It doesn't matter who googles " space-time cyclones".
So it has nothing to do with me personally.

 It is not my fault if you can't spot the pieces I have put in threads. 

Yes it is.
Whose else could it be?

I am feeling quite proud of myself. 

What for?
Are you proud of trolling?
Proud of misunderstanding?
Proud of lying?
Or just proud of bragging?

she is really smart. 

Good for her, I wish her well.

She destroyed me in about 2 minutes

So has everyone else.

I tried to defend time dilation, she said no and counted fast then slow to prove me wrong. 

That suggests that you failed to explain time dilation to her.
No doubt someone will do it properly.

If she's interested I suggest you direct her to things like the Khan academy where she can find out about the real stuff, rather than your garbled, distorted version.

Even if you think the conventional view of science is hogwash, you will serve her interests best by letting her know what the conventional view is.
If you are wrong, she will be better informed about the world.
If you are right, she will know what it is that  she might want to disprove.

A good part of the reason you are not taken seriously here is that you plainly don't understand the science you are seeking to undermine.
You make more mistakes than progress.
So, you are almost certainly right to say "

my daughter who is only eleven, will be the  new improved model of me.

[guest39538]

It doesn't matter who googles " space-time cyclones".
So it has nothing to do with me personally.

I learnt to be like corporation, corporation is business.  Of course you can't  find anywhere on google what I know.