Bufofrog

I think the problem here is that you do not understand how a particle can be it's own anti-particle. So you say, "this is what it really means". What you should say is, "How can a particle be it's own anti-particle?" Then other members can help you learn instead of them just telling you that your ideas are wrong. That seems like a more fruitful discussion.

This appears to be a thread designed to "get under peoples skin". In other words you seem to be trolling, what is the point of doing that?

Just to add to what was already said, there are no actual paradoxes or contradictions.

So you have answered your own question (According to mainstream physics: Is heat "destroyed" in a heat engine?) and the answer is no. So are we done here?

I'm afraid you're probably right.

I would say these statements are not clear enough and could lead to confusion. The clearest statement is that there was heat transfer from hot to cold.

I have a saying, "You can't think out of the box until you understand what is in the box".

You do realize that a cat cannot be in a superposition state, don't you?

Well that's a relief!

Correct, so you mean P = F/A

I don't think it does.

If you think you can violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics I can assure you that you are mistaken.

How ironic.

I think "neutrino plasma" is one of my favorites. This of course is a bunch of neutrinos stripped of their electrons?

This is supposed to be funny, right?

I hope he doesn't say something like, "I want to discuss section 4.2.2".

"All Particles Must Have 3 Types of Mass." Are you then telling me that massless particles have 3 types of mass?

What is the amount of time that the material will be subjected to that 190 C temperature?

AFAIK all materials conduct heat. Some materials conduct heat so poorly that they are used as insulation, but they still conduct heat. Is there a minimum thermal conductivity that you are looking for?

I'm not sure what you mean. The difference in the passage of time between reference frame is important for things like GPS. Not taking time dilation into account will make GPS inaccurate.

Sure. Comparing passage of time for 2 reference frames will never give an answer of zero, unless you add in gravitation time dilation, I suppose. I don't see how different reference frame could represent the 'speed of time', to be fair I don't know what the 'speed of time' is supposed to be exactly. To me it seems like asking what is the speed of length.

Then you are expressing a distance, not a velocity. In other words you are saying that the velocity of time could equal 1 km, which makes no sense.

You didn't answer the question, you just reiterated we are missing something. Ok. You think the pyramids were built using linear funiculars and not ramps. There is no test that I can think that could prove it either way.

What is it that you think we're missing from our understanding of ancient Egypt?

I disagree. Don't be absurd, you don't actually believe that. A conspiracy theory is not evidence.