If you then increase the thermodynamics of the surrounding atmosphere , the gravity of the ice will extract energy from out of the atmosphere replacing the constant loss of energy to gravity in effect making the ice melt when the particles becomes kinetic excited by the energy gain needed to find equilibrium to gravity to make a liquid state.
E=mc2 questions?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
The water will warm up by entropy means it will not stay cold.
I am unsure it should stay slightly cooler by density means or it may equal to room temperature.
The equilibrium of the waters energy is already undergoing the energy loss to gravity.
What ice? Again: that looks like it was generated by a gibberish generator bot.
What object or thing transfers energy to the water to keep it from cooling down?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
TC, why do you use words in such a way as to make yourself unclear rather than clear? I'm sure you don't speak that way in everyday life.
If a family member asked you "When are you coming over" you would say "I'll come over tonight". On this forum however you would say "I'll be over when I can use my temporal night vision by motion of the planet"
Why do that?
You stated in this thread that dark is not the absence of light.
In the first post of your "light/dark thread" you say:
"I would also argue that light is not a thing, and it is always dark, on the basis that light is emitted , to make dark light, where dark, is the absence of light, and nothing is added to make dark, it exists has a natural state."
Which is it?
If a family member asked you "When are you coming over" you would say "I'll come over tonight". On this forum however you would say "I'll be over when I can use my temporal night vision by motion of the planet"
Why do that?
You stated in this thread that dark is not the absence of light.
In the first post of your "light/dark thread" you say:
"I would also argue that light is not a thing, and it is always dark, on the basis that light is emitted , to make dark light, where dark, is the absence of light, and nothing is added to make dark, it exists has a natural state."
Which is it?
The energy in the atmosphere, the water gains by entropy means energy from the atmosphere, if we increased the atmospheric temperature to high, then the reaction of the waters energy gain is to be greater than loss to gravity and the water becomes gaseous form and opposes gravity because the equilibrium of energy is higher than the forced loss to gravity and the denser mass.
So the water gains the energy from the atmosphere around it. Are you aware that that requires a temperature difference between them?
I stated that dark is not just not the absence of light and is deeper than that,
You said you add some cold water, and a 20c room, so obviously there is difference at the start in temperature
added- apologies you said cooler than that, my answer would be what material is the cup?
how long has it been there?
where did the water come from?
''My office is always at room temperature: 20C. So should the cup of water be cooler than that?''
insufficient information.
It was a question, not a statement. But to answer yours: a vacuum insulated thermos.
A month.
The tap.
30 pages, 588 posts, in just a few days.., and almost entirely consisting of nonsense!
It does not appear that anyone is going to convince the author of anything, so why play the game?
Since I never got a reference for the measurement of the gravitation of a beam of light and I can find no reference myself, I am going to assume it does not exist and the statement was inaccurate.., and unwatchable the discussion...
But I appreciate those of you who wish to continue, as it reduces the author's time to infect other parts of the forum.
It does not appear that anyone is going to convince the author of anything, so why play the game?
Since I never got a reference for the measurement of the gravitation of a beam of light and I can find no reference myself, I am going to assume it does not exist and the statement was inaccurate.., and unwatchable the discussion...
But I appreciate those of you who wish to continue, as it reduces the author's time to infect other parts of the forum.
Nonsense that is making science to look pretty stupid, my paper abstract says it all, naive set theories , my axioms stand and not one of you have proved otherwise except trying to produce fairy tale arguments.
You can not deny axioms how stupid do you think people are trying to impose garbage on us all with no evidence.
Your computer is laughing at you.
laugh away, you can only deny the truth for so long.
So you've changed your mind on this?
You: You are presuming that there is stars past our boundary, is there evidence of this?
And, if, as you persist in claiming, light is an illusion, how can stars "light our way"?
Yeah, but we can laugh at stupidity forever.
And stupidity is all you have.
To put it bluntly , a cheap parlour trick that means absolutely nothing.
I believe it is the angle having a distance and time displacement effect on the light, and the angle simply stretches the light to is propagation wavelength.
No, not me, your computer.
Anyway, you still haven't answered my question. You asked for more info and I provided it. So please answer.
Empty vessels make the most sound.
No, all your ideas thus far, are non scientific, nonsensical and childish scenarios, more suited to a children's fairy tale book.
You have no definition, you have not learnt anything, and it has been shown you do not understand.
Accept it...You have nothing but stubborn, persistent delusions, and that is why you have been banned elswhere, and your posts always in the fringe sections.
The proof pertaining to the fact that you do have trouble accepting anything of logic is here for all to see, despite your denial of those facts.
That is your problem. Whatever methodology you apply to reasoning is obviously 100% faulty, and in most cases from evidence so far on these forums, is driven by the facts you have admitted yourself....[1] You dont take notice of the knowledge gained before you...[2] you are delusional to a very high degree...[3] You have an inflated ego...[4]you totally ignore evidence that refutes your nonsense.
And yes, time dilation happens all the time, and we have 100% observational proof of that fact, which in line with your many shortcomings, you refuse to accept.
Continued gibberish, continued gobbldydook, continued stringing together of scientific words into meaningless banter. Congrats. You have again prooven what I have just said.
You keep forgetting what you conclude makes no difference to the scientific world beyond your delusions.
What you do, what you claim, what you believe, is like dust in the wind.
You are making no difference to science, the scientific methodology or peer review.
Children at some time in their immaturity, live out fairy tales and fantasies.
The same children eventually become mature adults, and learn then to face reality.
I offer mechanism.
- Status