ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Gravity Doesn't Exist

Different objects have different reactions to heat.

Thats why liquid nitrogen boils at room temp and a steel block will glow red.
The light coming off it is electrons dropping photons as part of its "vibration".
Steel itself is not flowing in a kinetic pool table scenario so your issue is not clear why youre trying to relate newtonian physics woth how different materials "vibrate".

That isn't relevant here. Aren't you the same person that tried to make it about quantum mechanics? Please stop getting in the way.

But wouldn't the movement of the second atom be a reaction to the movement of the first one?  Isn't this a general way the second atom would  respond to movement in the first - the first atom moves, then the bond is stretched and exerts a force on the second atom and it accelerates in response? 

A reaction isn't what matters - a reaction in this case is not a reactive force in the sense of, say, a cup resting on a table. If one atom tries to move, the other may resist that, but it isn't going to be able to move in the precise opposite direction at the precise rate, especially when it itself has motion. The reactive force of a cup on a table works because the table itself is braced against the floor - what acts to prevent the movement of the first atom?

Admittedly this is where it becomes a little less simple because it is necessary to look at the full picture. Take an instant in time for this one oxygen molecule. When it isn't at absolute zero, both atoms are in the process of moving: if the bond between them was severed, they would both be going off in who-knows what direction.
When they are bonded, they both still have this kinetic energy. The first atom is moving one way, the second is moving another, and while each might exert a reactive force, they have only the energy they currently possess with which to resist the motion, braced as they are against nothing, and this energy cannot be enough as it is already in use. It is going to take a different amount of energy to resist every possible angle and intensity of motion, which cannot possibly stay consistent, especially not for both atoms simultaneously. If one needs X amount energy to stop, and another needs X+1, the bond is only going to be able to limit one, meaning an end result of 1/-1 (-1 just being a 1 in the opposite direction. yes I'm conflating energy and velocity somewhat here, but as far as the explanation goes, the broad strokes hold).

The way that I resolve this is to know that "heat" is really something that only matters in the context of energy transfer between thermodynamic systems, and since if you consider changes in kinetic energy between two systems, the change will always be conserved no matter the frame of reference! 

This runs into the 'needs to happen' situation. It's much like how mathematicians will say the number 1 is not a prime - it isn't really for reasons of definition, but rather just because they have a bunch of formulas that only work if 1 isn't prime. It is always going to be easy to define a concept in such a way that some flaws just don't show up, but it's only ever going to be true if you accept that specific definition. When dealing with something as abstract as prime numbers, it's not so big a deal - when dealing with a practical concept like heat, it's a little more questionable.

Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other

This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 20, 2021, 06:22:52 AM

Different objects have different reactions to heat.

Thats why liquid nitrogen boils at room temp and a steel block will glow red.
The light coming off it is electrons dropping photons as part of its "vibration".
Steel itself is not flowing in a kinetic pool table scenario so your issue is not clear why youre trying to relate newtonian physics woth how different materials "vibrate".

That isn't relevant here. Aren't you the same person that tried to make it about quantum mechanics? Please stop getting in the way.

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 06:43:36 AM

But wouldn't the movement of the second atom be a reaction to the movement of the first one?  Isn't this a general way the second atom would  respond to movement in the first - the first atom moves, then the bond is stretched and exerts a force on the second atom and it accelerates in response? 

A reaction isn't what matters - a reaction in this case is not a reactive force in the sense of, say, a cup resting on a table. If one atom tries to move, the other may resist that, but it isn't going to be able to move in the precise opposite direction at the precise rate, especially when it itself has motion. The reactive force of a cup on a table works because the table itself is braced against the floor - what acts to prevent the movement of the first atom?

