THE BOBBLE-SPINNING PAIL: Hammering Shield’s Theory Of Heat

mach heat

Do not trust today’s post… Today, it’s just me telling you how I, Hammering Shield, think Heat works– or rather, some of the ways in which it works. If I live to be 200 years old, I promise I’ll write a book containing my full theory of heat (which will necessitate that I also present my full theory of the universe). Some of my ideas are acceptable to the mainstream, some are not, and some will prove completely wrong-headed– either because I don’t have enough information to form a clear and complete picture of different heat situations, or else I just downright misinterpreted or misreasoned something.

Most of my mentors are men long dead, individuals I “adopted” early in life. They have helped me to sometimes actually figure-out the path I want to take through life (I don’t really like the living models I have to choose from). However, there has been one late arrival to my list of adopted shurpas, and it is one of his books which forms the basis for today’s blog entry. His name is Ernst Mach, and the name of book is Principles Of The Theory Of Heat.

Heat seems to me to be nothing more than a bit of sloshing-about. The type of sloshing that is most relevant to Heat occurs at the sub-macroscopic level. These are very tiny sloshes, indeed. However, big things are made-up of small things in this universe, and the movements on the small scale can add cumulatively and have immense large-scale effects.

I will not be using (except for a few exceptions) the terms “atom” and “molecule.” This is because I do not trust the current scientific description of Very Small Things. I think when we speak of atoms we speak with a false exactitude. So I’m rebooting the game back to the old term of Very Small Things, “corpuscle.”  I find the term better because it is vague-er,  and thus honest-er.


Heat, according to my theory, is the sloshing-about of corpuscles. And that is all it is. The sloshing-about does not lead to Heat… it IS Heat. To ask, How do sloshing corpuscles cause heat?, would be like asking, How does water make wet?

When we experience a something possessing fairly fast-sloshing corpuscles, we think of that something as “warm.” We experience another something possessing even faster-sloshing corpuscles, we would describe that something as “hot.” Instead of saying something is “hot,” we could just as correctly describe it as being extra “sloshy.”


Temperature is nothing more than a measurement indicating how much sloshing-about of corpuscles is likely going-on within a something. We make this surmise of slushiness by seeing how much sloshing is generated in the corpuscles of the thermometer when it comes in contact with the something. I will come back to Temperature and Thermometers when I write about the phenomenon of heat-caused expansion in materials.


There are three kinds of Heat…

Radiation-Derived Heat

Vibration-Derived Heat

Mixing-Derived Heat

Radiation-Derived Heat is generated in one material when it receives a series of spherical pulses of Energy released by another material.  And let’s be clear… In my theory, it is very important that we understand that “Heat,” itself, does not radiate… the Energy which causes the sloshing we perceive as Heat radiates. I hope to get into WHY objects radiate spherical pulses of Energy a bit later.

[Aside: I will use the term “Energy Spheres” to speak of what others would call “Electromagnetic Waves.”]

Vibration-Derived Heat is more tactile. This occurs when the corpuscles making-up one material come in direct contact with (for gases) other corpuscles or (for non-gases) with the corpuscles making-up THE SURFACE AREA of another material. It is generally the case that all corpuscles vibrate to one degree (oops! a pun!) or another. When they come in contact, they each will exert an influence on each other. Faster-vibrating corpuscles will cause the slower-vibrating corpuscles to vibrate faster– and precisely because of this transfer of energy, the slower-molecules will act as a drag on the faster-vibrating ones (absorbing some of their excitement).

Mixing-Derived Heat, the third type of Heat, can occur on a much bigger scale– even macroscopic. Mixing-Derived Heat occurs when “hot” materials intermingle with “cool” materials (and here, of course, “hot” and “cool” are merely relative terms). This intermingling will also facilitate the transfer of Heat via the Vibration-Derived method. But –to take air currents for an example– even before equilibrium is achieved between the corpuscles and they begin sloshing at a more-or-less uniform rate, the human hand would feel that the air had “warmed” simply by the admixture of the “warm” corpuscles with the “cool” ones. This is basically how convection-current ovens work… Imagining the heat-source at the bottom for simplicity’s sake, the hot air near the heating coils (or fire) rises and displaces the cool air, and the cool air comes down to get warmed, and pretty soon you have a whirlwind of mixing temperatures leading closer and closer to a fairly uniform temp inside the whole oven.


