The problem is sea ice has nothing to do with sea level - it floats.
It has something to do with it since when it melts it's basically fresh water which will decrease the ocean salinity which affects how it expands with temperature (plus other effects). I'm guessing a second-order effect at best, but I don't know.
No, it isn't strange that radiation exposure at and immediately after a nuclear blast would be deadly, and not long afterward a small, even negligible effect.
It's Lucas' influence by Kurosawa, and his influence on just about every film-maker in existence, that people see.
The most influential artist is not the one who made by some measure more of a cultural impact than the hundreds of others artists who also had cultural impacts. It's the artist that inspired them all.
The impact of Kurosawa on our culture is not direct, but both dwarfs and subsumes that of Lucas.
"Captain, I can't find the enemy destroyer anywhere! There's nothing but a big faraday cage moving at approximately the speed of a destroyer in the middle of the ocean!"
which implies that it once was a star which burned off its mass.
It doesn't imply that. Brown dwarfs were never stars. Fusion may occur, but not in a sustained fashion like in a star. The rate of fusion will just drop and drop along with the temperature of the brown dwarf. Stars on the other hand maintain a more-or-less steady rate of fusion for millions or billions of years.
What's interesting is that the smaller a star is the longer it lasts, and the least of the actual stars, the red dwarfs, are expected to be burning their hydrogen fuel for trillions of years, so the universe isn't close to old enough for any of them to have ceased fusing. Making a stark contrast between the least of stars, and the greatest of brown dwarfs.
Use of the term evolution in that context, but it's not terribly inaccurate.
If you accept that part of the evolution of a star is the process of accreting enough material to reach the minimal stellar mass, then it's accurate to say that a brown dwarf got farther along that path than a planet before it stopped. And yes "evolution" is the correct term in this context.
'Failed star' As if it tried, but just couldn't pull it off.
Exactly right. It accreted mass from a cloud of gas and dust and got pretty big, but just couldn't collect enough for whatever reason to sustain fusion and become a star. A "failed star". It's poetic, but accurate. Even Jupiter is sometimes described this way.
A decent article shouldn't call something a Brown Dwarf star and define it to be a 'star' which failed to achieve fusion. If it failed to achieve fusion, then it isn't a star, but... a planet;)
They don't call it a "Brown Dwarf star", they call it a Brown Dwarf, because "Brown Dwarf star" is not a thing since Brown Dwarfs are by definition sub-stellar objects. They may undergo some fusion, but not sustained fusion and so will steadily cool over their lifetime, unlike a star. Other differences are that a brown dwarf will be fully convective with no chemical differentiation by depth, unlike a star.
The line between brown dwarf and planet is fuzzy, and not dependent on the presence or absence of fusion at any point. Very large gas giants -- perhaps even Jupiter -- could have had some fusion occur.
So the correct nitpick would be that they didn't say "sustained fusion", implying that fusion never occurred.
A brown dwarf which isn't fusing anymore isn't a 'failed to become a star' star, but a star which has ceased fusion.
No, a brown dwarf which isn't fusing anymore is a brown dwarf, which is a "failed to become a star".
Not hot enough to be a white dwarf, and cooling to become a black dwarf.
A white dwarf is not a really hot brown dwarf and a black dwarf is not a really cool brown dwarf. A white dwarf is the remnant of a Main Sequence star that wasn't big enough to form a neutron star after its fusion-burning life is over. It's electron-degenerate matter. A black dwarf is a what white dwarfs will eventually become in something like 10^15 years when they finish cooling.
The first image and spectrograph from the Very Large Telescope Array of the possible nethack planet shows what scientists say appears to be "a purple lower-case 'h'".
"It may just be a type of dwarf," the lead scientist on the project said, "and it does not appear to be heading towards us. There's no reason to be alarmed."
In related news the head of NIS was forced to resign yesterday, when in the aftermath of this discovery he advocated the development of Scroll of Genocide technology "as a necessary and prudent precaution."
A Black Dwarf is not actually a gas giant which was never a star, but rather the end point of evolution of a white dwarf (which is itself the post-fusion remnant of main sequence stars like the sun), when it cools off and is no longer emitting significant amounts of light (even in infrared). None of these are thought to exist because it's going to take much longer than the current age of the universe (as in 10,000 times the current age of the universe or more) for the white dwarfs to cool off to that degree.
