'Do you even understand why the zeroth law of thermodynamics is called the zeroth law of thermodynamics? And before you answer I don't mean the rhetoric, and I don't mean the fuzzy bedtime stories. I mean...do you understand the implication of this?...'READ the question, UNDERSTAND it. Then when you think you have understood it, read it 5 times more. Then THINK - THEN answer.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:29,
archived)
The answer was"yes". It's not his fault your question was shit.
(
Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:34,
archived)
If a body A is in thermal equilibrium with a body B, and the body B is in thermal equilibrium with a body C, then A is in thermal equilibrium with C.
I know you'd view that as "regurgitation", but that's because that's what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other, one of which is in thermal equilibrium with a third, all three are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Meaning no energy passes between them. This is what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. What you want it to say is a different matter and one which isn't of very much significance.
It is called the zeroth law because it is more fundamental than the first law. The zeroth law is about bodies in thermal equilibrium, when no energy is being transferred. The first law of thermodynamics concerns the conservation of energy. As a result, the zeroth law is more fundamental than the first. It has nothing to do with the number "zero" in any physical sense; it is merely the law that comes before the first law. If you're digging extra meaning out of this then good luck and I look forward to the paper.
None of this is rhetoric, none of it is "fuzzy bedtime stories" (though if your bedtime stories consisted of pointless debates online about the zeroth law of thermodynamics then you have my pity), it's simply how the laws are defined.
That's genuinely the only thing you've asked me, though you have littered it with plenty of self-aggrandising abuse, which has certainly proved diverting.
(I know you'd view that as "regurgitation", but that's because that's what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other, one of which is in thermal equilibrium with a third, all three are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Meaning no energy passes between them. This is what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. What you want it to say is a different matter and one which isn't of very much significance.
It is called the zeroth law because it is more fundamental than the first law. The zeroth law is about bodies in thermal equilibrium, when no energy is being transferred. The first law of thermodynamics concerns the conservation of energy. As a result, the zeroth law is more fundamental than the first. It has nothing to do with the number "zero" in any physical sense; it is merely the law that comes before the first law. If you're digging extra meaning out of this then good luck and I look forward to the paper.
None of this is rhetoric, none of it is "fuzzy bedtime stories" (though if your bedtime stories consisted of pointless debates online about the zeroth law of thermodynamics then you have my pity), it's simply how the laws are defined.
That's genuinely the only thing you've asked me, though you have littered it with plenty of self-aggrandising abuse, which has certainly proved diverting.
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:36,
archived)
Again you are answering the question you want to be asked and not the question you asked. Read it again.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:38,
archived)
"Do you even understand why the zeroth law of thermodynamics is called the zeroth law of thermodynamics?"
Yes. It's because it is more fundamental than the first law. I've now said this two or three times and it's growing tiring.
"I mean...do you understand the implication of this?"
Yes, yes, I do. I have also explained this, in the post you replied to, rather obnoxiously.
I'm growing rather tired of this, not least as I have to work in the morning, and internet debates with someone who appears to have a different definition of "Do", "you", "understand", "zero" and "thermodynamics" is not a particuarly productive use of either of our time. I wish you luck in your scientific career and look forward to reading your research.
(Yes. It's because it is more fundamental than the first law. I've now said this two or three times and it's growing tiring.
"I mean...do you understand the implication of this?"
Yes, yes, I do. I have also explained this, in the post you replied to, rather obnoxiously.
I'm growing rather tired of this, not least as I have to work in the morning, and internet debates with someone who appears to have a different definition of "Do", "you", "understand", "zero" and "thermodynamics" is not a particuarly productive use of either of our time. I wish you luck in your scientific career and look forward to reading your research.
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:41,
archived)
Please don't make me embarrass you by making me elaborate further.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:41,
archived)
god, fuck!i thought moggy was dull
(
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 2:07,
archived)
Boris, I'm a physicistand I still didn't read all that.
Might do tomorrow though.
(Might do tomorrow though.
An Egg ,D,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 4:31,
archived)