>>13543839This entire post is complete denial bullshit and I'm not even going to bother with it except for this one hilarious part:
>Literally any other among shittons of them for no other reason than being less obviously flawed?Literally, name one. Not just your made up bullshit of course, quote someone saying there is a different model of MsD.
Ignoring the fact that he was trying to debunk maxwell's demon so he choose, Maxwell's demon, it's absurd you think he was trying to sneak in an easy win by selectively choosing the "easiest version" or some nonsense. He verbatim quoted Maxwell.
>>13543842>(fuck character limits)Tends to happen when you invent bullshit. It's easy to be concise when you know what you're talking about.
>Outside of your imaginary world it does so long you use the proper apparatus Name this proper apparatus.
>Make astronauts tied together by a tetherI never said they weren't
>release the spring A spring produces a conservative force I've said does not apply in this hypothetical several times now: you can't control when it releases unless you exert energy to pause the springs movement. Trust me kid, I'm an ME and know how mechanical apparatuses work.
>release the spring by a frictionless latchROFL See!?!?! It's perpetually inputting energy into the system to move the latch instead of the door (unless latch is massless) which leaves you with the exact same KE to PE dilemma. You haven't produced a different model, you are just adding extra unnecessary steps until you get to the same part that invalidates the model you failed to change and confusing yourself into thinking it's different bc a latch is smaller than a door. Amateur!
You ignored my thermodynamic irreversibilities argument too (Ooops that wasn't mentioned in the nature paper maybe I've been thinking all this up myself all along?), you probably don't even know what that word means.
You can't win, just stop trying already. You're making a fool of yourself
