RogueScholar Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Again, I will continue to ask. Which has more thermal energy, the campfire or the iceberg? Answering this question really pushes us to the crux of beginning to understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. Are you not interested in understanding this rather nuisnced but important concept Justus? I fear I may just need to answer so others who are interested in the complex and nuanced world of thermodynamics will benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 22, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2016 Again, I will continue to ask. Which has more thermal energy, the campfire or the iceberg? Answering this question really pushes us to the crux of beginning to understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. Are you not interested in understanding this rather nuisnced but important concept Justus? I fear I may just need to answer so others who are interested in the complex and nuanced world of thermodynamics will benefit. He seems about as interested in understanding thermodynamics as he was in understanding natural selection... which is to say, not very. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Important notice! I've just made an alteration to the wording of the Preliminary Draft (#116) and added an explanatory note beneath it, clarifying my position and intentions. Thanks, BAA. BAA, You may wish to revise your draft to reference the following, which contains the quote attributed to Dr. Ed Tedesco (see numbered paragraph 6): http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html Thanks for this, Vigile. You've done what Justus should have and what the forum guidelines ask him to do. That is, provide a working link for a quotation. BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Justus, BAA thinks you're full of shit. He's just too nice to say it, IMHO. You think? Yet I still gave you the benefit of the doubt, Justus. But now that I think of it, do you have the link BAA spoke of in his post #95? Yes I do. And you are not obliged to give it - just expected to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Again, I will continue to ask. Which has more thermal energy, the campfire or the iceberg? Answering this question really pushes us to the crux of beginning to understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. Are you not interested in understanding this rather nuisnced but important concept Justus? I fear I may just need to answer so others who are interested in the complex and nuanced world of thermodynamics will benefit. Or you could contact Dr. Tedesco, RS, explain the situation here and see if he'd like to help? As one scientist to another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Again, I will continue to ask. Which has more thermal energy, the campfire or the iceberg? Answering this question really pushes us to the crux of beginning to understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. Are you not interested in understanding this rather nuisnced but important concept Justus? I fear I may just need to answer so others who are interested in the complex and nuanced world of thermodynamics will benefit. He seems about as interested in understanding thermodynamics as he was in understanding natural selection... which is to say, not very. And he's got us over a barrel, Prof. Since he's only expected to substantiate what he quotes, cites or claims and not obliged to do so ...he can do the same again and again. And there's nothing we can do except ask him to what is expected of him. He's free to refuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Justus, When you make positive claims, the onus is upon you to support those claims with verifiable evidence. This principle becomes especially important when you are making claims about a person, because of the potential injury you might inflict upon the reputation of the individual in question. BAA has been patiently attempting (without success I'm afraid) to bring you to an understanding of this; but you seem unwilling to accept his help. You have made the following claims about me: 1. That I claimed evolution must be believed in order to be understood 2. That I called you a christian 3. That I had a propensity for lying 4. That I put forth some kind of "immaculate evolution" theory which supposes the possibility of humans interbreeding with some other species. The onus is now upon you to substantiate the claims you have made against me. I note, again, and with much disgust, that in this thread, as in the thread for which I provided the link, you accuse me of lying. This is not a charge that I take lightly. Fortunately, we all have access to the same internet. This means that anyone who wishes can comb the webs looking for proof of the claims you have made against me, just as you can also. When those claims are proven, time and again, to be false, it will be quite evident which one of us deserves to be hung with the moniker of "liar". Go forth, now, little boy, and find the proof you need to support your scandalous libel, or be known for the liar you have proven yourself to be. Happy hunting, TheRedneckProfessor. So would you care to explain why the water 'boiled' in the vacuum, do you think the vacuum being pulled caused the increase of the vibration of the water molecules thus increasing the temperature or are you one of those dweebs who lacks any substance. It is obvious from your earlier responses you knew nothing about the fact that pulling a vacuum would cause the water to freeze or you wouldn't have said to effect that all you got to do is add liquid nitrogen to the water and it will freeze. That was rich! So enlighten us with your understanding of thermodynamics and explain how the water 'boiled' as they claimed in the video. I already