Why is absolute zero finite compared to maximum heat (which is seemingly infinite)?

In article , writes:
In article ,
wrote:
In article ,
writes:
In article ,
wrote:
In article ,
writes:

...

Now, all I have to do is figure out how I caused it, figure
out how to can it, then all I have to do is sell it to certain
accelerator sites.

Sure, go for it. You probably got some combination of thermal
expansion and swelling due to changing humidity. Mostly the second, I
would guess.

I thought of that but 1/2" or so?

Yes, that's a lot.

Ha. AND the width didn't shrink so it can't be a physical
phenomena.

Why not. If the material is not isotropic, shrinkage rates can be
different in different directions. However ...

It's got to be me ****ing up unless I've truly
become a magician and can change physics laws.

... well, I didn't mention this possibility before, but most of the
times when dimensions appear to change, it is because somebody
measured wrong.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

"Stewart Smith" writes:

Here's an interesting aside:
Is this the beginnings of a Freeze Ray device?

No, it most certainly is =NOT=.


Molecules Knocked Cold
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemists have long used supersonic gas expansions to create beams of
molecules that are "cold" in the sense that the molecules are in low
vibrational and rotational states and do not undergo collisions. However,
translational motion of the molecules still makes them "hot" in the
laboratory frame of reference,

Like most press-releases, the above is oversimplified and rather misleading.
Please note that the author has used a perverse definition of "hot," namely,
is treating coherent translational motion of the stream _AS IF_ it were "random"
thermal motion --- which it most definitely is =NOT= !!! The kinetic temperature
of a gas is defined in terms the "random" component of motion left over once
the _average_ motion of the molecules has been subtracted, i.e., it is defined
relative to the _MEAN REST FRAME_ of a parcel of gas. Treating the "bulk"
motion _AS IF_ it were "heat" only gets one into trouble, both conceptually
and physically. I will give the author "partial credit" in recognizing this
conceptual inaccuracy by putting "scare quotes" around "hot" --- but it
would have been =MUCH= better if the author had simply =NOT= made this
incorrect and conceptually misleading statement _AT ALL_, since it adds
nothing of value to the article.


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'