The way a thermometer informs us how much corpuscular sloshing is occurring in a something is very simple… The corpuscles sloshing around in the something pass-on their sloshiness to other corpuscles with which they come in contact. For solids and liquids, it seems fairly easy to imagine how the vibrations of the sloshers are transferred, for when items are associated with each other by some sort of not-completely-elastic bond or connection, the vibrations of one item will be communicated to the items it is connected-to via the connections.  An analogy:  when a three-hundred-pound man jumps up and down on a porch, the whole porch shakes– not just the planks beneath his feet.

I don’t think it’s as straightforward as to how sloshiness (heat) is communicated to gaseous state corpuscles. It would be like the man jumping up and down on a plank as other planks are thrown against his plank from all directions. Without something connecting the planks, one would not expect that the rhythm of the man’s jumping could be communicated very well to the planks falling against and bouncing off his own. This is a hole in my theory.

But for the moment, let’s just assume that– some how, some way– the sloshiness of heat is communicated to gaseous corpuscles in more or less the same way it is communicated through substances (“substances” for me meaning “solids” or “liquids”).


Thermometers gauge temperature in this way… Let us assume a mercury thermometer… We stick our mercury-containing thermometer in some boiling water… What the thermometer tells us is merely how much vibrating (sloshing) the water corpuscles are doing. It does this for the simple reason that the sloshing water-corpuscles induce sloshingness in the corpuscles of the thermometer bulb, which in turn induce sloshing in the mercury-corpuscles. The mercury-corpuscles– basically thrown off “rhythm”– then start careening in all directions, including against the sides of the containment tube. The whole conglomeration of mercury will move along the path of least resistance, which in this case is UP, since the top of the containment tube is not touching the mercury.

Boiling water (at “normal” pressure) will contain highly sloshified corpuscles (so highly sloshified that they are breaking their liquidy bonds).  The amount of sloshiness which overwhelms the liquidy bonds of water is so constant, that we can predict that sloshiness transferred to the the Mercury corpuscles, via the glass of the thermometer will cause the mercury to expand up to the 212 degrees mark (on a properly made thermometer).

As you can see, all that Temperature tells us is how much sloshing one substance generates in another substance (the second substance is used as the measuring stick… in this case, the liquid mercury).


Similar to how Heat expands substances (solids and liquids) such as mercury, heat will also expand a gas cloud… but there is asymmetry here: if you expand a gas cloud… you don’t get heat– in fact, you get COOLING. Why?

First off, let’s think of the gas BEFORE any additional heat is added to it… If heat is NOT continually added to a cloud of gas, the perturbations of the cloud’s corpuscles will calm as they return to their most stable energy state. The slowing of corpuscular perturbations is the phenomenon we perceive as “cooling.”

Theoretically, a substance could cool so much that its corpuscles cease sloshing altogether, a situation known as “Absolute Zero.”  Scientists would have us believe that such a completely motionless state occurs at the same “temperature” for every substance, but I’m not so sure of that… Absolute Zero may be similar to boiling and freezing points… different temperatures for different corpuscles. I also wonder, arriving at a particular something’s Absolute Zero, if the corpuscles of the something would actually remain stable and whole?  Or might they break down into smaller corpuscles?


You may not be convinced that corpuscles would have any tendency to calm themselves. After all, somethings in motion tend to stay in motion unless some other something acts upon them.

But notice in the case of sloshing corpuscles that the movement is NOT in one direction. There’s a pattern, yes, but patterns are not covered under the Law Of Inertia.

The corpuscle is sloshing… first this way– and then the other. I prefer the term “slosh” for this movement, because “vibrate” implies “back-n-forth,” and this would be another case of applying false exactitude to a situation. In fact, I usually think of the little critters as moving around sort of circularly… like water sloshing around in a bobble-spinning pail.  But that’s just to aid my own thinking.

But there is something more here, too… I contend that corpuscles are made by Nature, herself, to be very stable… the more fundamental the corpuscle, the stable-er it has been fashioned. Corpuscles experiencing a perturbation will, once the perturbation is removed, naturally migrate back to their most stable energy state.

