Does this mean that mercury being a "liquid Metal" is an oxymoron? Does it fall under the same catagory?

As for ice cream, it is my opinion that anything that melts at a temp. above 32 farenhite(sp?) is and will always be a liquid. Again, just my opinion.

/me ponders with footsie

Ahhhh, Aleatoric, would you like to live at my place? I could free up a whole shelf on my book-case?



I made my own theory about the state of things. Everything that is solid at room-temperature is considered to be solid. (that obviously does not inclued Ice-cream).

You can call it Aufisch's rule.......

.....while also pondering navel

I think it's only water's freezing point....of course that would be 0 celsius

fahrenheit

Thank you footsie. Just glad Jafo didn't see that!!!!

Hmmmm, and if the glass is filled with a liquid?

When will the insanity end?

Glass is a liquid....but it just has a rather slow flow rate at room temperature....

I understand that it takes warm water longer to boil because of the oxygen content

Can anyone tell me why they put nutritional facts on water?

Can anyone tell me why they put nutritional facts on water?

That's for people who are allergic to water

aufisch,

That's an awful big move from Oklahoma to Australia

The books are probably a better value!

That's for people who are allergic to water

Anyone that is allergic to water isn't gonna care about how many calories and the percentage of fat it contains...

Plus, they should put a warning label for those people...not nutritional facts!

hmmmmmmm...veeery interesting....I still think the flashlight would melt from the build-up of energy incapable of escaping the emitter.

Glass however is a very slow flowing liquid...panes have been proven to bulge at the bottom and shrink from the top,it just takes a really long time(100 years or so)
[Message Edited]

I still think the flashlight would melt from the build-up of energy incapable of escaping the emitter

Nah. Even if, by some chance, there really was some kind of mechanism that would prevent the light energy from escaping the flashlight (and there's not ), the maximum amount of energy that could be released would be from the batteries, which don't have the energy content to melt a flashlight.

As for glass, it really *is* an amorphous solid (or a supercooled liquid, they're pretty much the same thing). There's some debate as to where the line between an amorphous solid and a regular solid lies, but the physics of amorphous materials is pretty well defined. As for glass flowing:

In the October 1999 issue of Discover, Yvonne Stokes, a mathematician at the University of Adelaide in Australia, says that it would take a mere ten million years for a windowpane to get 5 percent thicker at the bottom.

That's a pretty slow rate of flow

It still flows, ergo it is a liquid .... a state defined at natural 'room' temperature....[ambient air].

It 'can' be a solid....it 'can' be MORE of a liquid [flowing]...it  'can' be a gas....however it IS a liquid.

For light to be emitted from a torch travelling at the speed of light it MUST be accepted that light can travel faster than light...which is by definition absurd, ergo it won't happen...

light can travel faster than light...which is by definition absurd

This is consistent with the thinkin of your thoughts question

If a light traveled ffaster than than the speed of light, that new speed would then consistently be defined as the speed of light so no matter how fast it went, the defined speed of light would just increase no matter how fast the light traveled because the object doing the traveling is LIGHT ITSELF
[Message Edited]

Wrong....the speed of light is 'supposed' to be a finite, constant and also an ultimate limitation.

true... but I'm going off the theory of if it were possible, and if it were possible for light to go faster than what we have all accepted as the speed of light i.e 299,792,458 kilometers per second or 186,000 miles per second.
And it was actually somehow recorded, then consistent with the way we do things, it would be almost like breaking a record and things would have to be changed, because that would mean we had figured out how to accelerate the natural speed of light beyond its normal boundaries and if we learned to do that I think we can rest assured that people would naturally begin integrating it into everything possible

[Message Edited]

Photon emission doesn't care what velocity the emitting object is travelling at. Even if the object is travelling at the speed of light, photons will still be emitted, exactly as if the emitter were standing still (detailed specifics of photon and particle behaviour is described in QED, quantum electrodynamics).

If the emitter *is* moving at the speed of light, from the 'point of view' of the photon (zero time), those photons will just be added to the pool of existing photons. And if one or more of those photons happened to be detected by a slow observer, the velocity of the photon(s) will be measured as 'c'.

You are, of course, correct in asserting that light cannot travel faster than light, as the speed of light is an absolute, per Einstein

As strange as it seems, the universe really does work like that (to the best of our current knowledge).

As for solid / liquid / intermediate states, even some crystalline solids can flow, given the right conditions and sufficient time (vast amounts ).

Anyway, we could go back and forth on this for quite some time, and sooner or later, you'd catch me in a spelling error, and I'd have to slink away in shame
[Message Edited]

Photon emission MUST 'care what velocity the emitting object is travelling at'....sure, it will be emitted if, and only if the emitter is slower than the 'projectile'...and if the projectile has a limited velocity identical to the projector's then nothing will be emitted.

Its pure relativity, nothing more....

As interesting, entertaining etc as this trip to the twilight zone has been when you start attributing values like 'caring' to photon emissions you are surely doomed - relatively speaking that is

For what its worth, I remembered something about the constancy of the speed of light being challenged and ergo the Universal application of Einstein's theories.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm

The links there for anyone interested.

Oh and IR Brainiac you know as well as I, by the time we achieve light speed we will also have learnt to domesticate and train genetically modified glowflies and your question will be mute

that'll be 'moot'....

Not in the future If we're all travelling at the speed of light as presently defined then we're also moving faster than the speed of sound so the question becomes 'mute'. That's my story and I'm sticking to it
[Message Edited]

All this bruhaha is impossible. The flashlight has not been invented yet. >