How Cold Heats Hot
Thermal refers to temperature which is a function of energy and mass, while what the law refers to is energy. Objects do not transfer mass but only energy. However, the only way to detect energy is when it interacts with matter, just as the only way to detect matter is when it gives off energy. Energy flows from an object with a higher level of energy to an object with a lower level of energy.
The area of space between the Earth and the sun has very little matter to interact with the energy being radiated by the sun.
This means there is little energy being absorbed by matter and the area has no temperature. One can say that this very cold area is heating the Earth because it contains the energy that interacts with the matter that forms the Earth. This causes an increase in the temperature of that matter and the Earth. The sun is radiating that energy and the Earth absorbs that radiated energy equalizing with it.
All objects with energy will radiate energy and all objects will absorb radiated energy. Equilibrium is where the energy radiated by an object is equal to the energy the object absorbs. Radiation is not the transfer of energy from one object to another but the transfer of energy to and from the energy field surrounding the object. What energy an object absorbs and radiates depends on the structure of the object and its bonds.
If one object reflects blue light while another emits blue light, the emitting object will not be able to transfer the blue energy to the other object. Instead both objects are transferring energy to, and absorbing energy from, the surrounding energy field. When they are in equilibrium with that field they will have equal energy.
Convection is the transfer of energy between objects and it occurs when the objects collide. It is described by the law of conservation of momentum, M1V1 + M2V2 -> M1V3 + M2V4. The masses of the objects do not change and energy flows from the object with a higher velocity to the object with the lower velocity, equalizing the level of energy in the objects. The masses of the objects are irrelevant when it comes to energy flow but it is the mass that determines how the energy is distributed.
Since the energy of an object is 1/2MV^2, it is possible for an object with a greater amount of kinetic energy to gain energy from an object with less kinetic energy if the object with the lower velocity has a great enough mass. Picture an object as a spherical container where the size of the container represents the mass or number of atoms of the object. Water in the containers represents the energy of the object.
If equal energy/water were added to two different sized containers the level of energy/water would be different in the two containers. In the smaller container the energy would be distributed to fewer atoms giving each of those atoms more energy than the atoms in the larger container (see image above).
When the two containers touch the water/energy would flow from the atoms in the smaller contain with more energy to the atoms in the larger container with less energy.
Equalization of energy would occur between all the atoms in both containers. Even if the larger container contained more energy/water, as long as the level of energy of the atoms in the smaller container was higher than the energy of the atoms in the larger container, the energy would flow to the larger container equalizing the energy of the atoms in the two containers.
According to the law of conservation of momentum, it is possible for an object with less kinetic energy (cooler) to transfer energy (heat) an object with more kinetic energy (hotter). In the troposphere, where the primary way energy is transferred is through collisions between molecules, a high velocity, low mass, gas molecule will transfer energy to a more massive water droplets or solid if the vibration of the molecules in those objects is less than the velocity of the gas molecule.
Colder air can heat warmer water or solids. The contention, by the Green House Gas Theory, that the Earth is heating the atmosphere because the gases in the atmosphere do not absorb visible or infrared light, is a violation of that part of the law of thermodynamics that mandates that all objects absorb radiated energy.
The energy nitrogen and oxygen absorb is from the ultraviolet wavelengths and the molecules in the atmosphere convert this energy into kinetic energy. Since the ultraviolet
band contains more energy than either the visible or infrared bands the gas molecules in the atmosphere have more velocity/energy than the molecules at the surface of the Earth. This means the Earth’s surface is not only being heated by the visible and infrared light it absorbing being radiated by the sun, but it is also being heated due to gas molecules, with their greater velocity, colliding with the matter on the Earth’s surface.
When sunspot activity on the sun decreases and the amount of uv light emitted by the sun decreases, the Earth will cool as it receives less energy from the atmosphere.
The whole fallacy is a result of people making the unwarranted assertion that the thermometer is measuring the energy of the molecules. It is not. Energy is being transferred to the thermometer by convection, not radiation and the number of collision and amount of energy transferred decreases as the density of the gases decrease. The thermometer is recording the momentum of the molecules striking it.
The hot air mass is less dense than the cool air mass so how can fewer molecules per unit area weigh more? Climatology and meteorology are not sciences because they do not understand the flow of energy in the atmosphere or the fact that most of the energy in the troposphere is contained in the water in it.
Header image: Quizlet
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
richard
| #
All I have to add is I think R. W. Wood explained it best in his Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse:
“Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”
“Robert Williams Wood (May 2, 1868 – August 11, 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He is often cited as being a pivotal contributor to the field of optics and a pioneer of infrared and ultraviolet photography. Wood’s patents and theoretical work inform modern understanding of the nature and physics of ultraviolet radiation, and made possible the myriad uses of UV-fluorescence which became popular after World War I.[1][2][3][4] He published many articles on spectroscopy, phosphorescence, diffraction, and ultraviolet light.”
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, Herb, now fixed the diagram
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi John
If you don’t endorse or necessarily agree with an article posted on this site, please could you put a disclaimer at the top of the article, or under it. Not everyone reads the comments or understands why you do what you do and might think “what the hell, this site is posting bunk”
Best wishes
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John,
If you know much about the Physical science biassed upon the ibsevatuib if ‘things’,you should practice what you claim to preach. NIAA and NASA are commonly criticized here but an observable fact their scientists and engineers are doing what exactly what they are cinissioned do. Design and build projects to make measurements for the rest of the scientific community (PSI commenters to study. But how can PSI readers stydg if get forget what has already been learned like . (https://www.iiar.org/IIAR/iiar/about_ammonia_refrigeration/the_history_of_ammonia_refrgeration.aspx) Find and read about what has been learned about Jupirwe and it’s atmosher and the ammonia molecules, How many if PSI members are aware that ammonia is such a good refrigerant fluid?
And I have read about healthy diets but have many considers ESKIMOS ate for centuries? Get my point???
Have a good cay and I’d not going let expos and other of my mistakes bother me.
Reply
Alan
| #
What a load of rubbish!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
So you don’t believe in the conservation of momentum where velocity is transferred from the object with higher velocity to the object with lower velocity, regardless of the objects masses?
Herb
Reply
Squidly
| #
No Herb, I don’t. I don’t care what mix of molecules you have, molecule A can only transfer energy to molecule B, if, and only if, molecule A is of greater energy state than molecule B. There are no exceptions. Our universe could not exist otherwise. “momentum” has no factor.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Squidly, your statements here are reflective of a somewhat delusional misinterpretation of the LOTs. In reality all objects at all times are producing EME that is potentially absorbable by other objects. As has been explained here in the forum many, many, many times it is only a NET increase in temperature that goes from hotter object to cooler objects.
Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Sympathy-to-those-who-are-incredulous-of-the-Spinning-Nanodroplets-of-Vortice-Plasma-e1ba4r3
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
I don’t believe an ice cube can warm my cup of coffee!!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Max,
It can’t. That is because the water molecules in the ice cube have less energy than the water molecules in the coffee and the energy flows from high to low. What if you had a small amount of a cold radioactive element and put that in your coffee? If the element was radiating more energy it would heat your coffee. Temperature is a function of both mass and energy but only the energy is transferred to other objects. So if an object with less mass is radiating more intense energy than a large object with less intense energy the small object will transfer energy to the larger object, even though the large object has more kinetic energy because of its mass. When a small speeding sports car runs into the rear of a large slower truck the truck will get a forward push and the sports car will slow down, even if the truck has more kinetic energy.
Herb
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
Hi Herb, for you information here is a link to what Feynman has to say on the Laws of T.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_44.html
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Max,
Thanks for the link. I like Feynman because he thinks about things rather than just giving answers. I’ve tried to avoid reading his work because of this. I want to have questions rather than answers so if I read his reasoning it tends to direct my thinking and inhibit my questioning.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
“Thanks for the link. I like Feynman because he thinks about things rather than just giving answers. I’ve tried to avoid reading his work because of this. I want to have questions rather than answers so if I read his reasoning it tends to direct my thinking and inhibit my questioning.”
Hence in Herb’s word asking questions is more important than learning the POSSIBLE answers to questions. POSSIBLE answers because Feynman, certainly acknowledged, over and over: “Scientific knowledge us a body of statements if varying degrees of certainty–some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”
So because Herb doesn’t read what Feynman wrote, Herb doesn’t know what Feynman wrote that Feynman considered so fundamentally important about SCIENCE.
Have a dood day, Jerry.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
” One can say that this very cold area is heating the Earth because it contains the energy that interacts with the matter that forms the Earth.”