A secondary consideration, when it comes to substances and gases NOT receiving outside heat inducements, is that, for a substance in a container, some sloshing-energy will be transferred to the corpuscles of the container, and so lost that way; this results in slosh-slowing and thus, cooling.


So all of this motivation toward cooling is going on even without expanding the gas. If we also allow the gas to expand, we will be providing yet more motivation toward cooling.

The first cooling motivation is this… if there is something keeping the gas heated, that radiated or convected heat energy will be dissipated over a larger area after the volume is increased, and will therefore be less effectual.

But more importantly… the more volume granted for gas corpuscles to roam in, the fewer the collisions occurring between corpuscles per nanosecond… This means there will be more time between collisions for each corpuscle to achieve its non-sloshing, more stable energy state.  Every time God blinks, the cloud would contain corpuscles colliding with less and less sloshified neighbors, and these less sloshy neighbors would both:  1) generate less slosh-punch, and  2) be less easily stimulated to vibrate by other sloshers…

The second characteristic is analogous to a swing.  If your friend is already swinging at 45 degrees from the vertical, then giving her a periodic shove will maintain her at 45 degrees (see how I use an example still involving “degrees?” How witty I can be.)… But if she is sitting in a swing barely moving, a shove of the same strength from you will not send her to a height of 45 degrees (and you probably just pushed her out of the swing, you big brute). Meanwhile, assuming she stays in the swing, as you continue your pushing, your arms will become tired-er, and over time, you’d be pushing less and less hard, and the swinger would be moving less and less. If you were corpuscles, you’d be cooling.  As it is, you’d probably both just be getting cross.

An interestingly contradictory influence is also going-on when gases expand. When we increase the volume of the container, the corpuscles will actually strike the sides less often as a function of time.  If container-side-bumping were the only thing occurring, and we increased the volume of the container, the rate of cooling (the gas would still cool) would actually SLOW, since there will be less container-bumping per nanosecond and, thus, less slosh-energy transferred to the corpuscles of the container’s walls.  However, this is more than compensated for by the increased time between collisions of the gas-corpuscles which allow more time for “cooling” between impacts.

Lastly, and this is really just a shot in the dark, there may be another contradictory influence going on here… It is entirely plausible that when corpuscles make contact, their collisions are not 100% elastic and their sloshing-energy is converted into other energies (such a recoil path-alterations… NOTE: sloshing, which can occur in an otherwise stationary corpuscle, is a different movement than distance-traveled by the corpuscle; it is sloshing which is what I call “heat,” the bobble-spinning pail). This loss of sloshing energy would be another source of cooling. Again, the rate of this cooling phenomenon would be slowed by expansion since there are less impacts per time between corpuscles the greater the volume provided.


For the same reasons that a gas cools with increased volume, it will grow hotter under more intensive pressure. This is simply because all the outcomes mentioned in the last several paragraphs will occur… REVERSED. And again, the overriding factor will be the time between collisions of corpuscles…

In this case –that is, in the case of increased pressure– the corpuscles will be smushed closer together, communicating their sloshiness all the easier, and having less time between contacts to re-establish non-sloshiness.


They tell me that as objects become hotter, their rate of expansion slows. The rate of slowing of the rate of expansion varies between substances. This is related to each substance’s Specific Heat Capacity.

To consider this phenomenon, let us first examine what makes a substance become “hotter”…

When a substance is being irradiated with a long series of spheres of Energy emanating from a radiating heat source, the impacts from these energy spheres will impart energy to the corpuscles of the irradiated substance… its corpuscles will increase in sloshiness. The more intense the heat, the greater the sloshing induced. The corpuscles directly experiencing the incoming spheres of Energy will communicate their increased sloshiness to others by banging into their neighbors in a very quick game of pass-it-on.

I would expect that some slosh-energy would be lost with each passing on. And keep in mind the porch analogy– for liquids and solids, the passing on will largely occur via the connections between corpuscles. If the degree of freedom each corpuscle has in the matrix of connections is very small (the conglomeration is rigid), there will be very few direct contacts between corpuscles, with most of the communication of the slosh-energy occuring along the lines of the connections. Thus, corpuscles in a solid would directly smash together less often than the corpuscles of a liquid.  A gas, which possesses no connecting bonds a-tall to communicate the slosh-energy, would rely on good old-fashioned collision to communicate heat.

