yes, because you’re using temperature essentially as a measure of the activity level, absolute zero is a cessation of movement. they “cooled” it further and stuff started moving quite a lot. that’s what I’ve been able to gather.
3 options, in no particular order
this happened as described and after further looking into, conceptions of temperature have to be modified to fit new data
there were mistakes made, like with the neutrinos going faster than light last year
James is right and it’s a conspiracy to stop plebians from understanding science
They have not shown ANYTHING that they “did” (actual Science).
And while they are ignoring and redefining words without saying that is what they are dong, you are right, they cannot convince me of ANYTHING. They are conspicuously BSing.
The whole thing is about redefining temperature in some way if I understand correctly. So, yeah, if you’re stubborn about definitions, lots of new and novel things will seem quite strange to you. Why should we treat definitions as infallible?
Because if you don’t, the meaning of everything you say is fallible and nonsense.
You said, “The whole thing is about redefining temperature…”.
So okay, let’s see what that means under your concept of letting definitions drift into whatever someone might want (void of any demonstration that they actually meant anything particular);
"The whole " = “part of what I thought I saw”
“is about” = “is irrelevant to”
“redefining” = “dogmatically insisting”
“temperature” = “how tall a house is”
So what you obviously really meant was; “Part of what I saw is irrelevant to dogmatically insisting on how tall a house is”
The effort to destroy Science through altering its language is a RELIGIOUS agenda.
Why are YOU supporting it??
Well, presumeably they have shown what they did. I just don’t have a subscription to the journal so I can’t red the full text and other publications that are out right now are just discussing the findings. Like I said it’ll be a few days (maybe weeks) before we actually see the full text of their publication. Right now, you’re shooting them down because of a lack of information on your part. You’re assuming that because you don’t have access to the article, that there’s nothing in it. Doesn’t that seem a bit foolish?
Yes, PRESUMABLY. Presumption = the seed of ALL error in judgment.
…and the OPPOSITE of Science.
Absolutely not so.
I am shooting them down because they are merely REDEFINING words and NOT showing anything. And on top of that, they are redefining words into NONSENSE; “beyond infinity = negative”. That statement as an ontology is pure non-sense. It has nothing to do with Science or any observations. It is common sense misuse of language and meanings of words. You don’t have to see anything but what those words actually mean and a little common sense reasoning.
And again; “The effort to destroy Science through altering its language is a RELIGIOUS agenda.
Why are YOU supporting it??”
The strawman here is your use of presumption being different than mine. I only meant that you should wait for the full text of the experiment before you try and accuse them of not showing anything. You misrepresent that argument, turning it instead into a chance to bold and capitalize some words.
All you have right now are paraphrasings of their findings. Pop science versions of whatever they wrote in the full text article. If the experiment was performed correctly and is replicable, you (as a scientist) have to find a place for the data or a way to explain it within existing paradigms.
I’m not going to bother with this argument because I find it to be droll and there’s a much better one at hand, specifically that of the OP. You’re trying to counter scientific claims with conspiracy, if you’re so correct then counter the claims scientifically.
They don’t move in the kinetic sense. They get flipped into a different quantum state. The behavior of the gas changes. As more energy is added, more atoms enter this state. The gas becomes more organized. The entropy decreases. The slope of the entropy-energy graph is negative which means that temperature is negative.
You stated “presumably” and that meant exactly what I meant by it as well.
Claiming that Science has done something BEFORE Science has demonstrated anything IS the “strawman” that you seek.
It is NOT “Science” to say that “Science has shown” if in fact Science has NOT shown, but “might show something in a few days”.
No. What I have right now is their obvious misuse of words apparently for no more reason than to alter those words into nonsense. What did they actually accomplish that is actually any different than would be expected under the normal definitions?? – NOTHING.
Care to explain to me how they are going to design a meter that tells them when they have gotten to 50% of infinite temperature, then 90% infinite temperature, then surpassed infinite temperature and is now negative?
Without such a meter, they cannot even perform a “scientific experiment”. But if they can get enough people to accept their BS, they will claim that they have such a meter or they did it using sophisticated mathematics that you simple peons merely can’t comprehend, “but we elite have confirmed it”.
It is a serious SUCKER play.
Why say that they have done something when they actually have NOTHING to show that they really did?
And what are they proposing as any good coming from it?
What new device are they claiming to be able to create that they couldn’t have created otherwise? - NADA!
The fact that they have not shown ANYTHING is the “scientific proof” that they haven’t done anything Scientific at all.
The fact that they are redefining common words without merely stating that they are and why they are is evidence of conspiratorial intent (it being in a “science magazine”).
Good thing no one in this thread is saying that. Well, good for everyone but you.
You can discuss things without knowing everything about them. And using your ignorance as an argument is… well yeah.
Again, no dude. You have paraphrasings which use language you don’t like. That’s it, bro. And even if they used the “bad” language you dislike so much, then its your job to translate it for us plebs.
No, because that’s not my job. Like I said, that’s their responsibility and without access to the article neither of us can say whether they achieved it or not. Given that the alternative is waiting for the forthcoming information, you can see why I would be inclined to be patient as opposed to hang on your every defintion.
How did I know you were going to rant about the plebs? lol
If they don’t make correct claims about relevant mechanisms they will be discounted. Others will attempt the same or similar experiments. You know, like with everything else.
And you come to this conclusion based on a pop science article written in a business magazine. Congrats, scientists.
Science =/= technology. Don’t make that mistake again.
No, it isn’t. The fact that a business magazine (and a few other pop science venues) are reporting that a report was made =/= the same thing as reading the report itself.
To be fair, they haven’t actually redefined anything. You’re presuming a lot about the article you haven’t read.
You’re asking me, when you’re asserting that they lied. Meaning they are intentionally reporting things that aren’t true. That’s something you’d have to show is the case, really. All I am proposing is that we look at the experiment and the results and discuss them while we wait for others to attempt the same thing. If we really get going, maybe we do our own experiment. Lies in science are common, and many have been found out. You find out either by investigating the circumstances of the original claims or by trying to replicate them. What you don’t do is just assume everyone is lying because “people LIE”.
If they can report what they have only speculated, why can’t I?
Nuff said.
But what you DO do, is spot the lies. And one of the ways you spot lies is by seeing “equivocation”, “obfuscation”, and “redefining words” without proclaiming it.
No one is saying you can’t, you obviously already did. It’s called disagreement bro.
But not the norm. The cold is common but most of the time you don’t have one.
No, that’s how you do armchair rambling. Scientifically, there’s less value in what you’ve stated than what they’ve claimed to have attempted and the results they produced. It’s relatively easy to verify claims like the one they are making. The most recent high profile example was the neutrinos being faster than light. No one was able to replicate the result, we eventually start looking closer at their machinery, and find a cable that was accurate enough that calibration wasn’t affected but inaccurate enough (by a slight lag) that the results appeared to show neutrinos being faster than light by a few nanoseconds or whatever. I’m not saying they lied, they probably didn’t, but you could make the same claims about that instance that you did here (mostly because your claims are hot air).
Scientifically, there’s less value in what you’ve stated than what they’ve claimed to have attempted and the results they produced. It’s relatively easy to verify claims like the one they are making. The most recent high profile example was the neutrinos being faster than light. No one was able to replicate the result, we eventually start looking closer at their machinery, and find a cable that was accurate enough that calibration wasn’t affected but inaccurate enough (by a slight lag) that the results appeared to show neutrinos being faster than light by a few nanoseconds or whatever. I’m not saying they lied, they probably didn’t, but you could make the same claims about that instance that you did here (mostly because your claims are hot air).