A Brown Dwarf is a sub-stellar object, i.e. something that was never a star undergoing sustained fusion, and while the larger ones would be expected to glow in the low visible range (red), and of course infrared, the smaller ones at around 500K may not glow in visible light at all yet are still classified as brown dwarfs instead of planets. The boundary is a little fuzzy. In any case, though, they'd never appear "brown" from their emitted light.
Why wouldn't you leave the drapes closed while you are at work? I'm more likely to open the drapes when I get home, because I want to be able to see out, while obviously when I'm gone that doesn't matter and keeping the house cool(-er) is more important. If I left the drapes open all day, closing them for the last couple hours of daylight to try to keep the heat out is a perfect example of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.
EU claims that the sun is powered not by fusion, but by a DC interstellar current. The induced magnetic field at 1 AU from a current of sufficient magnitude would far surpass the earth's magnetic field. A compass trivially disproves this.
EU claims that the sun carries a net charge, producing the solar wind from electrostatic repulsion. Experiment shows the wind is actually a quasi-neutral plasma containing equal amounts of positive and negative particles moving outward, when a net charge would obviously move the two charge carriers in opposite directions.
Two flaws that are really one flaw: EU doesn't understand E.
I'm not a physicist, and to me, a lot of this seems like wishful thinking : building on a model of a model, without any actual proof that any of it is actually correct.
We have an enourmous amount of experimental evidence that a huge number of predictions of the Standard Model are correct to ridiculous degrees of precision. No matter what happens, that mountain of evidence is not going to go away.
You can't literally "prove" physical theories; proof is for math. You can only acquire evidence based on observation. And there is precious little else in all of science that has as much hard quantitative evidence for it than the Standard Model.
Accepting that you meant "proof" in the sense that is applicable to physics, it's just ludicrous to say we're building on a model "without any actual proof".
The theory also isn't perfect as there are phenomenon it does not explain, but given its enourmous success, doesn't it make sense to build on it to iron out the imperfections? It's not like this is being done to the exclusion of complete reworks. Physicists around the world are working on the problem from various angles. It would be outright stupid to ignore the "Standard Model is basically correct but needs extending to cover the new phenomenon" angle.
It seems like a lot of fun, but why does it surprise anyone if it comes crashing down one day ?
Two different answers: 1) Because if the theory was really that bad that it was going to come "crashing down", then it wouldn't have been so fantastically successful up to this point.
2) It wouldn't be a surprise if the next-better-theory does away with the Standard Model completely as the most accurate description of reality, because this has happened before and will probably happen again. However, just like with the theories those two supplanted, the Standard Model would not so much come "crashing down" as be shown to just be an approximate model that works extremely well for a broad range of conditions and to extremely high precision. It is essentially impossible for this not to be the case because we've already tested it in that range. Any replacement theory must give the same predictions for the same conditions, or that theory is not a good replacement.
The greatest progress has been made in refining the Standard Model, rather than replacing it.
Which is why a lot of folks were gunning for SUSY, because that's more or less exactly what is -- an extension, rather than a replacement, for the Standard Model.
In SUSY we keep everything we already know and love about the Standard model, but there is also a symetry where each existing particle has a partner with 1/2 spin difference.
Which as a consequence would apparently solve a number of known issues with the Standard Model -- which is attractive because we know the SM is good, but flawed -- and also provide possible solutions for other mysteries like Dark Matter.
So, basically, rulling out SUSY would be a setback for the (very reasonable and desireable) "refinement" model of advancing physics.
Maybe you're going off the fact that String Theory, a revolutionary new model of physics, also predicts SUSY?
The Legend of Zelda: Poor GameCube Port (aka Twilight Princess), which also suffers from the pointer issue previously mentioned.
Uh no it fucking doesn't. The slingshot, boomerang, and bow are 3 of the most used weapons and the wiimote makes them a joy to use versus analog-stick based controls. It's not quite as amazing a setup as Metroid Prime which made me completely swear off ever playing a console FPS with dual analog ever again, but still.
It does suffer from "waggle", though.
I don't know about 95% of games, but 100% of games I own would not be the same without the wiimote. Even The Godfather, to pick the weakest example -- aside from aiming, it's just amazingly fun to grab someone and throw them down a flight of stairs in a way that doing so with a button combo wouldn't be.
