joigus

This is not a chauvinistic society. It's a science-discussion network. You're thinking Euclidean. Your diagram shows only too clearly that you are. Because you're thinking Euclidean, there's a rigidity of sorts in your mind that forces you to conflate different reference frames --as you've been told here and elsewhere-- in order to shoehorn your picture into the Pythagorean theorem. Here's a series of pictures that tell you why: (from Ray D'Inverno, Introducing Einstein's Relativity, Oxford University Press.) So, again, IOW, who are the S and S' on diagram 3.6 and 3.7 from D'Inverno? If you dodge the question again and throw brand new Euclidean diagram, there isn't much else to talk about, is there? One final word about 'sentiments.' This is a recurring theme in science discussions. People often mistake dead-seriousness about the subject with grumpiness, or even anger. Nothing of the kind. I personally sympathise very much with everyone who's interested in science. People who know about the subject would be doing you no favour by indulging in a logic they know to be flawed. They would be doing themselves no favour either. Sorry, I forgot: My sentiments are in the right place. No sentiments about space-time, really. Only perhaps longing for a space-time that allows to go backwards in time. I have some unfinished business in the past.

I blame Star Wars...

Also, as pointed out above, no experimental exception to it has been found.

Not exactly... Sorry I wasn't very careful. There are further comments I'd like to make. It's all to do with efficiency actually being based a man-centred definition as roughly \( \eta=\frac{\textrm{output}}{\textrm{input}} \). If your input is pure 'work' --like in a refrigerator, electrical work--, you really don't care that much whether it's reversible or irreversible. It goes in the denominator of any reasonable definition of efficiency. If it's part of the 'internal definition of the cycles, it must always be reversible (meaning a form of energy that's stored in your system and can be given back.) If your output is pure work, it doesn't matter much whether it's reversible or irreversible either. It goes in the numerator in any reasonable definition of efficiency. After all, you don't care that much that your fan's energy, after it's hit your face and cooled it, gets lost in the air. It't important, though, to keep track of where it goes. Internal work, the work that's invested in making the engine cycle on, that one must be reversible. I'm finding difficult to distinguish what kind of engine this is, and so what efficiency formula has to be applied. If there are internal pieces of irreversible work/heat throughput, it could be a nightmare to analise in terms of Carnot's logic. @Ghideon perhaps has been able to understand you better. He certainly has tried harder than anybody to follow your logic. I'm trying to guess as I go, and draw some diagrams to clarify my own ideas and remember everything that could be involved or be relevant. And read everything that's been said. I wouldn't dream of proving Carnot wrong though. Carnot's reasoning is what it is. And it's so simple and incontrovertible that I can see no way how it could be wrong.

Have you read my previous comments? Irreversible work is, to all intents and purposes, indistinguishible from heat in any caloric analyses a couple of seconds after it's been delivered. It's not stored in the form of gravitational potential energy, charge in a capacitor, pressure in a gas, etc. All forms of work that can be 'given back' by the system. It must be included, as @sethoflagos shrewdly pointed out if I understood him correctly, as TdS=T(dSirreversible work+dSheat exchange) to the effects of every conceivable energy balance. If you take Carnot's efficiency formulae --any of them; heat engine, heat pump, refrigerator or José Carreras ("the other one"), irreversible work should be considered as heat, rather than work, as every Carnot recipe only speak of 'work' in the sense of 'reversible work,' not what you bluntly are calling 'work.' This is, of course, just an educated guess by yours truly, as I've never been brave enough to try to tell anything about an ungodly mess of pumps and fans, and Stirlings, and so on as concerns Carnot's analysis. I wouldn't even know how to begin. Does this go in the denominator? You know... As you're not distinguishing with any care the difference between irreversible and reversible work, and not taking any calorimetric measures, it's like trying to describe a platypus to a person that's willingly blindfolded and keeps telling you such thing cannot exist. It all sounds to me like 'sumfin fishy's goin' on, there ain't no platypus." I'm incapable of following your train of thought. There you are. I hope that clarifies the question as to why I can't clarify the question.

It not only "appears to." It does. And Carnot's formula tells you why. So much more so the closest your design is to Carnot's unattainable chimaera. Heat pump, or refrigerator have different definitions for efficiency, as efficiency is after all, an anthropocentric definition, as shown by the fact that for refrigerators and heat pumps --if I remember correctly--, work, instead of heat source, is what you put in, and thereby appears in the denominator. This, so I understood, was hinted at by Seth in a previous post.

