NavajoEverclear Posted June 11, 2003 Posted June 11, 2003 I wonder if anyone intentionally ever posts in the psuedoscience section---- well today I am. By the way you should all read 'Psuedoscience for the responsible'---- I personally think that Adams first statement is great proof for the existence of the 10 commandments, if you want you can read my ideas about how everything is about faith anyway, which is currently on the front page. But I think may favorite is the theory that socks are clothes-hanger larvae----- just out of curiosity does anyone who lives alone experience the phenomenon of vanishing socks? If so then I think hogslayer should get that theory published and written into all new science books. ANYWAY ON WITH MY THEORY. Actually i don't believe this anymore, but at one time I was quite convinced myself: Time is a measurement of heat. First lets talk about absolute Zero. Say there is a machine that can achieve abosolute zero--- the temperature gets colder as the power to a certain chamber of this machine is increased. Well all you do is give it more power than needed to achieve absolute zero, and it will definately happen. Just forget however the heck that is possible for right now. Now at absolute zero, there is absolutely no particle movement. If there is no movement, there is no time being experienced. Time is something that just nessisarily happens when something moves from one place to another: it takes time. If there is no movement, which there is not movement when there is no heat, then Time is turned off. Time decreases as Heat decreases. TIME IS THE SAME THING AS HEAT.
fafalone Posted June 11, 2003 Posted June 11, 2003 What about gravity, since this is an interaction between mass and spacetime; so how could a particle frozen in time interact with objects not frozen in time? (Gravity does not go away at absolute zero as far as I know.)
Radical Edward Posted June 11, 2003 Posted June 11, 2003 I know that when you are cold, seconds feel like hours, but time doesn't stretch with temperature. in fact, in particle accelerators high energy (and hence bloody hot) particles last alot longer than low energy ones. Granted this is to do with special relativity, but having said that it desn'T sit well with what you said.
Sayonara Posted June 11, 2003 Posted June 11, 2003 You can fix these problems by changing the theory to "Time is a measurement of heat somewhere". If you want to see deliberate pseudscience, look for "Giant Squid Built the Nazca Lines", "Another Blow for Physics", "Dinosaurs alive and well" or Blike's rivetting epic, "Physics is WRONG".
Michael F. D. Posted June 17, 2003 Posted June 17, 2003 You are not far from the truth. The Universe from the begining had got its amount of time (the energy) and super high temperature. Since a moment X ( BB ?) there was the start of countdown of time and, consequently, the reduction of energy and temperature. Certainly, this does not mean that Time= Temperature , but the straight proportional dependency is obvious. Existence of the absolute zero is required for universe, but its achievement is endless at time. It's possible reach via spending the whole energy of universe. This will happens when counter of time of universe will reach at zero importance.
Radical Edward Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. You are not far from the truth. The Universe from the begining had got its amount of time (the energy) and super high temperature. Since a moment X ( BB ?) there was the start of countdown of time and, consequently, the reduction of energy and temperature. Certainly, this does not mean that Time= Temperature , but the straight proportional dependency is obvious. Existence of the absolute zero is required for universe, but its achievement is endless at time. It's possible reach via spending the whole energy of universe. This will happens when counter of time of universe will reach at zero importance. but it looks like the universe will not end, which kind of rubbishes your theory.
Michael F. D. Posted June 18, 2003 Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward but it looks like the universe will not end, which kind of rubbishes your theory. Do you acknowledge the infinity of space of universe? Then you should acknowledge the infinity of time also. The space does not exist without of time. Existence of the absolute zero of temperature (- 273 C) and impossibility of its achievement under no circumstances were proved by Kelvin (W. Tomson) more than 100 years ago.
Michael F. D. Posted June 20, 2003 Posted June 20, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Oh, this should be good Is it means YES? Or , may be NO. Of course, for universe only. Not for us. Or for us also? Explain, please.
Michael F. D. Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 It is possible to consider the temperature as a signal which starts up an corresponding program of operation of object. This is graphically seen on example of water. In the small range of the temperature, it can be in three different conditions - hard, fluid and gaseous.
greg1917 Posted July 1, 2003 Posted July 1, 2003 This is graphically seen on example of water. In the small range of the temperature, it can be in three different conditions - hard, fluid and gaseous Whut? No it bloody cant, what water are you talking about? the kind that has a time cycle I suppose. Water, like any other substance, will change state depending on the temperature.
Michael F. D. Posted July 1, 2003 Posted July 1, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Whut? No it bloody cant, what water are you talking about? the kind that has a time cycle I suppose. Water, like any other substance, will change state depending on the temperature. I wonder at your reaction. You reject my offer as invalid. Then you are talking the same thing, confirming that this faithfully. The USUAL WATER changes the state depending on the temperature. Exactly the temperature starts this process. This is a reliable fact.
greg1917 Posted July 1, 2003 Posted July 1, 2003 I reject your offer as invalid because of there is no program of operation of an object when temperature 'starts'. It blindly changes state and will not exist in all thee states in a narrow range of temperature at one time.
Michael F. D. Posted July 1, 2003 Posted July 1, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 I reject your offer as invalid because of there is no program of operation of an object when temperature 'starts'. It blindly changes state and will not exist in all thee states in a narrow range of temperature at one time. Are you sure? Then you should acknowledge as invalid a following facts, observations and theories: - within the range of the temperature ( -1C ... +1C ) a water can be in hard, fluid and gaseous condition; - all alive objects at the change of temperature does changes the program of operation - a plants throws the foliage, animals falls into the hibernation etc; - a local temperature of terrain forms the specific type of objects existing here; - a chemical reactions occurs under determined warm-up condition; - a physical nucleus reactions of the fission and merging occurs at super high temperature; - after BB, the universe passed all known stages of evolution in accordance with change (the reduction) of temperature; The Earth is a demonstrative and available for observation an example of complex system with automatic regulation. Here temperature, falling down to the range which is possible for life, holds at this range a billion years already. This is not a casual blind coincidence of external and internal conditions. This is realization of the program of existence of object, which is occurs in accordance with the law of conservation of life (time) cycle.
greg1917 Posted July 1, 2003 Posted July 1, 2003 If you ever measure water at -1C then the thermometer is broken. If you measure water vapour at -1C or +1C then theres no water vapour present because it will have condensed.. Animals reacting to temperatures demonstrates nothing to do with some sort of universal temeprature law that your blindly spewing, if im cold i put on an extra layer of clothing. Landscapes and objects being formed by local temperatures also, surprisingly, do not point to a program of operation of object or a time cycle theory, ITS JUST GEOLOGY and other earth sciences. Chemical reactions dont operate below certain temperatures due to collision theory, nothing to do with a program of operation. Im going for a ciggarette.
Sayonara Posted July 1, 2003 Posted July 1, 2003 Michael, you are drawing tenous links between completely different principles, processes and situations and ending up with what we call a "house of cards". This term is usually used to describe a theory that a 10-year-old child could destroy with very little research.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now