said that the temperature of the water did not increase, or implied it, in my earlier question to RS in post # 113. So here is your chance to illuminate us with your sunshine or are you going to show your ass. Personally I think you are nothing but a scientist groupie who follows whatever is dictated to you, but I have been wrong before. Now don't faint like a girlie boy, breath. P.S. please don't give some lame response for the reason you won't answer, or it will be evident that your are FOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Again, I will continue to ask. Which has more thermal energy, the campfire or the iceberg? Answering this question really pushes us to the crux of beginning to understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. Are you not interested in understanding this rather nuisnced but important concept Justus? I fear I may just need to answer so others who are interested in the complex and nuanced world of thermodynamics will benefit. Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science a question on thermodynamics is beyond me, but if temperature is the measurement of the kinetic energy (being the motion of atoms inside a particle) of an object, then the fact that which is called 'empty space' has a measurable temperature obviously represents that kinetic energy is a flawed explanation for temperature since it contains no matter having mass, thus there would be no kinetic energy to measure. Let me guess, you look up at the stars at night and still can't see the light ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Justus, BAA thinks you're full of shit. He's just too nice to say it, IMHO. You think? Yet I still gave you the benefit of the doubt, Justus. But now that I think of it, do you have the link BAA spoke of in his post #95? Yes I do. And you are not obliged to give it - just expected to. You want a link, here's one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science . . . Well I did not expect such a humble and frank admission. So why not simply accept the explanation of others on maters of science and admit your religion is a mater of faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueScholar Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Again, I will continue to ask. Which has more thermal energy, the campfire or the iceberg? Answering this question really pushes us to the crux of beginning to understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. Are you not interested in understanding this rather nuisnced but important concept Justus? I fear I may just need to answer so others who are interested in the complex and nuanced world of thermodynamics will benefit. Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science a question on thermodynamics is beyond me, but if temperature is the measurement of the kinetic energy (being the motion of atoms inside a particle) of an object, then the fact that which is called 'empty space' has a measurable temperature obviously represents that kinetic energy is a flawed explanation for temperature since it contains no matter having mass, thus there would be no kinetic energy to measure. Let me guess, you look up at the stars at night and still can't see the light ? Temperature is not a "measure" of kinetic energy per se. It is directly proportional to the average kinetic energy of the particles in a system. For example, you measure the temperature of a room. The temperature does not tell you how much kinetic energy all the particles in the room have, but rather it gives you an idea about how much kinetic energy on average the particles that interact with the thermometer have. Indeed, some of the particles will have much more or significantly less kinetic energy than each other, but temperature is not a measure of every single particle, it is a reflection of the "average" kinetic energy. Regarding space; even the cold, dark vacuum of intergalactic space is not "empty." There are still particles out in space and even far away from any galaxy, these particles will be in equilibrium with the microwave background radiation, absorbing and emitting this low energy light with the occasional high energy interaction with a cosmic ray or a bit of higher energy light. However, on the average, their kinetic energy would be very low. Likewise, you could take a "warmer" object and place it into deep space and eventually it would be in equilibrium with the surrounding environment and would have a temperature that could be measured accordingly. Now, if you want, I can look at talking about thermal energy versus temperature? I hope you can see that I've approached this discuss in a sincere and respectful manner where I've more or less used the Socratic method as a way of catalysing the production of productive dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Justus, BAA thinks you're full of shit. He's just too nice to say it, IMHO. You think? Yet I still gave you the benefit of the doubt, Justus. But now that I think of it, do you have the link BAA spoke of in his post #95? Yes I do. And you are not obliged to give it - just expected to. You want a link, here's one Like this please, Justus. A working link to the page where the quote was taken from... http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules#.VqJYyfmLRD8 ...and then the quote itself, cut and pasted so that it can be verified by others. (The highlighted text is to draw your attention to what this forum's Moderators expect of you.) Quote mining/Information Pirating Definition Quote mining is when text from different sources are used excessively and the person is not adding any input or opinion of his own, while at the same time pretending the quote is something he or she made up. There's nothing wrong with quoting sources, but it's extremely important to make a note that it is in fact a quote, and also include the reference from which the quote was taken, and preferably a link to a web page with the full article. Thank you, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Again, I will continue to ask. Which has more thermal energy, the campfire or the iceberg? Answering this question really pushes us to the crux of beginning to understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. Are you not interested in understanding this rather nuisnced but important concept Justus? I fear I may just need to answer so others who are interested in the complex and nuanced world of thermodynamics will benefit. Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science a question on thermodynamics is beyond me, but if temperature is the measurement of the kinetic energy (being the motion of atoms inside a particle) of an object, then the fact that which is called 'empty space' has a measurable temperature obviously represents that kinetic energy is a flawed explanation for temperature since it contains no matter having mass, thus there would be no kinetic energy to measure. Let me guess, you look up at the stars at night and still can't see the light ? Temperature is not a "measure" of kinetic energy per se. It is directly proportional to the average kinetic energy of the particles in a system. For example, you measure the temperature of a room. The temperature does not tell you how much kinetic energy all the particles in the room have, but rather it gives you an idea about how much kinetic energy on average the particles that interact with the thermometer have. Indeed, some of the particles will have much more or significantly less kinetic energy than each other, but temperature is not a measure of every single particle, it is a reflection of the "average" kinetic energy. No disagreement there. Regarding space; even the cold, dark vacuum of intergalactic space is not "empty." There are still particles out in space and even far away from any galaxy, these particles will be in equilibrium with the microwave background radiation, absorbing and emitting this low energy light with the occasional high energy interaction with a cosmic ray or a bit of higher energy light. However, on the average, their kinetic energy would be very low. Likewise, you could take a "warmer" object and place it into deep space and eventually it would be in equilibrium with the surrounding environment and would have a temperature that could be measured accordingly. Ok, so you are saying that there is no 'empty space' in the expanse, or rather outer space? Now, if you want, I can look at talking about thermal energy versus temperature? I hope you can see that I've approached this discuss in a sincere and respectful manner where I've more or less used the Socratic method as a way of catalysing the production of productive dialogue. Honestly, I am not trying persuade anyone of my opinion, or perception. If you want to define temperature as the average of kinetic energy of an object that makes no difference to me. I choose to accept the definition that the average kinetic energy of an object as heat thus that heat is thermal energy of an object which is capable of being transferred unto another object. So would you care to explain why the water 'boiled' as the vacuum was being pulled.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Justus, BAA thinks you're full of shit. He's just too nice to say it, IMHO. You think? Yet I still gave you the benefit of the doubt, Justus. But now that I think of it, do you have the link BAA spoke of in his post #95? Yes I do. And you are not obliged to give it - just expected to. You want a link, here's one Like this please, Justus. A working link to the page where the quote was taken from... http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules#.VqJYyfmLRD8 ...and then the quote itself, cut and pasted so that it can be verified by others. (The highlighted text is to draw your attention to what this forum's Moderators expect of you.) Quote mining/Information Pirating Definition Quote mining is when text from different sources are used excessively and the person is not adding any input or opinion of his own, while at the same time pretending the quote is something he or she made up. There's nothing wrong with quoting sources, but it's extremely important to make a note that it is in fact a quote, and also include the reference from which the quote was taken, and preferably a link to a web page with the full article. Thank you, BAA. At what point in the post did I ever pretend to make up the quote. I did reference the website it was taken from. Hell all you had to do is google it, or am I suppose to spoon feed you. Plus, do you believe everything you read on the internet. Plus you are in the Lions Den so please stop your bitch ass whining, it's annoying. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Still waiting Professor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science . . . Well I did not expect such a humble and frank admission. So why not simply accept the explanation of others on maters of science and admit your religion is a mater of faith? So why don't you answer the question posed to the Professor and Rogue, or are you afraid to lay it on the line. Then STFU and listen to the music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science . . . Well I did not expect such a humble and frank admission. So why not simply accept the explanation of others on maters of science and admit your religion is a mater of faith? So why don't you answer the question posed to the Professor and Rogue, or are you afraid to lay it on the line. Then STFU and listen to the music. If you are talking about that video about water in a vacuum then I'm not sure what part of it you find confusing. It struck me as strait forward and clear. If you