Admittedly this is where it becomes a little less simple because it is necessary to look at the full picture. Take an instant in time for this one oxygen molecule. When it isn't at absolute zero, both atoms are in the process of moving: if the bond between them was severed, they would both be going off in who-knows what direction.
When they are bonded, they both still have this kinetic energy. The first atom is moving one way, the second is moving another, and while each might exert a reactive force, they have only the energy they currently possess with which to resist the motion, braced as they are against nothing, and this energy cannot be enough as it is already in use. It is going to take a different amount of energy to resist every possible angle and intensity of motion, which cannot possibly stay consistent, especially not for both atoms simultaneously. If one needs X amount energy to stop, and another needs X+1, the bond is only going to be able to limit one, meaning an end result of 1/-1 (-1 just being a 1 in the opposite direction. yes I'm conflating energy and velocity somewhat here, but as far as the explanation goes, the broad strokes hold).

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 06:43:36 AM

The way that I resolve this is to know that "heat" is really something that only matters in the context of energy transfer between thermodynamic systems, and since if you consider changes in kinetic energy between two systems, the change will always be conserved no matter the frame of reference! 

This runs into the 'needs to happen' situation. It's much like how mathematicians will say the number 1 is not a prime - it isn't really for reasons of definition, but rather just because they have a bunch of formulas that only work if 1 isn't prime. It is always going to be easy to define a concept in such a way that some flaws just don't show up, but it's only ever going to be true if you accept that specific definition. When dealing with something as abstract as prime numbers, it's not so big a deal - when dealing with a practical concept like heat, it's a little more questionable.

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2021, 06:57:23 AM

Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other

This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.

get in the way of you directly talking aobut what i brought up?
ok buddy.
maybe re-read my post and then re-read your responses to marko and soba.
heat example of steel vs nitrogen is relevant because you brought it up.
and quantum mechanics is relevant because you keep trying to apply newtonian physics to atoms saying any object would explode appart as soon as it was heated due to the bazzillion collisions happening.

you can't comprehend "vibrations" doesnt necessarily mean oscillating or swinging atoms.
raising electrons and lowering is a form of vibration.
stretching of bonded atoms is a form of vibration.
when things are joined, why do you think they'll behave like billard balls?

if you want to be relevant, try and make a relevant point.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 20, 2021, 06:22:52 AM

Different objects have different reactions to heat.

Thats why liquid nitrogen boils at room temp and a steel block will glow red.
The light coming off it is electrons dropping photons as part of its "vibration".
Steel itself is not flowing in a kinetic pool table scenario so your issue is not clear why youre trying to relate newtonian physics woth how different materials "vibrate".

That isn't relevant here. Aren't you the same person that tried to make it about quantum mechanics? Please stop getting in the way.

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 06:43:36 AM

But wouldn't the movement of the second atom be a reaction to the movement of the first one?  Isn't this a general way the second atom would  respond to movement in the first - the first atom moves, then the bond is stretched and exerts a force on the second atom and it accelerates in response? 

A reaction isn't what matters - a reaction in this case is not a reactive force in the sense of, say, a cup resting on a table. If one atom tries to move, the other may resist that, but it isn't going to be able to move in the precise opposite direction at the precise rate, especially when it itself has motion. The reactive force of a cup on a table works because the table itself is braced against the floor - what acts to prevent the movement of the first atom?

Admittedly this is where it becomes a little less simple because it is necessary to look at the full picture. Take an instant in time for this one oxygen molecule. When it isn't at absolute zero, both atoms are in the process of moving: if the bond between them was severed, they would both be going off in who-knows what direction.
When they are bonded, they both still have this kinetic energy. The first atom is moving one way, the second is moving another, and while each might exert a reactive force, they have only the energy they currently possess with which to resist the motion, braced as they are against nothing, and this energy cannot be enough as it is already in use. It is going to take a different amount of energy to resist every possible angle and intensity of motion, which cannot possibly stay consistent, especially not for both atoms simultaneously. If one needs X amount energy to stop, and another needs X+1, the bond is only going to be able to limit one, meaning an end result of 1/-1 (-1 just being a 1 in the opposite direction. yes I'm conflating energy and velocity somewhat here, but as far as the explanation goes, the broad strokes hold).