What's funny about the turkey vulture comparison is that of (new world, at least) vultures, they're the only ones with a good sense of smell. I think it's a lot easier to find (non-avian) predators with excellent senses of smell.
The point about soaring explaining the size of vultures is a good one, though size can still be use. Condors can more easily eat large and thick-hided carrion than the smaller vultures, and this could apply to t-rex. Also just like its size could scare off scavengers, it could also scare predators off a kill for an easy meal - though its doubtless that happened in any case. In vultures its the black vulture who dominates at kills, but there its about their superior dexterity on the ground.
Ah, but if the jaws are big enough then it doesn't need the arms (and there's some evidence that the jaws were powerful and teeth strong enough to be used for killing large prey). And one theory for why the arms are so small is to allow for such big jaws while staying balanced.
Of course a predator as big as T-Rex would have still eaten carrion -- or just stole fresh kills from other, smaller predators since that's one of the advantages of being big. Like their modern cousins, the eagles.
On a somewhat tangential note, those wee arms were a lot stronger than you might think. Tendon attachment marks on fossils suggest that T-Rex arms were extremely strong. One theory is that it used the arms to help it get upright, basically letting it do a small push-up to help get its weight under it.
The point I was making is that the definition being used is fairly specialized to the context
There is no context in modern science where "only matter can have temperature" is correct.
In short, you can educate someone about the meanings of terms in context without needing to be arrogant jerk about it.
When the someone is sincerely questioning or just confused, then I make every effort not to be. When the someone is themselves being an arrogant jerk, calling a PhD in astronomy stupid because of their own ignorance, I see no reason to be anything else.
If the subject of this thread was "How can X-Rays have temperature?" or similar then you would have seen that reflected in my post.
To describe the temperature of a photon is meaningless
To describe the temperature of a massive particle is meaningless.
Only by having a collection of particles (whether massive or not) that follow a particular statistical distribution can temperature be meaningfully talked about. Those distributions are different for different types of collections of particles. The one that describes ideal gasses is not the only one.
and gives the false impression that temperature can vary for a given fixed frequency of light
I suppose if you assume that X-ray is a single fixed frequency and that they were talking about single photons, but that would be as silly as thinking someone was talking about the temperature of a single particle that had a single specific energy, when obviously they must be talking about all energies of all particles in the collection.
You seem to be treating this like X-Rays are a single, fixed frequency and/or that these observed X-Rays are like a like a laser with a single output frequency.
The X-Ray range is from about 0.001 nm to 10nm. At 100mil K the spectrum is very nearly entirely in that range -- in fact nearly entirely between 10 pm and 200 pm. If you changed the temperature somewhat, the spectrum would change, but would still be in the X-Rays. So yes, temperature can vary and still be in a range of frequencies of light. 100mil K X-Rays and 90mil K X-Rays are different, in that there is a different energy spectrum.
When describing EM Radiation it makes much more sense to consider the energy of the photons in eV or to describe the entire energy amount of a discharge in joules.
.
But the photons cover a range of energies, so it makes no sense to talk about their energy in eV because there isn't just one value, and while you could talk about total emission (in Watts would probably be more interesting), that wouldn't tell you anything about the wavelength distribution.
it really added no information
The description as given is the most correct, and provides the most meaningful information.
Plus it added the chance for you to learn all these things about the concept of temperature!
As I said, I found that intersting and would like to know more.
Here's more: They made that up as a shoddy explanation for why exponential growth didn't hit transistor-based ICs immediately to fallaciously justify their irrational expectation that quantum computers should immediately experience exponential growth. Every step of the logical chain is wrong even if you assume the previous step was correct, and the starting fact was a lie.
Sure, it's reasonable to think that, just incorrect. Happens all the time. Don't confuse unusual nomenclature with aspects of thermodynamic theory that you weren't familiar with. Don't go complaining about a perfectly correct statement because it doesn't match the high school notion of what temperature means.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is sea ice has nothing to do with sea level - it floats.
It has something to do with it since when it melts it's basically fresh water which will decrease the ocean salinity which affects how it expands with temperature (plus other effects). I'm guessing a second-order effect at best, but I don't know.
No, it isn't strange that radiation exposure at and immediately after a nuclear blast would be deadly, and not long afterward a small, even negligible effect.
