swansont

In thermal equilibrium you can’t decouple these effects. You can’t create a situation where you have the translational motion without the non-translational motion.

Yes.

Have you ever noticed that e.g. a tree or house some distance away can block your view of things further away?

If you want to block the whole star from all of earth, you need something the size of the earth. If you just want to block one person from seeing it, you need something roughly the size of someone’s face, though diffraction will mess with this. Arago’s spot means light will still be there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot

The size of the “light beam” is approximately the size of the source; even bigger, since over 4 LY you can’t ignore the divergence. Alpha Proxima is bigger than a few mm. The beam illuminates the whole earth, i.e. you could observe the star from any point on the surface unless earth itself is in the way. Diffraction means you need something bigger. Diffraction, and that the sun is bigger than the moon, and that the moon is some distance away. The light is not parallel. If you were closer to the moon, the dark spot would be bigger.

This makes no sense. An angle, by definition, assumes a vertex, which is a point. The light from Proxima Centauri hitting the earth can be treated as parallel over such a short distance as the diameter of the earth. The angular size of the star is not the same as the divergence of light from it.

Coxy123 banned as a sockpuppet of splodge and JustJoe

These itemized topics look like math or computer questions.

Yes you can copy and paste links, as long as they comply with the rules https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ Rule 2.7 in particular, especially this part - “Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos”

There are 7-day programmable timers. You’d only have to reset it once a week. Or do e.g. a 42 hour cycle I think there are 14-day timers, too

The magic number is 18. That’s how many years it’s been since someone had last posted.

AIkonoklazt has been banned for repeatedly arguing in bad faith and re-introducing closed topics

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7: Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone IOW, spamming us with videos is not a winning strategy

I think if there were scientific evidence it would be documented better than in a youtube video (which, BTW, needs to comply with rule 2.7, found in the “guidelines” tab; a video is not a substitute for substantive discussion and documentation. Asking people to watch a 25-min video rather than you putting the effort in to explain the situation is not going to fly)

We don't break out the energy stored in rotational modes as a separate term when doing an energy balance Q = mc∆T If temperature is only the translational motion, you'd need an additional term to account for the energy in the other degrees of freedom, but you don't do this, or need to, because you already accounted for it in the heat capacity. Equipartition of energy means that you can't separate the translational from the rotational modes in terms of energy. If the temperature changes, all of the modes gain or lose energy, and the temperature is proportional to this. The distinction shows up in calculations of the internal energy U = aNkT = aPV Seems to me there's no unambiguous argument in either direction, because the equipartition force the energy to be shared between the modes. I see nothing in literature making the distinction that it's only translational KE in systems with additional degrees of freedom. Nothing shows up in the equations, and IMO it's confusing to make that distinction when it doesn't show up in or matter to the calculation.

I think I understand what you mean, but IMO this isn’t the way to express it. Of course the other degrees of freedom contribute to the temperature; it’s right there in the equation. As you said, each degree of freedom has an energy of ½kT. If the other degrees don’t contribute, why does their energy depend on T? If you place an object with 3 degrees of freedom in contact with one with 5, they will still equilibrate at the same temperature. It’s just there are more modes in which you store the thermal energy in the second object. If it’s not temperature, how is the energy accounted for in any of the thermodynamic potentials?

That's the electrostatic interaction, which involves virtual photons. That's typically not referred to as EM radiation, which consists of real photons. The vibrational modes of a solid can be described in terms of phonons (not photons); there are non-radiative ways of changing those states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon

The translational modes, which are the vibrations mentioned elsewhere

The original topic was about a solid, so the ideal gas law and kinetic theory is moot. However, the kinetic theory shows that it’s the KE of the atoms that matters; these atoms collide elastically with other atoms - these are the analogue of the vibrations in a solid. There is no “internal EM energy” You can’t have motion of atoms, having KE, and have a bunch of EM radiation interior to the system, and have the theory work. kT is directly related to mv^2 (with a constant related to degrees of freedom) If there’s energy stored as EM radiation, there’s less KE, but that means a lower temperature.

! Moderator Note It looks like these are just stock images, so you’re not off to a good start. Your description of the women as bossy and laughing at you indicates you should be talking to a mental health professional. We are not qualified to diagnose issues or give you the help you need.

! Moderator Note You may upload an image, but requiring people to follow a link is against our rules

People used to believe is a lot of things. I remember reading that sneezing was thought to be the body trying to expel demons, hence the response of “God bless you.” Now we know that it’s a cold or an allergy, or irritation from dust. You were supposed to bless a glass of water before you drank it, to keep the devil from entering your body. But now we understand getting sick from drinking bad quality water. So I don’t put much stock in stories from long ago about demons and devils, or in modern stories about aliens being attributed to them. It’s just so much baloney.

You can’t use the Newtonian kinematics equations if the motion is relativistic. There is no terminal velocity - terminal velocity requires an opposing, speed-dependent force.

You can alter the linear motion, but it’s a very small effect, since the momentum of EM radiation is p=E/c. Negligible for bulk material. Small even for an atom. Plus, if this is an excitation, the photon gets re-emitted, reversing the effect. And if the radiation is isotropic the net momentum is zero. And above all, temperature is not affected by linear motion. Yes. So it’s not higher just because the temperature is higher. The power per unit area of the material is the relevant quantity, as given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But only for what you think is in the proposal. You don’t have those details (or haven’t shared them), so we don’t know - you’re just guessing. I’ve pointed out a few logical things that might have been in the proposal that you did not include. I’m not making any argument. I’m just pointing out the incompleteness of your assertion, and asking you fill in the gaps. Instead of doing so, or even engaging in exploration of it, you attack. It’s quite telling. It’s also quite obvious.