wanted me to answer sooner then you should have addressed it to me sooner and using clearer questions. I'm going to guess that you don't understand why the water boiled. It that isn't the point of confusion then please forgive me and explain the problem better. With that said, I will proceed. Remember what I said earlier about boiling water and air pressure? Believe me they didn't create a perfect vacuum. Instead they lowered the air pressure until the boiling point was room temperature. It's very strait forward and clear. Look at the graph you posted in message #71. The principle doesn't stop working above 30,000 feet. If you use a vacuum chamber to simulate the air pressure found at 100,000 feet above sea level you can follow the line on the graph and estimate how much lower the boiling temperature would be. Of if you want to go the data route you can google boiling temperatures at very low air pressure. Does that clear everything up for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 22, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2016 How did this turn into a high school science class? Seems to happen a lot around here. On topic (sorry): Bottom line is, With God all things are possible, unless they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueScholar Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Again, I will continue to ask. Which has more thermal energy, the campfire or the iceberg? Answering this question really pushes us to the crux of beginning to understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. Are you not interested in understanding this rather nuisnced but important concept Justus? I fear I may just need to answer so others who are interested in the complex and nuanced world of thermodynamics will benefit. Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science a question on thermodynamics is beyond me, but if temperature is the measurement of the kinetic energy (being the motion of atoms inside a particle) of an object, then the fact that which is called 'empty space' has a measurable temperature obviously represents that kinetic energy is a flawed explanation for temperature since it contains no matter having mass, thus there would be no kinetic energy to measure. Let me guess, you look up at the stars at night and still can't see the light ? Temperature is not a "measure" of kinetic energy per se. It is directly proportional to the average kinetic energy of the particles in a system. For example, you measure the temperature of a room. The temperature does not tell you how much kinetic energy all the particles in the room have, but rather it gives you an idea about how much kinetic energy on average the particles that interact with the thermometer have. Indeed, some of the particles will have much more or significantly less kinetic energy than each other, but temperature is not a measure of every single particle, it is a reflection of the "average" kinetic energy. No disagreement there. Regarding space; even the cold, dark vacuum of intergalactic space is not "empty." There are still particles out in space and even far away from any galaxy, these particles will be in equilibrium with the microwave background radiation, absorbing and emitting this low energy light with the occasional high energy interaction with a cosmic ray or a bit of higher energy light. However, on the average, their kinetic energy would be very low. Likewise, you could take a "warmer" object and place it into deep space and eventually it would be in equilibrium with the surrounding environment and would have a temperature that could be measured accordingly. Ok, so you are saying that there is no 'empty space' in the expanse, or rather outer space? Now, if you want, I can look at talking about thermal energy versus temperature? I hope you can see that I've approached this discuss in a sincere and respectful manner where I've more or less used the Socratic method as a way of catalysing the production of productive dialogue. Honestly, I am not trying persuade anyone of my opinion, or perception. If you want to define temperature as the average of kinetic energy of an object that makes no difference to me. I choose to accept the definition that the average kinetic energy of an object as heat thus that heat is thermal energy of an object which is capable of being transferred unto another object. So would you care to explain why the water 'boiled' as the vacuum was being pulled.? Before you ask more questions of me, we still need to clear up prior issues. First, yes, I am saying your idea of "empty space" is not correct. Even far away from galaxies and planetary systems, there is matter, even the more conventional forms of matter (Hydrogen being exceptionally common). This matter is one of the reasons we have difficulty observing distant objects because light from these objects can be obscured by this matter. Luckily, we are often able to observe in wavelengths of light that are not easily absorbed by this matter (often Hydrogen atoms and ions). Unfortunately, your definition of heat is incorrect. Heat is not a measure or reflection of average kinetic energy. Heat is straight up a form of energy. Energy is measured in Joules and heat is also measured in Joules. Temperature is not measured in Joules. Heat and temperature are related, but again, temperature is a reflection of an "average." When we talk about heat transfer, we are not talking about an average value but rather a defined amount of energy transfer. Temperature differences result in the transfer of heat between two or more systems, but temperature is not the same thing as heat. Again, temperature reflects an average and is a statistical concept in nature. This is a discussion where details matter and are in fact, very important. I understand that these concepts are confusing and nuanced. Edit: I just saw your post moderator. I will immediately disengage from this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 22, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2016 Edit: I just saw your post moderator. I will immediately disengage from this conversation. Nah, don't mind me. Just observing all the fun. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 22, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2016 Justus, When you make positive claims, the onus is upon you to support those claims with verifiable evidence. This principle becomes especially important when you are making claims about a person, because of the potential injury you might inflict upon the reputation of the individual in question. BAA has been patiently attempting (without success I'm afraid) to bring you to an understanding of this; but you seem unwilling to accept his help. You have made the following claims about me: 1. That I claimed evolution must be believed in order to be understood 2. That I called you a christian 3. That I had a propensity for lying 4. That I put forth some kind of "immaculate evolution" theory which supposes the possibility of humans interbreeding with some other species. The onus is now upon you to substantiate the claims you have made against me. I note, again, and with much disgust, that in this thread, as in the thread for which I provided the link, you accuse me of lying. This is not a charge that I take lightly. Fortunately, we all have access to the same internet. This means that anyone who wishes can comb the webs looking for proof of the claims you have made against me, just as you can also. When those claims are proven, time and again, to be false, it will be quite evident which one of us deserves to be hung with the moniker of "liar". Go forth, now, little boy, and find the proof you need to support your scandalous libel, or be known for the liar you have proven yourself to be. Happy hunting, TheRedneckProfessor. So would you care to explain why the water 'boiled' in the vacuum, do you think the vacuum being pulled caused the increase of the vibration of the water molecules thus increasing the temperature or are you one of those dweebs who lacks any substance. It is obvious from your earlier responses you knew nothing about the fact that pulling a vacuum would cause the water to freeze or you wouldn't have said to effect that all you got to do is add liquid nitrogen to the water and it will freeze. That was rich! So enlighten us with your understanding of thermodynamics and explain how the water 'boiled' as they claimed in the video. I already said that the temperature of the water did not increase, or implied it, in my earlier question to RS in post # 113. So here is your chance to illuminate us with your sunshine or are you going to show your ass. Personally I think you are nothing but a scientist groupie who follows whatever is dictated to you, but I have been wrong before. Now don't faint like a girlie boy, breath. P.S. please don't give some lame response for the reason you won't answer, or it will be evident that your are FOS. Where is your evidence in support of the claims you made against me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 22, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2016 Still waiting Professor So am I. Where is your evidence to support the claims you made about me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 How did this turn into a high school science class? Seems to happen a lot around here. On topic (sorry): Bottom line is, With God all things are possible, unless they're not. Exactly, if all things are possible with God then one must accept that all things are not possible. Thus one should always hold open the possibility of things until they have the principle which defines that which is not possible. Some call that the law of truth. Man can not make up principles, only discover them. Likewise a principle is true, was true and will be always true, it does not change or evolve over time. Hence the high school science class, if temperature of a molecule is relative to the motion of its atoms then a molecule of water will be liquid when the motion of its atoms are moving at a rate greater than a temperature of 32 degree (F) and slower that 212 degrees (F). Of course external factors affect the thermal energy of the water molecule, you add heat and the water temperature rises to 212 degrees (F) where it converts to a water vapor [gas] or lower the temperature to 32 degrees (F) and it solidifies and becomes ice [solid]. Bottom line is that atheists simply make up their own rules. Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science . . . Well I did not expect such a humble and frank admission. So why not simply accept the explanation of others on maters of science and admit your religion is a mater of faith? So why don't you answer the question posed to the Professor and Rogue, or are you afraid to lay it on the line. Then STFU and listen to the music. If you are talking about that video about water in a vacuum then I'm not sure what part of it you find confusing. It struck me as strait forward and clear. If you wanted me to answer sooner then you should have addressed it to me sooner and using clearer questions. I'm going to guess that you don't understand why the water boiled. It that isn't the point of confusion then please forgive me and explain the problem better. With that said, I will proceed. Remember what I said earlier about boiling water and air pressure? Believe me they didn't create a perfect vacuum. Instead they lowered the air pressure until the boiling point was room temperature. It's very strait forward and clear. Look at the graph you posted in message #71. The principle doesn't stop working above 30,000 feet. If you use a vacuum chamber to simulate the