@Tom Booth's reports and our answers remind me more and more of the lyrics of Space Oddity, by David Bowie,

Mee too. And dealing with neutrinos, there would be no way to keep it in.

A plasma of neutral particles... Interesting concept.

Honestly... what a load of whataboutism. Grow up. Seriously. Let's get down to business... Tendencies towards conservatism, liberalism, and the like... It's not etched in your genes, but there are consistent claims that there must be a genetic component to them. Of course there are environmental factors. How could it be otherwise. I leave it to the experts to elaborate on that, as I'm not one of them. Clearly.

This violates charge conservation for pi+ and pi-. Unless you mean something else, like pions decay to neutrinos and other things (e+, e-), via beta decay or the like. That's actually IMO a very good way to put it.

You of all people are most welcome. The situation with mass in the standard model is potentially a bit confusing, at least to me. Well defined mass states are made up of superpositions of flavours, a phenomenon we call mixing*. The fixed-mass states --eigenstates of the mass operator in QFT parlance-- are the physical states, while superpositions of different flavours get physically connected --can evolve into each other-- by means of these mixing angles, contributing to the observed mass by means of perturbative quantum corrections. OTOH, people do talk about "Majorana mass" vs "Dirac mass." Example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101371/majorana-mass-vs-dirac-mass Not very proper terminology --mass is mass indeed--, but just saying. Neutrinos are anything but trivial. QFT itself is anything but trivial. And neutrinos seem to be on a mission to make the world look as skewed as they can. ------------------------------- * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata_matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa_matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberg_angle

LOL

As repeatedly noted above, there isn't such a thing as 'three different types of mass.' You could speak, in some sense --and some people do-- about two types of mass: Majorana mass, and Dirac mass. But those are not different types. It's really about how the mass term --the only type of mass we all know and love-- connects the left-handed component to the right-handed component in the Dirac equation. But it's the same kind of mass in terms of inertia. 1, 2, and 3 refers indeed to three distinct values of mass. It's really the three kinds of so-called flavours that the theory doesn't predict. IOW: Why are there three families of particles? Ie: three versions of every other particle that there is in the universe, with every other parameter exactly the same, except for mass, which differs from one family to another.

Ah, it does ring a bell now that you mention it. I must have mixed them, as in Spanish it's rather "an elephant in a pottery shop," (un elefante en una cacharrería), which I seem to have adapted to some kind of hybrid form. Live and learn! Duly noted. The list of things you don't like is growing thick. I was benevolent, I'd say. You juxtaposed the words "more or less entirely" which is a notorious oxymoron that didn't escape my attention. But I'll stay tuned for further nuances on when something is "more or less entirely" this or that. Pointing at straw-clutching is not the same as doing as strawman. That's your call, not mine. But I'll refer to my previous comment on 'kid gloves.' I'll try not to correct you anymore. Let other people do that thankless job, because, (My emphasis.) God forbid! You read too much into what people say. You think I'm upset... You clearly don't know me at all. It's anecdotal, but it tells quite a bit about the problems you seem to be having with some people. No 'hello' or 'cheers' or 'how are you?' or 'see you around''... Just a blunt 'blah' coming from a lurking presence in the darkness. "Consciousness" It took me a couple of seconds to realise it wasn't some kind of threatening / cryptic message from out of the woodwork. Nice.

I have to make some qualitications to what I said about ideal gases not having internal degrees of freedom --energy has nowhere to go... That's not true. They have. But only complication is Cv, Cp (specific heat) which just sets the scale for the relation entropy/temperature I was talking about. No time now. Sorry

Here: And then --not 'than', nor 'that' --, Because there's nowhere else for any form of energy to go but the state variables P, V, T. And, interestingly enough an ideal gas provides you with a better gauge for entropy than any other system has. It's, in a manner of speaking, a natural dipstik for entropy. It provides you with the zero and with the slope entropy/temperature. The exception to this is, as we well know, 1) Phase transitions: As the temperature goes down, the ideal gas (P, V, T) temperature must be replaced by another relation that contemplates the finite size of the molecules and their mutual short-range repulsive/long-range attractive force --Van Der Walls gas. And, 2) Quantum mechanics has to replace classical Newtonian mechanics when we get close to absolute zero of temperature. But point 2) should be of no concern to you. Point 1) should.

