J.C.MacSwell

Thanks. Is this true just classically, or true in any idealized case? (I pictured the last quantum step getting to the goal line)

Why not? In this hypothetical scenario empty space would effectively be at a temperature of 0 K. Your blackbody would tend to that.and have no reason to radiate further as it reached it. The reason you can't get anything to 0 K is that there is no 0 K space around to be utilized to allow it...your hypothetical does not exist.

Not an expert on evolution or even a biologist but I think I have assumed this (speciation reversal as a potential and likely process) as obvious once I realized that the definition of species is less rigid than I was originally taught back in grade school. I guess the devil is in the details.

Yeah. I think it stands as part of the equation, but there are a lot of interdependencies involved. Best to jog a couple miles before relieving the kidneys...just to get that core temperature up!

A food calorie is actually a kilocalorie of energy. Otherwise I would simply have a nice cold beer and lose weight. (after it goes through my system) So a litre of water at 38 C would net me 1 food calorie equivalent (1 degree above my body temperature) A litre of water at 0 C would save me 37 calories worth of dieting But it has no actual food calories as mentioned above.

So...is taking oil out of the ground without paying the current and future damages it causes effectively, if not literally, a subsidy?

What if we could still negative a post, but it would not count against the poster unless they are currently positive? That way for new posters you can attack the post, but not the poster. It would give them some level of amnesty. They would still be subject to following the rules, subject to suspensions etc, which I think is generally pretty fairly regulated, but a little more forgiven otherwise.

Over time it might. Let's say a new member who wants to learn has -10 the first month, but after 6 months is a -15. They have actually improved but the reputation system says otherwise. If you want them to care about rep they would be better off opening a new account. If I see a good question but know the science is incorrect I never down vote it but some do, especially if the poster has asked a similar question before. I tend to not want to up vote it if the science is incorrect. If someone is poor mannered they are more likely to get away with it if their science is correct, so a double standard with regard to that seems to be in place. So yes, ideally they gain it back over time, but I really don't think it happens readily for those just learning. So they can carry negative rep for some time.

I had made a suggestion a while back but IIRC it wasn't feasible because of a software change requirement or something. Basically it would add points over time to anyone with negative rep, since it seemed new members would tend to get it and not have time to adjust, understand the rules (such as speculating in good faith but in the wrong forum type of thing) They could be potentially solid members but would carry that negative rep for some time. Maybe if a mod would simply clear it after 30 days they could have a fresh start. It is after all a system where we want members to actually care about to some degree about their score, especially if negative and it is much easier to get negative (just start insulting) than positive (well thought out or helpful) rep.

Agree essentially but still perhaps not absolutely. We do not know what is beyond our fixed stars (observable universe), so cannot say definitively that it is not rotating wrt something greater or other, if given that inertial frames can be produced that rotate wrt it as the Wiki article suggests. This was what I meant when I posted previously:

I would certainly agree with that part. Did not know there was an absolute reference frame in GR. Do you have a link for this?

In there simplest and most straight forward form? Because it is not an inertial frame.

One where Newtonian physics, to a close approximation, does not apply. If you mean more precisely than that, LOL, I would not! You mentioned this earlier, can you elaborate on the point you are trying to make and how it relates to absolute rotation?

I think the concept is there. The fact that they have limited realm should support, not detract, from my line of reasoning, should it not?

Again this is clearly true in Newtonian physics and SR/Minkowski space but as I asked earlier is it necessarily true in GR? The Wiki link seems to indicate no, it is not necessarily true in every case. It is very brief, did you read it?

Is there a spinning black hole in the vicinity? If not, or something similar, how is this pertinent? You have a non inertial frame with the roundabout and want to compare it to the playground (essentially inertial). The question I put forward yesterday was whether two inertial frames could rotate wrt one another and the answer according to the link I found seems to indicate that yes, it is possible (albeit extreme circumstances) This does not prove absolute rotation cannot exist but it does (for me at least) raise the possibility and I have heard no arguments against it, Swansonts proclamations notwithstanding.

Not sure of the context of what you are asking. Can you elaborate? The coordinates of a local inertial frame are rotating wrt another (the fixed stars) Causing frame dragging rotation of an inertial frame... From the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging (bolded by me) "There exists a particular rotation rate that, should she be initially rotating at that rate when she extends her arms, inertial effects and frame-dragging effects will balance and her rate of rotation will not change. Due to the Principle of Equivalence gravitational effects are locally indistinguishable from inertial effects, so this rotation rate, at which when she extends her arms nothing happens, is her local reference for non-rotation. This frame is rotating with respect to the fixed stars and counter-rotating with respect to the black hole. "

What isn't an inertial frame? This would be a pretty trivial statement if the frame referred to is not inertial.

Thanks. Much more succinctly stated than what I was posting. That carried to extreme suggests the possibility of no absolute rotation, at least to me. This is true locally but is it true in a more global geometry of GR spacetime? (is it true absolutely?)

Clearly true in Newtonian physics or SR/Minkowski Space but is that absolutely true in GR? Perhaps I am taking this too far, but how do we know for sure our little portion of the Universe (the observable universe), everything we measure rotation against, is "Absolutely" non rotating? "This frame is rotating with respect to the fixed stars and counter-rotating with respect to the black hole." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

I am getting at " can any inertial frame rotate with respect to any other inertial frame?". If the answer is no, then I would say (under the right set of assumptions, those I think implied in the OP) that rotation is absolute. But if any inertial frames can rotate wrt any other inertial frames then it is less clear, unless there is a set of inertial frames that is preferred (with respect to rotation, not absolute motion)

Here is my thinking: If something is rotating it is rotating with respect to an inertial frame. If something somewhere else is rotating it is also rotating with respect to an inertial frame. These frames may be moving with respect to each other, but if they are also rotating with respect to each other then at least one of those rotations can not be considered absolute...but which one? ...so if ("if" is the key to the question, if this is known to be impossible the point is moot) any inertial frames can rotate with respect to each other then (perhaps?, obviously based on some assumptions, but similar in some respects to those for no absolute motion) there can be no absolute rotation.

If you are farming where nothing would otherwise farm, with no external energy inputs, the net carbon effect would be 0% after being put to use. If pulling fossil fuels it is 100 %.

A closely related question would be "can any inertial frame rotate with respect to any other?" I believe it may be possible, but am not certain. If it can then perhaps the answer to the PO might be no. (though I am not absolutely certain of that either)

It's always the 90 percent of Lawyers that give the rest a bad rep... (I kid of course...please don't sue me)