J.C.MacSwell

I don't understand what you mean when you say this. Can you not describe accelerated movement with respect to an inertial frame?

What do you mean by this? NOT share the same inertial rest frame? (then yes)

I think that's correct but it's usually more in terms of SR where displaced particles in different rest frames, at speed wrt each other, disagree on simultaneity. So if something happened to each instantaneously for one the other would not agree that it was instantaneous. I'm not sure if the fact that they rate aging differently in different gravitational fields would be a problem as they would both agree on that, so they could presumably agree on what would be instantaneous or simultaneous in the right circumstances (Perhaps if the Earth and Black Hole were at rest wrt each other ??)

I think this can be misunderstood. They are both in an infinite number of inertial frames (as well as other frames). They do not have the same shared rest frame (at least not an inertial one), but are still in existence in each others, even if their inertial rest frames are constantly changing and are not the preferred frame to consider their movements in. I think in strong gravitational fields inertial frames can be only defined locally, so something far enough away might not be able to have a position defined in that frame, but I don't think this applies here (not significantly)

I must have missed that article back in 1976. Amazing that it would have not surfaced earlier after invention in 1922. I don't expect science to explain it until perhaps 2022, but since it works so well I fully expect it to take off at that time and everyone will want one knowing that it is possible, and doesn't just merely work, as it did 100 years earlier. Ok, more seriously: Moving air causes friction, heat (or thermal energy waste) and expanding (throttling) compressed air at ambient temperature causes cooling, so some inefficient process may allow this to happen.

At equilibrium, assuming one phase, and knowing the gas, liquid or solid involved, doesn't the temperature tell you a lot about the internal energy in most cases? Even if they are directly linked to kinetic energies, are they not measurably linked to the others?

Nature can in fact maintain a "cold hole". Usually we expend less at the start by taking advantage of topography, but we do build dams and harvest hydroelectricity. Very inefficient when you look at the whole process, but the energy is "free" and being wasted otherwise. So if that was what Tesla was thinking the principle is sound...and of course in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. A heat engine of sufficient size could produce power from the Sun, even somewhat indirectly using diurnal heating and nocturnal cooling or barometric pressure fluctuations. The trick is concentrating what is "free" in a way that you can do it economically.

Although it is a little vague, I'm basing my opinion on this line where I believe you were quoting Tesla: "We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat or, respectively, the water to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort"

In this context it is absorbing and dissipating energy rather than transmitting or rebounding it.

R1 and R3 are in parallel and together are in series with parallel R2 and R4.

Tesla's idea won't work. He was hoping for a perpetual motion machine.

Not sure about psychological effects but damping vs non damping +resonance would have something to do with it in some cases. You may have been in a local peak area to feel it.

If you're starting to think Thermodynamics is an unfair game you are in very good company. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thermodynamics You can use ambient temperatures to drive a heat engine as long as you have a sufficient heat sink. No violation of thermodynamics, and in fact they are theoretically more efficient than the equivalent heat source. Unfortunately, you need an indefinite "re-source" to keep it going indefinitely. The same rules apply. Without a heat sink the ambient energies are useless, as are the heat source energies without the ambient. Useful energy diminishes in every case. Even ideal reversible processes don't happen in reality. We just try to get as close as we practically can. At every point entropy is increasing so there is no point in tricking yourself into thinking you have beaten the system. It's like a version of an Escher Waterfall: http://www.escapeintolife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Escher_Waterfall.jpg In reality it doesn't happen. You can't point to even one point in time in the system where entropy is decreasing so there is no point in pondering the illusion of the whole thing.

Greater complexity or not, the energy represented by your sandwich was at lower entropy earlier than later. Complexity and order are both analogous and related to entropy but they are not the same thing.

Why would they evolve an eye that would observe the background? Not detecting would work just as well.

Historically that's after Maxwell suggested his Demon, but well before Heisenberg introduced his uncertainty principle (which I think sets limits on the Demon's abilities)... so maybe they were deferring to Maxwell's thought experiment??

You're setting the bar pretty high for any potential violator. I'd be happy just to get some "free" power.