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 06:43:36 AM

The way that I resolve this is to know that "heat" is really something that only matters in the context of energy transfer between thermodynamic systems, and since if you consider changes in kinetic energy between two systems, the change will always be conserved no matter the frame of reference! 

This runs into the 'needs to happen' situation. It's much like how mathematicians will say the number 1 is not a prime - it isn't really for reasons of definition, but rather just because they have a bunch of formulas that only work if 1 isn't prime. It is always going to be easy to define a concept in such a way that some flaws just don't show up, but it's only ever going to be true if you accept that specific definition. When dealing with something as abstract as prime numbers, it's not so big a deal - when dealing with a practical concept like heat, it's a little more questionable.

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2021, 06:57:23 AM

Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other

This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.

I have to say I don't follow the full thrust of what you are trying to get across in your example with the oxygen molecule, so it is hard for me to engage it properly.  Sorry. 

Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint?  You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?

If this is your complaint, I think I understand what you are saying, but a fixed and rigid state isn't quite the way matter is described.  Take a block of pure perfect diamond.  Each carbon molecule is locked into a specific tetrahedral configuration, but it isn't motionless.  All the atoms (approximately) act as harmonic oscillators, wobbling back and forth along bond axes, and twisting in and out of defined bond angles and planes.  These molecular vibrations occur at specific frequencies, and can be measured, and the energy associated with the motion calculated.  Energy can be added to the system, increasing the magnitude of these vibrations, and energy can be taken out, reducing them. 

This is an incredibly useful conceptualization of temperature and heat in interacting molecules.  It helps explain concepts such as phase changes, the diffusivities of gases in solids, and a myriad of other molecular (and biomolecular) phenomena.   

If you have a practical problem with it though, more than happy to hear about it. 

Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint?  You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?

Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 09:13:25 AM

Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint?  You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?

Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.

Neat and symmetrical?  Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that.  Is that how you picture the vibration?

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 09:44:54 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 09:13:25 AM

Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint?  You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?

Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.

Neat and symmetrical?  Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that.  Is that how you picture the vibration?

Essentially, yes, if this model holds then that is required - every motion must have a counter-motion that is equal and opposite and stritcly internal. The movement of every atom must be perfectly balanced by every other.
It is why I reject the notion of heat as movement.

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 10:24:10 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 09:44:54 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 09:13:25 AM

Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint?  You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?

Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.

Neat and symmetrical?  Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that.  Is that how you picture the vibration?

Essentially, yes, if this model holds then that is required - every motion must have a counter-motion that is equal and opposite and stritcly internal. The movement of every atom must be perfectly balanced by every other.
It is why I reject the notion of heat as movement.

Why is perfectly balanced motion needed?  Why is not just the statistical behavior of a huge number of coupled harmonic oscillators sufficient?

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 10:55:03 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 10:24:10 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 09:44:54 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 09:13:25 AM

Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint?  You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?

Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.

Neat and symmetrical?  Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that.  Is that how you picture the vibration?

Essentially, yes, if this model holds then that is required - every motion must have a counter-motion that is equal and opposite and stritcly internal. The movement of every atom must be perfectly balanced by every other.
It is why I reject the notion of heat as movement.

Why is perfectly balanced motion needed?  Why is not just the statistical behavior of a huge number of coupled harmonic oscillators sufficient?

Because if it is not perfectly balanced, then it is not at rest. Statistical behavior still grants both oddities and exceptions, while rest is universal.

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2021, 06:57:23 AM

Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other

This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.

Of course it would.  Just because the atoms and molecules are bonded to each other, that doesn't mean that they can't vibrate quite vigorously as they absorb heat.  In fact, if they absorb enough heat, then the atoms and molecules vibrate so vigorously that the bonds are broken resulting in the solid object melting or sublimating.

