Re: Please welcome . . .

En réponse à Costentin Cornomorus :


>It's illogical, because once you place a new
>something before all other somethings it becomes
>the first - the formost - something.
There's no such thing as a "new" physical law. Physical laws are intemporal 
(unless you believe that physical laws of the universe can change over 
time. Not per se impossible, but with such a principle it becomes 
impossible to study *anything* in a scientific way. Unless you suppose that 
this evolution is predictible, in which case you just reinvent intemporal 
laws, where you just added time as a parameter). However, they can be 
discovered (and recognised as such) at different times. The basic law that 
was talked about *is* the first and foremost, compared to the other laws of 
thermodynamics, because those other laws depend on it (logically and in a 
scientific point of view. It's more of a principle than the other 
thermodynamic laws, and thus more fundamental). It's just that people 
previously overlooked it. And since the numerotation of the laws of 
thermodynamics was already well established, it was simpler to call it 
"zeroth law" rather than "fourth law" (since it *is* illogical to have a 
fourth law which is the basis for the first three).

However, I learned to call it "fundamental law" which is also a way to put 
it on top of the hierarchy (which contains only two other laws of 
thermodynamics. I've learned both the three-law and the two-law 
formulations, but kept only the last one. They are completely equivalent 
from a scientific point of view). However, It kind of puts it apart from 
the other laws of thermodynamics, which is incorrect.

> > We're physicists. We don't do common sense.
>
>That's for sure!
As Ferko has on his sig.: "Common sense is what tells you the earth is flat".

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang. 

Reply