you're god does not exist

Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
I don't see much of a discussion. You are saying there is a subjective element to the way we experience heat. Others are saying yes, but a person who can not feel can still get third degree burns. The subjective element only matters to the subject. This is why we have a 1-10 scale for pain that will be different for each person, and a standardized scale for burn damage which is relatively consistent for each person. I do not see you denying that, so I am not sure why further discussion is needed.
Click to expand...
Yet you continue to discuss. An interesting Paradox.

Shall we discuss the 'ego', 'super ego' and the 'id'?

or maybe the 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal'?
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Moebius said:
What if I was to tell you that those same vibrations could be perceived not as sound but as colour or smell.

Its called 'Synesthesia'. People who experience this are not wrong, its just that their brains are wired differently. The vibrations remain true, but the interpretation is different that ours.
Click to expand...
I would say you are spouting nonsense. So if I am 100% blind, does green still exist? I won't be able to perceive it, or have any subjective twist on it. I could however measure the wavelength and determine it to be 530 nm. And you could look at it, and so could anyone else. I'm not saying everyones subjective experience of "green" will be identical, but the light has a specific wavelength.

And if you had no feeling in either hand and you placed them hot and cold water, would you say heat does not exist because there is no subjective difference between the two? If you had no tactile feeling at all you would be unaware of the concept of heat, or the subjective feeling of difference in heat, but the heat is very real and exists.
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
I would say you are spouting nonsense. So if I am 100% blind, does green still exist? I won't be able to perceive it, or have any subjective twist on it. I could however measure the wavelength and determine it to be 530 nm. And you could look at it, and so could anyone else. I'm not saying everyones subjective experience of "green" will be identical, but the light has a specific wavelength.

And if you had no feeling in either hand and you placed them hot and cold water, would you say heat does not exist because there is no subjective difference between the two? If you had no tactile feeling at all you would be unaware of the concept of heat, or the subjective feeling of difference in heat, but the heat is very real and exists.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no problem with that. Shall we leave it there then?

my lights come on in 30 min anyway and I got watering to do.
 
Seedling

Seedling

Well-Known Member
Moebius knows he's wrong, he's just unwilling to admit it. He realized his mistake when I posted the definition of heat.
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
Seedling said:
Moebius knows he's wrong, he's just unwilling to admit it. He realized his mistake when I posted the definition of heat.
Click to expand...
Seedling, no way dude. Im more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and engage with others who disagree. Although you disagree, re-reading your posts you've remained polite. I'm happy to discuss further if you so wish.

I didn't make these ideas up out of thin air. They've come through reading and considering.

This is what Mark Zemansky (American physicist) said about it.

Zemansky's plea.

Don't refer to the "heat in a body", or say "this object has twice as much heat as that body". He also objects to the use of the vague term "thermal energy" and to the use of the word "heat" as a verb, because they feed the misconceptions, but it is hard to avoid those terms. He would counsel the introduction and use of the concept of internal energy as quickly as possible.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html


 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
Now I maybe wrong (i don't think) because i'm no physicist. but lets not get personal here.

lets take the heat out of the debate.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Moebius said:
Seedling, no way dude. Im more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and engage with others who disagree. Although you disagree, re-reading your posts you've remained polite. I'm happy to discuss further if you so wish.

I didn't make these ideas up out of thin air. They've come through reading and considering.

This is what Mark Zemansky (American physicist) said about it.

Zemansky's plea.

Don't refer to the "heat in a body", or say "this object has twice as much heat as that body". He also objects to the use of the vague term "thermal energy" and to the use of the word "heat" as a verb, because they feed the misconceptions, but it is hard to avoid those terms. He would counsel the introduction and use of the concept of internal energy as quickly as possible.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
Click to expand...
Be careful what you read online. Anyone can post anything. Peter Russel sounds like retard to me. Mashing up god and spirituality into his discussions.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
If any of my posts come across as impolite ignore it. I have a cold, and can be a bit assholey anyway. I harbor no ill will with anyone here.
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
Be careful what you read online. Anyone can post anything. Peter Russel sounds like retard to me. Mashing up god and spirituality into his discussions.
Click to expand...
Mark Zemansky was one of the foremost important American physicist in the 20th century. but i'll heed your warning none-the-less.

Peter Russell ...maybe i agree with you on that one.
 
L

Luv2H8Me

Member
Religion is necessary but it just isn't real. Is this really even a question anymore. Life exists accidentally. The basic elements that make up our solar system are evidence of a massive nuclear or radioactive blast. The evidence of evolution, the scientific study of behaviors across species within the same genus, and more importantly the complete lack of any evidence at all of truth in religion are clear. Religion requires belief without proof. That's called faith. I can believe in something without imperical evidence however I cannot believe in something without evidence when contrary evidence exists. Chew on that one. If God made how come he only made 2. If Xenu enslaved our theta and left us all to be undead for thousands of years then why do we have proof of primitive man and ape like beings that no longer exist. If we just existed as we do today with no explanation then I'm cool with religion. But the explanation exists, has been proven, and cannot be disproven. All that equals win for Darwin in my book.
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
Mark Zemanskis plea sounds like symantics.
Click to expand...
With respect .. maybe to your ear but not to me.

This is why Einstein said Reality was a persistent illusion. It goes against much of what we subjectively experience. I'm unable to do the required Math myself, my Calculus is basic at best but I find the ideas interesting.

Anyways, Its a real shame this got caught on thermodynamics, my point was much larger.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
I don't understand what misconception is being fed by using heat as a verb. You can either apply a warm body to transfer the energy to it, or you can apply work to raise the internal energy. I understand the different mechanism, but as he points out the end result is indistinguishable from each other. They seem to be interchangeable. Energy is energy.
 
Moebius

Moebius

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
I don't understand what misconception is being fed by using heat as a verb. You can either apply a warm body to transfer the energy to it, or you can apply work to raise the internal energy. I understand the different mechanism, but as he points out the end result is indistinguishable from each other. They seem to be interchangeable. Energy is energy.
Click to expand...

tbh I'm not 100% clear on the misconception, maybe 70% there. but this is what I understand as relevant.

In ordinary language one can speak of a process that increases the temperature of a body as 'heating' it, ignoring the nature of the process, which could be one of adiabatic transfer of energy as work. But in strict physical terms, a process is admitted as heating only when what is meant is transfer of energy as heat. Such a process does not necessarily increase the temperature of the heated body, which may instead change its phase, for example by melting.


IMO its ok not to fully understand immediately, I don't. Understanding only comes with time, reading and contemplation. For me, whats important is the journey and not the destination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top