First, E = energy, and temperature is energy. So if temperature increases, doesn’t that increase E? And if E = mc², doesn’t that mean that either mass or the speed of light would need to speed up in order to keep up with it?
Second, although false, a lot of people are trained to believe that time stands still at 0 K. In that case, light could never escape 0 K, and as temperatures approach 0 K light would slog to a halt. If that was the case, the logical conclusion would be that speed of light would increase as temperatures rise.
Or maybe something completely different - I just thought it was a fun question to try to reverse engineer. :)
No it is not. Temperature does not depend on mass, while energy does depend on mass.
If you apply thermal energy to two identical objects of different mass equally, the temperature will not be the same between them, as the object with less mass will have a higher temperature, despite the same amount of thermal energy transfer.
Hypotheses, not theories. Unless your idea has been experimentally duplicated & verified by a good (if not great) number of your peers, it is not a theory.
Again, I’m not trying to be an asshole, but it’s important to remember in science the distinction between the scientific meaning of the word as opposed to the widespread colloquial meaning of it.
Sorry for not committing to scientific standards in my pioneering research into why OP would ask such a question!
Imagine you’re coming back home with your partner one day. You see your new pair of shoes all chewed up. In the corner of the room you see your dog, looking guilty as hell. Your partner might ask you “what happened to your shoes”. You might respond “I don’t know, but I have a theory”. To which your partner might respond “well actually, that’s not a theory, that’s a hypothesis, you idiot”.
Take a deep breath. I never called you an idiot or called you stupid or attacked your person. I actively tried to be polite about it; you don’t have to be a dick in return.
I thought you were OP. I mis-saw. That was my bad.
Sorry, didn’t mean to come across as an asshole - just meant to emphasize that the word “theory” could also be used as a figure of speech.
I realize it maybe wasn’t clear enough from my post that I didn’t try to make any actual scientific hypothesis or anything - I merely found it entertaining to figure out why anyone would think climate change could alter the speed of time. It just seemed like such an absurd starting point that I found it enjoyable to try to make sense of it.
But again, no hard feelings - communicating online can be tricky. Sorry about that!
Sorry, didn’t mean to come across as an asshole - just meant to emphasize that the word “theory” could also be used as a figure of speech.
I apologize if I also came across as a dick. I know you meant the informal usage. I don’t know where in the world you’re from (nor is it my business really), but I’m from America, and here we have a big problem with science ignorance which has led to anti-science being a very common thing. Small things like the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis”, though mostly inconsequential on their own, are symptomatic I feel of this larger problem. That’s why we get ignorant morons here that deny evolution and claim “It’s just a theory” as if that’s a valid rebuke.
I merely found it entertaining to figure out why anyone would think climate change could alter the speed of time. It just seemed like such an absurd starting point that I found it enjoyable to try to make sense of it.
And I get that. I totally find that enjoyable as well. Like reading about some of the ways someone could claim the Earth is flat and try to scientifically justify it. Totally bullshit, but it’s fascinating.
Like I said, perhaps I came across as way more vicious than I intended. If so, I sincerely apologize. Like you said, tone is difficult to convey over text and clearly I have failed at that.
No worries at all! My original comment was playing around with pseudoscience while being willfully ignorant, I totally see how that can trigger a negative reaction. :)
I have two theories.
First, E = energy, and temperature is energy. So if temperature increases, doesn’t that increase E? And if E = mc², doesn’t that mean that either mass or the speed of light would need to speed up in order to keep up with it?
Second, although false, a lot of people are trained to believe that time stands still at 0 K. In that case, light could never escape 0 K, and as temperatures approach 0 K light would slog to a halt. If that was the case, the logical conclusion would be that speed of light would increase as temperatures rise.
Or maybe something completely different - I just thought it was a fun question to try to reverse engineer. :)
No it is not. Temperature does not depend on mass, while energy does depend on mass.
If you apply thermal energy to two identical objects of different mass equally, the temperature will not be the same between them, as the object with less mass will have a higher temperature, despite the same amount of thermal energy transfer.
Nicely explained! (not that that’s the only flaw of the logic of course)
Not to be THAT user, but…
Hypotheses, not theories. Unless your idea has been experimentally duplicated & verified by a good (if not great) number of your peers, it is not a theory.
Again, I’m not trying to be an asshole, but it’s important to remember in science the distinction between the scientific meaning of the word as opposed to the widespread colloquial meaning of it.
Sorry for not committing to scientific standards in my pioneering research into why OP would ask such a question!
Imagine you’re coming back home with your partner one day. You see your new pair of shoes all chewed up. In the corner of the room you see your dog, looking guilty as hell. Your partner might ask you “what happened to your shoes”. You might respond “I don’t know, but I have a theory”. To which your partner might respond “well actually, that’s not a theory, that’s a hypothesis, you idiot”.
Woah, woah. Okay, two things:
Take a deep breath. I never called you an idiot or called you stupid or attacked your person. I actively tried to be polite about it; you don’t have to be a dick in return.
I thought you were OP. I mis-saw. That was my bad.
Sorry, didn’t mean to come across as an asshole - just meant to emphasize that the word “theory” could also be used as a figure of speech.
I realize it maybe wasn’t clear enough from my post that I didn’t try to make any actual scientific hypothesis or anything - I merely found it entertaining to figure out why anyone would think climate change could alter the speed of time. It just seemed like such an absurd starting point that I found it enjoyable to try to make sense of it.
But again, no hard feelings - communicating online can be tricky. Sorry about that!
I apologize if I also came across as a dick. I know you meant the informal usage. I don’t know where in the world you’re from (nor is it my business really), but I’m from America, and here we have a big problem with science ignorance which has led to anti-science being a very common thing. Small things like the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis”, though mostly inconsequential on their own, are symptomatic I feel of this larger problem. That’s why we get ignorant morons here that deny evolution and claim “It’s just a theory” as if that’s a valid rebuke.
And I get that. I totally find that enjoyable as well. Like reading about some of the ways someone could claim the Earth is flat and try to scientifically justify it. Totally bullshit, but it’s fascinating.
Like I said, perhaps I came across as way more vicious than I intended. If so, I sincerely apologize. Like you said, tone is difficult to convey over text and clearly I have failed at that.
No worries at all! My original comment was playing around with pseudoscience while being willfully ignorant, I totally see how that can trigger a negative reaction. :)
I hope you have a nice evening / morning / afternoon / whatever-the-fuck-this-is.