How does all this relate to the “specific” Heat Capacity of each substance?  Well…

First off, for the confusion coming into play here… There is more than one way to measure how “hot” something is… 1) you can measure the something’s “heat” with a thermometer, or  2) you can measure the something’s level of expansion directly (the level of expansion correlated to some level of “heat”). The first way, using the thermometer, is a measurement of how much expansion is generated in the mercury (or whatever is used) by the sloshiness of the something being measured. The second way informs us how much expansion of the something itself is being generated due to its own sloshiness.

The first method (the expansion of the mercury) will not be as directly influenced by the characteristics of the connections (bonds) between the something’s corpuscles as the second method will be. The thermometer temperature (the expansion of the mercury) is only determined by the amount of sloshiness conveyed.

But the expansion of the substance itself will be greatly influenced by the personality of its corpuscular connections. (BTW, these connections will have a secondary influence on thermometer temperature since they do affect sloshiness).


The conveyance of sloshiness throughout a something is influenced by the medium of conveyance. Each substance has a different configuration of corpuscles and connections and connection-angles, as well as different levels of elasticity along the lines of slosh-energy conveyance.  And it is these connection-related characteristics which will act as (or highly influence) the medium for much of the communication of sloshiness within a substance.

The personality of the connections between corpuscles seems to be the paramount consideration in terms of heat-induced expansion.  I am led to this conclusion because it has long been noticed that the rates of expansion of all gases are very nearly the same. Since the main difference between substances (solids and liquids) and gases are that gases lack inter-corpuscular connections, the most glaring surmise is that the overriding factor when it comes to differering rates of heat expansion is the CONNECTIONS between corpuscles. As far as the forces of expansion are concerned, one group of unconnected corpuscles (a gas) is about the same as any other.

The fact that there are slight variations between the expansion rates of different gases is explained by the difference in slosh-receptability of the different corpuscles themselves. Some corpuscles are more receptive to slosh-energy than others.

For all these reasons, the cumulative sloshiness of the something being heated will be different for different substances or gases. These differences in sloshiness will result in different rates of expansion.

Scientiests (misleadingly, I think) have long thought of a substance’s or a gas’s ability to absorb heat without much expansion as a “capacity” for “holding” more “heat” without rise in “temperature.” In other words, each substance or gas has an indivualized heat capacity, more commonly called its Specific Heat Capacity.

So, all in all, it would be quite amazing if Heat Capacities were actually the SAME for all substances and gases.


As you’ve probably noticed, Heat is closely correlated with matter-state (solid, liquid, or gas). This is because corpuscular sloshing works to loosen the rigidity of the connections between corpuscles. Not all connections between corpuscles are equally affected by sloshing, and as we have seen with Specific Heat Capacity, the corpuscles of different substances and gases respond differently to Heat. Thus, for both connection- (bond-) and corpuscle- reasons, the rigidity of connections between corpuscles are loosened at different rates for different substances, thereby producing different freezing and boiling temperatures. When the connections no longer hold, the gaseous state is achieved… evaporation occurs.

I’m sure you’ve noticed that once a transition-temperature is reached (say, from liquid to gas, a.k.a. the boiling point) the change in state does not occur all at once. That would be quite explosive. The main reason for this is that the liquid being heated is not completely uniform in temperature… not every corpuscle is being sloshed-about precisely equally… the corpuscles at the bottom (where the heat source typically is) will break their connections first. The pressure from the still-connected corpuscles surrounding the breakaways will push them into spherical shapes as they rise… unlike the connected corpuscles, the free ones can’t really push back… they have no leg to stand on anymore, so to speak, since they have become detached from the rest of the liquidy conglomeration.

— — — — — —

Before we leave off my Heat-As-Sloshing theory, let’s talk about a few more characteristics of Heat to see how my theory fits those situations (and when I say, “let’s talk,” I mean, I’ll type and you read).


Electric currents are known to generate Heat. The Heat is created because an electric current generates an Energy field and this radiation of Energy induces sloshing in nearby corpuscles.

It has been found that heating an electrical conductor increases the electrical resistance of the conductor (reduces its ability to conduct electricity). This increase in resistance due to Heat comes from the fact that the corpuscles allowing the electricity to skim along their surfaces begin sloshing-about more (that’s what “heat” is, after all). This increase in sloshiness interferes with the smooth flow of Energy-as-Electricity, which does better with calm corpuscles– similar to how rocks skim better off the surface of calm water. When there are perturbations, the Electric current can be scattered this way or that… like a rock knocked off its path by a wave.