Not so hard if we only need to get our asses there. :)
It's Lucas' influence by Kurosawa, and his influence on just about every film-maker in existence, that people see.
The most influential artist is not the one who made by some measure more of a cultural impact than the hundreds of others artists who also had cultural impacts. It's the artist that inspired them all.
The impact of Kurosawa on our culture is not direct, but both dwarfs and subsumes that of Lucas.
"Captain, I can't find the enemy destroyer anywhere! There's nothing but a big faraday cage moving at approximately the speed of a destroyer in the middle of the ocean!"
"Damnit! Where could they be?!"
which implies that it once was a star which burned off its mass.
It doesn't imply that. Brown dwarfs were never stars. Fusion may occur, but not in a sustained fashion like in a star. The rate of fusion will just drop and drop along with the temperature of the brown dwarf. Stars on the other hand maintain a more-or-less steady rate of fusion for millions or billions of years.
What's interesting is that the smaller a star is the longer it lasts, and the least of the actual stars, the red dwarfs, are expected to be burning their hydrogen fuel for trillions of years, so the universe isn't close to old enough for any of them to have ceased fusing. Making a stark contrast between the least of stars, and the greatest of brown dwarfs.
Brown is dark yellow, but okay, I buy it. :)
Some would say that going from "least of the planets" to "king of the comets" is a promotion.
Use of the term evolution in that context, but it's not terribly inaccurate.
If you accept that part of the evolution of a star is the process of accreting enough material to reach the minimal stellar mass, then it's accurate to say that a brown dwarf got farther along that path than a planet before it stopped. And yes "evolution" is the correct term in this context.
'Failed star' As if it tried, but just couldn't pull it off.
Exactly right. It accreted mass from a cloud of gas and dust and got pretty big, but just couldn't collect enough for whatever reason to sustain fusion and become a star. A "failed star". It's poetic, but accurate. Even Jupiter is sometimes described this way.
A decent article shouldn't call something a Brown Dwarf star and define it to be a 'star' which failed to achieve fusion. If it failed to achieve fusion, then it isn't a star, but ... a planet ;)
They don't call it a "Brown Dwarf star", they call it a Brown Dwarf, because "Brown Dwarf star" is not a thing since Brown Dwarfs are by definition sub-stellar objects. They may undergo some fusion, but not sustained fusion and so will steadily cool over their lifetime, unlike a star. Other differences are that a brown dwarf will be fully convective with no chemical differentiation by depth, unlike a star.
The line between brown dwarf and planet is fuzzy, and not dependent on the presence or absence of fusion at any point. Very large gas giants -- perhaps even Jupiter -- could have had some fusion occur.
So the correct nitpick would be that they didn't say "sustained fusion", implying that fusion never occurred.
A brown dwarf which isn't fusing anymore isn't a 'failed to become a star' star, but a star which has ceased fusion.
No, a brown dwarf which isn't fusing anymore is a brown dwarf, which is a "failed to become a star".
Not hot enough to be a white dwarf, and cooling to become a black dwarf.
A white dwarf is not a really hot brown dwarf and a black dwarf is not a really cool brown dwarf. A white dwarf is the remnant of a Main Sequence star that wasn't big enough to form a neutron star after its fusion-burning life is over. It's electron-degenerate matter. A black dwarf is a what white dwarfs will eventually become in something like 10^15 years when they finish cooling.
A White dwarf or black dwarfs is a has-been.
A Brown dwarfs is a never-was.
The first image and spectrograph from the Very Large Telescope Array of the possible nethack planet shows what scientists say appears to be "a purple lower-case 'h'".
"It may just be a type of dwarf," the lead scientist on the project said, "and it does not appear to be heading towards us. There's no reason to be alarmed."
In related news the head of NIS was forced to resign yesterday, when in the aftermath of this discovery he advocated the development of Scroll of Genocide technology "as a necessary and prudent precaution."
A Black Dwarf is not actually a gas giant which was never a star, but rather the end point of evolution of a white dwarf (which is itself the post-fusion remnant of main sequence stars like the sun), when it cools off and is no longer emitting significant amounts of light (even in infrared). None of these are thought to exist because it's going to take much longer than the current age of the universe (as in 10,000 times the current age of the universe or more) for the white dwarfs to cool off to that degree.