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 11:16:00 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 10:55:03 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 10:24:10 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 09:44:54 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 09:13:25 AM

Maybe just to this last point though, which seems to be your main complaint?  You are saying temperature can not be a function of molecular vibration in solids because they are solid and everything is fixed in place and therefore have no 'motion' per se?

Less the idea of being fixed in place, and more the concept of 'at rest' meaning anything in general when heat is defined as movement of molecules. Needing the movement to act in harmony I understand, but the reason why it is in such neat and symmetrical harmony is something there seems to be no justification for.

Neat and symmetrical?  Yeah, would agree there isn't much justification for that.  Is that how you picture the vibration?

Essentially, yes, if this model holds then that is required - every motion must have a counter-motion that is equal and opposite and stritcly internal. The movement of every atom must be perfectly balanced by every other.
It is why I reject the notion of heat as movement.

Why is perfectly balanced motion needed?  Why is not just the statistical behavior of a huge number of coupled harmonic oscillators sufficient?

Because if it is not perfectly balanced, then it is not at rest. Statistical behavior still grants both oddities and exceptions, while rest is universal.

Rest is universal?  I'm really struggling to follow you here.  I understand you don't accept that molecular vibrations are a part of heat in thermodynamics, but I cant figure out why you think this way.  Its not really clear from what you are saying.

Sorry. 

"motion" vs "vibration"

again
adding heat doesn't mean whacking a cue ball into the racked balls

again
hot steel glows red
why's it glowing?
is it "vibrating" if pulsing electrons are going up and down?
is it "moving" like a flying nitrogen atom at room temp?

but keep ignoring.
i'm probably being irrelevant.

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 08:21:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 20, 2021, 06:57:23 AM

Solids have their atoms and molecules bonded to each other in such a way that they pretty much stay fixed relative to each other

This is what I am objecting to. If the heat-as-vibration model is true, as opposed to heat simply being a registered property, this would not be the case.

Of course it would.  Just because the atoms and molecules are bonded to each other, that doesn't mean that they can't vibrate quite vigorously as they absorb heat.

It is all very well to say that. Explaining how molecules can move and the object remain still however is a very different story.

Rest is universal?  I'm really struggling to follow you here.  I understand you don't accept that molecular vibrations are a part of heat in thermodynamics, but I cant figure out why you think this way.  Its not really clear from what you are saying.

How is anything ever at rest?
That question might be the simplest way of posing it. When does the situation described in Newton's First Law ever hold?

i'm probably being irrelevant.

You are. I don't see why you keep trying to get involved in a discussion you plainly aren't following. Don't just read my posts, read the posts of the other users I am happily talking to. When you previously post lies like "heat example of steel vs nitrogen is relevant because you brought it up," it is clear you're just getting in the way of actually interesting discussion. Please stop.

if you were to brign up say... oxygen molecules flying in a chaotic excited state becuase they are have heat then similarly - nitrogen - where gases at room temp the heat is enough to shake the atoms appart and break their covalent bonds

if you were to bring up a boat filled with dancing people as your ewxample that has heat yet the boat falls appart but a single person doesn't then similarly - heated steel shows rthey're not dancing but the electrons, as part of the matrix of the molecule/ atom are getting excited and the atoms are vibrating by growing and shrinking - not laterally-dirctionally swinging back and forth.

follow your own line of discussion.
geesh
you keep saying newtonian physics applying to how an atom vibrates to heat.
it doesn't apply

If you cannot see the connection

And there you go with more misrepresentations.
I never said I can't see the connection.
I can see the connection, but it is just getting further and further away from the original problem and in way addresses the problem.
You are using the connection to distract from the actual issue you initially alleged.
That is why you are not engaging.
You came alleging a specific issue, and now you are running away from that issue.

My very first statement on this topic was

Or, lets see it in full:

This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.