Er, not really, as the energy is passing through at the speed of light and not at any time energy of that space’s matter. So, no, cold cannot heat hot.
Nothing says that energy cannot pass through a transparent medium, like an effective vacuum, on its way to a less transparent colder material where it is absorbed. High energy passing through a vacuum is not a vacuum with a lot of energy content. Duh.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
My first comment has nothing to do with your article, Herb. I observe there should be 5 comment but I can only count 4!!! And because of my proofreading problems I looked and looked for the fifth comment. I hope it eventually shows up because I came to Herb’s article because I had read that Micheal Clarke had made a comment here (the 5th comment???).
So now that I’m here I find I do have a comment to make about your article. You began the 2nd paragraph: “Thermal refers to temperature which is a function of energy and mass, while what the law refers to is energy. Objects do not transfer mass but only energy. However, the only way to detect energy is when it interacts with matter, just as the only way to detect matter is when it gives off energy.” I have read more than one that ‘energy is defined as the capacity to do work. And I am aware that there is more than one form of energy. For example, I KNOW there is what is termed kinetic energy and what is termed potential energy. And relative to “the only way to detect matter is when it gives off energy” I ask you: When I am walking along on a sandy beach, and stub a toe on a stone I didn’t see; am I detecting this stone because of the energy it is emitting??? Herb, please answer this question.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
No. You are detecting the stone because of its inertia and its resistance to the energy you are trying to transfer to it. Mass or matter produces a resistance to gaining energy, which is why it radiates it. Energy creates motion (velocity) which is why gravity isa result of energy, not matter.
Have a good day,
Herb
P.S. I want to point out to everyone that the GHGT violates 3 fundamental laws of physics. 1: Thermodynamics that says all matter absorbs radiated energy. This includes the nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. 2. The universal gas law that states when energies added to an unconfined gas the gas will expand and become less dense. 3 The law of conservation of momentum When objects collide velocity (energy) will be transferred from the object with greater velocity (gas molecules) to the object with less velocity.
Reply
Jarry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
Herb just gave context with an wild IDEA I have been pondering. I believe we all can agree that the radiation laws concern radiation being emitted from a surface of either liquid matter or solid matter. Hence, a gas (gaseous matter) has no surface so these radiation law cannot apply to gaseous matter.
In ‘The Feynman Lectures On Physics’ there is a Chapter 42 titled ‘Application s of Kinetic Theory’ in which is a 5th section titled ‘Einstein’s laws of radiation’.
I will not quote anything bur which Feynman considered was the punch line of Einstein’s reasoning: “So Einstein discovered some things that he did not know how to calculate, namely that the induced emission probability and the absorption probability must be equal.” The consequence of which I understand to be that any radiation absorbed by gas atoms and molecules is immediately emitted so there is not energy consequence of the atoms or molecules absorbing photons of radiation.
I don’t claim to understand fully Einstein’s reasoning, but I accept its validity.
For I read and observe that the earth’s atmosphere is composed of tiny particles of liquid and solid matter which can be warmed or cooled by contact which the gaseous atoms and molecules and these tiny particles of solid or liquid matter have surfaces from which energy (radiation) can be emitted according to the radiation laws.
Then there is the known phenomenon of light (radiation) scattering by atom, molecules and the bigger, but still, ting particles of liquid or solid matter. Hence when I measure the temperature of the sky (atmosphere) I conclude that the IR Thermometer is converting the downward flus of IR photons being emitted by the solid and liquid matter of the atmosphere according Feynman’s theory of scattering of water droplets (cloud matter).
I read everyone who claims to a have an idea about radiation and its interactions with the matter of the sky to read what Feynman taught Caltech students as their introduction to the established ideas of physics..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I don’t understand your claim that gas molecules have no surface. Do atoms have surfaces and since gamma radiation comes from the nucleus is that surface the surface of the nucleus? Objects have both electric and energy fields that they radiate. Is the surface the equilibrium point where these fields meet fields from other objects?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I have to remind you we are not discussing one gas atom or molecule or an atom’s nucleus. We are discussing the gas STATE (PHASE) of MATTER. Perhaps that is why you don’t understand my claim that gas molecules in the GAS PHASE have no surface.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry, Herb, and readers.
I had to check out the thermosphere according to wiki. Einstein and Feinman did not have the satelites and instruments of today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
Have a good day.
Matt
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH, Herb and PSI Readers,
Herb and PSI Readers, did you go to Matt’s link and read all the could be read there? I did. And what I didn’t read was how the authors of what I read know about the extremely high temperatures being reported that could not be measured with an ordinary thermometer because of the very low density of any matter in space, which was actually and correctly (according to my claimed understanding) explained.
My answer is that temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of this very, very diffuse matter. Hence, some how (I don’t know how) someone claims to know the velocity of the solar wind which results from an explosion observed on the sun’s surface.
So I see I was wrong when I wrote I did not know how know the speed of this diffuse matter. For we see the new sun spot and then sometime later we see a wonderful display of the Northern Lights
Since the distance between the Earth and Sun has been determined by astronomers, we can calculate the average speed and therefore know the temperature of this matter which when measured by a thermometer (in the shade of the satellite) outside of a satellite is close to zero degrees Kelvin.
But Matt, I really do not understand why YOU called this link to our attention.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
What part of the thermometer is storing the data and dividing by the number of molecules to get the average? Thermometer absorbs the momentum of the molecules striking the bulb causing the liquid to expand. The liquid in the body of the thermometer then is suppose to transfer energy to another medium and when equilibrium between the absorbed energy and emitted energy is achieved it gives a temperature. In the atmosphere the liquid in the bulb and the body is exposed to the same medium so where is the flow? A thermometer is completely inaccurate in an unconfined gas: first because it is calibrated in water where it misses 84% of the energy it is suppose to be measuring and secondly as heat is added to the gas molecules, it expands and fewer molecules are transferring energy to and from it.
In order to find the kinetic energy of the molecules in an unconfined gas you must use the universal gas law or the inverse of density. Density is the number of molecules for a constant volume.while the inverse is the volume of a constant number of molecules.
The size of a degree or a calorie is not even close for measuring energy. Another liquid, that doesn’t have water’s huge capacity to convert absorbed energy into internal energy, needs to be used to establish a way to measure energy.
Have a good day,
Herb
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
There is a satelite that sits between Earth and Sun which acts as a monitoring and warning station.
Todays report from https://spaceweather.com/
Solar wind
speed: 444.9 km/sec
density: 7.1 protons/cm3
more data: ACE, DSCOVR
Updated: Today at 1705 UT
FARSIDE SOLAR ACTIVITY: A sunspot group on the farside of the sun is exploding–a lot. At least three CMEs have flown over the southwestern limb this weekend. Here is the brightest so far. The source of this activity is probably sunspot complex AR2898-2900, which rotated off the Earthside of the sun a few days ago.
Cheers Matt
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: ” The liquid in the body of the thermometer then is suppose to transfer energy to another medium and when equilibrium between the absorbed energy and emitted energy is achieved it gives a temperature.” THIS IS CORRECT!!!
But you have not identified how ENERGY is transferred from one part of the thermometer to another part. The transfer mechanism is termed THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY which has nothing to do with radiation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
The PSI editors have drawn our attentions to a previous May 18, 2020 by Herb as is their policy to do. They have also been criticized from time to time for publishing some of Herb’s articles. And at an earlier time John O’Sullivan, founding editor of PSI (about 2012-13?) was criticized by other founders of PSI for publishing my long articles.
However John and I discussed the fundamental purpose of PSI was to provide a means of publicly publishing scientific ideas which the established Scientific Journals would not publish. Hence, he agreed with me, given the known history of SCIENCE, that no-one is qualified to make a judgment what is acceptable and what is not. So, John began publishing anything which I and others submitted to him. And a fact is Herb’s May 18, 2020 article generated 59 pro-con comments which was the exact purpose for which PSI was founded. My articles, when I was writing relatively long essays, too often never generated one comment and seldom any more than a handful.
And even though my comments are often critical of Herb’s ideas, I know his articles serve a very useful purpose. For Galileo wrote: “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Jerry
If you don’t endorse or necessarily agree with an article posted on this site, please could you put a disclaimer at the top of the article, or under it. Not everyone reads the comments or understands why you do what you do and might think “what the hell, this site is posting bunk”
Best wishes
Reply
Whokoo
| #
If you have a 4 day old pile of 23 dead lemmings and a live lemming climbs on top of the pile of deadlingtons the live lemming will not be warmed by the dead lemmings even though they have more mass.
