Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: What makes outer space super-cold?

  1. #1 What makes outer space super-cold? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    What makes outer space super cold?


    Outer space is, on the average, 2 to 3 kelvin super cold. What makes it super cold?
    It just happen that vacuum outer space is INHERENTLY SUPER-COLD. Only extremely sparse atoms in plasma state inhibit outer space. The abundant presence of air molecules at surface of earth makes it warm. The higher up, like in Mount Everest, where air is sparse, is very cold. In refrigerator and air con, the principle is the same, compress freon to outlet, to reduce freon on inlet to ref and air con, thus creating vacuum that creates cold.

    Thus, it appears outer space which is vacuum is inherently cold in the first place. This has further implication: it shows that cold outer space came into being before Big Bang.


    jsaldea12

    3.23.10,


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,972
    Nothing makes space "cold". Since temperature is the average kinetic energy of the particles making up a body, and strictly speaking, a vacuum contains no particles, you can't really talk about a vacuum having a temperature. The reason an object placed in deep space reaches a temp of 3K is that it is the temperature at which objects radiate energy away as fast as they receive energy from the Cosmic background radiation. It is only in this sense that we can assign a temperature to space.

    That and the fact that the big bang was the creation of time and space, added to the fact that the CBR has been decreasing since the BB, points to the idea that space was Hotter, if anything, at the time of the big bang. Though I stress again, "space" itself has no temperature.


    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    Space is nothing but a magnificent void of vacuum. there are no specific mediums in which heat coud be transmitted along, like it is here on earth. e.g. conduction.... Also one theory suggests that actually after the Big Bang, there were big soups of atoms, and light was emitted br collecting electrons from hydrogen. during this process a lot of photons and energy were given off(this is well in to gamma rays). Obviously these hot waves would definitely make the space a lot hotter if it were billions of years ago, but this isn't the case. our universe has gone under the exponential expansion for the past billions of years. and as space itself expanded, the waves itself also stretched, thereby stretching the wavelength of the the gamma waves along with other types. i bet you know that when wavelengths are longer, then it carries lower energies. now imagine the stretching for billions of years..

    Space is roughly around 2.7 Kelvin and that 2.7 is from the microwave background radiation, it cant be avoided.

    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    Heat is activity of molecules and atoms. Suppose section of outer space is perfect void of atoms, re-plasma, will there be heat? Like CMBR 2.7K. Or will there be perfect absolute zero K. Outer space is overwhelmingly super cold. How can heat take over, rule over?

    The reality is that vacuum outer space is inherently cold, that vacuum is inherently cold. This is proven in ref and air con where partial vacuum is induced by compressor to create cold. This occurs naturally as in top of Mt. Everest where air is sparse. This is normal in vacuum outer space where atoms are in state of plasma.. the most least atoms. Heat and cold exist, both exist. Not the concept that heat alone exists and that reduction of heat is cold, THE PRODUCT OF HEAT ITSELF??


    Jsaldea12

    3.24.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    Heat is activity of molecules and atoms. Suppose section of outer space is perfect void of atoms, re-plasma, will there be heat? Like CMBR 2.7K.
    The CMBR pervades all space.

    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    Or will there be perfect absolute zero K. Outer space is overwhelmingly super cold. How can heat take over, rule over?
    Nothing can reach Absolute zero, to do so would require the presence of a body at less than 0K.


    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    The reality is that vacuum outer space is inherently cold, that vacuum is inherently cold. This is proven in ref and air con where partial vacuum is induced by compressor to create cold.
    It's the latent heat of condensation and vapourisation in a refrigerator / air con.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    86
    It's simpler than that, they don't have enough space heaters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    Quote Originally Posted by phyti
    It's simpler than that, they don't have enough space heaters.
    Thank you for bringing some humour (even if it was rather weak) to a pointless thread where knowledgeable people are forced to correct blatant stupidity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Nothing makes space "cold". Since temperature is the average kinetic energy of the particles making up a body, and strictly speaking, a vacuum contains no particles, you can't really talk about a vacuum having a temperature. The reason an object placed in deep space reaches a temp of 3K is that it is the temperature at which objects radiate energy away as fast as they receive energy from the Cosmic background radiation. It is only in this sense that we can assign a temperature to space.