And this is on a thread which was then focusing on Newton's laws of motion.
There is no indication here that you are objecting to the idea of heat manifesting itself as vibration.
Instead you appear to be attacking Newton's laws of motion.
Specifically trying to claim there is a "lack of consensus" between different areas of science, where you misrepresent heat as random motion instead of chaotic motion to try to claim the laws of motion don't hold in that case.

If you were trying to focus on the entire idea of heat being wrong, rather than the laws of motion, it has no place in this thread.

The single particle case, focusing purely on heat/temperature, thus has no place (and only shows your lack of understanding as the temperature of a single particle makes no sense).

No. I responded in such a way because your reply did not give an answer.

You mean it didn't give the answer you wanted.
The answer was in the post, you ignored it.

I explained why the change in motion gets cancelled out.
You falsely pretend that the motion is entirely random, ignoring what actually causes the change in direction.
You claimed there was a lack of consensus, implying a contradiction. I showed that no such contradiction exists.

If you instead want to change the discussion to just trying to justify the laws of motion, instead of trying to claim there is a contradiction/lack of consensus, go ahead.

You are saying that my conclusion is wrong because my conclusion is wrong

No, I am saying your claim of a contradiction/lack of consensus is wrong, due to you misrepresenting what heat is.
Conversely you are saying your conclusion is correct, because your conclusion is correct.

I am saying that internal forces, particularly at the edges of an object, could easily see that object's net force reach an imbalance because of simple logical implication

You have no simple logical implication. You are just claiming that it can, with no justification at all.

I am saying that is wrong due to the well established laws of motion.

Your claim effectively amounts to claiming things will just magically start moving in some random direction for no reason at all.

Yes, I ignored your line of reasoning about modelling, because it wasn't relevant to the discussion on the way heat functions

Again, the issue is not heat, it is the laws of motion.
You brought it up, as if the laws of motion break down for any object and thus to accurately model the object and how it moves you would need to model it as individual particles.
And it was at least somewhat relevant to that.
Quite unlike you trying to discuss the temperature of an individual particle, which has no connection at all to the motion of the individual particles inside an object composed of many.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing

If I was just arguing for the sake of arguing I wouldn't care if you changed topic as that would just give more to argue. Instead trying to get you to actually deal with what I have said and admit you are wrong kills the argument.
Conversely what you are doing is far more consistent with arguing for the sake of arguing.

And before you accuse me of cutting out your 'it's CHAOTIC' response, it is more of the same 'this is how it MUST work' fallacy

No, it is more of the "You are completely misrepresenting the model of heat you are claiming there is a problem with, with your claim that there is a problem reliant upon this baseless misrepresentation"

Okay then, let's start with these basics. Two adjacent oxygen atoms, in two dimensions even just so this is even easier to visualise. They possess heat, thus neither atom is stationary. One is at coordinates, let's say (0,0), while the other is at (1,0) immediately to its right - we can always define a coordinate frame like this.
Why is the vibration of the first atom strictly and exclusively going to be horizontal, with zero vertical component whatsoever?

You left out a key part, what is the initial motion of the atoms?
Considering you want to keep it simple, lets say the one of the left is moving in the positive x direction and the other is moving in the negative x direction.
Now, there is no motion at all in the y direction. Why should either of the atoms magically start moving in the y direction?

Again, your augment relies upon assuming things will just magically accelerate for no reason at all.

If instead there is relative motion in the y direction, then after a tiny fraction of time, they will no longer be aligned along the x axis, instead there will be a displacement in the y direction. This can in turn provide a force in the y direction. (And before you try claiming that isn't vibration, and instead it is rotation of the oxygen molecule, remember that is entirely your claim. I am not the one claiming heat is just vibration. Instead I would say heat is thermal energy being transferred between objects and this can be stored in the object in several ways, where vibration is just one. Another is rotation. For gasses another is translation.)

Again, start reading what I am saying and try responding to that.

It is not the motion that is cancelled, it is the CHANGE in motion.
So the question is what causes either particle to change its motion?

It cannot react in the way the mainstream model requires for it to be at rest - it would be dragged, if this model is the case.

The mainstream model doesn't say it is at rest.
It says without an external force, the overall motion of the oxygen molecule (i.e. the motion of the centre of mass of the molecule) will not change.
If you have one particle "at rest" and the other moving upwards, the overall motion of the molecule is already upwards.
The mainstream model therefore does not state nor require the molecule to be at rest. Instead it says it will continue moving with that upwards motion.
The molecule will vibrate and rotate as it moves upwards, but overall, the centre of mass will just move upwards at the same constant rate.
It is only if an external force is applied that that will change.

This was also highlighted at the very start.
The bulk object can be "at rest" which means the centre of mass is not moving, while the individual particles which make it move around.

And if you do want to just try focusing on the issue of the laws of motion, then feel free to just focus on the oxygen example of that post.
The key question is what is the current motion of those atoms, and far more importantly, how does that change over time, including what causes that change?

Explaining how molecules can move and the object remain still however is a very different story.

It all depends on whether you're interested in the individual molecules or the object as a whole.  Quantum mechanics is interested in how atoms that make up an object behave while Newtonian mechanics is interested how the object as a whole behaves.

"motion" vs "vibration"

again
adding heat doesn't mean whacking a cue ball into the racked balls

again
hot steel glows red
why's it glowing?
is it "vibrating" if pulsing electrons are going up and down?
is it "moving" like a flying nitrogen atom at room temp?

but keep ignoring.
i'm probably being irrelevant.

Rub your hands together.

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 01:22:18 PM

Rest is universal?  I'm really struggling to follow you here.  I understand you don't accept that molecular vibrations are a part of heat in thermodynamics, but I cant figure out why you think this way.  Its not really clear from what you are saying.

How is anything ever at rest?
That question might be the simplest way of posing it. When does the situation described in Newton's First Law ever hold?

Newtons First Law states that if an object is under no net external forces, dv/dt=0.  This concept is used extensively throughout science and engineering.  In fact, there is an entire area of engineering mechanics, named Statics, that is concerned with the analysis of loads (forces and moments) acting on physical systems that do not experience an acceleration (dv/dt=0, ie. Newton's first law holds).

It is foundational (ha!) to any field of engineering where people actually design and build things where material stresses and strains are important: civil, mechanical, aeronautical, naval, etc.  And this concept, mechanics constrained by sigma(F) = 0 and dv/dt=0, is used literally all the time in the analysis, design, and creation of all the engineered systems we interact with on a daily basis. 

So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no?  Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?

Newton's first law is bullshit then and contradictd his other law of attraction which states that every object in the universe with mass is attracted to each other

So while that pretty looking grain of sand on a beach on a planet far away in the galaxy GN-z11, it is not at rest. It is being tugged by me, you and everything in the universe around it. Likewise it is pulling at me, and while it may seem like an insignificant number, that numbers value is NOT zero

No object is at rest. Ever

Or, lets see it in full:

Quote from: snomial on May 16, 2021, 08:46:59 AM

This is a good example of where the supposed scientific consensus falls apart. Newton's most basic of laws describes a situation which (supposedly) cannot occur. An object at rest is always acted upon by a force, namely the movement of its own molecules. No aspect of an object is at rest, every part of it exerts a force upon every other part of it, and yet the thing as a whole is stationary.

And this is on a thread which was then focusing on Newton's laws of motion.
There is no indication here that you are objecting to the idea of heat manifesting itself as vibration.
Instead you appear to be attacking Newton's laws of motion.
Specifically trying to claim there is a "lack of consensus" between different areas of science, where you misrepresent heat as random motion instead of chaotic motion to try to claim the laws of motion don't hold in that case.

If you were trying to focus on the entire idea of heat being wrong, rather than the laws of motion, it has no place in this thread.