P.S. Somehow I always get caught cheating.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Whokoo,
The lemons are dead and not producing CO2. How could they possibly heat the live one?
Herb
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Hi Herb.
That is a way of cheating I had not considered.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Whokoo,
Miybe it is not, wise to make this comment, but it is a thought which was stimulate by your comment and that you maybe overlooked the dead lemmings were only four days old and possibly emitting carbon dioxide and were actually warmer than the live lemming. This because we commonly observe and smell that dead life matter naturally decomposes.
The obvious is very difficult to actually see (observe)!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Hi Jerry.
A bit like the spontaneous combustion of a hay barn when the hay is stored without being cured enough or the heat generated by a big compost pile which heat sterilizes weed seeds.
I did not set out my experiment with enough precision, satire, or connivance.
Cheers. Whokoo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
Experiments not done with the upmost care are little better than an experiment not done.
I am going to quote a bit from Richard Feynman’s story titled “the 7 Percent Solution’. (“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”)
“At that particular time I was not really up to things. I was a little behind. Everybody seemed to be smart, and I didn’t feel I has keeping up. Anyway, I was sharing a room with a guy named Martin Block, an experimenter. And one evening he said to me, “Why are you guys so insistent on this parity rule? Maybe the tau and theta are the same particle. What could be the consequence if the parity rule were wrong.
“I thought a minute and said, “It would mean that nature’s laws are different for the right hand and the left hand, that there’s a way to define the right hand by physical phenomena, I don’t know that that’s so terrible, though there must be some bad consequences of that, but I don’t know. Why don’t you ask the experts tomorrow?” He said, “No, they won’t listen to me. you ask”
“So the next day, at the meeting, when we were discussing the tau-theta puzzle, Oppenheimer said, “We need to hear some new, wilder ideas about this problem.” So I got up and said, “I’m asking this question for Martin Block: What would be the consequence if the parity rule was wrong?” “…
A. page or so later and months Feynman tells about a conversation with three guys at Caltech when he returned there from Brazil and writes: Finally they get all this stuff into me, and they say, “The situation is so mixed up that even some of the things they’ve established for years are being questioned–such as the beta decay of the neutron is S and T. It’s so messed up, Murray says it might even be V and A.” I jump up for the stool and say, “Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!”. …
“That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was the rate of disintegration of the muon and the neutron. They should be connected together, if this theory was right, by a certain relationship, and it was right to 9 percent. That’s pretty close, 9 percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough. I went on and checked some other things, which fit, and new things fit, new things fit, and I was very excited.” …
“The next morning when I got to work I went to [the three guys] and told them, “I’ve got it all worked out. Everything fits.” Christy, who was there , too, said, “What beta-decay constant did you use?” “The one from So-andSo’s book.” “But that’s been found to be wrong. Recent measurements have shown it’s off by 7 percent.” ”
I stop here because my POINT is wrong information and ideas can hinder progress. And that in SCIENCE we must be as precise as possible but with the realization that no experimental result can be absolutely correct.
Feynman discovered at everything fit within 2 percent and that another physicist won a Nobel Prize for explaining this ‘nearly’ 2 percent difference.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
This means there is little energy being absorbed by matter and the area has no temperature. One can say that this very cold area is heating the Earth because it contains the energy that interacts with the matter that forms the Earth.
What flavour of sophistry would you like with your BS sir.
That area of space only has r energy flowing through it in all directions not resident in it, i
It is also why earth does not emit heat to that area or space as nothing gets heated.
Energy without mass/matter to impinge is not heat, it is only potential heat.
Now i will read the next paragraph but your claim that that is an example of cold warming hot is complete and utter bullshit Herb.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
You are confusing hot and cold with ENERGY!
Michael Logician
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
”All objects with energy will radiate energy and all objects will absorb radiated energy.”
Again what flavour sophistry would you like with your bullshit sir.
You need this to be correct for your hot warms cold BS what you are claiming is low intensity energy being emitted by a cool object increases the intensity of the energy in a warmer object.
Again patently false all objects only absorb higher frequency energy than than the frequency of their residual kinetic energy
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
I am not talking about the transfer of energy by radiation but by convection. With radiation energy flows from higher to lower. With convection there is mass associated with the energy and when masses collide the energy flows the object with the greater velocity to the object with lower velocity. This is the conservation of momentum M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 + M2V4. You and squiggly may not believe this law is true but what it says is that it is the energy of the molecules that is transferred not the energy of the total object. If you add equal amounts of energy to a liter of water and 2 liters of water the molecules in the one liter will have more energy (hotter) than the molecules in the two liters because the energy is distributed to fewer molecules (less mass). When the water are combined energy will be transferred from the water molecules with more energy to the water molecules with less energy.Temperature is different than energy.
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb and PSI readers,
Herb is right!
Consider the spent radio-active material in the cooling ponds of Nuclear reactors.
It has a Mass, it is heavier than water, it contains more energy than the water, THERFORE the water is heated!
What heats the water?
Why the gamma rays those HIGH energy particles that are being emitted!
The water is Hotter than the spent fuel which is heating the water!
Michael Logician
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Michael
Pop some cold sodium in some warm water, surely enough of it will raise the temperature of the water? It’s a release of energy creating heat, not a transfer of heat from cold to hot which is impossible.
Best wishes
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
A temperature is the measurement of the residual frequency of an object or environs internal kinetic energy, the frequency of that resident energy dictates the frequency of the objects or environs radiative emissions.
The frequency of those radiative emissions dictate whether those radiative emissions are ”heat’ i.e. thermal[ising] emissions or are just potential thermal[ising] emissions, if nothing is being heated then they are not thermal[ising] emissions, and the radiation is not thermal[ising] radiation.
Nothing cold can increase the temperature of something warmer, delayed cooling is not warming, not that you have said it is.
if you add 1 litre of water at 35c to 2 litres of was at 20c, you end up with 3 litres at 25c, nothing to do velocity, you could pour the water in from what ever hight you chose and it still wont make the 3 litres any warmer than 25c.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just plainly and simply wrote: “Temperature is different than energy.” I totally agree!!! For TEMPERATURE is MEASURE of the average kinetic energy of matter and it (TEMPERATURE) does not matter upon the mass (or density) of a body or the mass of the thermometer. Temperature only depends upon the fact the temperature of a body is in “THERMAL EQUiLIBRIUM” with its surroundings. If the temperature of matter (a body) is not the same as the surrounding matter energy will be exchanged between the two bodies of different temperatures via the possible mechanisms of conduction, convection, and/or radiation.
Who will disagree with what I have simply written?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I will.
The range of energy is a medium forms a bell curve with the average being the temperature. Water boils at 373 K. In order to convert 1 gram of that 373K water to steam you must add 540 calories. Since 1 calorie is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water1 C it means the 1 gram of water being converted to steam must have the energy comparable to 917 K. Since the temperature remains at 373 K the bell curve must expand out and the bottom gram of water in the medium must be at -167 K. So much for average.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers.
Do water molecules evaporate when the water’s temperature is about 25C (70F)?
Do water molecules evaporate from the surface of water whose temperature is measured with an ordinary thermometer to be 25C or 70F?
Why do most people sweat vigorously when they exercise vigorously?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Evaporation is not boiling where water is converted into a gas.
When you boil water in a tea kettle the water comes out of the spout as invisible vapor. it then cools and produces water droplets. Those droplets on cooling disappear again but with additional cooling become water droplets (dew) and finally ice. What matter on cooling goes from a gas phase to a liquid phase to a gas phase to a liquid phase to a solid phase? None. Normally on losing energy a gas goes to a liquid to a solid. This is what happens with water, gas – liquid – liquid crystal – solid. The water in the atmosphere are liquid crystal which melt into liquid at a temperature greater than 100 C but lower than the boiling point of water and fall as rain.
Oxygen and nitrogen with molecular weights od 32 and 28 are found in most of the atmosphere. CO2 and Argon with molecular weights of 42 and 40 are restricted to the troposphere. Why is water with a molecular weight of 18 also restricted to the troposphere? Because it never becomes a gas or single molecule and is always exists as a combination of molecules.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Squidly, your statements here are reflective of a somewhat delusional misinterpretation of the LOTs. In reality all objects at all times are producing EME that is potentially absorbable by other objects. As has been explained here in the forum many, many, many times it is only a NET increase in temperature that goes from hotter object to cooler objects.
Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Sympathy-to-those-who-are-incredulous-of-the-Spinning-Nanodroplets-of-Vortice-Plasma-e1ba4r3
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn
| #
Water is deceptive and extremely poorly understood by science.. Between H2O molecules there is an inverse relationship between connectedness and strength of connectedness. Science has failed to grasp this at this point in time.
