New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 8 months ago #5629 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I'm not really sure that anyone has said that it does go POOF into "NOTHINGNESS". Actually, I'm quit sure that no one has. If you could find a quote from someone in this thread that said such a thing then I would be interested in seeing it. I would be interested because I don't see how that could happen, something which exists can never truely become nothing(non-existence).
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Well if you grant that it goes POOF into existence from nothing (which is being claimed over and over) then you can't logically prevent it from going POOF out of existence either. I stand corrected, you and others are primarily claiming the POOF into existence aspect which is just as magical.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
From some of your commentary about this thread I am starting to wonder how much of it you have actually read.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I might make the same observation about you.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
First you said that I called everyone Vermin because they didn't agree with me.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You said that "I am reminded of the reason I quite posting on this site, it is full of vermin.". What other conclusion is to be drawn from this statement? I can only assume the people who agree with you are not vermin, or am I incorrect and everyone on the site except you is vermin?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Now, you say that people have been claiming that things miraculously disappear into "Absolute Nothingness". I find it interesting how you could have gotten these things from this post since they are exactly opposite of what was said. It is almost like dyslexic comprehension.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I just explained how disappearing into nothing is the logical mirror of spontaneously appearing from nothing. The two are inseparable. Huh? I always thought it was LYSDEXIC!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I guess that explains how you DON'T see plagiarism.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't see plagiarism because there is none. Good luck in copyright court.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5687 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: Tom, are you sure this is really your understanding of energy?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Yes. Why? Do you have an alternative physical model for the nature of energy? -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #5636 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: Would your same answer apply to electricity?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Yes. Do you have a problem with electricity being a flow of electrons? -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 8 months ago #5690 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Yes. Do you have a problem with electricity being a flow of electrons? -|Tom|-

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't have a probelm with the definition of electricity being a flow of electrons because such definition results in a consistent model.

I laso do, however, because such definition regards a phenomenological inetrpretation of electricity not proven by experiment. Nobody has ever seen an electron nut only its effects.

Therefore, I do and I don't. In other words, the theory resulting from the definition appears to produce consistent results but there is no indication it's a complte theory of electricity.

Gotcha!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 8 months ago #6015 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Patrick]: Does electricity have mass?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

"Mass" has many definitions. But if you mean generically, "is it made of tamgible matter?", I can say "yes" without ambiguity.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How would you describe plasma? In your opinion, does plasma have mass?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Just as gases, whether visible or not, are made of molecules, plasmas are, in effect, superheated gases. All tangible, material things can have any one of four known "phases": solid, liquid, gaseous, or plasma. Which phase it appears in depends on its temperature. But in any of these phases, the same atoms and nucleons are involved (ignoring the loss of a few electrons through ionization). So plasma is just as much tangible matter as anything and everything else.

The forms that matter can take on are broadly divided into "particles" and "waves". But these are all just different manifestations of the same "stuff". -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JoeW
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 8 months ago #5806 by JoeW

Replied by JoeW on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

All tangible, material things can have any one of four known "phases": solid, liquid, gaseous, or plasma. Which phase it appears in depends on its temperature.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Phase depends on temperature and pressure. T think you know that but you left it out it for simplicity. For instance, ice can go directly to gaseous phase, a process called "phase transition", if enough pressure is applied, without ever passing from the liquid phase.

I think the phases of matter are simply phenomenological interpretation of things we don't understand.

Does anyone of you know that your glass window is actually in liquid phase, not solid?

Misterious stuff. Again, I remind you:

Tangible, matter, existence, etc. are all metaphysical concepts and whoever is talking about it is called a metaphysician.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.724 seconds