A Brown Dwarf is a sub-stellar object, i.e. something that was never a star undergoing sustained fusion, and while the larger ones would be expected to glow in the low visible range (red), and of course infrared, the smaller ones at around 500K may not glow in visible light at all yet are still classified as brown dwarfs instead of planets. The boundary is a little fuzzy. In any case, though, they'd never appear "brown" from their emitted light.
Dwarf terminology is weird.
TFA tries to equate supersymmetry with dark matter, which is emphatically wrong.
No it doesn't. It equates SUSY particles with Dark Matter candidates, which is completely true.
It was the Northern Australians who were bedazzled. By the eclipse.
This raises many questions. I knew solar eclipses caused superpowers, but also spontaneous human bedazzlings?!
Why wouldn't you leave the drapes closed while you are at work? I'm more likely to open the drapes when I get home, because I want to be able to see out, while obviously when I'm gone that doesn't matter and keeping the house cool(-er) is more important. If I left the drapes open all day, closing them for the last couple hours of daylight to try to keep the heat out is a perfect example of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.
Here's two flaws, that are really one flaw:
EU claims that the sun is powered not by fusion, but by a DC interstellar current. The induced magnetic field at 1 AU from a current of sufficient magnitude would far surpass the earth's magnetic field. A compass trivially disproves this.
EU claims that the sun carries a net charge, producing the solar wind from electrostatic repulsion. Experiment shows the wind is actually a quasi-neutral plasma containing equal amounts of positive and negative particles moving outward, when a net charge would obviously move the two charge carriers in opposite directions.
Two flaws that are really one flaw: EU doesn't understand E.
I'm not a physicist, and to me, a lot of this seems like wishful thinking : building on a model of a model, without any actual proof that any of it is actually correct.
We have an enourmous amount of experimental evidence that a huge number of predictions of the Standard Model are correct to ridiculous degrees of precision. No matter what happens, that mountain of evidence is not going to go away.
You can't literally "prove" physical theories; proof is for math. You can only acquire evidence based on observation. And there is precious little else in all of science that has as much hard quantitative evidence for it than the Standard Model.
Accepting that you meant "proof" in the sense that is applicable to physics, it's just ludicrous to say we're building on a model "without any actual proof".
The theory also isn't perfect as there are phenomenon it does not explain, but given its enourmous success, doesn't it make sense to build on it to iron out the imperfections? It's not like this is being done to the exclusion of complete reworks. Physicists around the world are working on the problem from various angles. It would be outright stupid to ignore the "Standard Model is basically correct but needs extending to cover the new phenomenon" angle.
It seems like a lot of fun, but why does it surprise anyone if it comes crashing down one day ?
Two different answers:
1) Because if the theory was really that bad that it was going to come "crashing down", then it wouldn't have been so fantastically successful up to this point.
2) It wouldn't be a surprise if the next-better-theory does away with the Standard Model completely as the most accurate description of reality, because this has happened before and will probably happen again. However, just like with the theories those two supplanted, the Standard Model would not so much come "crashing down" as be shown to just be an approximate model that works extremely well for a broad range of conditions and to extremely high precision. It is essentially impossible for this not to be the case because we've already tested it in that range. Any replacement theory must give the same predictions for the same conditions, or that theory is not a good replacement.
The greatest progress has been made in refining the Standard Model, rather than replacing it.
Which is why a lot of folks were gunning for SUSY, because that's more or less exactly what is -- an extension, rather than a replacement, for the Standard Model.
In SUSY we keep everything we already know and love about the Standard model, but there is also a symetry where each existing particle has a partner with 1/2 spin difference.
Which as a consequence would apparently solve a number of known issues with the Standard Model -- which is attractive because we know the SM is good, but flawed -- and also provide possible solutions for other mysteries like Dark Matter.
So, basically, rulling out SUSY would be a setback for the (very reasonable and desireable) "refinement" model of advancing physics.
Maybe you're going off the fact that String Theory, a revolutionary new model of physics, also predicts SUSY?
The Legend of Zelda: Poor GameCube Port (aka Twilight Princess), which also suffers from the pointer issue previously mentioned.
Uh no it fucking doesn't. The slingshot, boomerang, and bow are 3 of the most used weapons and the wiimote makes them a joy to use versus analog-stick based controls. It's not quite as amazing a setup as Metroid Prime which made me completely swear off ever playing a console FPS with dual analog ever again, but still.