One implication of this inverse relationship between H2O molecules is extremely small and extremely hard nanodroplets. Their invisibility leaves people with the impression that moist air contains gaseous H2O when actually this is impossible.
Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Sympathy-to-those-who-are-incredulous-of-the-Spinning-Nanodroplets-of-Vortice-Plasma-e1ba4r3
James McGinn / Genius
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and James,
Thank you Matt for informing me about “Lot’s”.
I reviewed what WIKI what unknown authors had to write about Lot’s and what Daniels and Alberty (Physical Chemistry 2nd) wrote about them beginning on pp33 of their text book for my junior physical chemistry course. Both of these sources still become difficult (to impossible) for me to understand the detailed reasoning of this topic.
But I read and understand: “Historically, the second law was an empirical finding that was accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory.” (wiki). For I am an experimentalist who studied the simultaneous diffusion of cadmium and lead divalent ions (doubly charged) in solid, highly purified sodium chloride single crystals at temperatures well below the melting temperature of the sodium chloride crystals The same was the case of potassium chloride single crystals.
Figure 4.1, in my thesis “An Investigation of the Simultaneous Diffusion Of Pb++ and Cd++ in NaCl Crystals and KCl Crystals” pictures the most important fact (the diffusion ampoule) which was used in all my experiments. And if was not for James, who maintains that individual water molecules can not evaporate from a liquid water surface whose temperature is far below 100C, I may have never seen the fundamental importance of my simple, elementary experiments.
Unfortunately, I have to describe Fig 4.1 words so any reader has to work harder than necessary if there was the figure to view.
At the beginning there is an empty ampoule, without the top, into which the liquid solutions of the diffusants of CdCl2 and PbCl2 are carefully placed at the bottom of the ampoule.
Next the diffusant solutions are evaporated to dryness with only ‘gentle’ warming and a vacuum evacuation of the ampoule’s air.
Then a 3cm long tubing is placed at its bottom on the dry diffusant powders. This tubing serves to separate the diffusants from the crystals, placed upon the top of the tubing, by at least 3cm (more than an inch). The rest of the procedure involving sealing the top of the ampoule so it is ‘air tight’ is not critical.
For what James must explain how the diffusant Cadmium and Lead ions are transferred from the bottom of the ampoule to the surfaces of the crystals into which the ions are then observed to diffuse according to Fick’s second law of diffusion.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Next
James McGinn
| #
Jerry,
H2O is a solvent for its own polarity, hydrogen bonds being the mechanism thereof. Failure to recognize this back in the 1950s by Linus Pauling is the main reason their is so much confusion in the atmospheric sciences today. Because without this recognition it is impossible to come to the realization that there is an inverse relationship between connectedness and the strength of connectedness between H2O molecules. And without this realization confusion ensues.
James McGinn / Genius
Mervyn
| #
Cold heats hot. If that really could happen, nothing would ever cool down but just get hotter and hotter.
Thank God for the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Mervyn,
Thank God for the 20th Century physicists who have taught Linus Pauling and other chemists about the ideas of QUANTUM MECHANICS which explain what the tiny Atom of Matter, proposed by Dalton, a school teacher, little more than a century earlier, might be considered (IMAGINED)) to look like in our mind”s EYE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You arrive at an absurd conclusion because you start with an absurd premise. It’s not a violation of the LOT’s if you don’t assume that heating must involve an increase in temperature of the thing being heated.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Why don’t you clearly write as to whose comment to which your comment is intended? And LOT”S is not a convectional scientific word with which I am familiar. Try harder to effectively communicate with all PSI readers!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
LOTs is Laws Of Thermodynamics.
You are welcome. Matt
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
Yes Mervyn i never though of it that way.
The greenhouse effects divide by 4 is -18c at the surface before delayed cooling makes it +15c.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: . . . the fact that most of the energy in the troposphere is contained in the water in it.
JMcG: Yeah,
Sympathy to those who are incredulous of the Spinning Nanodroplets of Vortice Plasma
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Sympathy-to-those-who-are-incredulous-of-the-Spinning-Nanodroplets-of-Vortice-Plasma-e1ba4r3
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
buy weed online
| #
buy weed online
How Cold Heats Hot | Principia Scientific Intl.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
“One can say that this very cold area is heating the Earth because it contains the energy that interacts with the matter that forms the Earth.”
You can’t accurately say that because
the Sun is heating the Earth and the Sun is very hot. LoT1 deals with the conservation of energy, not heat and energy takes many forms.
LoT2 is about heat. The truck being hit by the car doesn’t have anything to do with the transfer of heat and can’t be extrapolated to LoT2 to deduce cold object warms hot object. A battery is cold and stores plenty of energy, enough to make a light bulb filament glow. No heat is transferred from the battery to the filament only energy. One can’t infer that whatever is between the battery and the filament is heating the filament. If PSI don’t necessarily agree with posts, perhaps they should put a disclaimer at the top of the post? Imagine a youngster reading the post and not the comments. Next day at school will be a complete embarrassment for them. Or am I wrong? Happy to be corrected, if that’s the case.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
You agree that there is a difference between energy snd heat. Object transfer energy either by radiation or by elastic collisions. Energy always flows from greater to lesser and goes to mass, equalizing. If the unit mass of one object has greater energy it will flow to an object with less energy per unit mass no matter how much mass that object has. Since heat is a function of both mass and energy, energy can flow to an object whose product of mass and energy is greater than another object where the product of energy and mass is smaller if it has a greater level of energy per unit mass (Law of conservation of Momentum) Cold can heat hot.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Herb
Yes, energy takes many forms and heat is one of them.
I’ve copied your comment and swapped ‘energy’ for ‘heat’ except where you say “heat is a function of mass and energy”
[You agree that there is a difference between energy and heat. Objects transfer heat either by radiation or by elastic collisions. Heat always flows from greater to lesser and goes to mass, equalizing. If the unit mass of one object has greater heat it will flow to an object with less heat per unit mass no matter how much mass that object has. Since heat is a function of both mass and energy, heat can flow to an object whose product of mass and energy is greater than another object where the product of energy and mass is smaller if it has a greater level of heat per unit mass (Law of conservation of Momentum) Cold can heat hot.
Does the statement still hold good?
Heat is transfered by either conduction, convection or radiation. Which applies in your scenario?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
No, you cannot equate heat with energy. since heat includes mass and in elastic collisions or radiation there is no transfer of mass between objects. You have 2 objects one with a mass of M and a velocity o 2V, the other with a mass 8M and a velocity of V. When they collide the object with a velocity of 2V will add velocity to the object with a velocity of V even though that object has greater kinetic energy.
With radiation the energy of objects can never equalize for several reasons. First the objects are separated by distance and the energy being radiated from the greater source declines with distance so the energy reaching the other object is less than the energy coming from the more energetic object. Second, because energy is radiated in all directions only a small portion of the energy radiated by the more energetic object reaches the other object. Third (and untrue) the energy absorbed and radiated by objects is determined by the electrons/bonds it contains and an object can never absorb al the wavelengths be emitted from another object.
With convection equalization occurs on contact. With radiation the transfer of energy depends nn the difference in temperature and slows as the difference decreases.
Convection occurs where objects are in contact and motion/energy is transferred. How much energy can be transferred is determined by the bonds within the object and there resistance to motion. Covalent bonds are slow to transfer while liquid are faster.
All that being said, the energy of objects do equalize. This is because objects equalize with the energy field they are in, not with each other.and energy goes to mass or is a subatomic transfer between the nuclei of objects and the field surrounding those nuclei.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
How does heat move from a cold object to a hot object: convection, conduction or radiation? No explanation please, just pick one.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
…and raise its temperature.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Convection.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Herb
Can you give a real World example of a cold object raising the temperature of a warmer object by convection. Is there a repeatable laboratory experiment that demonstrates the process?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
If you accept that heat is kinetic energy you don’t need a laboratory. Convection is collisions where energy is transferred from one object to another, where the law of conservation of momentum (M1V1 + M2V2 becomes M1V3 + M2V4) applies. Since velocity has direction the easiest example is where the objects are traveling in the same direction. If the faster object has less mass and kinetic energy than the slower larger object, when it collides it will lose velocity (slow) while the larger object gains velocity.
The problem with an experiment is that other objects are also colliding with the objects and having energy changes.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
The total kinetic energy of the objects remains the same before and after the collision. It is the distribution of that energy that changes.
Herb
Zoomer
| #
There’s no “reply” icon?
