So, it doesn't actually contain the Planck constant or Plank time as you once claimed?
Yes it does. To be precise, Planck time is inverse of the maximal number of macro interactions.
Essentially, your just making stuff up to put in there, like your events/particles, where is this coming from?
No.
Earlier you claimed you had separated the 1/2 from the Planck constant, or is it Planck time, or wait, hold on, it's the inverse of Planck time (is that your final answer?). You still don't get to just pop new units into the equation.
Forgive me for not being precise. illy. I did not realize you were this anal. Had I known I would have been very exact in my terms. Given that I evened it out to 10^150 (giving chance an undeserved advantage) the 1/2 is inconsequential.
BTW, 10^81 is an estimation of number of atoms, while Planck time is the time it takes a photon to travel a Plank length. Seems like you're comparing photons to atoms. A bit worse than an apples to oranges comparison.
An ad lib of sorts in the pursuit of 10^150?
You are despicable for accusing me of a lie I did not commit.
I could have used the maximal number of organisms estimated to have ever lived on earth, the maximum observed replication rate or the maximal rate of chemical reaction kinetics and earth time and come to a number somewhere around 10^75. Do you prefer that number?
Also, what happened to your mass equivalent, how are we accounting for mas/energy interchange?
The General Theory of Relativity will provide the answer you seek.
Anal?
Excuse me, but WTF are you talking about? You came on here with claims of this "universal probability limit", and the equation was utter nonsense, you change it twice, and it still has some big problems (you arbitrarily inserting in units to influence the outcome).
When I ask for an equation that works, you try all manner of childish tactics. Calling me nasty, questioning my ability to comprehend scientific concepts, demanding that I make certain absolutist claims before you will answer yours.
It took you till page two to even show what values you were using, and you still haven't posted a complete equation (that incorporates both units and values for the variables into one equation). Any questions you can't handle you ignore, or insult my intelligence, or just name another concept without explaining how it justifies the original claim that you made and have yet to back.
Earlier you claimed you had separated the 1/2 from the Planck constant, or is it Planck time, or wait, hold on, it's the inverse of Planck time (is that your final answer?). You still don't get to just pop new units into the equation.
Forgive me for not being precise. illy. I did not realize you were this anal. Had I known I would have been very exact in my terms. Given that I evened it out to 10^150 (giving chance an undeserved advantage) the 1/2 is inconsequential.
You know damn well what I'm talking about and now you're playing dumb to try to avoid the reality that you are arbitrarily inserting units. I've said multiple times that the 1/2 isn't the issue. The events/particle is the issue. You made it up, that's why you can't put your units and values in one equation. There is no value for "events/particles". It's why you haven't posted up the equation, complete with units and values in the same expression. This is something you should have done in your OP.
So, let me re-hash this once more.
Here are your equation(s):
Universal probability limit = Maximal number of macro particles (particles) * 1/2 (events/particles) * Maximal frequency of macro events (1/sec) * Universal elapsed time (sec) = maximal universal macro events.
10^81 * 1/2 *10^43 * 5*10^17 = 10^141.
Why is it necessary for you to write the units and the values separate? The 1/2 is, as you claim insignificant when talking 10^any power, so why did you put it in? It's simple, you couldn't just pop in events/particles by itself, or you would have one more variable in the unit equation than the value equation, you needed a value, no matter how insignificant, to add up to four variables for your value equation. That's why 1/2 is the only value that appears in the units equation. Did you think I wouldn't notice?
Why did you just arbitrarily pop "events/particles" in? Because it is the ONLY place in the equation other than the "maximal macro events" that "events" appears. Without it you couldn't come up with "events" in your final product and IT HAS NO BASIS FOR BEING THERE. You understand that I'm not going to buy a BS equation where the units don't work out, so you had to add /particles to get rid of the atoms you're erroneously trying to equate with photons. You didn't assign a value, the 1/2 comes Planck time according to you (we both know it 1/2 isn't in the description of Planck time, but it's the least of your problems) You didn't assign a value for the events/particles, because you know you can't.
You're talking about photons (or why else would you even use Planck time?), which as quantized energy can neither be created or destroyed. You didn't put in events/(particles * seconds), you put in events/particles. There is no time dimension, it can only mean events over the entire life of the photon (which cannot be created or destroyed), and that makes the term meaningless.
You can't just pop units in arbitrarily. If I have a jar of jelly beans, (expressed as 1,000 jelly beans/1 jar), I can't say: 1000 jelly beans/1 jar * ((dollars*jars/beans) = $1,000. Hey, look at me, I just created money from jelly beans.
It doesn't work. Anyone with a
chemical engineering degree any type of college degree high school diploma little common sense knows that. You know that, I don't doubt that you do.
Truth be told, this is what concerns me. You know math, you know science, and instead of using your knowledge to assist other people in understanding the world, you use it to confuse them, you use it to lie (and you have, multiple times in this thread), you use it to bully those who disagree with you, and you use it for propaganda purposes. You use it to foster ignorance.
This is what is despicable, this is what is nasty.
