More Hissink Crap Disposed Of

More of Hissinks rantings punctured.

theoldhogger - "Ender....Your complete bafflement with science is obvious. You have been listening to false priests and priestesses."

Really so lets have a look at Louis's ludicrous claims about his knowledge with the kilo of feathers and kilo of lead example which he failed to point out where I was wrong despite claiming so.

So we have established that a kilo of lead does have the same mass as a kilo of feathers. That is what an intensive property is - independent of the physical properties of the mass.

Now a completely different problem is this. Which weighs more a cubic meter of feathers or a cubic meter of lead? The obvious answer is of course a cubic meter of lead. Why - because lead is denser than feathers. Density is therefore an extensive property. That is that the property depends on the material. Despite the fact that volume is intensive, density is not. However there is a further problem as the density of a material will be different in different conditions. Molten lead has a different density than lead a 0 degC so extensive properties are always qualified. So the density of lead is quoted at a specific temperature and pressure, usually STP, which is 0degC and 1atm pressure.

With feathers there is a different problem - not all feathers are the same. To solve this problem you would need to exactly specify the type of feather that comprised the cubic meter. The other way is to take many samples of different feathers, measure the density of them at STP and then take the average of a large number of samples. This way then you could have the average density of feathers and could then calculate the mass of feathers in a cubic meter at STP.

For both measurement, a M^3 of lead and a M^3 of feathers you would get an answer that is valid at STP and within a few percent of reality.

So contrary to Louis's ravings it is possible to work with extensive properties as long as you are careful about the conditions that you specify so that you get the correct answer. The idea that average temperature somehow contravenes thermodynamics is only a pathetic attempt to baffle with bullshit. If you throw enough long words around then people turn off and think you must know what you are talking about.

If someone mentions measuring temperatures just relate it to measuring the density of a mass of feathers and cut through the bullshit.

In physics simple questions often have very very complex answers and the greatest insights come from the simplest questions. The question of what is heavier a kilo of lead or a kilo of feathers is actually quite a profound one. One that Louis failed to see the implications of because he really does not understand it.

Definitely be wary of false priests and priestesses spouting pseudo science however at least show up the pseudo scientists by asking them to explain their ravings. Most of them at this point will retreat muttering about the second law of thermodynamics which they probably don't understand either. Or they will resort to stupid sock puppets.