Anyway, convection only occurs in fluids and you’ve already said heat and energy can’t be equated. I understand the redistribution of energy in a car crash. So there should be a real World example of where a cold object raises the temperature of a hotter object by convection. Where does this happen?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
Where did you get that convection only occurs in fluids? Conduction occurs in fluids and solids, convection is primary means of energy transfer within the troposphere. Gas molecules continuously collide with each other, solids, and liquids transferring energy. When a high velocity gas molecule collides with the slower liquid molecules in a fluid it adds energy to it even though its temperature is lower. I would recommend you use the SEARCH feature at PSI to read the article “An Interview withTom Shula”. He talks of the Pirani gauge which is used in the manufacture of electronics.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Convection only occurs in fluids. Gases are fluids.
https://principia-scientific.com/the-difference-between-convection-advection-heat-transfers/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
No. The molecules in fluids are packed together and show little compression. The molecules in gases are far apart and can be greatly compressed. The difference between hydraulic tools and air tools.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
“Fluid is any liquid or gas or any material that is unable to withstand a shearing or tangential force, when at rest.”
You’re talking about the difference between liquids and gases, both of which are fluids. Convection only occurs in fluids.
Herb Rose
| #
Your definition is bad. Convection does not occur in liquid, conduction does. A mole of liquid water has a volume of 18 ml. A mole of gaseous water has a volume of 22 l. The transmission of energy between the molecules is completely different What gas is able to withstand a shearing force?
Herb Rose
| #
Continuation.
Glass is liquid that withstands tangential forces.
Herb Rose
| #
Convection does not occur in liquids or solids because molecules are in contact with each other and there can be no collisions between them. They transfer energy by conduction where added energy is passed from one molecule to another.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
A law of physics is alwyas true and cannot be broken. Any occurrences where it is not followed, no matter how rare, invalidates it. The 2nd LoT is invalid and all the theories that use it as a premise are also invalid. Do you feel bad for all the children being taught physics that is utter nonsense?
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Herb
“The 2nd LoT is invalid and all the theories that use it as a premise are also invalid.”
You need to prove it. So far you haven’t and I don’t think you ever will.
Best wishes
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
No. A theory can never be proved right, only disproved and if kinetic energy is transferred from an object with less kinetic energy to an object with more kinetic energy then that constitutes disproof. If you want to keep your belief you must disprove the law of conservation of momentum.
good luck
Reply
Zoomer
| #
LoT2 doesn’t have anything to do with the transfer of kinetic energy. It’s about the transfer of heat either by convection, conduction or radiation. Where in the Universe does a colder object raise the temperature of a hotter object by convection, conduction or radiation? You haven’t disproved LoT2, therefore it’s still valid.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer.
You don’t believe that heat is kinetic energy? What is it?
You can have energy without heat. Object at absolute zero still contain energy, they just don’t radiate
energy.
Herb
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Herb, the 2nd LoT is not invalid. You’ve just misinterpreted/misrepresented them with faulty (unconcise) semantics. Dogmatically interpreted, ambiguous terminology is the main culprit. Here in PSI it used to be especially bad when Joe Postma used to post here. You are going down the same rabbit hole.
James McGinn / Genius
There is no convection in earth’s atmosphere:
https://youtu.be/3XBI4TJpoTM?si=mfXc18qZLG5uUFCY
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
There are no collisions and transfer of energy between gas molecules?
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Herb
You already stated that energy isn’t the same as heat. I don’t do “belief” as it is not the same as knowledge.
You said
“Where did you get that convection only occurs in fluids? Conduction occurs in fluids and solids”
I didn’t mention conduction.
I said “convection only occurs in fluids” I did not say “only convection occurs in fluids”
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
You haven’t told me what heat is, if not ke.
Herb Rose
| #
It may help if I tell you what I consider it to be.
Heat is to add energy to an object. This can be done by collisions or radiation. Collisions involve mass, kinetic energy, radiation involves electromagnetic waves.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James
Here you wrote: Herb, the 2nd LoT is not invalid. “misinterpreted/misrepresented them with faulty (unconcise) semantics. Dogmatically interpreted, ambiguous terminology is the main culprit.” I agree totally with this.
However previously you wrote “it is impossible to come to the realization that there is an inverse relationship between connectedness and the strength of connectedness between H2O molecules.” (James McGinn. December 8, 2021 at 5:56 am)
Please give me the SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION of “connectedness”.
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
One more thing, here, Jerry. You carved this quote out of a larger context, making it seem like I was saying the opposite of what I meant to say. Here is the full quote:
“H2O is a solvent for its own polarity, hydrogen bonds being the mechanism thereof. Failure to recognize this back in the 1950s by Linus Pauling is the main reason their is so much confusion in the atmospheric sciences today. Because without this recognition it is impossible to come to the realization that there is an inverse relationship between connectedness and the strength of connectedness between H2O molecules. And without this realization confusion ensues.”
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Please give me the SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION of “connectedness”.
James:
Hmm. I’m going to go with relative proximity of molecules to each other.
James McGinn
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote: “Herb, the 2nd LoT is not invalid. You’ve just misinterpreted/misrepresented them with faulty (unconcise) semantics. Dogmatically interpreted, ambiguous terminology is the main culprit.” I agree totally. But you wrote: James McGinn
December 6, 2021 at 4:00 pm | #: “Water is deceptive and extremely poorly understood by science.. Between H2O molecules there is an inverse relationship between connectedness and strength of connectedness.” What is the scientific definition of the word (term) “connectedness” in the context of this scientific discussion?
Have a good day
(Spelling correction) SUNMOD
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Moderator, I just misspelled my name and my comment is not being posted Thank you for correcting my mistake when you do correct it.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
You Welcome Jerry.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Herb
You: “No, you cannot equate heat with energy.”
Also you: “You don’t believe that heat is kinetic energy? What is it?”
Also you: “You haven’t told me what heat is, if not ke”
Inconsistent.
I don’t think you’re reading my replies, or you’re ignoring them.
This is about transfer of thermal energy from cold to hot.
If I throw a ball it has kinetic energy.
If I throw it harder it has more kinetic energy at the same temperature unless a miniscule temperature rise occurs through friction.
Is there a real World example of a cold object increasing the temperature of a hotter object by way of convection?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
I have given you an example. When the car with less KE collides with the truck the velocity/energy of the truck increases, the energy/velocity of the car decreases. The same is happening in elastic collisions
When objects collide energy is transferred. The object with greater velocity adds energy to the object with less energy. You need to tell me where the error is in the law of conservation of momentum which says that in any collisions energy will flow to the object with less energy no matter what the masses if the two objects are.
You are making the mistake thinking that a thermometer is measuring energy, it is not. In the atmosphere the whole thermometer is exposed to the same medium. When the gas molecules gain energy, the gas expands and fewer molecules transfer energy to the thermometer.
When taking the temperature of solid or liquid you are measuring the flow of energy from the object to a second medium, the air. You cannot compare the two temperatures.
The water in the ocean has more molecules radiating energy so it appears warmer but the molecules in the air have more velocity so when they strike the water they add energy to it.
The air at the bottom the Grand Canyon is always 10 F hotter than the air at the top, not because the molecules have more ke but because there are more of them transferring energy to the thermometer.
An oven set at 100C will have fewer molecules with higher ke than a pot of boiling water. You cannot equate the temperature with the ke of the molecules.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Herb
What mean?
“Continuation.
Glass is liquid that withstands tangential forces.”
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoomer,
This comment has two purposes. The major is to learn the title of the article at which you, Herb, and James had a discussion involving many comments. The second is relative to Herb’s comment that “glass is liquid”.which I agree with but I know nothing about “tangential forces.”
I would greatly appreciate any assistance relative to my major purpose. Have a good day
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Jerry
Glass being a liquid, somewhere in between solid and liquid or a liquid in solid form, doesn’t change the definition of a fluid. A fluid transfers heat by convection.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoomer,
This is the first thing, of yours, that I have read, of which I clearly disagree. ” A fluid transfers heat by convection.” Liquids and gases are fluids. They are different in that gases are easily compressible and liquids are not. Hence liquids have nearly constant density and gases a very variable density.. Solids are rigid and maintain their shapes whereas liquids have flat upper surface but their lower surface, upper and lower defined by gravity, assumes the shape of a solid container.
Relative to liquids, they have property termed viscosity. Most glass is a liquid which has a very great viscosity so a rod, or tube of glass can be bent by force without breaking but there is solid (crystalline) which cannot be bent without breaking. The viscosity of liquid glass decreases when it is heated to increase its temperature.
