swansont

! Moderator Note At almost 300 posts in, you should know where “I have a conjecture” should go, and that we need a model and/or evidence - some way to test it. Most of the universe is already a vacuum.

! Moderator Note No, the physics answer is not that it's magic. It's you want the philosophy lecture hall, two buildings down. You don't have a testable idea. No model, no evidence. All you have is some kvetching about your dissatisfaction with some aspects of physics, and it's clear you don't have much of an understanding about what you're complaining about. We're not under any obligation to indulge you. Go start up a blog somewhere.

It undergoes interference and diffraction, which are wave behaviors

Sorry, I was being a bit snarky. USNO, which where I work, is the source of time for GPS. IOW, the standard way for us to get time is to measure it locally, since that measurement is better than what you can get from GPS.

One should note (and perhaps be concerned) that we have people who are ostensibly scientists/professionals who are providing anecdotes rather than data in their critique of the system.

There are exceptions to this, of course.

To put something Phi said in another way: the whole point of the speculations forum, for anyone other than the presenter of the idea, is to critique that idea. Critical analysis of it is a feature, not a bug.

You can do this, but only as long as there is a reservoir at a lower temperature. Then heat will flow, and you can make it do work, though not at 100% efficiency, since the rejected heat will be at some temperature. As mentioned before, the issue is often that you want to cool the room down without that reservoir, and that requires that you do work, as it will not happen spontaneously.

Bodies are in equilibrium with other bodies, not with themselves. You don't have to assume that heat flows in a particular way. The only requirement is that no heat is flowing. Heat could flow from cold to hot and the law still works because the law is not about the details of heat flow. It is merely to define the transitive property of equilibrium (i.e. it's about temperature, not heat)

I see modnotes about not posting links without explanation, about not soapboxing and moving the thread to speculations. These are rules enforcement, not attacks. Further, you were asked to report any posts where you think personal attacks are happening Impede? How? It is a place to discuss science, but it has rules to facilitate discussion. You agreed to follow them when you joined. Perhaps you can understand the linear nature of time, and that people are not on the forum 24 hours a day. Posts are made only when one is online and visiting, and only after reading the posts one is responding to. Excuse me? Asking you to follow the rules is not a personal attack. I'm not involved in the discussion in any way, so I don't see how I could be "losing ground". Further, it is not up to you to dictate how the staff deals with rules violations. You might consider that you are a guest in this house, and have the courtesy to follow the house rules. Losing the huge chip on your shoulder would improve matters greatly. We have requirements for anyone who wished to present their own theories. It would behoove you to familiarize yourself with them. And also recognize that disagreement or calls for evidence are not personal attacks.

! Moderator Note Rigor was requested and not supplied

The zeroth law doesn’t address how you get to equilibrium. Doesn’t address heat transfer at all.

You made that clear. I gave a more rigorous description Heat associated with warm water? Heat is energy transfer. No, it’s not. There are several ways to present the second law, and one is that spontaneous heat transfer from cold to warm is not possible (i.e. without work being done, or colloquially "of its own accord") is one of them. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

Any evidence of Newton’s 3rd law not holding? Unsupported assertions that the “observations may be incorrect” is the weakest of weak tea. If e changes then the light being absorbed and emitted by atoms must change, since the interaction strength has changed. Is there any evidence of this? You can derive Kepler from Newton. If one is wrong, so is the other. But we have evidence that they work just fine, which is inconsistent with your claims Also, why would light emitted by an atom at one place be absorbed by another somewhere else, if the interaction strength was different? Do atoms make mistakes?

Heat doesn’t spontaneously flow from cold to hot.