swansont

Did NASA say that? The Post article says "The finding implies that these particles are actually traveling backward in time, suggesting evidence of a parallel universe, according to the Daily Star." (emphasis added) I don't see a direct quote from NASA making this claim in the Daily Star article. There are quotes saying otherwise. The blurb "The simplest – and therefore scientifically the most elegant explanation is this: at the moment of the Big Bang two universes were formed – ours, and another one that from our perspective is running in reverse." is unattributed.

It's crap. A dubious conjecture from an anomalous signal https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/05/21/has-nasa-found-a-parallel-universe-where-time-flows-backwards-the-truth-behind-the-headlines/#1c13e0b9646d

But you don't create just protons or just antiprotons without violating conservation laws or symmetry. You create both at the same time. That's not the case with an amino acid. You can build just one without such violations.

That's word salad. Science - physics especially - quantifies effects. It's not enough to spout some technical jargon. One needs a mathematical model that predicts behavior. Any notion that gravity can be replaced by electrostatics is trivially debunked, because there's no way to get an always-attractive force between more than two bodies. We orbit the sun, sure, but the moon orbits us while orbiting the sun. Pick a charge for the sun and the earth, and from the known orbits, mathematically deduce the charge on the moon that consistent with the known orbits, the tides we observe on the earth, etc. The effort will fail once it's approached with a bit of rigor.

! Moderator Note It wouldn’t explain this, but you need to understand some physics to see why. I am feeling less generous than Strange. All WAG, no science. Speculation needs some foundation in science.

I watched that first minute, and what he's talking about is not well-captured in your question's phrasing. In a single frame, all clocks can be synchronized, because you can adjust for the delay of a finite speed of light. Similarly, people in a frame can agree on when something happened by applying that delay. An event you observe that is 1 light-second away happened 1 second ago. Everybody in that frame agrees. Let's call that t=0 But moving changes that. If you are moving away, it takes longer for the light to get to you, because in that 1 second, you have moved some distance. So an identical event getting to you happened before t = 0, i.e. in the other frame's past (before t = 0), because an event that happened at t=0 can't reach you in 1 second. Similarly, if you are moving toward the event, the light arrives faster, because you have reduced the distance.

I’m nit required to watch it, by the rules, and it’s a 2.5 hour video, though it starts ~halfway through. I watched a few seconds and he was talking about simultaneity, and the relative “positioning” of some value of t. When you say “experience of time” being past or future, simultaneity is a big thing to leave out, if that’s what you want to know about. Is it? (if it is, it has to with how long a photon will take to get to you)

! Moderator Note You already have a discussion on layer logic, and posting to advertise it, or a site, violates the rules.

What do you mean by this? (pretend there’s no video; you have to summarize the argument here)

Then you should have not constructed such a poor sentence. I can’t read your mind, and given the glaring misconceptions you have demonstrated, there was no way to know that you didn’t mean what you said. If it was a mistake, own it, rather than blaming others for it. Your point? (nobody can read your mind. It’s not just me)

You left off the bolded and underlined part I had emphasised. Why? I was focusing on the part of the statement about work and gas expansion. You do understand the function of the word “or”, right?

You’ve posted lots of stuff. Everyone else is responding to it. If you wanted to focus on one example, we could have done that. But you’re the one who has presented multiple examples. That’s what new threads are for. To keep things separate. And also why mods admonish responders for thread hijacking. But that all goes out the window when the thread starter keeps bringing up more examples. And it’s not fair to people who might not have visited in a day or two to try and tell them they can’t participate because you posted something a couple of days ago. One thread = one conversation I copy-pasted, so there is no doubt you said it. A common theme here has been people explaining that heat is converted to mechanical work. (but not all of it can be converted)

I was previously admonished and directed to focus on one example, so much like the second law, I can’t win. Did you, or did you not say “I was just trying to clarify that "work" is not done to expand the gas”?

