It is accepted that gravitation acts upon all matter throughout the universe and it is observed to do so, yet at the atomic level inter-atomic and celestial gravitation ‘can be ignored’. Applying this to convection means that this thermal transport cannot be sensibly explained.
However if we accept that gravitation acts on all matter including atoms in accordance with Newtons Laws, which means rejecting the illogical, unproven and obstructive concept of a kinetic motion of atoms in ‘empty space’, then convection can be simply explained in these terms, and not only this phenomenon but all the others that I have considered in this light.
Thus gravitation is the ultimate force, and which is the ultimate cause of all other forces, one such is pressure that also is observed to act throughout the universe.
High relative pressures result in matter emitting heat energy, and even higher pressures result in the emission of higher grade ‘nuclear’ energy (and the simultaneous creation of higher grade matter), on the other hand, if it is accepted that a vacuum is an impossible state then lower pressure matter ultimately absorbs all the heat (and other) energy expelled by high pressure matter. This fully explains how the universe works without recourse to highly complex mathematical and ‘aethereal’ structures.
As a high school chemistry teacher, I wonder what the underlying reality may be behind the concepts of a substance’s energy content and enthalpy content. While it is possible to measure temperature changes and pressure and volume changes, what tangible evidence is there for the existence of “internal energy” and “enthalpy”? We teachers keep telling students that these are real things, but all we can ever measure are temperature, pressure, and volume, as well as mass or weight. I have become very skeptical of the reality of much of the scientific mantras. What we can measure, we can treat scientifically and manipulate. But is “enthalpy” similar to the theoretical concepts of “id” or “ego” used by some schools of psychology–that is, based only on speculation and mental constructs rather than verified fact? I would like to see more ideas in science treated scientifically, that is, derived from the first principles of observation and quantification. Or, if speculation is absolutely indispensable, let science drop its charade of disinterested objectivity and admit that it is a form of religion. I would appreciate any informed comment on these matters. Thank you.
While I may not agree with the results of your perspective, I appreciate that you do not shirk the opportunity to inspect more closely the holes in this supposed tapestry of nature that science has claimed to weave.
Arjun
While I may not agree with the results of your perspective, I appreciate that you do not shirk the opportunity to inspect more closely the holes in this supposed tapestry of nature that science claims to weave.
Arjun