The electrical-resistance characteristics of heat possess symmetry:  not only does heat increase resistance, but increased resistance will also increase heat (although not enough to start a self-augmenting cycle). When the Energy of Electricity is not flowing smoothly, as occurs in materials which are not conductors, the energy that is knocking around will cause perturbations in the corpuscles– a.k.a. “Heat.”

But here’s a twist… According to what they tell me, heat actually INCREASES the electric current flow in glass. The reason has to do with the fact that whole atoms or molecules are moving to conduct electricity in glass and not just a surface flow of electrons (at least according to my single informational source). These moving atoms/molecules are not electrically neutral, but are IONS (charged particles). Thus, when they move, they carry charge… and of course, moving charges pretty much defines an electric current.  So how does this cause heat to become conductor-friendly for glass?

Glass at room temperature is an insulator. This is because the corpuscles which constitute it are mostly locked in place. But when we heat the glass, the connections between corpuscles become less rigid, and charged corpuscles (“ions”) can begin to migrate in response to an electric field or current.


Here’s an interesting characteristic of Heat: Experiments have shown that hotter things cool faster (if you have a freezer set at 0 degrees, and put a 200-degree item inside it, the item’s drop from 200 to 100 degrees will occur at a faster rate then it’s drop from 100 degrees to 0 degrees).

The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear about this phenom is that with heat reduction, the item shrinks– thus causing the corpuscles of the item to come in contact with each other more often. These contacts will inhibit the process of slosh-slowing.

Another reason that hot things cool faster would be that, as the item shrinks (though the shrikage is usually too small for us to notice) it will have less surface area in direct contact with the zero-degree surroundings.

Thirdly, it might also be the case that the sloshiness at greater heat wreaks more highly energetic havoc within the material, havoc that is harder to overcome so that cooling may begin. That’s pretty vague I know, but that’s all I got.


Another heat factoid: if a surface is REFLECTIVE, it will absorb less heat. The obvious reason is that much of the Energy which would have caused an increase in sloshiness is not being absorbed. However, as to what is going-on at the nano-level during reflection, I’m not quite clear on it…

Perhaps there is more than one sort of reflection… 1) maybe the heat or light energies are DIRECTLY “bounced” back, or 2) maybe the heat or light energies are absorbed, but this absorbed energy immediately induces the reflective material to emit fresh-made pulses of energy at a frequency-of-occurrence very close to the frequencies of the incoming energy.

I haven’t studied reflectivity yet, but I find the subject fascinating and hope to look into more. They tell me that burning mirrors actually don’t become hot themselves– but either theory of reflection could answer to that result. Although, I do wonder if SOME heat would be generated.


Now as to why something changes color when intensely heated… I think this is because the Energy contained in the something is sloshed-about until it actually begins to escape in a series of pulses. If these pulses occur within a certain range of frequencies, they will trigger responses in our eyes and brains which we will perceive as color. When the sloshed-out energies are emitted at high enough frequencies, they will appear blue to us. When they are at slightly lower frequencies, they will appear red. Frequencies of energy (heat) emission too low or too high to be registered by our vision are not seen as colors at all, but might still be felt by the skin, which possesses a different set of thresh-holds for registering energy emissions (in this way, we can “see” with our skin!).


Well, I’m not so sure that it does. When something hot is placed next to something cold, the active corpuscles of the hot thing stimulate the corpuscles of the cold thing to become more active (what we perceive as “heat”), but at the same time, the more staid corpuscles of the cold thing are acting as a subtle break on the sloshing of the hot thing. Both items are influencing each other, and some equilibrium will be reached. And, of course, the items don’t have to touch… the surrounding air, for instance, can act as a conduit to spread sloshiness.

Closely related to my theory of heat is my theory of “white” light, which I have decided to post as a separate, but much shorter, entry.  If thinking of Heat in new ways has interested you enough to get to this point in this long entry, then I think you’ll find my theory of white light, well, illuminating:  HOW NEWTON WAS WRONG ABOUT WHITE LIGHT


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s