Glass is primarily silicon dioxide (SiO2). Which most naturally is found in the natural world as sand. And glass’s variable properties are due to trace atoms of other elements other than silicon and oxygen oxygen. And the challenge to making glass was inventing a furnace to produce a heat capable of melting sand.
Glass is more valuable than GOLD but gold is rare but SAND isn’t.
Have a good day
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Hi Jerry
[This is the first thing, of yours, that I have read, of which I clearly disagree. ” A fluid transfers heat by convection.” ]
How do fluids transfer heat: radiation, conduction or convection? If convection isn’t heat transfer by the movement of fluids, then what is it?
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Hi Jerry,
Hmm. I’m going to go with relative proximity of molecules to each other.
James McGinn
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
So are you admitting you are using “Dogmatically interpreted, ambiguous terminology” to avoid admitting that you confused and that you maybe are not a genius. I cannot remember your writing that one water’s anomies is, as a liquid, water’s density begins to decrease as it cools below 4C. Or, as most know, solid water (ice) floats on liquid water whose temperature is 0C or less if the liquid water has “supercooled”. Which is a common event which causes common localized, short lived, thunderstorms.
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Jerry:
Normally I’m able to decipher your bad writing and figure out your point. Not this time.
Your education has rendered you inept. It appears to be permanent. Maybe you should just accept it.
Liquid water is crystalline. It is highly ordered; highly connected internally. When connectedness is comprehensive strength of connectedness (polarity) is low.
Ice is not crystalline. It is highly disordered; disconnected internally. When connectedness is low (not comprehensive) strength of connectedness (polarity) is high. This is why low density (internally highly disconnected) ice is hard.
Supercooled water happens when liquid water is so highly ordered internally that there are no (or not enough) occlusions to be amplified at lower temperatures to effectuate a cascade of internal disconnectedness.
Pauling failed to understand this. So he started pretending. The pretense fools almost everybody. It has fooled you.
It doesn’t fool me.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I will let PSI Readers be the judge who is confused; you or I.
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
Maybe they could throw both of us into a lake and see which one of us floats.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Ok, it’s been useful.
It made me think, which is the purpose of P-S.I.
Here’s the problem with the truck getting hit from behind afaic.
Kinetic energy is 1/2mv²
Force = ma
Then for how long is the force applied to cause the truck to accelerate whilst my right foot has the accelerator pedal flat to the floor W = f × d
If my foot is flat to the floor and both truck and car are moving at the same speed, we both have the same kinetic energy yet I am still transferring energy, apply a force and doing work. I don’t think the above post has been expertly thought out.
Reply
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi Zoomer,
If the car and truck have the same ke then the car has the same mass as the truck and the energy you used produced the same force to attain your speed. If both move at the same speed there will never be a collision.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
As an aside, if two vehicles get close enough, there can be a change in speed due to slipstream, or turbulence, even though the power input remains the same, as witnessed in racing.
It depends on the definition.
Just thought I’d mention it.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
Here’s another one to think about. Planck’s Law is wrong. The energy in a wave is a function of its amplitude, not frequency. One 10 foot wave/ minute striking will have far more energy than 10 1 ft waves striking in a minute.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
If the front of my car has hit the truck already then we both have the same kinetic energy
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
If you had the same speed how did you hit the truck? The total kinetic energy of the car and truck remains the same after the collision but the distribution is a function of the masses.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
What I said was once I have hit the truck the truck and car are one and have the same kinetic energy. However the car can still increase its force against the truck when I press the pedal. Calculate the force exerted by the car against the truck using the equation for kinetic energy ½mv²
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
When you hit then truck the car slows down, the truck speeds up. By stepping on the pedal you are now adding more energy. Do you understand that if two objects have the same velocity the only way they can have the same ke is if they have the same mass? In elastic collisions there is no transfer of mass. What you are describing is the car pushing the truck after the collision and them combining to become one object. What happens if both vehicles engines shut off from the collision and no additional energy is added? The total kinetic energy is the same as before the collision but the car has lost energy and velocity (and not adding more) while the truck has gained energy and velocity. You are talking about conservation of energy while not keeping the energy constant.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Because that is what happens. If I (A) run up behind a moving vehicle (B) and increase its velocity with my shoulder, the total kinetic energy is A(½mv²) + B(½mv²)
You’re pick and mixing principles/laws. Someone in this thread called it sophistry and I agree.
My first comment
[“One can say that this very cold area is heating the Earth because it contains the energy that interacts with the matter that forms the Earth.”
You can’t accurately say that because
the Sun is heating the Earth and the Sun is very hot]
You completely ignored it.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
You catch up, which means your velocity/energy is greater You push it adding velocity/energy to it. If you do not lose energy then you are creating new energy as its velocity has increased while yours remains the same.
Have you ever seen the swinging ball desk ornament. If you raise one ball and release it a ball at the end of the row will swing up. If you raise two of the balls up and release them it will not resulting one ball swinging up with more velocity and going higher. Two balls will swing up. The thing has five balls and if you raise and release three balls the two stationary balls plus one of the dropped balls will swing up. This is conservation of momentum and in no instance will a ball gain more velocity than the velocity of the dropped balls because that would be creating energy (v^2).
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
What you are describing can be seen with the rendezvous of satellites in orbit.
A satellite intending to meets another satellite will be in lower orbit with a greater velocity than the target satellite. At the appropriate time the satellite will be put in a more elliptical, less circular orbit where its velocity slows as it altitude increases. When the orbits of the two satellites intersect their velocities will be the same and they can combine and using thruster they settle into the same orbit combined. There is no continuous expenditure of energy as they are in equilibrium with the energy being radiated from the Earth.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
You can do this with two moving blocks A and B where B is smaller and moving faster. This is what happens in order for A to speed up and B slow down:
A(½mv²) + B(½mv²)
Zoomer
| #
Hi Herb
Has the penny dropped?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
Speed is the distance traveled per unit time. Velocity includes a direction. If object travel in the same direction with the same speed the distance between them will remain the same, no matter how long they travel. In order for an object to catch up to an object energy must be added to the trailing object energy causing its velocity to increase. Once the objects have met in order for them to continue to travel at the same speed, the energy added to increase the velocity must now be lost by the object which gained it, it cannot just disappear. If the energy is transferred to the. other object that object’s speed must increase.
This is LoT basic, energy cannot be created or destroyed and is so basic to physics I can’t understand how you do not comprehend it.
Herb
Zoomer
| #
Herb
I understand perfectly.
A(KE=½mv²) + B(KE=½mv²) = C(KE=½mv²)
Or 20000kg lorry moving at 10m/second is rear ended by a car 1000kg moving at 30m/second
1000000J + 450000J = C(KE=½mv²)
Or C(1450000 =½×21000×v²)
v²=1450000÷10500
C is a combined mass of 21000kg moving at 11.75m/second.
If you want the lorry to increase in velocity involving no increase in mass then you must use F=ma which involves acceleration. The equation for KE does not involve acceleration. You operated from a false premise when you said there’s no increase in mass, but there is an increase in mass. The numbers don’t lie.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
The speed of light is not constant. All of Einstein’s theories are nonsense. Mass does not increase, time does not slow, length does not change, gravity is not the same as acceleration. Your make believe physics has no basis in reality. According to Einstein the speed of light is constant and any dilation of time will have a corresponding dilation of distance. As you get closer to a center of gravity time expands and the distance to the center of gravity increases.
Utter nonsense.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
KE = ½mv² isn’t make believe and I didn’t mention gravity, the speed of light or Einstein. You also used Newton’s Cradle to explain your “theory” which involves gravity and acceleration. 9.81m/s² is acceleration. Have you ever push started a car with another car? You roll up behind, make contact and now there are two cars moving as one object, the overall mass has increased. That is what happens when a car drives into a lorry when there is no acceleration.
The existence of time (press X for doubt) is an entirely different matter. This is an analogy of what you are doing “what do you mean rabbits can’t fly, have you not seen crows?”
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
When you push start a car you need to add energy to create the speed of the cars (accelerate). You cannot start the car by parking them with their bumpers touching..When two objects collide the velocities of the objects change, that is acceleration. You seem to believe that pushing on the gas pedal does not involve the addition of energy. We were discussing what happens to the existing energy in an elastic collision or convection, where there is no addition of mass or energy.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
“When you push start a car you need to add energy to create the speed of the cars (accelerate).”
