J.C.MacSwell

Why would they evolve an eye that would observe the background? Not detecting would work just as well.

Historically that's after Maxwell suggested his Demon, but well before Heisenberg introduced his uncertainty principle (which I think sets limits on the Demon's abilities)... so maybe they were deferring to Maxwell's thought experiment??

You're setting the bar pretty high for any potential violator. I'd be happy just to get some "free" power.

It is not arbitrary. Life is not excluded. If it was you would be quite correct, but you are not. The only "seeming" violation is in your imagination. No "seconds" of entropy decreasing took place at any time. Assuming you did manage to stack the wood in such a way that the firewood itself was lower in entropy as a system than it had been previously, it was not an isolated system. Your entropy (and/or your lunch) increased even more. At no time, not even temporarily, did you violate the second law.

There is absolutely nothing that you did that is in violation of the second law. If you understood the second law, you would realize that is just another example of the second law at work. Nothing wrong with trying to break it, or speculate how it could be possible (in Speculations) but unless you can stack firewood without use of fuel of any kind then you are only confirming the law once again. The Tom/firewood/fuel system will only increase in entropy over time... quickly if you burn the wood, slowly if you stack it, slower still if you have a nap beside it, but you can't beat it. You cannot manipulate an isolated system to reduce it's entropy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two containers One larger, one smaller Each contain the same number of atoms of the same gas Average kinetic energies are the same. (with respect to the centre of mass and any macroscopic rotation) These are given, axiomatic. They are what Finiter proposed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Given all that, they will have the same temperature. (as Swansont stated) Anyone who says they cannot is wrong. Any additional set of assumptions about how they came to that state, that lead to the conclusion that they cannot have the same temperature, are a wrong set of assumptions. That additional set of assumptions would contradict the given conditions. Anyone who would assume those additional assumptions is confused, as making those assumptions is a failure in logic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore the containers will have the same temperature... ...even if Spin 1/2 is a scientist, has a lab with leaking pressure bottles, pressure bottles with infinite R-factor insulation, or is about to receive a Nobel prize, and even if, regrettably, this hurts his feelings... The containers described by Finiter will have the same temperature (IT"S A GIVEN)

From Wiki: "Therefore, temperature is tied directly to the mean kinetic energy of particles moving relative to the center of mass coordinates for that object."

a) I didn't say that b) I told you that c) actually I haven't, though I've started to guess d) I hazarded a guess hoping you would clarify Yes or No, does your definition of thermal energy include the macroscopic portions of kinetic energy? Because my definition does not you seem to believe I think kinetic energy and thermal energy must be mutually exclusive. Therefore, is it fair to say?: b.) you don't understand everything I've said yet c.) you're drawing conclusions about it anyway You talk about semantics like you are above it, and yet blame others for failure to communicate. So again: Yes or No, does your definition of thermal energy include the macroscopic portions of kinetic energy?

Just to be clear. The translational (and rotational) kinetic energy of the macroscopic object/ball. Do you consider that part of the thermal energy? Apparently you believe it is. Correct me if I am wrong. To me it is an important distinction. Ranting about it, or feeling insulted, does not help make it clear. If it turns out that I am using the wrong definition, I'm fine with that. My ego will be fine. Yours should be as well.

Heat is transfer of a type of kinetic energy. Is it not? Not disagreeing with your statement at all. Just for clarity. Note that Wiki has a Heat (disambiguation) heading. Heat, in physics, is energy which is spontaneously flowing from an object with a high temperature to an object with a lower temperature. Heat may also refer to (bolding mine): "Thermal energy, the sum of a body's latent and sensible forms of energy (sometimes confused with "heat") " [edit] I know that in engineering, and sometimes physics, this confusion/ambiguity is fairly common. Hi Spin I'm sorry if that is upsetting. And honestly I have not read to the point of understand everything you have said. But to me that is what semantics are for. At this point I honestly don't know if you understand your statements... though I suspect that you might. I am sure others would agree with you, though I bet you would be disappointed in some of them when you found out why. That is your quote from Wiki. It is wrong. The bolded is not all thermal energy. In what context can it be considered correct? Seriously? Is a 95mph fastball at a higher temperature than it was prior to being thrown?

What exactly does this mean? ...and this? You may know exactly what you mean, and that may be correct...but I don't know that. All I know is that is that it can be clearly wrong if I take it literally. Even if you mean thermal energy. Cold steel will not heat warm insulation.