That’s obvious. Vacuum and atmosphere You claim work is not being done against atmosphere. it’s the only other option. That’s not what I said, or what’s going on. But you keep saying work is not being done against atmosphere, and that’s not right. (You said “I was just trying to clarify that "work" is not done to expand the gas”) The fact that you are focused on the marbles suggests you aren’t getting what other people are talking about.

It’s not a vacuum, right? So work is being done against atmospheric pressure, i.e. there is a pressure on the plunger. There is a difference between expansion in those two conditions

They do annihilate. Particle/antiparticle pairs can form bound states before doing so. Electrons and positrons form positronium, only annihilating after they’s dropped into the ground state. The article says this particle could be a loosely bound pair of mesons. The J/psi (charm/anticharm), which is what it decays into, has a lifetime less than 10^-20 seconds

I did not claim otherwise. But where would entropy come into play in a multi-particle Feynman diagram?

Your threads get shut down because you don’t present evidence to back up your claims. In January you wrote ”I have a framework for a theory of everything that is worthy of discussion except the moderators keep shutting it down. They say there is no evidence for it but there is, its just that the discussion is usually stopped before it gets there. I do not think our current scientists are stupid but their philopsophy is no where near the level of their mathematics, their philosophy is poor.” Not getting to the point of posting the evidence was a poor strategy (several if your threads went 4 or 5 pages) And by doing it repeatedly you wore out any goodwill and patience that might be afforded you

CPT is often applied to single particles, which are in 1 state. There’s no way for entropy to change, so there’s no application of the 2nd law.

Put another way, the diagrams with Q’s and W are schematics, not maps. They show a concept, not a physical path.

One common mis-step in problems like this is to try and substitute numbers in too early. You haven’t shown your work, as studiot has suggested, so nobody can be sure if that’s the case. The angle is not given because you can solve this without it (i.e. anywhere the angle might show up, it will cancel once you start simplifying the math, and with other methods it is absent altogether) The answer depends only on given quantities

How does the image “show” this? A thermal imaging camera captures thermal radiation, which indicates temperature, not heat. Do you understand what a reservoir is in thermodynamics? This picture is perfectly in accord with the cold plate operating at Tc, exactly as the theory states. IOW, the thing supposed to be at Th is at Th, and the thing supposed to be at Tc is at Tc. Hardly an indictment of the theory. It does not support your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Heat is not a substance. It does not have a temperature. Whatever you think heat is, it is not what thermodynamics defines as heat. And that stands in the way of any fruitful discussion.

You can ask questions about thermodynamics, or you can explain some idea you have about the subject. But you can’t do both.

That’s weird. I could have sworn you mentioned ice a dozen or so times, and linked to a bunch of videos that mentioned it. That would be helpful, but the ship had sailed, so to speak. how can it? Heat flows from hot to cold. In a Stirling engine the working gas is sealed in the engine. Heat cannot just be exhausted as in an internal combustion engine. If the temperatures are equal there is no heat flow from hot to cold as there is no hot or cold. But there is hot and cold. The one side in contact with water that was brought to boil. The other side is at ambient. You even calculated the efficiency using the temperatures. The temperature gradient means there is heat transfer across the engine. As you said, let’s focus on this example. Nobody is asserting this. You own mental model is flawed. Heat isn’t a substance; it doesn’t have a temperature. When the gas strikes the “cold” plate, it transfers energy to it. That’s the heat transfer taking place at Tc. The plate at ambient temperature seems to remain there because the reservoir is large. In reality the reservoir temperature would be increasing, but this is infinitesimal.Over a long time, with a finite reservoir, the temperature will increase (and Th will decrease) but this is generally ignored in a simple analysis This system is ~20% efficient because ~80% of the energy goes into heating the cold plate and the reservoir it’s coupled to. The rest goes into doing work.

Why? No... If no heat were rejected, your efficiency would be 100% You need to explain why you think this is so. IOW, explain why your ice melts, if no heat is flowing Again, you need to explain why you think this is so Actual thermodynamics doesn’t work this way.