    That and the fact that the big bang was the creation of time and space, added to the fact that the CBR has been decreasing since the BB, points to the idea that space was Hotter, if anything, at the time of the big bang. Though I stress again, "space" itself has no temperature.
    Absolutely correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    It is against the principle of physics, itself: the two sides, re-like repulse-unlike attract, POSITIVE-NEGATIVE, ETC. always TWO sides. Even in matter in plasma, always two sides, re-positive and negative. There is no such thing as MONOPOLE, all search for such one side MONOPOLE has been and will be futile.. In conformity, there is no such thing as heat ALONE, always two sides: heat and cold, re-positive energy and opposite negative energy, call that cold.

    Please check, in ref and air con, the compressor presses freon into the constricted valve to become adiabatic expansion in the evaporator, resulting in LOW PRESSURE (partial or substantial more vacant/VACUUM state) which is suitable for cooling. The important thing is that without that created partial more vacant/vacuum, no cooling is possible in ref and air con..

    Heat and cold are connected, yes, from billion C (heat) to absolute zero (cold).That both exist, not that diminishing heat below C thus, heat, is the cause of cold. Outer space is evidence that cold which is overwhelmingly domineering that cold exists by itself.



    Jsaldea

    3.24.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    It is against the principle of physics, itself: the two sides, re-like repulse-unlike attract, POSITIVE-NEGATIVE, ETC. always TWO sides. Even in matter in plasma, always two sides, re-positive and negative. There is no such thing as MONOPOLE, all search for such one side MONOPOLE has been and will be futile.. In conformity, there is no such thing as heat ALONE, always two sides: heat and cold, re-positive energy and opposite negative energy, call that cold.

    Please check, in ref and air con, the compressor presses freon into the constricted valve to become adiabatic expansion in the evaporator, resulting in LOW PRESSURE (partial or substantial more vacant/VACUUM state) which is suitable for cooling. The important thing is that without that created partial more vacant/vacuum, no cooling is possible in ref and air con..

    Heat and cold are connected, yes, from billion C (heat) to absolute zero (cold).That both exist, not that diminishing heat below C thus, heat, is the cause of cold. Outer space is evidence that cold which is overwhelmingly domineering that cold exists by itself.



    Jsaldea

    3.24.10
    Better get back on that medication.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    It is against the principle of physics, itself: the two sides, re-like repulse-unlike attract, POSITIVE-NEGATIVE, ETC. always TWO sides.
    Please specify which physical principle this. Refer me to a standard physics text book and tell me where I will learn that this is a fundamental principle of physics.

    Then explain to me why gravity is, seemingly, only attractive.

    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    There is no such thing as MONOPOLE, all search for such one side MONOPOLE has been and will be futile..
    Really. You should try to stay more current. A team of researchers at Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie, working in conjunction with other Universities seem to have observed monopoles in spin ice.

    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    In conformity, there is no such thing as heat ALONE, always two sides: heat and cold, re-positive energy and opposite negative energy, call that cold.
    In conformity, since we have monopoles and unidirectional gravity, there is no problem with having only heat.

    But tell me, what is negative energy? Is it anything like phlogiston?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite

    Then explain to me why gravity is, seemingly, only attractive.
    There are models showing gravity to have the capacity to be repulsive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    You will note the use of the word seemingly, placed specifically to deal with that issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Yeah, I saw it, why mention it exactly?

    This forum is seemingly filled with insecure kids who think every quote made is an challenge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    What are you warbling on about? Please pay attention.

    jsaldea is posting what is, by conventional standards, nonsense. I am offering some simple pointers to where he is mistaken. The general consensus that gravity is only attractive runs counter to his arguments, so I have put that forward. However, I am well aware that there is at least one model that would admit of repulsive gravity. I have no intention of having smart asses come in to gloat that I have overlooked such an obvious point, so I added the word seemingly to cover that eventuality.

    Look what happened.... you turned up to state the blindingly obvious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronman
    Yeah, I saw it, why mention it exactly?

    This forum is seemingly filled with insecure kids who think every quote made is an challenge.
    Did you ever stop to consider that possibly your perception is the result of innate idiocy ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    Please permit me to correct my statement:
    It is against the principle of physics, itself, to have one side only: there are always two sides, re-like repulse-unlike attract, POSITIVE-NEGATIVE, ETC. always TWO sides. Even in matter in plasma, always two sides, re-positive and negative. There is no such thing as MONOPOLE, all search for such one side MONOPOLE has been and will be futile.. In conformity, there is no such thing as heat ALONE, always two sides: heat and cold, re-positive energy and opposite negative energy, call that cold.

    Please check, in ref and air con, the compressor presses freon into the constricted valve to become adiabatic expansion in the evaporator, resulting in LOW PRESSURE (partial or substantial more vacant/VACUUM state) which is suitable for cooling. The important thing is that without that created partial more vacant/vacuum, no cooling is possible in ref and air con..

    Heat and cold are connected, yes, from billion C (heat) to absolute zero (cold).That both exist, not that diminishing heat below C thus, heat, is the cause of cold. Outer space is evidence that cold which is overwhelmingly domineering that cold exists by itself.


    jsaldea12

    3.25.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    Regarding the monopole assembled by respected NIST scientists ,re-“nanoparticles to form linear chains by subjecting them to a weak magnetic field--about the same strength as a refrigerator magnet. The particles line up because the nanoparticles act like tiny bar magnets, all facing the same direction as the applied field. Once this alignment occurs, the attraction between particles is so strong that reversing the direction of the applied magnetic field causes the whole chain to rotate 180 degrees. When the magnetic field is turned off, the chains fold into three-dimensional coils. When the solution is lightly shaken, the chains fall apart into small rings”.

    My comment: the fact that the nanoparticles acts like tiny bar magnet, connecting one another appears to show that each nanoparticle connects one another, it is positive side to negative side binding etc. Just like actual bar magnet: cut and cut the bar magnet, and each cut has positive and negative. Align the cut bar magnet, positive to negative, and the alignment, binding becomes one chain. That the nanoparticles are facing one direction only…maybe the tool to reverse direction is either positive or negative dominant, that is why the whole alignment of chain moves as one.

    But the fact that nanoparticles aligns and bind one another is positive binds negative of each other nanoparticles.

    Or could it be that at that temperature of 0.6K, has caused both positive and negative of nanoparticles to align side by side, not lengthwise but definitely positive and negative is never broken and separate positive and separate negative. Why is that, because positive and negative intersects one another and it is the direction that makes it positive and negative on opposite direction..

    This is just my observation and experiment with magnetism.

    Another thing: there is a reason why gravity is all attraction: there is a reason for that. Please read my posted article: “The gravity of Newton and the gravity of Einstein. under New theories


    Jsaldea12

    3.24.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Futurist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15
    Most of outerspace in our solar system is probably 'hot' because of the sun right? It's just that most of it is 2 to 3 K... I was thinking a moment ago, that you could set up superconductors really easily if it was that cold. Orbiting on the darkside of the moon maybe? I don't know if that's even useful let alone possible.

    Would it be hard to heat something up to 300 K or so in deep outerspace?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    What are you warbling on about? Please pay attention.

    jsaldea is posting what is, by conventional standards, nonsense. I am offering some simple pointers to where he is mistaken. The general consensus that gravity is only attractive runs counter to his arguments, so I have put that forward. However, I am well aware that there is at least one model that would admit of repulsive gravity. I have no intention of having smart asses come in to gloat that I have overlooked such an obvious point, so I added the word seemingly to cover that eventuality.

    Look what happened.... you turned up to state the blindingly obvious.
    You said seemingly to cover for ignorance, I made the confirmation.

    Your post also seems to validate my comments about insecurity and many posters on this forum, in that you'd assume I would make a post to boast.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    It is against the principle of physics, itself: the two sides, re-like repulse-unlike attract, POSITIVE-NEGATIVE, ETC. always TWO sides. Even in matter in plasma, always two sides, re-positive and negative. There is no such thing as MONOPOLE, all search for such one side MONOPOLE has been and will be futile.. In conformity, there is no such thing as heat ALONE, always two sides: heat and cold, re-positive energy and opposite negative energy, call that cold.


    Jsaldea

    3.24.10
    Thus lies the danger of confusing common language usage with scientific concepts. While in everyday life we tend to think of "Cold" as being the opposite of "Hot", that does not make it a scientific principle. Cold is just simply the lack of heat. To use the positive-negative example for charge, "Hot" is positive. "Cold" is neutral (no charge), and there is no equivalent for negative. (there is no anti-Hot).
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,257
    @Chronman, if you don't like it here, feel free to leave.

    @jsaldea12, Janus is right. You should try using the Kelvin scale (or any other absolute temperature scale). Fahrenheit and celcius may go into negatives, but that's because they're relative scales. (Celcius is relative to the freezing and boiling point of water. Fahrenheit is relative to some weird stuff, but we've since made it relative to water too.) Kelvin isn't relative. 0 Kelvin is absolute zero and nothing can get that cold, much less colder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    Thank you for the advice.


    jsaldea12

    3.26.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronman
    You said seemingly to cover for ignorance, I made the confirmation.
    Chronman, I may be known on the forum for occassionally intemperate language and strong distaste for the self righteous, or those committed to remaining ignorant. Regular members, including those who may dislike me, will attest to the fact that I do not lie in my posts and when I am mistaken I admit it.

    Your interpretation of events is simply flawed. Why do you think I added the word seemingly if not to cover the existence of theories of gravity admitting of a repulsive character? If I were actually ignorant of these then the word seemingly would have been omitted.

    So all you confirmed is that you are not very good at understanding motives, and possibly have some difficulty with precise English. The latter can certainly be corrected, the former may be more difficult to treat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chronman
    Your post also seems to validate my comments about insecurity and many posters on this forum, in that you'd assume I would make a post to boast.
    I made no such assumption. You came in, adopted an arrogant position and delivered a patronising message. Those are observation that can made by anyone who cares to read your post. If those acts, in combination, do not consitute boasting I would be interested to hear what you think they do constitute.

    I feel no insecurity, nor any need for any insecurity. I am ignorant of vast numbers of things, as are all humans. This ignorance provides a field in which I can expand my knowledge. Why should the expansion of my knowledge make me insecure? Equally, I see no signs of insecurity among the regular contributors to the forum. (Of course I am not looking for such signs. I wonder why you are.)

    Perhaps you should re-examine the evidence. Or accept that you have some strange ideas. Perhaps some of these ideas will make you famous one day. I doubt they will make you many friends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by jsaldea12
    It is against the principle of physics, itself: the two sides, re-like repulse-unlike attract, POSITIVE-NEGATIVE, ETC. always TWO sides. Even in matter in plasma, always two sides, re-positive and negative. There is no such thing as MONOPOLE, all search for such one side MONOPOLE has been and will be futile.. In conformity, there is no such thing as heat ALONE, always two sides: heat and cold, re-positive energy and opposite negative energy, call that cold.


    Jsaldea

    3.24.10
    Thus lies the danger of confusing common language usage with scientific concepts. While in everyday life we tend to think of "Cold" as being the opposite of "Hot", that does not make it a scientific principle. Cold is just simply the lack of heat. To use the positive-negative example for charge, "Hot" is positive. "Cold" is neutral (no charge), and there is no equivalent for negative. (there is no anti-Hot).
    Moreover, one ought not confuse the terms heat and temperature. They are very different things. Cold is an adjective describing a state of of low temperature not lack of heat per se.

    Thermodynamically, heat is energy being transferred between bodies. It is quite possible to have heat without cold, as "cold" has no thermodynamic definition, although "colder" does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Every temperature scale allready bases on two defined situations like celsius on the freezingpoint and boilingpoint of water. Thus a notion of hot and cold underlies every temperature scale. The same way the kelvin scale is not based merely on the state of minimal energy. So a temperature in Kelvin expresses a relation to the other point (the tripelpoint of water) as well. Without it the whole scale would not exist.

    Cold and colder have no principle different meaning. Cold is just more related to personal -fysical - experience. Something is cold to me if it,s colder then me. Boiling water is never cold (to me) but can be colder then (or "cold in relation to") a hot pan taken from a stove. I wouldn,t use the word cold for the water in that case as someone might misunderstand it and go wash his or her hands in it.

    Cold(er) and hot(ter) always come in pairs. Just as light and shadow, white and black, male and female.
    Language (which is what we deal with here) bases largely on such pairs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Like Augustines opinion of evil

    there is no cold, just a lack of heat
    heat is generated by energy, be it from electromagnetic waves or moving atoms (although atoms make much more heat)


    in space, aside from no one hearing you scream, there are barely any atoms, relatively, sure there's googleons in the form of planets and stars and such but there's just so much space it's irrelevant, so space is nearly heatless, NOT cold


    (it would be 0 kalvin, the 3K is background radiation, heat still disapating from the Big Bang
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    there is no cold, just a lack of heat
    Or "there is no heat just "a lack of coolness".
    Augustinus might have agreed with that also.

    Istead of using the word cold instead of the four words phrase "a lack of heat" the meaning of the sentence should and would not change as the word cold can cover for the phrase "lack of heat" anytime just fine. (one of the wordbook descriptions for cold could be "a lack of heat" making it possible to use the word cold instead of the phrase at any time)

    That would make the sentence described to Augustinus to this : "there is no cold just cold".

    The word lack is a relative word by definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Let's get this straight. Heat is the movement of energy by definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    You think augustinus meant it that way also ? Could be. Then it would make more sense. But you,re tight in the context of this topic it,s heat as energytransfer and thermic energy as a state.

    And what is cold then ? a lack of heat or a lack of thermic energy ?

    Heat as energytransfer acually makes not much sense as it depends from which side you look at it. Cooling a refrigerator would you speak of heat as energytransfer ?

    I would think you take heat out of the refrigerator but that would be false then. Lowering the thermic state of the refrigerator would be more adequate then ?

    To determine thermic energy also seems impossible without changing it thus without heat ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    Outer space is 99.99% vacuum. Particles in outer space are in the average of 1 per 100,000 square meters. Thus such particles generates heat energy of 2.7 K. What really intrigues me is why do we not recognize there is cold, super-super cold is overwhelmingly real when outer space is that vacuum. Vacuum is associated with the making of cold. The more vacuum, the more cold, super cold. Suppose the absolute zero Kelvin is reached (this appears possible in isolated area of unlimited wide vacuum outer space), thus, NO HEAT ENERGY EXISTS, but will SUPER COLD EXISTS? Yes. It appears lucid to think that cold, the opposite of heat exists and it exists in space, the more vacuum is the space, the the more cold is generated, and inversely heat energy is reduced but both exist, heat and cold exist.. I am incline to favor centigrade which has both positive and negative temperature, balance, than Kelvin which pertains to heat energy only.

    It appears that spacetime is inherently cold because it is vacuum and particles in state of plama.. But spacetime has no mass, indivisible skein, matrix, that is not divisible heat energy making particle, thus being no mass, indivisible, it is cold. .

    Local gravitational field that binds the moon to earth binds because it is electro-magnetic because the source earth and moon has electro-magnetic property, the gravitational field, being the extension, has such inherent property. I have posted article, re ”Gravity of Newton and gravity of Einstein” in category “New theories” It can further clarify and illuminate.




    Jsaldea12


    3,30.10...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    Heat energy, kinetic and potential, is based on thermodynamic that such kinetic and potential heat energy is inherent on molecules, repeat molecules. But spacetime/ aether is not molecules, it has no mass, is indivisible, though, intersectable skein, fabric of outer space VACUUM. This spacetime, which has no motion, is not motion of molecules, is the one creating that cold property of the universe.


    Jsaldea12

    4.4.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    260
    Reiterating: Heat energy, kinetic and potential, is based on thermodynamic that such kinetic and potential heat energy is inherent on molecules, repeat molecules. But spacetime/ aether is not molecules, it has no mass, indivisible, though, intersectable skein, fabric of outer space VACUUM. This spacetime, which is not motion of molecules, is the one creating that cold property of the universe, not molecules, kinetic or potential.


    Jsaldea12

    4.4.10
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •