Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that there were numerous events observed which showed an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") that comes from space expansion seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. We haven 't actually been able to test most of those questions. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional (a one to one mapping from every point in our idea of "space" to every other point in it), and the three dimensions we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from... whatever the fundamental really is. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. That's one of the reasons why fireplaces are made out of brick/stone, because they absorb the heat really well, and radiate it into the space (they also have a very high thermal capacity because of their high bond strength, density, and crystalline structure). Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that there were numerous events observed which showed an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") that comes from space expansion seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional (a one to one mapping from every point in our idea of "space" to every other point in it), and the three dimensions we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from... whatever the fundamental really is. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. That's one of the reasons why fireplaces are made out of brick/stone, because they absorb the heat really well, and radiate it into the space (they also have a very high thermal capacity because of their high bond strength, density, and crystalline structure). Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that there were numerous events observed which showed an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") that comes from space expansion seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional (a one to one mapping from every point in our idea of "space" to every other point in it), and the three dimensions we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from... whatever the fundamental really is. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. That's one of the reasons why fireplaces are made out of brick/stone, because they absorb the heat really well, and radiate it into the space (they also have a very high thermal capacity because of their high bond strength and crystalline structure). Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that there were numerous events observed which showed an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") that comes from space expansion seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. That's one of the reasons why fireplaces are made out of brick/stone, because they absorb the heat really well, and radiate it into the space (they also have a very high thermal capacity because of their high bond strength and crystalline structure). Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that there were numerous events observed which showed an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. That's one of the reasons why fireplaces are made out of brick/stone, because they absorb the heat really well, and radiate it into the space (they also have a very high thermal capacity because of their high bond strength and crystalline structure). Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that there were numerous events observed which showed an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. That's one of the reasons why fireplaces are made out of brick/stone, because they absorb the heat really well, and radiate it into the space. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that there were numerous events observed which showed an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed that fell into an "impossible acceleration" is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or "too imaginary." It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat (in this case) is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough (vibrate fast enough) to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all (i.e. under the right circumstances), then it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy that is unreasonable, and how much by fancy that is reasonable (comes from the process of reason). In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). There may be some filling in the gaps with imagination, but in every thought every human being ever had I suggest there is at least some of that. The question is, how much is filled in by fancy, and how much by reasonable fancy. In this case, to suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "imaginary," as in "too much fancy, and not enough reason," is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries, i.e. does it "balance out" or does it "expand" or "compress" into something else (another dimension e.g.)? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a compressible/expandable fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is it made up of other stuff? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? GR gives answers to some of those questions, but GR is just a model, and it has quite a few problems. I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes, both within and outside of GR.
But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "evidence." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary. It just means you are unconvinced. I am unconvinced also, but I'm not "imagining" the evidence or what it implies.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is it made up of other stuff? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes. But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you thought I had suggested this. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "proof." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is it made up of other stuff? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes. But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you could think I would suggest such a thing. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "proof." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particularly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is it made up of other stuff? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandable? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes. But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you could think I would suggest such a thing. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "proof." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particuarly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is it made up of other stuff? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandible? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes. But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," or path of least action, emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you could think I would suggest such a thing. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "proof." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particuarly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is it made up of other stuff? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandible? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes. But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
The only thing most people agree with however, is that it almost certainly isn't anything like what it appears to be in our normal way of thinking about it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you could think I would suggest such a thing. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "proof." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particuarly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is it made up of other stuff? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandible? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes. But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive and/or can't be experimented on, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you could think I would suggest such a thing. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "proof." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particuarly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is it made up of other stuff? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandible? If you expand it in one place does it necessarily compress on the boundaries? I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes. But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).
Heat will not be conveyed from a lower temperature to heat something to higher temperature,
This gave me pause. It took me a bit to figure out how you could think I would suggest such a thing. I think I understand now. When I was talking about "flame temperature" and "kilns" I didn't mention the theoretical limit of flame temperature. What I stated was sound reasoning coming from the perspective of heat flow and chemical bond energy. Your response suggests you were thinking strictly in terms of adiabatic processes (a larger scale perspective). I tend to think in terms of chemistry, molecular structure, and quantum mechanics first (phonons and bond energies in this case), and explain things from there. To melt, the total "heat" (vibrational) energy of the crystalline structure of the metal must be high enough to overcome the bond energies that are reinforced by the lattice, and the phonon energies that transfer that vibrational energy into the larger lattice (a part of the heat transfer process).
Heat is just vibrational energy. So I was thinking in terms of total energy transfer within the small scale and what it took to overcome all of those things that hold it together. However, when I was talking about "flame temperature" not being high enough, I meant the effective flame temperature of wood in a normal environment. Obviously if the fuel can't get hot enough at all it can't get hot enough to transfer enough vibrational energy to the metal to break the bonds (melt). Because I didn't address that directly, I can see why you thought I was suggesting a transfer of heat from a low temp to a higher. I didn't understand where you were coming from before, now I do. I should have been more clear.
Warping space-time and making UFOs are altogether imaginary
Meh, not so. There is absolutely evidence of both. It is not conclusive evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't evidence at all. If there is evidence of something, by definition it's not "imaginary" (i..e. it isn't coming from the imagination, but from the evidence). To suggest that the Navy, who stated explicitly that the numerous events observed were doing a thing is "not evidence" is ludicrous. It's not just the videos that are evidence, it's also the testimonies.
And that's just one recent example. There are quite a few other similar pieces of evidence from the past.
You seem to have a very strict thought on what is "proof." That's fine, but just because you won't even begin to consider something unless the evidence is so strong it's already proven doesn't mean that a thing is impossible or imaginary.
I don't happen to agree that time is any kind of continuum
Do you mean you think it is quantized, or that it is "everything, everywhere, all at once"? (Those are not mutually exclusive).
when that would be a completely self-referential concept
It comes from the same idea as "space is expanding" in big bang theory. I mean, the big bang doesn't have to be true to be able to warp space, but it is no more "self-referential" than that. The idea that space is somehow "static" is not really supported by the evidence. The "extra space" (and more particuarly, the extra "dark energy") seems like it should be coming from somewhere to our limited concept of what space is by our experiences. But the concept of what space "is" is problematic. Is it a... stuff (medium)? Does it act like a fluid? Is it made up of other stuff? Is the fluid compressible? If it is compressible is it expandible? I don't think thinking of it as a fluid is appropriate, but doing so can be productive in the physics of it sometimes. But what if "space" Is an emergent property of something completely different? QM suggests that space is multiply connected (or that is one reasonable interpretation). If space is multiply connected, who knows what is possible. Here, "multiply connected" would suggest that "space" is really infinitely dimensional, and the three we observe are really just an "averaging," emerging from a level of crazy that is unfathomable. Even thinking about what "space" is, is problematic, and quite frankly, no one really has any good ideas at all, or rather, there are so many competing good ideas that are mutually exclusive, that no one can do anything but talk about their "ideas" of it.
rocky ground is an insulator, not a conductor. That is why we build fire pits, fireplaces, and chimneys from rock or brick.
Obviously you've never touched a brick fireplace or a stone fire pit. Stone is a rather good conductor of heat, as are bricks, etc. Soil (which the cars in question were sitting on) is even better because it contains water. Also the size of the reservoir matters in the sense that the ground takes a very long time to slow in its' heat transfer rate. So it will take up that heat energy at whatever rate it does, and it will keep doing so pretty much forever (unless there is a ton of fuel).