swansont

You modified the quote without acknowledging that added emphasis. That’s frowned upon. Our speculation rules say “Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof.” and we require testable predictions. The only way to quantify such predictions is with n=mainstream science. But you haven’t. I don’t see a single equation. You were asked about entropy and energy but there’s no analysis of these quantities. It’s your burden to show that it follows established science, and present any experimental data. Not enough effort has gone into providing evidence and testable predictions. Solely? No. There’s plenty of evidence that Newton’s laws are valid, and that the laws of thermodynamics are valid (and the latter were established in the 19th century) (edit: xpost with exchemist)

! Moderator Note You can’t separate these. Any operation of a device must be based on established physics. Some of the ones in thermodynamics are referred to as laws. Hand-waving is no substitute for rigorous analysis

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. IOW, you can’t just tell someone to go someplace else to read the content necessary for the discussion You’ve been told this a number of times

If “we” can see the box move, then “we” are in the lab frame. “we” would not see it take 5 sec for the light to hit the far wall, because the wall moves - the light travels more than 5 m. We can look at this like a light clock if we do a round trip The light travels ct1 to the right, and the travels a distance d + vt1 (distance across the car + distance the wall travels), so these are equal (c-v)t1 = d 37.32m, or 37.32 sec On the return trip the light travels ct2 to the left while the wall is moving vt2 to the right (c+v)t2 = d 2.68 seconds Total is 40, while in the train-car frame, the light travels 20m round-trip. The moving car clock runs slow by a factor of 2, as expected

As you say, it overlaps. Some satire is humor. Some humor is not satire. One is not conflating the two. But a humorist who uses satire is probably doing the humorous version.

They also said “It can be both” so I think that counts as an attempt.

Satire is (or can be) a form/subset of humor, is it not?

It can be both, can’t it? There are a number of comedians who do political satire.

Causality is limited by c, which is the speed of light in vacuum, not the speed of light in a medium. There isn’t a scenario where an answer arrives before you send a message for signals slower than c.

How is the bolded part possible, if, as you claim, the engine doesn’t reject heat to the cold reservoir? I didn’t say replicate. I said do it with your setup. “of that sort”? You measured the temperature rise of a cold reservoir that starts below ambient, with a control to assess the heat absorbed from the ambient surroundings?

The USA isn’t exactly the poster child of a government not occupying a stolen land.

It probably took longer to draw those pictures than it would to do the experiment with your engine that has the insulated bolts.

Common sense says the sun revolves around the earth, so the “common sense” ship sailed long ago.

As I said, if the heat transfer was solely from the bolts, there would be an obvious temperature gradient toward the middle. We don’t see that - we see a fairly uniform temperature profile, consistent with heat being transferred through the whole plate. I suggested this experiment on Jan 28, and it took about 10 minutes to complete. You’ve spent more time trying to come up with ways to explain away the results. You’ve apparently spent zero time doing this experiment. I’m not trying to replicate your experiments, and I’ve already noted how useful I find your videos and experiments. I’m trying show that one of your claims is wrong, which you could have made without videos or experiments. Since you have thus far not done some form of this experiment, I went ahead and did it.

I was not trying to replicate an experiment you had conducted. I was doing an experiment that you had not conducted, but probably should have.

Proton colliders don’t have the protons start at rest WRT each other I suspect we are swimming upstream against pop-sci descriptions of QM being used. Once the rigor has been lost, it’s hard to regain it. The probability waves (wave functions) already extend to infinity, so “when they meet” doesn’t make sense. Particles meeting sounds more like the deBroglie waves (the wave nature of quantum particles) which is not identical to the wave function of the Schrödinger equation. A lot of pop-sci discussion never makes this distinction clear.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion board, and your post isn’t science.

You made the claim in this thread, and it’s apparently part of your Carnot efficiency argument. As I said, you are free to do your own experiment, but since it will obviously undermine your position, I can see why you might hesitate to do it. As a proof-of-principle experiment, I think it’s fine. If I was quantifying the effect it would require more care. I’ll leave it to others to assess my competence.

No. Having hot water in the non-running engine does not test what is under contention, unless you are also asserting that there is no heat transfer across the engine while not running. And that’s ridiculous. No. The test is whether heat is transferred to the cold side while the engine is running. You claim there is none. The only thing that would heat the cold side should be ambient air. Some details don’t affect the result. You don’t need to replicate the exact temperatures, since we aren’t trying to quantify the result. Only show that heat is transferred, since you predict that the value is zero. I showed a thermal image. It shows the temperature profile and would display a temperature gradient if one existed. But you can see that the water near the center is heated as well. No, that’s not what I was testing. You claimed that no heat is sent to the cold reservoir. My experiment was done to show that this is not true. It’s more than zero, which rebuts your claim. The water on top and on the counter was cold, not ice. The temperature displayed by the thermal image shows this. I wasn’t measuring the efficiency. It’s true in regard to your claim that no heat is rejected by this engine

The OP is fixated on the outdated idea of caloric. Heat is not kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of energy owing to a temperature difference. This can happen via radiation, conduction or convection. The thermal energy of a body is related to kinetic energy of constituent atoms or molecules, which we associate with temperature. But two objects at the same temperature will have not heat transfer between them, despite having vibrational KE Not particularly relevant, as it’s the same for both samples. Room temperature. Higher than air, to be sure, so it would tend to warm the water faster than air would. Which might heat the edge of the water but not the center Again, this would affect the edge, not the center. Only some? It needs to account for all of it if your assertion is correct. The counter was at ambient temperature before the water was added. As I noted, that should heat the water faster. You are free to replicate this, as you have repeatedly been invited to do.

Quick experiment. Heat up water for coffee mug, also chill some water to put on top plate. Get engine running, pour a little water on top plate and also on counter. The water on the cold reservoir plate clearly warmed up faster than the water only subject to ambient air. 17.3 degrees after a minute or so; you can already see some warming at the edges. 24.8 after about four minutes. The ambient pool looks basically unchanged. Picture with my FLIR thermal imager phone attachment

I just checked mine; boiled water and poured it into a coffee mug, put the engine on top and it started up after 10 seconds.

You can go back and read it.

You also need to look at round trip times, since the time it takes to traverse the train car in the station’s frame depends on the direction of motion. Light travels at c, but the end of the car is moving toward or away from the photon. The station observer sees it travel more or less than 5m, depending on direction. “We would see it take 1 second for the horizontal beam to travel 5 m, in the train car frame” No. In the train car frame, it travels 10m. In the train car frame, the car is stationary. I concur with studiot: you are mixing frames, and that destroys the validity of any analysis. (There’s also the conundrum of why people who are trying to understand a difficult topic choose to make the examples inordinately complicated. It’s math, and the math is internally consistent. Simplicity is a friend. Making the math harder just makes the math harder)

So any change in behavior of the engine is a direct result of decreasing the temperature of the cold reservoir. The ice melted, so obviously heat was flowing to it. What remains is determining if that happened just because of the ambient environment. I suggested an experiment to determine this.