Moon Landings

[wolfy 12]

Why can't there be temperature in space then?

Because it's devoid of anything that can sustain a temperature, hot or cold. It's nothing.

Trying to get your head round it using agitated particles is the effect on Earth which like I said, is nothing to do with the vacuum of space.

[The Fish 10857]

Because it's devoid of anything that can sustain a temperature, hot or cold. It's nothing.

Trying to get your head round it using agitated particles is the effect on Earth which like I said, is nothing to do with the vacuum of space.

You're wrong and your first statement proves you don't understand what heat is, on the Earth, or anywhere else.

 

If you were to create a perfect vacuum on Earth, then recorded the temperature within it, it would be -270 degrees Centigrade (or near enough). The reason for this is because heat is energised particles and when (in a perfect vacuum) there are no particles, there can be no heat.

[wolfy 12]

You're wrong and your first statement proves you don't understand what heat is, on the Earth, or anywhere else.

 

If you were to create a perfect vacuum on Earth, then recorded the temperature within it, it would be -270 degrees Centigrade (or near enough). The reason for this is because heat is energised particles and when (in a perfect vacuum) there are no particles, there can be no heat.

We know what heat is, now what is cold?

[The Fish 10857]

We know what heat is, now what is cold?

The absence of such energised particles.

 

Say for example your tap water is "cold" well, sure it is, you can feel it, it's cold to the touch. But actually it's just got less energised particles than you. You hold a a can of lager from the fridge and that's cold. Take a swig of that, then take a swig of the water. The water now "feels" warm. It's not got "cold" particles, it's just got less energised ones. So in fact you could call that glass of water warm, because it's only got a warmth (or coolness) in comparison to other things.

 

Think about noise.

 

Is quiet a "thing"? No, of course not, it's just an absence of noise.

Edited September 15, 2012 by The Fish

[wolfy 12]

The absence of such energised particles.

 

Say for example your tap water is "cold" well, sure it is, you can feel it, it's cold to the touch. But actually it's just got less energised particles than you. You hold a a can of lager from the fridge and that's cold. Take a swig of that, then take a swig of the water. The water now "feels" warm. It's not got "cold" particles, it's just got less energised ones. So in fact you could call that glass of water warm, because it's only got a warmth (or coolness) in comparison to other things.

So on Earth we have the agitation of particles acting in an atmosphere and the less agitated, the colder it gets, which is fine and as you say, basically there is no cold, it's just less warmth.

 

In space, there is NO temperature at all, it's a nothing.

On Earth, the colder it gets the more icy it would become. We do not see space like a sheet of ice because it is devoid of any particles, which as you rightly say on Earth would render it freezing or shall I say extremely less warmer.

 

Space holds none of that although you can argue that, " there you go, no particles= minus 270, yet although it appears to be fair game, the truth is, space in itself is , let's say, without temperature.

 

I know you are 100% in disagreement but that's my stance and it's simply a scientific spin that's made it what it is.

[The Fish 10857]

So on Earth we have the agitation of particles acting in an atmosphere and the less agitated, the colder it gets, which is fine and as you say, basically there is no cold, it's just less warmth.

 

In space, there is NO temperature at all, it's a nothing.

On Earth, the colder it gets the more icy it would become. We do not see space like a sheet of ice because it is devoid of any particles, which as you rightly say on Earth would render it freezing or shall I say extremely less warmer.

 

Space holds none of that although you can argue that, " there you go, no particles= minus 270, yet although it appears to be fair game, the truth is, space in itself is , let's say, without temperature.

 

I know you are 100% in disagreement but that's my stance and it's simply a scientific spin that's made it what it is.

 

No, You're wrong and the "icy" statement proves your lack of understanding. For something to get icy there'd need to be water particles which are sufficiently lacking energy so as to become solid. In the proposed near perfect vacuum I spoke of, there'd be no water particles, so there'd be no ice.

 

Your statement "space in itself is , let's say, without temperature." is correct, given temperature is a measurement of heat, and there is no heat to measure, and as there are no excited particles, there is no heat. Absence of heat = cold.

 

You're wrong and your own arguments prove it.

[wolfy 12]

No, You're wrong and the "icy" statement proves your lack of understanding. For something to get icy there'd need to be water particles which are sufficiently lacking energy so as to become solid. In the proposed near perfect vacuum I spoke of, there'd be no water particles, so there'd be no ice.

 

Your statement "space in itself is , let's say, without temperature." is correct, given temperature is a measurement of heat, and there is no heat to measure, and as there are no excited particles, there is no heat. Absence of heat = cold.

 

You're wrong and your own arguments prove it.

Let's just agree to disagree on this because none of us is going to change our stance.

[The Fish 10857]

Let's just agree to disagree on this because none of us is going to change our stance.

No, because you're wrong and can't prove otherwise, I'm right and can prove it.

 

Simply admit that you don't know what you're talking about and that'll be the end of it.

[wolfy 12]

No, because you're wrong and can't prove otherwise, I'm right and can prove it.

 

Simply admit that you don't know what you're talking about and that'll be the end of it.

Well, it looks like you aren't willing to agree to just disagree. So, onwards we go.

Space is neither hot nor cold.

[The Fish 10857]

Well, it looks like you aren't willing to agree to just disagree. So, onwards we go.