Nobody accelerates into a vehicle in order to push start a car. You only accelerate once the vehicles are touching. However the point is that once the two cars are in contact, acceleration or not, the overall mass is now two cars instead of one. There is a big difference between pushing and colliding.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Herb,
Herb wrote: “When two objects collide the velocities of the objects change,” Herb, I cannot remember you ever writing that velocity is a vector quantity which has both a speed and a direction. As Zoomer wrote: “KE = ½mv²” and KE is not vector. Hence, when two objects collide, it is possible each of their individual KE’s do not change as only the directions of their motions change. But about the collision you need to consider is it an elastic collision or are the body’s structures changed as a result of the collision. My issue is when one reasons; one must consider ALL the factors involved. Much simpler is to first observe the result of a collision, if at all possible. For the fundament basis of physical science is what is observed and not what is reasoned.
have a good day
Reply
Herb Roser
| #
Jerry,
We are discussing the Law of Conservation of Momentum which deals with elastic collisions. The law (M1V1 + M2V2 becomes M1V3 + M2V4) means that the mass with greater velocity will lose velocity by adding velocity to the other mass with the total ke remaining the same. It does not matter what the masses are since they do not change. This means even if one object has enough mass to give it more ke than the other object when the other object has greater velocity it will add energy to the object with more ke. If you accept that this law is correct then it means the 2nd LoT is wrong. If you believe the 2nd LoT is correct then the Law of Conservation of Momentum is wrong. You believe both laws are correct which means you are wrong.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Here is a kinetic energy to force calculator. It is you who are wrong
https://www.calculatorultra.com/en/tool/kinetic-energy-to-force-calculator.html
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
A mass with motion has kinetic energy even when it is not gaining speed from a force. You keep trying to add energy and claiming you are not. Pushing a car or increasing speed means energy is being added. The Law of Conservation of Momentum applies to the distribution of the existing energy. What happens if Voyager hits an object? There is no way to add energy but it loses ke,
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Herb
You said in your OP “a large slow moving truck is hit by a smaller faster moving car”
Assuming that the accelerator pedal stays in the same position there is now a combined mass of both truck and car with car slowing down and truck speeding up. That is what happens in the example you gave where you said there is no change in mass. If you want the truck to speed up with no change in mass you must use the equation F=ma
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
Who said the accelerator stays down? I’m speaking of the energy the vehicles have when they collide, not subsequently added energy.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You have totally ignored the fact that “speed” is a velocity with both a magnitude and a direction. Stop criticizing others and shapeup.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
I have specified that the objects are moving in the same direction. As usual you’ve got it wrong. Velocity is speed and direction, speed is just rate of travel.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
If you take your foot off the accelerator, or hit the brakes then you yourself are reducing your KE. KE energy is not a measure of force. Driving into a larger slower vehicle at constant velocity (for whatever reason the velocity is constant) combines the mass of both vehicles which you said doesn’t happen. It does happen.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
In accidents I’ve seen the car slows, stops, or reverses directions, engines get damaged and do not produce power. I have never heard of an accident where the vehicles merge. Before seat belts and air bags people were propelled through the windshield as their momentum kept them moving as the cars momentum decreased.
Zoomer
| #
Herb
You can watch it happen here and one of the trains isn’t even moving
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WYZOjLC9mJk
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer.
Those are not elastic collisions. When the train hit the stopped train it slows down then pushes it as more energy is added. When the trains hit head on they come to a stop and the cars buckle as their energy is converted to crushed metal and heat..
The best illustration is the satellites docking. The energy to get the supply satellite to the same orbit is supplied by the rockets. After that there is only minor energy is used to adjust the shape of the orbit. The supply satellite has a more elliptical orbit than the circular orbit of the target satellite so its velocity changes with altitude. When the satellite is at the altitude of the target altitude it has the same velocity (not ke) so then two can merge without colliding and then their combine orbit is adjusted to restore it to a circular orbit.
I don’;t understand how you don’t know what conservation of momentum is.
Herb
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Of course it slows down. Do you think he hit the juice and not the brakes? The moving train clearly stays connected to the stationary train and pushes it along. I don’t think you’re being honest.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
Energy is still be added to the train that’s why it’s pushing the stopped train. You have no idea of what conservation means. You distribute the existing energy, not add energy. Is your real name Zoe who kept insisting that objects with more mass fall faster because of gravity?
(Fixed your spelling error) SUNMOD
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Yes, it’s pushing the stopped train. The kinetic energy is distributed and both trains are now a combined mass. Had the stationary train been moving slowly in the same direction as the oncoming train it would be even more apparent. You’ve been arguing that this doesn’t happen and it does. Of course I understand what conservation means. Where have I denied. Comparing me to Zoe is ridiculous. You are not being honest.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
if you look at the video you will see that when the train hits the parked train, the train slows the parked train moves away. The striking train then proceeds forward to again make contact and push the train. Unless you add velocity/energy to that train it will not catch up and make contact. The parked train moves away because it has gained energy from the striking train and the moving train slows because it has lost energy . This is conservation of momentum. By increasing the velocity of the striking train the total kinetic energy is increased
Reply
Zoomer
| #
“the parked train moves away.”
Absolutely not. Stoppit. It connects, pushes it until both stop. It’s as clear as day.
Zoomer
| #
Here’s your cold heating hot. Absolutely nothing to do with heat transfer by convection, conduction or radiation. You post bunk, it’s shocking.
https://youtu.be/tXF60MOWUeY?feature=shared
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
You are correct the trains coupled.
With the blacksmith, you don’t believe the hammer is colliding with the iron bar and transferring kinetic energy to it? What is compressing the metal? Convection is the transfer of energy by collisions.
Herb Rose
| #
Zoomer,
You either don’t believe the Law of Conservation of Momentum is correct, you don’t understand it, or refuse to believe what you learned at great expense of time and money, could be wrong. We will leave it there.
Zoomer
| #
Why should I leave it? This has nothing to do with belief.
“Here’s your cold heating hot. Absolutely nothing to do with heat transfer by convection, conduction or radiation.”
That is what I said
This is your reply
“With the blacksmith, you don’t believe the hammer is colliding with the iron bar and transferring kinetic energy to it?” That is a strawman.
In the example:
20000kg truck moving at 10m/s is hit by 1000kg car moving at 30m/s
Calculate the force with which the car hits the truck?
I see an 80kg man pushing a 1000kg car at 2m/s. I, also at 80 kg, walk towards him at 3m/s to help push. There is now 1160kg moving along the road. Initially I slow to 2m/s then the 1160kg increases to 2.0844m/s. That is what happens.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Btw, this has to be one of the most blatant displays of deflection I’ve ever witnessed 👇
“Here’s another one to think about. Planck’s Law is wrong.”
Shocking
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Planck’s law was a result of Planck trying to reconcile the 2nd LoT with Black Body theory. A Black Body doesn’t exist in reality and the 2nd LoT is wrong so all physic using Planck’s work is wrong, including quantum mechanics.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The cars momentum is 30,000 kg m/s. The trucks momentum is 200,000 kg m/s. The kinetic energy of the car is 450,000 kg m^2/s^2. The ke of the truck is 1,000,000 kg m^2s^2. Total ke is 1,450,000 kg m^2/s^2. The energy equalizes with mass making the ke/kg 69.05. The truck has 1361000 ke the car has 69050 ke. The truck has gained ke and speed, the car has lost ke snd speed.
The men pushing the car are adding energy so the conservation of momentum does not apply.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Switch off the engines of both vehicles on impact. It’s about the difference between A(KE=½mv²) + B(KE=½mv²) = C(KE=½mv²) and F=ma. I didn’t bring up the car hits truck scenario, you did.
[When a small speeding sports car runs into the rear of a large slower truck the truck will get a forward push and the sports car will slow down, even if the truck has more kinetic energy.
Herb] The men pushing the car demonstrates the masses combining, irrespective of where the energy originates.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
We are dealing with elastic collisions like those that occur between gas molecules in the air, not masses combining into one object. F=ma does not apply. Acceleration requires an addition of energy. Things move and collide even when their speed is constant, without energy being added and when they do energy equalizes between the separate masses.
All that is needed to disprove the 2nd LoT is one example where an object with less ke adds energy to an object with more ke. Cold heats hot.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Acceleration requires an addition of energy”
Or a reduction in resistance to movement, as I pointed out earlier.
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi Howdy,
Resistance causes slowing as energy is transferred from the object. A lessening of resistance cause less slowing not an increase in speed.
Howdy
| #
“less slowing not an increase in speed.”
You need to seriously look at what you just typed Herb. You simply rearranged the fact to try to make it work for you.
Phrase it how you like, less slowing is in fact, more speed, as aptly demonstrated by drafting. It is undeniable.
End of.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
When you fire a bullet into up into the air resistance is due to gravity and friction with the air. With increasing altitude both gravity and the density of the air decline but the speed of the bullet does not increase.