It is not arbitrary. Life is not excluded. If it was you would be quite correct, but you are not. The only "seeming" violation is in your imagination. No "seconds" of entropy decreasing took place at any time. Assuming you did manage to stack the wood in such a way that the firewood itself was lower in entropy as a system than it had been previously, it was not an isolated system. Your entropy (and/or your lunch) increased even more. At no time, not even temporarily, did you violate the second law.

There is absolutely nothing that you did that is in violation of the second law. If you understood the second law, you would realize that is just another example of the second law at work. Nothing wrong with trying to break it, or speculate how it could be possible (in Speculations) but unless you can stack firewood without use of fuel of any kind then you are only confirming the law once again. The Tom/firewood/fuel system will only increase in entropy over time... quickly if you burn the wood, slowly if you stack it, slower still if you have a nap beside it, but you can't beat it. You cannot manipulate an isolated system to reduce it's entropy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two containers One larger, one smaller Each contain the same number of atoms of the same gas Average kinetic energies are the same. (with respect to the centre of mass and any macroscopic rotation) These are given, axiomatic. They are what Finiter proposed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Given all that, they will have the same temperature. (as Swansont stated) Anyone who says they cannot is wrong. Any additional set of assumptions about how they came to that state, that lead to the conclusion that they cannot have the same temperature, are a wrong set of assumptions. That additional set of assumptions would contradict the given conditions. Anyone who would assume those additional assumptions is confused, as making those assumptions is a failure in logic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore the containers will have the same temperature... ...even if Spin 1/2 is a scientist, has a lab with leaking pressure bottles, pressure bottles with infinite R-factor insulation, or is about to receive a Nobel prize, and even if, regrettably, this hurts his feelings... The containers described by Finiter will have the same temperature (IT"S A GIVEN)

From Wiki: "Therefore, temperature is tied directly to the mean kinetic energy of particles moving relative to the center of mass coordinates for that object."

a) I didn't say that b) I told you that c) actually I haven't, though I've started to guess d) I hazarded a guess hoping you would clarify Yes or No, does your definition of thermal energy include the macroscopic portions of kinetic energy? Because my definition does not you seem to believe I think kinetic energy and thermal energy must be mutually exclusive. Therefore, is it fair to say?: b.) you don't understand everything I've said yet c.) you're drawing conclusions about it anyway You talk about semantics like you are above it, and yet blame others for failure to communicate. So again: Yes or No, does your definition of thermal energy include the macroscopic portions of kinetic energy?

Just to be clear. The translational (and rotational) kinetic energy of the macroscopic object/ball. Do you consider that part of the thermal energy? Apparently you believe it is. Correct me if I am wrong. To me it is an important distinction. Ranting about it, or feeling insulted, does not help make it clear. If it turns out that I am using the wrong definition, I'm fine with that. My ego will be fine. Yours should be as well.

Heat is transfer of a type of kinetic energy. Is it not? Not disagreeing with your statement at all. Just for clarity. Note that Wiki has a Heat (disambiguation) heading. Heat, in physics, is energy which is spontaneously flowing from an object with a high temperature to an object with a lower temperature. Heat may also refer to (bolding mine): "Thermal energy, the sum of a body's latent and sensible forms of energy (sometimes confused with "heat") " [edit] I know that in engineering, and sometimes physics, this confusion/ambiguity is fairly common. Hi Spin I'm sorry if that is upsetting. And honestly I have not read to the point of understand everything you have said. But to me that is what semantics are for. At this point I honestly don't know if you understand your statements... though I suspect that you might. I am sure others would agree with you, though I bet you would be disappointed in some of them when you found out why. That is your quote from Wiki. It is wrong. The bolded is not all thermal energy. In what context can it be considered correct? Seriously? Is a 95mph fastball at a higher temperature than it was prior to being thrown?

What exactly does this mean? ...and this? You may know exactly what you mean, and that may be correct...but I don't know that. All I know is that is that it can be clearly wrong if I take it literally. Even if you mean thermal energy. Cold steel will not heat warm insulation.