Space is neither hot nor cold.

I've shown and you've agreed what heat is. I've shown and you've agreed that space is a vacuum.

 

Burden of proof is on you.

 

prove that you're right, or, at the very least, explain how you've come to your erroneous belief?

[wolfy 12]

I've shown and you've agreed what heat is. I've shown and you've agreed that space is a vacuum.

 

Burden of proof is on you.

 

prove that you're right, or, at the very least, explain how you've come to your erroneous belief?

The burden of proof is not on me, I'm happy in the knowledge that space is neither hot nor cold.

[The Fish 10857]

The burden of proof is not on me, I'm happy in the knowledge that space is neither hot nor cold.

It's not knowledge.

 

It's baseless supposition that has been entirely disproved by a layman on the internet.

[wolfy 12]

It's not knowledge.

 

It's baseless supposition that has been entirely disproved by a layman on the internet.

Ermmmm...nah, I don't think so.

[The Fish 10857]

Ermmmm...nah, I don't think so.

If I were to state the world wasn't flat, despite everyone else saying it is, I have to prove it.

 

You're not only saying everyone else is wrong, you're stating the greatest minds this species has ever produced, know less about the universe than you do.

 

I'm afraid the burden of proof is very much with you.

[wolfy 12]

If I were to state the world wasn't flat, despite everyone else saying it is, I have to prove it.

 

You're not only saying everyone else is wrong, you're stating the greatest minds this species has ever produced, know less about the universe than you do.

 

I'm afraid the burden of proof is very much with you.

That's just the issue though isn't it. The only thing the smartest people on the planet know about the universe is what they make up because none of them...and I do mean none of them know jack shit about the universe.

 

Astronomers know star configurations which is basically a view through eye or telescope which we could all do if that's what interested us but they know jack shit about the universe.

 

Sure, they can predict a comet coming back round and meteors shooting in the sky but they know jack skippety bungle pants about the universe.

Some boffins say the universe was made from..........wait for it..............................NOTHING. Clever people aren't they.

[The Fish 10857]

That's just the issue though isn't it. The only thing the smartest people on the planet know about the universe is what they make up because none of them...and I do mean none of them know jack shit about the universe.

 

Astronomers know star configurations which is basically a view through eye or telescope which we could all do if that's what interested us but they know jack shit about the universe.

 

Sure, they can predict a comet coming back round and meteors shooting in the sky but they know jack skippety bungle pants about the universe.

Some boffins say the universe was made from..........wait for it..............................NOTHING. Clever people aren't they.

Proof please

 

 

Edit or at least some cogent thought.

Edited September 15, 2012 by The Fish

[wolfy 12]

Proof please

 

 

Edit or at least some cogent thought.

That word....."proof" ...It's a great word and is brilliant when applied to Earthly objects , yet it absolutely silly to actually prove it all without sampling the delights of an outer space excursion to once and for all prove what the vacuum of space really gives out.. I don't know for sure....you don't know for sure.. and the tefal heads who make this shit up, haven't a scooby, so where does that really leave us all. Edited September 15, 2012 by wolfy

[The Fish 10857]

That word....."proof" ...It's a great word and is brilliant when applied to Earthly objects , yet it absolutely silly to actually prove it all without sampling the delights of an outer space excursion to once and for all prove what the vacuum of space really gives out.. I don't know for sure....you don't know for sure.. and the tefal heads who make this shit up, haven't a scooby, so where does that really leave us all.

A cogent argument? Explain why you believe the things you do? Instead of stating them as fact, support your hypothesis with rationalised thought.

Edited September 15, 2012 by The Fish

[wolfy 12]

A cogent argument? Explain why you believe the things you do? Instead of stating them as fact, support your hypothesis with rationalised thought.

I've supported it. Accept it or don't.

[The Fish 10857]

I've supported it. Accept it or don't.

No you haven't, don't lie.

 

You've said space is neither hot or cold, just because.

[wolfy 12]

No you haven't, don't lie.

 

You've said space is neither hot or cold, just because.

I've said space is neither hot nor cold because it's a vacuum and a void...it is EMPTY. If you want hot or cold, then you have to fill it ...but with what?

[The Fish 10857]

I've said space is neither hot nor cold because it's a vacuum and a void...it is EMPTY. If you want hot or cold, then you have to fill it ...but with what?

 

That's demonstrably not true.

[wolfy 12]

That's demonstrably not true.

You believe what you want to believe. I prefer my belief 100%.

[ChezGiven 0]

You believe what you want to believe. I prefer my belief 100%.

All 1,619 of your posts may as well have been just that. I quite admire your peculiar brand of madness Wolfster but you are annoyingly convenient when it comes to backing up what you have to say.

[The Fish 10857]

You believe what you want to believe. I prefer my belief 100%.

No, I believe what has been proven and from that basis believe what has been explained that follows a logical progression.

 

You may "prefer" your belief, but it's a less valid belief than one backed by proof and sense.

 

It'd be like me believing in Fairies and having no proof, you're in your rights to ask for proof and you're within your rights to state my belief is unfounded.

You denying my belief is like you believing in Rhinos, and showing me a rhino and me still refusing to believe in them.

 

It's just a failure to comprehend.