It's more kind of like a fencing trick than an insult, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Arguing is a little bit like fencing. It's certainly not a strawman. When a person takes something for granted, as if the previous statement had been totally absurd... and then you go, "obviously you're right... No, hang on." And you deploy your next argument. It's for greater effect in the arguing, not to insult you. I suggest you do the same: Be a good sport, fence back, smile, shake hands whether you "win" or "lose" --or think either you or your contestant have learnt anything from each other-- and you will make friends here. And what's more important, you will sharpen your own views, analytical tools, etc. I've been wrong quite a number of times on these forums. I've always tried to be grateful, on some occasions by PM-ing the person and saying something along the lines of "I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for so elegantly pointing out my mistake." Certainly not by sending a PM with nothing but <correction>blah</end of correction>. Without even a "Hi, pleased to meet you," and "blah" being a mispelled word, which is a false friend in my native language vs English. Sound familiar? I'm sorry. I'll wear my kid gloves next time.

Yes. Thank you. I remember that definitions of efficiency also depend on whether it's an engine, or a refrigerator, --inverse Carnot cycle-- or a heat pump. In the end, it's a definition based on our particular interest.

None, obviously... or do they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_memory There's also such a thing as prenatal/perinatal stress, prenatal/perinatal imprinting, etc. The fact that you can't conjure up the memory doesn't mean it's not there. We're made of atoms. It is to be expected, one would say. And I'm just talking from googlesay...

There is ultimately no such thing as normal, healthy babies, the very same reason why there isn't the right tallness, or why lactase persistence is neither good nor bad. It's an interaction between genes and environment that tells what traits will develop, and which ones are more convenient to our reproductive success, or to our success measured in any other standards. Because many genes have to do with psychological development, I think it stands to reason that personality is not a program written on a blank slate by the environment, as you seem to have suggested. Or perhaps I did misunderstand you, which is entirely possible, in which case I apologise. But my post was more about the manner of your answer really. No offence, but you strike me as kind of thin-skinned. Even though you manage to make brilliant points at the last gasp. Example: Interesting... Care to develop on that one? It is your split thread after all. Oh, I think you lot have many other things. But you are prime curators and antiquarians, so you can be trusted with them.

(I emphasised the spots where you came across as kind of dogmatic in the face of evidence to the contrary.) A child with disfunctional FOXP2 genes won't speak properly no matter how much plasticity you hammer into them. It is widely accepted today --I think-- that human behaviour is a complex result of interaction between genes and environment. So this assumption of yours seems like in tatters, to say the least. I suppose that's what @iNow meant. Or something along those lines. I'm willing to learn more if I'm mistaken. You, as we say in my country, entered the scene like an elephant in a china store. I do appreciate your contributions to the forums --very much--, especially in the area of physics. So, please, take it down a notch and stay calm. We need you in the physics department. Too many loonies out there. We're learning from each other, as @MigL said in quoted thread.

BH falling into object or the other way around is a matter of reference frame. The thing about small Schwarzschild radius --in comparison to falling object-- is a question about tidal forces (gradients of gradients or second-order derivatives.) When object is very close to centre of gravitational attraction, it's no longer possible to consider local inertial system as such, due to second-order effects (second order derivatives.) I'm sure you know about this --from what I can infer. You're either an expert on this or a person so knowledgeable that not even an expert could tell the difference.

As usual, I refer to the question on the title when I can't follow the logic that comes below. Can a material object cross the horizon of the BH? If the Schwarzschild radius of the BH is much bigger than the size of the material object (2 cases, I'm assuming free fall): From the outside to the inside of the horizon: Yes, and if the BH is big enough, the material object would be none the wiser that it's crossing a horizon. From the inside to the outside of the horizon: No, and due to its being in free fall it would be none the wiser that a huge part of space-time is forbidden to them But, If the Schwarzchild radius of the BH is comparable to the size of the falling object: The material object would be squeezed to nuclear spaguetti, according to standard knowledge.

I've just found this, but wouldn't know why that's the case: (My emphasis). From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2022_E3_(ZTF) Maybe you can make something out from this.