you're god does not exist

'Heat' as we experience it is simply IR.

What makes it become 'Heat' is our subjective experience.
 
Seedling said:
Temperature exists whether there is an individual there to experience it or not.
Click to expand...

Now read what lokie actually said. .... errr where did he say it didn't exist? He said it was relative ... I certainly didnt say 'temperature' didnt exist, only heat (outside of experience).

lokie said:
Temperature is relative to the individual experiencing the temperature change.
Click to expand...

...........

Seedling said:
Chemical reactions can produce heat without your presence, correct? You can't talk about heat unless you mention entropy.
Click to expand...

Incorrect! A chemical reaction can raise temperature. Our subjective experience makes it heat.

Seedling said:
Temperature exists whether there is an individual there to experience it or not.
Click to expand...
Sorry Yes . But I never mentioned Temperature, I said heat. Theres a subtle difference you know.
 
Moebius said:
'Heat' as we experience it is simply IR.

What makes it become 'Heat' is our subjective experience.
Click to expand...

Again, you insist on saying there is no heat without experience, which is simply false. Lava changes trees into ashes whether there is someone there to experience the heat or not.
 
Seedling said:
Temperature exists whether there is an individual there to experience it or not.
Click to expand...

1233314731_e17c864bd6e0c3.gif
 
Seedling said:
Again, you insist on saying there is no heat without experience, which is simply false. Lava changes trees into ashes whether there is someone there to experience the heat or not.
Click to expand...

AGREED ... but that's Temperature. ... as measure in Kelvin or whatever. The heat is what a brain perceives.
 
Moebius said:
In a world populated by Robots, They will never feel HOT (Heat) but they can MELT (Temperature)
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

Heat is energy transferred from one system to another by thermal interaction. In contrast to work, heat is always accompanied by a transfer of entropy. Heat flow is characteristic of macroscopic objects and systems, but its origin and properties can be understood in terms of their microscopic constituents.
Click to expand...

The definition of heat lacks the perception that you speak of...
 
Heisenberg said:
This is what we called half baked, and we didn't need heat to get it there.
Click to expand...

go on . . im having a luagh at this subjective talk as well . .

heat being subjective is a conditional truth that your experience of the event is all that matter to quantify it as truth or have happened

heat is, when im welding a plate of aluminum if i set it on pulse(basically auto as long as trigger is depressed), on like a automatic miller, the break down of atoms that produces the high heat from welding will still disipate and are still reacting with everything around it weather im there or not

just because no one is there to be burned is not a logical assumption to assume it is not happening , as the heat from the welding and break down of atoms happens no matter what

this is a hella funny argument . and is kinda scary

that there are people so self absorbed that they think that they are required to be effected in order for something to have happened

heat is term

feeling pain from being burned is a synapse response to produce pain chemicals(im not a scientist) when nerves are triggered or die, im not a biologist but i assume its pretty basic, nerve send signal, brain response with , oww, get the fuck away from that

pain response has nothing to do with what is happening, other then a reactionary symptom +
 
My movies not done yet but I just had to reply.

Thanks for the source. >>>

[h=2]Usage of words[/h] The strictly defined physical term 'quantity of energy transferred as heat' has a resonance with the ordinary language noun 'heat' and the ordinary language verb 'heat'. This can lead to confusion if ordinary language is muddled with strictly defined physical language. In the strict terminology of physics, heat is defined as a word that refers to a process, not to a state of a system. In ordinary language one can speak of a process that increases the temperature of a body as 'heating' it, ignoring the nature of the process, which could be one of adiabatic transfer of energy as work. But in strict physical terms, a process is admitted as heating only when what is meant is transfer of energy as heat. Such a process does not necessarily increase the temperature of the heated body, which may instead change its phase, for example by melting. In the strict physical sense, heat cannot be 'produced', because the usage 'production of heat' misleadingly seems to refer to a state variable. Thus, it would be physically improper to speak of 'heat production by friction', or of 'heating by adiabatic compression on descent of an air parcel' or of 'heat production by chemical reaction'; instead, proper physical usage speaks of conversion of kinetic energy of bulk flow, or of potential energy of bulk matter,[SUP][44][/SUP] or of chemical potential energy, into internal energy, and of transfer of energy as heat. Occasionally a present-day author, especially when referring to history, writes of "adiabatic heating", though this is a contradiction in terms of present day physics.[SUP][45][/SUP] Historically, before the concept of internal energy became clear over the period 1850 to 1869, physicists spoke of "heat production" where nowadays one speaks of conversion of other forms of energy into internal energy.[SUP][[/SUP]
 
so now apply what that means to what you perceive the word heat to be . . . .. . . but in the end what produces heat is not subjective, what is are the effects of the, reaction or particles, and even that is conditional to how that inanimate or animate objects tissues/elements react to siad particle reastion

heat from a match is not the same as heat from uranium . . . . and so forth

ya we are learning !

now if i could only learn to spell and proof read . . so i could be taken seriously
 
All grown up and no place to go
Psych 1, Psych 2
What do you know?
All your life is Channel 13
Sesame Street
What does it mean?
 
I understand what you are getting at. In what way is this information useful to me though? Yes, my perception of heat is solely based on my experiencing it; however it has no bearing on anything, does it? The production of the heat still occurs, regardless of my ability to recognize it as such. What part of this am I missing?

Moebius said:
My movies not done yet but I just had to reply.

Thanks for the source. >>>

Usage of words

The strictly defined physical term 'quantity of energy transferred as heat' has a resonance with the ordinary language noun 'heat' and the ordinary language verb 'heat'. This can lead to confusion if ordinary language is muddled with strictly defined physical language. In the strict terminology of physics, heat is defined as a word that refers to a process, not to a state of a system. In ordinary language one can speak of a process that increases the temperature of a body as 'heating' it, ignoring the nature of the process, which could be one of adiabatic transfer of energy as work. But in strict physical terms, a process is admitted as heating only when what is meant is transfer of energy as heat. Such a process does not necessarily increase the temperature of the heated body, which may instead change its phase, for example by melting. In the strict physical sense, heat cannot be 'produced', because the usage 'production of heat' misleadingly seems to refer to a state variable. Thus, it would be physically improper to speak of 'heat production by friction', or of 'heating by adiabatic compression on descent of an air parcel' or of 'heat production by chemical reaction'; instead, proper physical usage speaks of conversion of kinetic energy of bulk flow, or of potential energy of bulk matter,[SUP][44][/SUP] or of chemical potential energy, into internal energy, and of transfer of energy as heat. Occasionally a present-day author, especially when referring to history, writes of "adiabatic heating", though this is a contradiction in terms of present day physics.[SUP][45][/SUP] Historically, before the concept of internal energy became clear over the period 1850 to 1869, physicists spoke of "heat production" where nowadays one speaks of conversion of other forms of energy into internal energy.[SUP][[/SUP]
Click to expand...
 
kpmarine said:
I understand what you are getting at. In what way is this information useful to me though? Yes, my perception of heat is solely based on my experiencing it; however it has no bearing on anything, does it? The production of the heat still occurs, regardless of my ability to recognize it as such. What part of this am I missing?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure tbh. ... but... It might be the difference between heat and temperature.

I can't do it all in this thread. Google it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top