Bender

Ok, I watched it, and while it is an interesting video, he just posits it without really explaining. He even seems to contradict himself. He implies that inertial mass does change depending on the speed, while gravitational mass doesn't. But he also said both are the same. I think the effect of gravity does change in different inertial reference frames, because time flows at different rates and, as a result, acceleration is different. Moreover, suppose nuclear or chemical energy gets converted to kinetic energy: how can the system suddenly loose some of its gravitational effect on spacetime?

Perhaps for a neutron star which is near the critical mass to become a black hole, the additional increased rotational energy might be what pulls it over the edge?

I'll watch the video later, but one remark now: consider two masses spinning around each other connected with a rope. Their kinetic energy now would have gravitational effects. When you cut the rope, this effect would suddenly drop, because now most of the kinetic energy is mostly translational. That doesn't sound right to me.

I'll add an imperfect analogy : Put candy in a bowl and put it right in front of a two year old toddler while telling him not to touch the candy. How long do you think it would take for the toddler to eat it? Most likely, you won't even have left the room. The analogy is not perfect, because a toddler already has some concept of right and wrong. Suppose I start beating the toddler after eating candy I left in his face; how would you judge me? Besides, Adam would certainly have no concept of "dying" , since according to canon, he had never witnessed, heard about, or otherwise had anything to relate to a human death. So apart from not knowing it was wrong to disobey, he had no clue what the consequences might be.

If man could not separate right and wrong, how could he have known it was wrong to disobey and eat the delicious looking fruit?

The way I understand you, it is not just about inertial or non-inertial frames. You seem to be suggesting there is a difference when observing in the same reference frame. Are you suggesting that two objects with the same kinetic energy, but one is only rotating and the other is only translating, would have a different gravitational pull on their surroundings (sufficiently far away not to be influenced by local effects)? Or, put differently: do you mean that gravity does not affect relativistic mass (or at least the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass)?

Does the linear motion not change its gravitational potential? I would think the gravitational potential is just different in different reference frames, like the kinetic energy is different.

I should have added that there are no dangerous bugs where I live, and its quite easy to avoid those that can actually puncture human skin. ;-)

That is pretty much why I'm not vegetarian: I'm too sloppy about food. But we get enough nutrients with a lot less meat than we eat on average.

What would you suggest these animals eat? Source

It wouldn't hurt the environment to eat less meat. The arguments presented are easily countered by the fact that cattle eats lots of crops, and growing those crops takes land that could otherwise be nature.

I don't think selection will be the answer. There has been plenty of selective pressure to increase efficiency over the last billion years, so I doubt we can add to that without genetic engineering of a complexity that will not soon be possible.

No. Inner peace is reprogramming the "inner self" to match your desired behaviour. We are not slaves of some separate "id" that needs appeasing. Psychoanalysis is nothing but a bunge of outdated and untestable hypotheses. You could reverse all this and it would sound just as good. The hypotheticals get conjured by the "inner self " and the conscious mind sorts out the selection presented to it. By properly training the "inner self", it produces less irrational urges, such as fear of heights in a situation where falling is impossible.

I have no idea what you mean with: Are you perhaps looking for McKibben actuators (aka pneumatic muscles)?

The demon is not the one creating entropy, everything else in the world is. So unless you also want to transform the planet to a dead equilibrium state, there will be an increase in entropy for the demon to compensate.

But we are not discussing an ideal, reversible, carnot cycle.

If he isn't there, entropy increases. So to counter that increase, the demon has to remove entropy. Let's try another analogy: an inflatable castle is full of air, but also quite leaky. If left on its own, the amount of air inside decreases. So we install a compressor to keep the pressure constant. What you are suggesting, is that the compressor does not add any air to the castle, because the total amount of air inside remains unchanged.

Creating a temperature/pressure difference is decreasing entropy, and that is exactly what the demon is doing.

But the second law of thermodynamics dictates that decreasing the entropy (increasing enthalpy ) of a system requires more energy than the decrease in entropy. So you just demonstrated that to be able to violate the laws of thermodynamics, you need a demon which violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Doesn't really matter. The key question is where the demon gets its energy.

Where does the demon get its energy to perform the sorting? I simply used your terminology. Feel free to replace "energy" with "power" which is indeed more appropriate.

I'll ignore the fact that the Earth is far from a closed system, and that it is quite unusual to talk about a closed system that includes everything. Instead, let's focus on the turbine. You say that all the energy transferred to the turbine is transferred back to the gas. How much energy is left in the turbine after it transfers all its energy? In other words. If I give you all my money, how much money do I have left to give Jack?

1. Subject dies from massive trauma and suffocation. 2. Second layer wrinkles and does nothing, because membranes cannot push in their plane. 3. Regardless of the problems, I don't think it would work the way you imagine it, but I can't be sure because statements such as "produce a strength strong enough like the steel" don't make any sense.

But it's a closed system where the turbine transfers all its energy to the gas atoms (I suppose you mean gas molecules). How can it transfer energy outside the system (do work) if it has already transfered all its energy to the gas? Suppose we each have 50 euro. I give you 50 euro and you give me 50 euro and then you give Jack 10 euro. Now our total has decreased to 90 instead of 100 euro.

Then what is the point of the turbine?