exchemist

Well temperature is proportional to energy so in a way it is just a matter of choice of units whether one talks about temperature or energy in this context. To my way of thinking the distinction between the role of modes is not real, since all degrees of freedom that are excited (at NTP in gases vibrational modes generally aren't) contribute 1/2kT each to the overall energy - which means temperature, in effect. Yes, pressure is proportional to the temperature (or energy) in the translational modes, but it is also proportional to that in the non-translational modes too, as they are all equal. One test of the idea that the translational modes are special might be if one could make a case that the flow of heat is transmitted only through translational motion. I am sceptical, since the modes all exchange energy.

That reply makes no sense.

What would be the level of knowledge of your intended audience?

The Shadow of the Wind, Carlos Luis Ruiz Zafon, in English translation.

You have already asked this in another thread and you have already had answers. I suggest you stop posting idiotic videos. Nobody is going to watch them and it looks like spamming. There is no reliable evidence, that's why.

Seems like rather a non-sequitur to my post, which was pointing out the absurdity of the claim that 1/3 of the New Testament is concerned with casting out demons. I also suggested that a lot of these "demons" were how people of the time interpreted mental illness, epileptic fits etc. That seems fairly uncontroversial. Nothing I said was a commentary on modern stories about supposedly paranormal experiences. But as for how I explain those, I share the view of others on the thread that some people tend to resort to paranormal explanations for experiences they can't account for. Others, of a more sceptical turn of mind or better educated, don't.

Equilibration between degrees of freedom takes care of that. The pots are all connected together, in other words. Pressure, I grant you, is due to translational motion, (which is why a solid exerts no pressure), but I don’t follow your “and therefore the temperature”. Especially since solids do have a temperature.

That seems to me a rather perverse way of seeing it. Surely all that is happening is that there are now 5 pots to fill instead of 3, when energy is added, so the rate of rise of the level is slower, for a given rate of addition? What experiment could be imagined to show that rotations do not contribute to temperature? I'd have thought there would be no such experiment, since energy is rapidly equilibrated among all degrees of freedom.

I'm struggling with this. What does it means to say that rotational degrees of freedom don't contribute to temperature? Surely they do, since the heat capacity (Cᵥ) of a diatomic gas is 5/2R rather than 3/2R, once temperatures have been reached at which rotational levels are populated. And then it goes up to 7/2R once vibrations are excited. So these degrees of freedom affect the temperature of the substance for a given energy input. Is that not contributing to temperature?

How then is it possible for solids to have a temperature?

Indeed, as in fact is mention of “vibrations” [man]😁. With Tesla, it’s usually something to with magnets, though I was fascinated to learn, from a crank poster on this forum called Tom Booth, that Tesla also speculated about perpetual motion machines of the 2nd kind, capable of converting 100% of input heat to work.

I am wondering about your mental stability.

It's absurd nonsense to say 1/3 of the New Testament is about casting out demons. There are a handful of stories, that's all. People did not understand mental illness in those days.

From the sound of things - and the look of what is on that plate - you need to get into the habit of eating a few salads, and applying the Japanese principle of eating slowly and stopping when you feel 80% full.

Yes but now you are acknowledging there is kinetic energy in motion of the particles. So thinking in terms of radiation is NOT any kind of alternative to the kinetic theory of temperature, which as I say is that it is proportional to their mean kinetic energy.

What is ridiculous is to think you can explain temperature without the concept of motion of atoms and molecules. It is fundamental.

That’s ridiculous. Temperature is proportional to the mean thermal kinetic energy of the molecules or atoms of the substance. 1/2kT per degree of freedom. This is basic kinetic theory.

In the sense that there is kinetic energy in it. Though you can’t identify a path of course.

Yeah, that’s called Quantum Woo and is the sort of nonsense that has made Deepak Chopra and similar charlatans rich. Science it is not. There is a kind of kernel of truth behind it, inasmuch as the concept of zero point energy implies there is a sort of ineradicable residual motion in the ground states of bound systems. But only in bound systems and not necessarily vibration. In physics, like electric charges and magnetic poles repel, rather than attracting. It is unlike charges and poles that attract. Furthermore, just to put the tin hat on it, energy can’t vibrate. Energy is a property of a physical system. Certain types of system can vibrate and if they do there a mix of kinetic and potential energy in the system, due to the vibration. So the whole thing is ballocks, I’m afraid. You can’t borrow concepts from physics and pretend they explain human behaviour.

This seems awfully garbled not to have much to do with the topic of the thread. 1) Temperature is a bulk property. An individual atom does not have a temperature. If you think you have read that it does on Wikipedia, I feel sure you have misunderstood what you have read. If you can provide a link perhaps I can explain what it is actually saying. 2) E=mc² has got nothing to do with the topic under discussion. 3) The Perfect Gas Equation, or Ideal Gas Law, has nothing to do with the topic either. Firstly the question is about metals, and secondly, the effect of temperature on pressure and volume has got nothing to do with how radiation is absorbed and causes a rise in temperature.

The term “nootropic” does not seem to have a properly defined meaning and is often abused to promote agents and supplements of doubtful utility. Caffeine seems to work, for many people.

Explain in your own words what this “law of vibration” is, please. Nobody is going to waste their time watching crappy YuoTube videos.

Can you give examples of what you mean by dye "quality", e.g. good and poor quality? I was under the impression the issue was how the dye was fixed.

I doubt it. Expansion is not a physical system. A physical system has to comprise matter, radiation or fields of some description, I think. As I understand it, the Big Bang hypothesis suggests radiation and maybe (?) some elements of matter were present at a very early stage, but since the laws of physics break down as one extrapolates back towards the presumed singularity (if there was one), it's probably a bit meaningless to speculate too much.

You can’t have an expansion of energy. Energy is a property, not an entity. Energy has to be the energy of something, a physical system of some kind.