Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by river, Oct 23, 2018.
What are you on about Dave ?
What is your thinking here ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I'm just contributing to this thread with fanciful ideas about space.
The filaments in the Cosmic Web are actually tendrils stretched out between objects known as Mozzarellars, which are heated by stars to melty, gooey temperatures.
And Mozzarellars are what ?
Mostly lipids and proteins, rendered solid in the cold of space, but when situated in an oven of hot, young stars, melt and flow and stick to your chin.
Hm. Hot young stars. Gotta find a explanation for that. Maybe they came from small Midwestern galaxies to try to make their fortune in the Big Galaxy.
In fitting with the rest of the content of this thread.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not to me Dave
In the end , you , and anybody like yourself is welcome to critizise my theory . No problem .
Yet NO objection to my theory has held up .
It isn't a theory.
Theories don't predicate themselves on things that don't exist.
What you have there is an idea, And it never got off the ground. To-wit:
River: My idea is that cold energy ...
Science: There is no such thing as cold energy.
Now there is such a thing as cold energy
Then I guess there is now such a thing as Mozzarellars. Gee isn't this fun and sort of sciency.
Cold energy exists
At -273 C , hydrogen is a liquid
So the plasma of the sun is hot energy?
A glass of warm milk is medium energy?
The reality is that temperature is a measure of the average translational kenetic energy of the atoms. Low temperatures are not cold energy and high temperatures aren't hot energy, it is just different levels of the average translational kenetic energy.
But we're all just having fun here, right Riv?
Er well, not just translation energy. It also includes rotational and vibrational energy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you are saying river is correct? Ha, ha just kidding!
I have read that thermal energy of an atom is the average translational kinetic energy of the atom. I also see that the temperature of a gas is proportional to the average translational energy. So that is a bit confusing. Any insight to this would appreciated.
For monoatomic gases and liquids, translational energy would be right.
But for diatomic molecules, you also have 2 more degrees of freedom of motion, involving rotations about the 2 axes perpendicular to the molecular axis. And then you have the vibration of the bond. All are quantised, i.e. a rotating or vibrating molecule can only have a whole number of quanta of energy present in these modes of motion.
All of these degrees of freedom can contain thermal energy, provided that the gap between successive energy levels, ε, is small compared to kT (k being Boltzmann's constant). If ε >>kT then that degree of freedom is not populated, because random collisions will never give a molecule enough energy to jump to even the first excited state, preventing that degree of freedom from contributing to thermal energy. In translational motion the separation between energy levels is essentially zero, as the only confinement (which is the thing that causes quantisation) is the sides of the container for the gas, so unless you have a remarkably tiny container the levels are so close together that you effectively have a continuum, i.e. quantum effects do not arise.
The specific heat capacity is a measure of how many ways the substance has of storing thermal energy in the degrees of freedom of its molecules. Diatomic gases are an illustrative case. The constant volume molar specific heat capacity of gases is 3/2 R at low temperatures (translation only - the same as monatomic gases) , but, as T rises and rotational levels become populated, it goes up to 5/2R.....and eventually at high temp, to 7/2R as vibration kicks in. Background here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/shegas.html The story gets more complicated for more complex molecules, with more internal degrees of freedom. Basically each degree of freedom contributes 1/2 kT (1/2 RT on a per mole basis), provided ε <<kT for the separations between energy levels. A vibrational degree of freedom contributes double this, as it has stores both kinetic and potential energy.
Same sort of thing applies to liquids. In solids of course there is no translational motion at all, and yet solids still have a specific heat capacity. It is all in lattice vibrations. In the simple theory the molar specific heat capacity is 3R, i.e. 3 independent vibrational modes.
This whole area is the domain of the famous Equipartition Theorem of Stat TD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem
and the ways in which its results had to be modified in the light of quantum theory. Indeed accounting for the specific heats of gases was one of the earliest triumphs of quantum theory.
I'm sure river will be aware of all this.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Even for the Pseudoscience forum, this thread looks like a waste of everybody's time. river obviously has very little idea what a scientific theory looks like. This could be stupidity or it could be trolling; it's a bit hard to tell. Either way, it looks like the time to close this thread is fast approaching.
I'm sorry Dave James. I'm afraid I you can't do that.
Separate names with a comma.