| |
|
Article: <5e2461$3o0@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: ENERGY WAVES - the Zetas Explain
Date: 14 Feb 1997 16:34:09 GMT
In article <5dtjau$2r7@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca>Greg Neill
writes:
>>> It also fails to explain where all these 'caloric
particles'
>>> can come from in a situation where mere friction is
>>> generating heat. If you are suggesting that the
particles
>>> are being materialized out of nothing, ...
>>> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
>>
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> [You] have NO explanation for heat other than a
conversion
>> from the motion, the friction! In this you are
postulating that
>> heat JUST MATERIALIZES! How ludicrous!
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])
>
> I have an explanation for heat. It is the kinetic energy of
> the component molecules of the body in question. Add more
> kinetic energy to the particles (like by friction) and the
object's
> heat increases. So heat does not just materialize. It is a
transfer
> of kinetic energy.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Greg, if heat is simply motion, then when heat is released from
an explosion, WHERE IS THE MOTION? You light a match and it goes
boom. Where is the kinetic energy in a gallon of gasoline?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5dtloc$2r7@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca> Greg Neill
writes:
> The bonds in molecules represent stored energy. In many
> cases, the substance may not be in the lowest possible
energy
> state, and another configuration could be achieved through
> a molecular shuffle (chemical reaction). When the reaction
> products form, they may have fewer bonds, or sometimes
> the same number of bonds as the original, but in a much
> lower energy configuration. The difference in total energy
> between the two states ends up as kinetic energy (heat) of
> the resulting reaction products.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
This is positively silly. What you describe as "stored
energy" is subatomic particles! How else would MOTION be
stored! It is not stored motion, as a motion frozen, but rather
an energy potential due to the likelihood of subatomic particles
to go on the move and create a situation where new bonding can
occur. In the not too distant past, human scientists speculated
that mice spontaneously generated from piles of dirty rags. Not
much progress has been made! This is what happens when people
describe the outward appearance of a phenomenon, without trying
to explain the process. It’s the same mentality that causes
some astronomers on this message board to claim that they have
EXPLAINED why planets and comets orbit by DESCRIBING the outward
appearance of the phenomena.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])