It does suffer from "waggle", though.
I don't know about 95% of games, but 100% of games I own would not be the same without the wiimote. Even The Godfather, to pick the weakest example -- aside from aiming, it's just amazingly fun to grab someone and throw them down a flight of stairs in a way that doing so with a button combo wouldn't be.
What's funny about the turkey vulture comparison is that of (new world, at least) vultures, they're the only ones with a good sense of smell. I think it's a lot easier to find (non-avian) predators with excellent senses of smell.
The point about soaring explaining the size of vultures is a good one, though size can still be use. Condors can more easily eat large and thick-hided carrion than the smaller vultures, and this could apply to t-rex. Also just like its size could scare off scavengers, it could also scare predators off a kill for an easy meal - though its doubtless that happened in any case. In vultures its the black vulture who dominates at kills, but there its about their superior dexterity on the ground.
Surrender is safest and easiest when the enemy is dead.
Ah, but if the jaws are big enough then it doesn't need the arms (and there's some evidence that the jaws were powerful and teeth strong enough to be used for killing large prey). And one theory for why the arms are so small is to allow for such big jaws while staying balanced.
Of course a predator as big as T-Rex would have still eaten carrion -- or just stole fresh kills from other, smaller predators since that's one of the advantages of being big. Like their modern cousins, the eagles.
On a somewhat tangential note, those wee arms were a lot stronger than you might think. Tendon attachment marks on fossils suggest that T-Rex arms were extremely strong. One theory is that it used the arms to help it get upright, basically letting it do a small push-up to help get its weight under it.
The point I was making is that the definition being used is fairly specialized to the context
There is no context in modern science where "only matter can have temperature" is correct.
In short, you can educate someone about the meanings of terms in context without needing to be arrogant jerk about it.
When the someone is sincerely questioning or just confused, then I make every effort not to be. When the someone is themselves being an arrogant jerk, calling a PhD in astronomy stupid because of their own ignorance, I see no reason to be anything else.
If the subject of this thread was "How can X-Rays have temperature?" or similar then you would have seen that reflected in my post.
But it isn't.
To describe the temperature of a photon is meaningless
To describe the temperature of a massive particle is meaningless.
Only by having a collection of particles (whether massive or not) that follow a particular statistical distribution can temperature be meaningfully talked about. Those distributions are different for different types of collections of particles. The one that describes ideal gasses is not the only one.
and gives the false impression that temperature can vary for a given fixed frequency of light
I suppose if you assume that X-ray is a single fixed frequency and that they were talking about single photons, but that would be as silly as thinking someone was talking about the temperature of a single particle that had a single specific energy, when obviously they must be talking about all energies of all particles in the collection.
You seem to be treating this like X-Rays are a single, fixed frequency and/or that these observed X-Rays are like a like a laser with a single output frequency.
The X-Ray range is from about 0.001 nm to 10nm. At 100mil K the spectrum is very nearly entirely in that range -- in fact nearly entirely between 10 pm and 200 pm. If you changed the temperature somewhat, the spectrum would change, but would still be in the X-Rays. So yes, temperature can vary and still be in a range of frequencies of light. 100mil K X-Rays and 90mil K X-Rays are different, in that there is a different energy spectrum.
When describing EM Radiation it makes much more sense to consider the energy of the photons in eV or to describe the entire energy amount of a discharge in joules.
.
But the photons cover a range of energies, so it makes no sense to talk about their energy in eV because there isn't just one value, and while you could talk about total emission (in Watts would probably be more interesting), that wouldn't tell you anything about the wavelength distribution.
it really added no information
The description as given is the most correct, and provides the most meaningful information.
Plus it added the chance for you to learn all these things about the concept of temperature!
As I said, I found that intersting and would like to know more.
Here's more: They made that up as a shoddy explanation for why exponential growth didn't hit transistor-based ICs immediately to fallaciously justify their irrational expectation that quantum computers should immediately experience exponential growth. Every step of the logical chain is wrong even if you assume the previous step was correct, and the starting fact was a lie.
And now you know the whole story.
Sure, it's reasonable to think that, just incorrect. Happens all the time. Don't confuse unusual nomenclature with aspects of thermodynamic theory that you weren't familiar with. Don't go complaining about a perfectly correct statement because it doesn't match the high school notion of what temperature means.