Little Hawk:

The art of Advanced Knowledge Management is in focusing at least 51% of the available attention to intersect with at least 51% of the information that has a relative truth value of more than .7 (where 1 = complete certainty).

If you have ever tried to manage knowledge (as a teacher or librarian does every day) this principle is self-evident. You need to get available attention and delicately or not get it applied to information that has a positive truth value. That truth value of course depends on your methods of evaluating truth, hence the certainty factor.

Unfortunately this effort is rendered doubly complex, at least, by the plasticity of viewpoints which traverse the multiverse, such as Rapaire's, and which are notorious for high indices of plasticity in the framing of certainty equations. This makes for artificial certainties in regions of heuristically abysmal truth value (cf. Little Hawk).

Here again the truism is self evident once understood. All it says is that some people have very sloppy ways of defining certainty and relative truth, and will assign validity to almost any old thing. For example, Rapaire invokes scientific formulas of no relevance to support outlandish assertions, hoping no-one will look them up. Your own method of this offense is more Disneyoid.

IF you have further questionsd about this, why not rely on Rapaire to explain them to you? I am sure he can relate them to Carnot's theorem of reversible engines. The following may help him bridge these apparently disparate spheres:

For 1 kmole:
Q41=Cv(T4-T1)
Q32=Cv(T3-T2)
For the 2 adiabatic processes:
T2V2
( -1)=T1V1
( -1)
T3V2
( -1)=T4V1
( -1)
It follows that:
N=1-(T4-T1)/(T3-T2)