swansont

a = dv/dt Any change in velocity is an acceleration

How do you figure that? “This animation shows monthly temperatures for January–December 2019 compared to each month's 1981-2010 average.” 1981-2010 is not considered pre-industrial by most historians

Accelerations are not relative. The people in the boat know they are moving. (You tend not to get seasick if you’re stationary) Newton’s first law and all. And yet we can tell we’re moving. Not that this is a relevant example. I think you overestimate your mastery of physics. It was not at all clear to me you meant mathematical derivative. Derivative of what variable, with respect to what? Was it so hard to use “force” when you meant “force”? Something bobbing up and down - let’s assume a sinusoid motion in time. The second derivative is the acceleration. So maximum at the max displacement

How big of a facility will you need? In the US in FY2017, more than 300,000 international travelers passed through customs each day https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/typical-day-fy2017

What is “derivative” here? What is “take the instantaneous vibration of the right area location”? A boat bobbing up and down is not stationary.

Such analyses happen routinely. Compliance with and adherence to Newton’s laws is not a wrong conclusion

If you are on a carousel, and you ignore the fact that it’s rotating, that’s a rotating frame. If roll a ball from the center to the rim, to you it looks like the ball follows a curved path, even though there’s no force on it. Newton’s first law tells you that Newton’s laws aren’t going to work. You need to add in a fake force (a Coriolis force) to explain the curved trajectory of the ball. An observer on the ground sees the ball travel in a straight line, and does not need to appeal to a fake force. They see the carousel rotating, and can use Newton’s laws to analyze whatever motion is observed. No, you can analyze it from an inertial frame. In many cases, it’s probably easier to do it that way.

If you aren’t on the object, such that you assume it’s not rotating (but the rest of the room is), then it’s not a rotating frame of reference. IOW, if you can see the object is rotating, you aren’t in the rotating frame A rotating device obeys Newton’s laws. No, I mean there are no fictitious forces whatsoever in an analysis in an inertial frame.

Newton’s first law tells you. If an object with no real forces on it doesn’t move in a straight line, or it spontaneously starts moving, it’s not an inertial frame. Inertial frames do not have fictitious forces. A rotating object does not create fictitious forces.

Let’s see an analysis, then. Quantify the “tiny deviations in the energy content of an atmosphere” and also the effect of pressure on the measurements. Is this a measurement of the atmosphere or the surface (i.e. land and water)? climate.gov suggests it’s the latter https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature (they also disagree the with “tiny” characterization of the energy deviations)

You mean other than the wikipedia link? (which lists reference 9 as its source). It’s mentioned in a number of articles, but I never looked for earlier sources.

When you operate on the hydrogen wave function with the Hamiltonian you get the energy levels. The wave function exists in all space. You don’t need to average; you just need to include the equation of the potential The system can only radiate if it has a lower energy state available (i.e. consistent with the selection rules). It won’t radiate continuously.

It was pointed put that your car analogy is poor, so you go ahead and use it again. As Area54 observed, all you are doing is attacking a strawman. Average temperature is simply a proxy for total energy content that is perhaps easier to grasp than if one used energy units. That energy is either from a source that has changed or it’s being trapped from existing sources. Science tells us it’s the latter.

The points stand, though. In the rotating frame the centrifugal force is always present, and doesn’t just show up when you change the radius. And it’s not a real force, because you can’t push a rope.

Not a proper unit in the context of its use in the discussion. I apologize for the imprecision.