Choose an axis of bending and look at the cross section of the flat paper or pizza. When you fold it as described (which would be perpendicular to aforementioned axis) you greatly increase the area moment of inertia of that cross section, and therefore the stiffness. The paper or pizza is displaced from the neutral axis of bending and therefore gains "leverage" to support the load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_moment_of_area

All these examples are applicable. Entropy of each system increases in every case. The broken glass is a more isolated and obvious one. If you pick up the pieces and reheat them, then reform them into glass the entropy of a larger system has increased even more. Organisms are stuck with the same Law. If you don't eat, and keep your system isolated, you die.

I think (have read) wormholes can be described mathematically in GR, which would possibly give a basis for time travel. (I doubt they occur in reality) You stated that they can actually occur in SR, unless I misread what you meant by "special".

From an inertial frame you cannot measure anything to be travelling at greater than c, or two things separating faster than 2c.

If you are looking at a can of soup on a shelf at eye level you "know" that it is square. The guy looking from above "thinks" it is round, but of course you know he is wrong? Or does your experience tell you that both can be correct? Not having travelled much at light speed relative to cans of soup, how do you know know their shape when measured in that frame? How is it that you know what is going on?

They cannot occur in special relativity. "Special" in this case is a more restricted set of rules and does not allow space-time to fold back on itself. "General" may allow it, though I suspect reality may not.

If it makes you feel any better (and even if it doesn't) if you die from radiation in one frame you die in them all.

Why would the mass be different in the new frame of reference?

In terms of local inertial frames the object is in one inertial rest frame and an infinite number (quantum physics notwithstanding) of others between that and the approaching of lightspeed in every direction. (light speed itself cannot define an inertial frame). In it's own inertial rest frame it's kinetic energy is zero and in that of a frame that it is approaching light speed in it's kinetic energy is approaching infinite, though for practical purposes one would have to ask "infinite relative to what?"

One principle is that the more efficient you can make the blade, the faster it will go and the more swept area it will cover. Of course it all has to rotate at the same rpm so the outer part of the blade will be moving faster and sweeping more area. There is a maximum theoretical amount of energy you can harvest given the energy available in the approaching disc of air, the Betz Limit or 59.3%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz'_law If you attempt to harvest more you would get less. If you tried to get it all you would get none as you would have choked everything to a halt. The old design is great if you want high torque at low speed, but as it increases speed each blade interferes with the next. Same reason you would not put one turbine in front of, or even in too close proximity to another. It does self starts a lot more readily. The newer ones take forever and are often powered to get them going.

The danger is that the road and surroundings are at 100 km/h relative to you. That little bump can easily misalign the wheels with the road and result in further misalignment and loss of control. From there it's not so much how fast you are moving, but how fast you slow down if you impact some of that "scenery" coming at you at 100 km/h. Compare the same group of cars in outer space all heading "South" at 100 km/h in some reference frame. If they drift together not much happens...after all...relative to each other they are stationary and there is no high energy masses going by them.

Induced drag resists rotation. That is why it is called drag. (not being funny, that is the definition in this case) The goal is trying to harvest the most power. Adding extra blades would contribute power as well, yet make the rest less effective, to the point they cost more than they contribute, but at low speed they are more effective... so the Greek, Dutch and Spanish were right for their time. You are right about the truncation of the ships and cars. The energy has been dissipated due to friction and form drag and cannot be recovered (or barely worthwhile for practical reasons)...but the airflow/waterflow is not even in the same direction in this case. It is in the water at cruising speed, the speed the hull was designed to be efficient at. Exactly... and this is why the ship was truncated where it was also. Extending the ship a little further still above the waterline would improve calm water hydrodynamics at cruising speed (and especially above) , but the increased radius of gyration of the ship in a sea (similar to your "cornering" above) and dock length in port would not make it worthwhile.

I have to be honest. I don't think you are going to get anyone that would understand 300 pages of new theory to read it. Most of them are more interested in something that is at most a paragraph, that will bowl them over. If you can do that I bet they might read the other 299.9 pages. (but the remainder of page 1 and beyond would still have to be pretty good) My opinion only, but if it is 300 pages long it is probably not a good physical theory, a worthwhile advance. As a suggestion this is something that should be addressed immediately. If you claim electromagnetic radiation has mass, you should acknowledge that that is a significant divergence from accepted physics and address why you think it should hold up. I stop reading partway through the next line when this does not happen, and my guess would be that the people you need to review it would not proceed any further either. You might cover it in the next paragraph, on page 17, or page 299, or may not at all, but none of it will get read (in my opinion).