With drafting the front car is using full power but part of that power is used to overcome wind resistance. The car behind does not have to use full power to go at the same speed because it is shielded from the wind. When it pulls out to pass the wind resistance increases, it does not decline. It is the use of the reserve power that increases the speed allowing him to pass.
Herb
Howdy
| #
You don’t understand drafting, Herb.
Both vehicles are at full power allready. The move is decisive and must be executed quickly. No time to lift off the pedal. It is the slingshot effect that allows the pass.
I typed “end of”, because I have no real interest in the way the thread has gone to a tit-for-tat waste of time. I did look in though, and added to it when It was possible.
I’m out.
Herb Rose
| #
You an opt out anytime you wish but don’t tell me that I have to stop commenting.
Your claim is the reduction of resistance cause acceleration but the example you use is a car leaving the protection from wind provided by another car and accelerating as the resistance it encounters increases from wind. .
Zoomer
| #
“All that is needed to disprove the 2nd LoT is one example where an object with less ke adds energy to an object with more ke. Cold heats hot.” This does not disprove LoT2. No amount of sophistry and logical fallacies will change that fact. You are intellectually dishonest.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
In an elastic collision there is no transfer of mass between objects (definition).
Energy flows from higher level to lower level.
Which of these premises do you not accept or do you not believe that ke is a function of both mass and energy?
By your other commentate it is apparent that you only want to read things that support your beliefs. Instead of reading about your fantasy universe try experiencing the realm one. Go on a summer cruise. You will find the air temperature becomes greater than the water temperature. Go skiing and you will find that the atmosphere’s temperature can become greater than 0 C even when the surface is covered with snow. The real atmosphere is being heated by the sun, not the surface of the Earth and the greater the altitude the greater the ke of the molecules.
It is your ego that prevents you from accepting anything that doesn’t conform to your beliefs, no matter how obvious their fallacy. You are not a scientist but an idiot blinded by your belief in your own infallibility.
Zoomer
| #
Herb
“Hi Howdy,
Resistance causes slowing as energy is transferred from the object. A lessening of resistance cause less slowing not an increase in speed.” Train pulling 20 carriages has 10 carriages decoupled. Energy input remains the same. Train speed will increase. Cut bungee cord from running man, running man’s speed will increase. Howdy is right and you are wrong.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
“It is your ego that prevents you from accepting anything that doesn’t conform to your beliefs” Belief has got nothing to do with science. The very fact that you keep talking about beliefs is indicative that you are not being scientific. If the air is warmer than the snow in the alps it’s because of convection, same as on a boat trip. You half know what you’re talking about.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
How you interpret data is based on existing beliefs. Everybody has beliefs which are the basis for how they interpret data. One man finding marine fossils on a mountain cites that evidence of the Great Flood while another will see that evidences as confirming plate tectonics. It wasn’t that long ago that ‘scientists’ cited the variation in atomic clocks on satellites constituted proof of Einstein’s General Relativity when the data actually refutes his theory.. You consider your beliefs as facts just as those who believe the Bible is the word of God believe what it says is undeniably true.
When molecules collide the molecule transferring energy must have gotten the energy from a source. It cannot create energy and energy always flows from higher to lower. If the air over the ocean is hotter than the water in the ocean it had to get that energy from a source other than the water. As long as land is covered with snow, before it can heat the air it must first must melt the snow.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“those who believe the Bible is the word of God believe what it says is undeniably true.”
Sorry Herb, You lump many people together who do not apply. It is only your belief that causes that, and Biblical truth is rather different from what is accepted.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
I just met a man who believes that the Bible is literally true and he told me of finding fossils on a mountain, so there are many people who believe it, I am not one of them. When I asked him where the water came from, since if it was from evaporation it would not raise sea level, and where it went when it receded he said he did not know. He then referenced an article claiming the flood was from the land sinking into the crust. I did not go further since he is entitled to his beliefs whether they make sense or not. As long as it works for him it’s fine. The reality is that everything we believe will be found to be inaccurate. That’s how science works.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
The Bible is not science, it is an interpreted work based on purposefull obfuscation and false leads. Belief is not a requirement and leads to false ideas.
The whole concept is to confound the reader until they are in an appropriate condition to make sense of it.
“The reality is that everything we believe will be found to be inaccurate.”
I don’t just believe what I’m told. I heard about battery recovery, so I set about proving it. I can recover batteries as was suggested – repeated runs of the process proves it to be true. That is an accurate fact, not a belief.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
You can recover batteries ad nauseam but that doesn’t prove it is true. Science is disproving by showing something is not true all the time.
There is limited life to how many times a battery can be recharges because lead falls off the plates.
How long was it a fact that the Earth’s the center of the universe because the stars always followed the same pattern?
Herb
Howdy
| #
So the battery goes from completely dead back to full functionality, but that does not make the process true?
“Science is disproving by showing something is not true all the time.”
It is true all the time, I’ve done it repeatedly. In any case, I’ve disproven your claim that my claim does not prove anything because it is repeatable.
Plate shedding is but one failure mode. It does not lead to limited life, nor a limit on recharges.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
It is repeatable until it doesn’t work. How does that make it a fact? Even if never used the battery, in time, would not be able to be charged. Repeatability shows the experiment was performed in a correct manner, it says nothing of the validity of the experiment.
Todays science consists of making things so complicated that people give up trying to make sense of it and just believe because the “scientist” claims he understands it.
Howdy
| #
I never stated a battery can become forever usable. I’m talking about recovery of discarded batteries that were taken out of service due to mainly neglect, that are otherwise, up to it.
Everything has a lifetime, but that does not mean limited in that it is short, nor that plate shedding caused failure. All that matters is that a candidate is suitable for recovery. Obviously one does not take the route of guaranteed failure by using a subject taken out of service because the active materials were used up. There is no hope in such a case.
Yes, the active materials will eventually give up, but that has nothing to do with the success of the process itself since such a battery is useless to begin with, and it would become apparent early on that things were wrong.
It works, as proven. If I try 1000 batteries, and one fails to come up, that in no way disproves the claim. There is allways the anomaly, and science is also about discovering those anomalies and accepting nothing can be guaranteed when a discarded product is in use..
Zoomer
| #
I don’t have beliefs. Beliefs are for children and cultists. Beliefs have nothing to do with science. Science is observable and it’s called knowledge. Knowing and believing are two different things. If the air above the snow is warm then it is because of convection.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
This argument is because you believe the 2nd LoT is true regardless of the evidence.
The atmosphere exists because of the kinetic energy of the molecules. If they had no energy they would be a layer on the surface. If you look at the bond energy of the molecules at different altitudes the molecules are less stable with increasing altitude. The only reason they are in that form is because they cannot lose energy and become stable structures.yet you believe that the molecules have less energy with increasing altitude. Your evidence consist of the measurement of a thermometer which is being misused. You don’t accept the reality but what is observed using artificial instruments and contrived experiments. Tell me, if an experiment knows that youare watching and changes the results if you are, how can you believe that any experiment represents reality?
Reply
Zoomer
| #
There you go talking about “belief” yet again. I’ll let you know if you ever produce a convincing argument against LoT2, which so far you have failed to do.
Herb Rose
| #
The Law of Conservation of Momentum, M1V1 + M2V2=M1V3 + M2V4, clearly shows that mass has no role in the transfer of energy during collisions. Either this law is wrong or the LoT2 is wrong.
Zoomer
| #
You’re posting bunk. You’re mixing up your laws. If a cold object was able to increase the temperature of a hotter object you would be able to demonstrate it and you can’t. All you’ve got is sophistry and logical fallacies.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
You asked me to prove it before with the truck and the car. I did the math for you showing the car with less kinetic energy added energy to the truck. All you have is desperation because you can’t accept that you’ve spent time and money and all you got was nonsense.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
The Law of Conservation of Momentum, M1V1 + M2V2=M1V3 + M2V4
Where’s the heat?
You’re posting bunk.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Heat is kinetic energy (1/2MV^2). If you increase the velocity of an object its kinetic energy increases.
Reply
Zoomer
| #
Herb, where’s the temperature difference? I haven’t wasted any money and time doesn’t exist.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Zoomer,
The object with greater velocity (kinetic energy) transfers velocity to the object with less velocity. The total kinetic energy of both objects remains the same but the object with less velocity even though it may have more mass and kinetic energy.
Have you read my article on how the evidence shows Newton’s law of gravity is wrong? Any money you spent on learning physics was wasted. Time doesn’t exist. It is just a comparison of energy used as a reference.,