swansont

This is a semantics argument, about phrasing. One reason why we use equations to make things clearer. But since language us still used, we try and define things as clearly as possible. Yes, heat is a transfer of energy between objects (or systems) owing to a temperature difference (sometimes called heat transfer). That distinguishes it from work, which is other energy transfer. There is also energy content. Sloppy use of terminology often leads to confusion Energy is conserved. Ei = Ef There are different forms of energy, so each of those might be broken down, depending on the details of a problem (potential, kinetic, thermal, etc) Energy can be transferred in our out of systems, so that’s another thing that must be accounted for, like balancing one’s checkbook. Ei = Ef + W for example It’s important to define the boundary of a system when applying these equations. In the context of the first law, energy is not destroyed. Heat is not destroyed. The energy goes somewhere. Argument to the contrary is semantics, and trying to skirt the issue by stretching the narrow definitions we have in physics. When in doubt, refer to the equations.

It’s been converted to another form, just as the first law of thermodynamics describes.

! Moderator Note The problem is that you do not provide evidence in support of your theories. You’ve had multiple threads where you tap-danced around the inquiries of others. Your Carnot thread went to the 17th page - there was nothing abrupt about it. You’ve had other multi-page threads. Where do you respond in support of your “theories”? At this point, you do not have a place here. You had ample opportunity, and you’ve used up the goodwill extended to you. You can ask questions and get answers about mainstream physics. That’s all.

! Moderator Note Anything that doesn’t belong elsewhere, and doesn’t violate the rules If you can manage to ask questions and not preach your own version, or bring up extraneous material, the proper place is in classical physics.

Animals under human care - i.e. pets - generally get the same advantages we do: clean water, better quality and regular access to food, modern medicine, shelter from the elements, protection from predation. It shouldn’t be surprising that such animals live longer than their cousins in the wild.

! Moderator Note For someone who rants about the misguided notion of a caloric, you spend a lot of time treating heat as a substance, and mangling the laws of physics. All you’ve done is preach, without supporting your claims, which is not in accordance with the rules of speculations.

Inelastic refers to KE, not momentum. A wall effectively has infinite mass, being anchored to the earth. Up until it breaks apart.

Well, no, it doesn’t. I requested rigor from you in this thread. To my mind, there still hasn’t been any. I’m sorry - to what math are you referring? I see one equation, that of conservation of energy. And what identical appliances? I haven’t been paying attention to recent discussion between you and sethoflagos and exchemist. Irrelevant. Overturning mainstream science requires evidence that it’s wrong. Analysis of a proposed device needs to be based on mainstream science. We don’t permit anyone to bootstrap speculation on more speculation - it has to be one step at a time. One curious thing, though, is that I haven’t posted anything here in two full days, and you go out if your way to call my attention to the thread, and the fact that you still aren’t complying with the rules.

True paradoxes, or just things called paradoxes because they require proper application of a concept, and are not actually paradoxical? (rather, they are not intuitively obvious)

What paper? Link to it, or quote a larger section, so that people can read the context of the statement.

It may help to note that Newton’s second law is F = dp/dt (p is momentum). This becomes F = ma if the mass is constant. So one can view a force as the rate of change of momentum. As studiot points out, there is a change in direction, meaning there is a change in momentum. Thus, a force.

Without knowing how a fourth spatial dimension would manifest itself, I don’t see how this can be answered.

At the crossing point they are the same age

Why, though? What prevents it? Time is relative. Saying this can’t be true stems from some assumption, and that assumption is flawed.

There is no inconsistency; the situations are symmetrical for the two frames so getting the same answer should be expected. For any frames the time is given by the Lorentz transformations. There is nothing inconsistent in the math. The unspoken assumption is that there is an absolute frame that shows the “real” time.

The tail is caused by the solar wind and radiation pressure. https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/why-do-comets-have-tails/ ! Moderator Note This isn’t the WAG forum. Enough is enough. Don’t bring this nonsense up again.

In addition to the clarification studiot seeks, the size of this surface relative to the size of the planet is likely important.

Especially one small enough not to deform into a spherical shape. And one wonders how fast could it rotate without falling apart with such weak gravity.

BINGO! You cracked the code. No matter what happens, Biden’s response is wrong.

Your straw-clutching is getting more and more contrived.

The other way around. Better resolution if you’re 2 miles up than ~19 miles up.

Your proof was contingent on A being true. Its conclusion is only valid in that case. It says nothing about the state of affairs if A is false.

Why would it return to the ground if there was no gravity? If you aren’t in an inertial frame, Newton’s laws of motion don’t apply. There is no expectation of an object moving in a straight line.

In the US, information is classified if release of the information is a threat to national security (that’s supposed to be the only reason) That the public knows the information does not change this; if someone leaks classified info to the press, it’s still classified. And as I pointed out earlier, even if knowledge of the balloon isn’t classified, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t details that are. (about the payload, for example)

! Moderator Note If we build a time machine begs the question of whether we can build a time machine. Try opening a thread not based on a logical fallacy