air pressure found at 100,000 feet above sea level you can follow the line on the graph and estimate how much lower the boiling temperature would be. Of if you want to go the data route you can google boiling temperatures at very low air pressure. Does that clear everything up for you? So the water boiled as the air pressure was lowered yet no external heat was applied. LOL The water temperature was lowered as the vacuum was applied, not increased. The water did not boil, it bubbled as the loose gas molecules trapped within the aggregate of liquid water were drawn out by the vacuum. Thus why did it stop "boiling" as you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 22, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2016 Bottom line is that atheists simply make up their own rules. This has to be the best quote ever from the worst thread ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Again, I will continue to ask. Which has more thermal energy, the campfire or the iceberg? Answering this question really pushes us to the crux of beginning to understand the difference between temperature and thermal energy. Are you not interested in understanding this rather nuisnced but important concept Justus? I fear I may just need to answer so others who are interested in the complex and nuanced world of thermodynamics will benefit. Why you would ask someone who only has an eight grade education in science a question on thermodynamics is beyond me, but if temperature is the measurement of the kinetic energy (being the motion of atoms inside a particle) of an object, then the fact that which is called 'empty space' has a measurable temperature obviously represents that kinetic energy is a flawed explanation for temperature since it contains no matter having mass, thus there would be no kinetic energy to measure. Let me guess, you look up at the stars at night and still can't see the light ? Temperature is not a "measure" of kinetic energy per se. It is directly proportional to the average kinetic energy of the particles in a system. For example, you measure the temperature of a room. The temperature does not tell you how much kinetic energy all the particles in the room have, but rather it gives you an idea about how much kinetic energy on average the particles that interact with the thermometer have. Indeed, some of the particles will have much more or significantly less kinetic energy than each other, but temperature is not a measure of every single particle, it is a reflection of the "average" kinetic energy. No disagreement there. Regarding space; even the cold, dark vacuum of intergalactic space is not "empty." There are still particles out in space and even far away from any galaxy, these particles will be in equilibrium with the microwave background radiation, absorbing and emitting this low energy light with the occasional high energy interaction with a cosmic ray or a bit of higher energy light. However, on the average, their kinetic energy would be very low. Likewise, you could take a "warmer" object and place it into deep space and eventually it would be in equilibrium with the surrounding environment and would have a temperature that could be measured accordingly. Ok, so you are saying that there is no 'empty space' in the expanse, or rather outer space? Now, if you want, I can look at talking about thermal energy versus temperature? I hope you can see that I've approached this discuss in a sincere and respectful manner where I've more or less used the Socratic method as a way of catalysing the production of productive dialogue. Honestly, I am not trying persuade anyone of my opinion, or perception. If you want to define temperature as the average of kinetic energy of an object that makes no difference to me. I choose to accept the definition that the average kinetic energy of an object as heat thus that heat is thermal energy of an object which is capable of being transferred unto another object. So would you care to explain why the water 'boiled' as the vacuum was being pulled.? Before you ask more questions of me, we still need to clear up prior issues. First, yes, I am saying your idea of "empty space" is not correct. Even far away from galaxies and planetary systems, there is matter, even the more conventional forms of matter (Hydrogen being exceptionally common). This matter is one of the reasons we have difficulty observing distant objects because light from these objects can be obscured by this matter. Luckily, we are often able to observe in wavelengths of light that are not easily absorbed by this matter (often Hydrogen atoms and ions). Unfortunately, your definition of heat is incorrect. Heat is not a measure or reflection of average kinetic energy. Heat is straight up a form of energy. Energy is measured in Joules and heat is also measured in Joules. Temperature is not measured in Joules. Heat and temperature are related, but again, temperature is a reflection of an "average." When we talk about heat transfer, we are not talking about an average value but rather a defined amount of energy transfer. Temperature differences result in the transfer of heat between two or more systems, but temperature is not the same thing as heat. Again, temperature reflects an average and is a statistical concept in nature. This is a discussion where details matter and are in fact, very important. I understand that these concepts are confusing and nuanced. Edit: I just saw your post moderator. I will immediately disengage from this conversation. Take it up with the people at John Hopkins university who in the video say that @ around 00:23 "we need to understand that space is a vacuum, it is empty." But don't worry, there is no need for me to ask any question of you. So please don't be a pest with your questions. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts