Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:22, 12 January 2006

Revision as of 10:47, 12 January 2006

Line 1,486:

:::You may define zero temperature and use it as a basis for scientific calculations because that happens to work, but can you achieve absolute motionlessness (which it really means) in the real world? Take distance. There, you can even go into the negative numbers, but that doesn't represent any real thing. Same with 0 m. That is a mathematically completely sound thing. But nothing in the real world can be 0 m long - it wouldn't exist (in our dimensions anyway). Mathematics is the only area that has absolute truths (the philosophical bit I was really thinking about), but only because it defines its own world. Which we can use to analyse the real world, but that doesn't make it equal to reality. Actually, I think mathematics is the formalisation of the way we see the world. We've figured out how are spectacles work, but that does not mean we can take them off. So we can never see the real world and therefore not find any absolute truths that might be out there, except the ones we impose on it.

:::See also [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Thinking_PC|thinking pc]] and [[Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#quantum_mechanics|quantum mechanics]] below.

:::Black Carrot, you didn't think what? I only go through this page once every morning, so don't expect instant replies from me. And did you mean to say 'bullshit' perchance? If so, why didn't you say it? And if you don't want to say it, then why ''do'' you (halfheartedly)? Make up your mind. :) [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 06:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Absolute zero is its name. There are several systems of temperature measurement, and there used to be more, so this is in comparison to them. 0C is the freezing point of water, 0F is god knows what, and 0K is the absolute zero point of temperature. And I believe it is in fact possible to reach absolute zero eventually, through radiation of heat. Feel free to correct me on that last point.

Line 1,491 ⟶ 1,492:

::::There are plenty of things that can be 100%. 100% of my class is in the age range 16-19, 100% of the people in this room right now are of the species homo sapiens, 100% of the particles in the square foot of air in front of my face are less than 1 inch across, I have occasionally gotten 100% of the answers on my homework correct. True, there are some things that can't be made 100%, like (at least for now) it's impossible to keep the human race 100% male for very long, but there are some things that undeniably can. That's the philosophical side of my argument. The actual wording was chosen in the wild, overpowering excitement of the moment (irony, in case you were wondering), and was an imitation of the sh**-talking I've occasionally heard. The asterisks were because we're supposed to humor those who think the young people viewing this page don't know and/or shouldn't see such words in full. It wasn't in the least half-hearted. Holla back, yo. --[[User:Black Carrot|Black Carrot]] 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::I prefer logical language, so to me 'absolute zero' should mean just that, a mathematical entity. If it's already been reserved (in practise) for absolute zero of one specific unit, that's too bad. I dare you to find a source that ''this'' absolute zero (or any other one) has ever been achieved. An absolute lack of temperature would mean total motionless. Where there is no motion and no time and not anything. It is (by definition?) non-existent.

:::::As for 0m, you already point in the direction of one flaw. You'd have to make the measurements absolutely precise. With mathematical precision. Try finding measuring stick and/or method that can achieve that. If you use something material then that consists of atoms. Which have size. So the measuring goes in steps and can only be absolutely precise if the measurement you wish coincides precisely with a physical measuring length (a chance that approaches zero). But what I meant is that no''thing'' can be 0m. Or 1m for that matter. Those are mathematical values that do not exist in reality.

:::::About the 100% examples. I can't get the counterargumentation right in my head (though it's in there somewhere) and I don't have much time now, but it's got to do with ''you'' defining the entities you measure (as in mathematics).

:::::Holla back, yo? That's a lingo I don't talk. :) What does it mean? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

4) What are quarks made of? And then what is that made of and then that, etc?