Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of your reply in post#9, page#6 at 8:27am May 31.

I tend to agree with parts of your claim that “Those who burn hot with the fire of God within them have ALWAYS been marginalized by the church of their day, frequently imprisoned or killed for their belief and actions.” There have been periods of time. Yet, you would probably admit that even casual scrutiny of medieval history shows that many who actually “burned hot” were non-believers accused of “witchcraft” and other sins by Believers and the Churches that supported them. Furthermore, I am uncertain which Believers are being marginalized by the church(es) today? Consequently, my biggest issue is your enhanced use of the superlative “ALWAYS”.

On a more philosophical plane, I wonder why “Those who burn hot with the fire of God within them” are successfully “marginalized” in the first place? If “God” were real and as genuinely powerful as claimed, wouldn’t Believers have prevailed “ALWAYS”, rather than the other way around?

I know you don’t contend that Old Testament “miracles” are true. You wrote that you believe them to be “metaphorical”. What about New Testament “miracles”? Could the various stories simply be fiction, or perhaps embellishments of ordinary events? After all, in modern times doctors “touch” patients (then time elapses while the patient follows the treatment) and they are healed! No miracles here, just people applying knowledge of what works most of the time.

Both libraries, Old and New, are chock full of books containing advice (”direct from God”, according to those who “burn hot” with the “fire of God”) about how to conduct ourselves individually and collectively. Obviously, some of it is valid and useful because many successful individuals and societies employ uncannily similar advice to guide their activities. Personally, I don’t believe biblical advice is followed solely because “God” said so, rather that the advice has been shown to be valuable for civil, peaceful, cooperative, respectful coexistence. In fact other biblical advice is eschewed precisely because it detracts from those goals. The question (still on the table) is “how do you, “hs”, decide which of God’s advice to follow and which to ignore?”

RE: the equivalency of temperature and velocity.

Boyle’s Law, and the more general gas laws within the big picture of thermodynamics indicates that temperature is a measurement of relative molecular movement. The faster molecules move, the higher the temperature. This understanding undergirds our understanding of pretty much all the physical phenomena we relate to heat and energy movement.

In fact, absolute 0 (zero K) is defined as the point where all molecular movement ceases.

Molecular movement is imaginary. There is no evidence that it is real.

Gravity is not real, only imaginary. Evidence exists only that apples fall from trees, and planets orbit about each other in predictable ways.

Gravity exists only as imagined, and only in agreement within language. There is no evidence that it exists as real.

Science is a fraud perpetrated by the intellectually skilled elite upon the poor and ignorant masses to take advantage of them.

It is nothing more that a philosophical parlor trick.

Hello “hs”,

Thanks for the favor of yet another reply in post#2, page#7 at , May 31.

I am grateful for your clarification regarding the “equivalence” of temperature and velocity. Now I can help you resolve either your confusion, or misrepresentation.

In fact, the temperature and velocity are not equivalent as you stated, but rather they are related, particularly when matters of atomic particle motion in gases are an issue. As it turns out, their relationship is not even linear. Velocity changes with the square of temperature: average velocity of particles (or more precisely, the root mean square average velocity) equals the square root of (3 times the molar gas constant times temperature divided by the molar mass of the gas).

Furthermore, this is also a misrepresentation of “Boyle’s Law” which describes the relationships between gas pressure and volume at a constant temperature. It was about a hundred years after Robert Boyle’s discovery before James Maxwell theorized the relationship between velocity, particle mass, and temperature.

When you “do the math”, you realize that temperature and velocity are not equivalent. If you, or Gerald Schroeder, struggle to reconcile “God” with scientific observation by employing a temperature/velocity equivalence, then your conclusions are flawed.

However, mostly likely you just misspoke and I’m making a bigger issue out of this than necessary. One of my flaws is that I’m a stickler for accuracy.

Seriously interested to know.

Is molecular motion “zero” equivalent to temperature “zero?” Is this a true statement.

Does hs adequately edit with the use of the adjective “equivalency” in reference to the mathmatical relationship in question?

Another, allow me to respond to your last questions.

First, on the subject of Absolute Zero, here is a wikipedia link. It’s not a bad article, even though it IS limited by being in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero

In this article, it points out that temperature is an entropy measurement, and absolute zero is the point where the entropy of a system reaches zero. It is theoretically impossible to get there, however, because it would violate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: If a particle was at absolute rest, both it’s position (fixed) and it’s velocity (zero) would be known. There is a great deal more.

On my use of ‘equivalence’ in discussing temperature and velocity. I admit I was less than precise in my language. The fundamental relationship between temperature, pressure, and volume of gasses is expressed in the ideal gas equation PV=nRT, where P=pressure, V=volume, n=the quantity of gas involved in moles, R=the gas constant, and T=temperature.

One can see from this classic equation the relationship between pressure, volume, and temperature…and it’s one that while it assumes an ideal gas, it works most of the time for many of the real gasses that exist out there. Further study in thermodynamics reveals a generalized model that posits that molecular motion is what creates pressure and temperature: More motion causes more collisions with the walls of the vessel (pressure goes up) and more collisions with other particles within the system (temperature goes up). Adding energy to the system (heat) just makes things move all the faster.

So, in that sense, one can say that there is a definitive relationship between temperature, pressure, and velocity of the molecules involved. Equivalence was a poor word choice, but one that works for most lay people. Allow me to point out that I could now go into a long involved discussion about the difference between accuracy and precision, and why those particular terms that are frequently interchanged are really about very different things.

Still and all, the point I think my early post about temperature and velocity was trying to make was this: It is possible, through application of relativistic math and an understanding of time dilation as a function of relative velocity to posit that to a particle INSIDE the universe immediately after the Big Bang that time would move very, very slowly because of the near light velocities involved and the very high temperatures present at that moment. To an observer OUTSIDE the universe (God?) the first period of expansion would last barely an eyeblink. This was a discussion of how the six days of genesis and the 16 billion years or so of time passage from the big bang could in fact be equivalent.

Got all that?

No, but to your point, I get what your are sharing without it.

I am not a scientist or mathematician. This query is of another realm.

Is “equivalency” (reflexive, symetrical, and transitive) an accurate (albeit generalized) mathematical term for decribing the mathematical equation in question?

For me, the use of the = sign, makes it an equation (equivalency) in the simplest terms. I am asking if it is correct in mathematical jargon.

Yes or no.

Another, I apologize. Sometimes I have the tendency to describe how a clock works when asked the time.

Are temperature and molecular motion equivalent? In a word, no. A better statement is that the velocity of molecular motion can be inferred from temperature measurements. Know the temperature, know how fast things are moving at the molecular or atomic (or subatomic for that matter) level.

Thank you for your patience. I am somewhat dense in these matters.

I understand that the relationship between molecular action and temperature is not equal and has factors to balance the description.

This was a question regarding the distinction, mathematically, between and “equivalent” relationship and an “equivalency” relationship. I am still not clear, but left for another time….