A criticism of the credibility of mainstream academia overall seems very relevant - the fact the scientific consensus cannot function as a whole is and was relevant. Naturally I did not break down my entire worldview in a simple post meant to make a different point.
When pushed on this topic, of course I explained myself more. Looking for intentionally bad-faith readings only exposes your own insecurity.

You left out a key part, what is the initial motion of the atoms?
Considering you want to keep it simple, lets say the one of the left is moving in the positive x direction and the other is moving in the negative x direction.
Now, there is no motion at all in the y direction. Why should either of the atoms magically start moving in the y direction?

Again, your augment relies upon assuming things will just magically accelerate for no reason at all.

Again, you are only providing what you want to be the case. You are not justifying yourself.
Okay then, this is your argument - that the source of motion affects two adjacent molecules in precisely opposite fashions. How then is this achieved?
You are spending a lot of time saying very little of substance.

The mainstream model doesn't say it is at rest.
It says without an external force, the overall motion of the oxygen molecule (i.e. the motion of the centre of mass of the molecule) will not change.

If you follow the beliefs in reference frames, these are the same thing. Further, yes the overall object will be at rest while the molecules are not, this is what I said, you repeating it doesn't make you look smarter. This is just more lazy acting-superior while saying nothing. Try to keep focused, this is tediouis otherwise.

Quote from: snomial on May 20, 2021, 02:02:55 PM

Explaining how molecules can move and the object remain still however is a very different story.

It all depends on whether you're interested in the individual molecules or the object as a whole.  Quantum mechanics is interested in how atoms that make up an object behave while Newtonian mechanics is interested how the object as a whole behaves.

Quantum mechanics is much more concerned with the subdivisions of atoms. Quantum behavior is not what I'm appealing to - if you think it offers an answer, then you are welcome to provide it, but it generally seems to just be used as a distraction.

So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no?  Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?

Engineering and physical science are very different beasts. Engineering can focus on 'close enough.' You don't need still objects when building anything, the simple fact of a bus driving down the street a block over is going to make the ground shudder that little bit and make things move.
More than anything, this proves my point - even the things uspposed to rely on objects at rest simply do not.

Seems to be irrelwvant and goes unanswersed.

Are we talking heat in fre atoms (billard bals) or atoms linked in a matrix with only "virbations" as a method to absorb heat.

Ohooo

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 11:33:26 PM

So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no?  Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?

Engineering and physical science are very different beasts. Engineering can focus on 'close enough.' You don't need still objects when building anything, the simple fact of a bus driving down the street a block over is going to make the ground shudder that little bit and make things move.
More than anything, this proves my point - even the things uspposed to rely on objects at rest simply do not.

Once again, Im really struggling to follow your logic from what you are writing. 

I'm not sure how the widespread use of Newtons first law in engineering somehow "proves your point", which I originally thought was that you are of the opinion that the kinetic energy of molecular collisions and vibrations is not the internal energy that can be transferred from one object to another as heat, but now seems to me to be about the universality of rest or the need for perfect balance or something like that?

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 02:55:46 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 11:33:26 PM

So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no?  Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?

Engineering and physical science are very different beasts. Engineering can focus on 'close enough.' You don't need still objects when building anything, the simple fact of a bus driving down the street a block over is going to make the ground shudder that little bit and make things move.
More than anything, this proves my point - even the things uspposed to rely on objects at rest simply do not.

Once again, Im really struggling to follow your logic from what you are writing. 

I'm not sure how the widespread use of Newtons first law in engineering somehow "proves your point", which I originally thought was that you are of the opinion that the kinetic energy of molecular collisions and vibrations is not the internal energy that can be transferred from one object to another as heat, but now seems to me to be about the universality of rest or the need for perfect balance or something like that?

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Over the course of discussion, this shifted to the fact I disbelieve the typical explanation for heat-as-vibration, which is one resolution to the above problem.

Quote from: sobchak on May 21, 2021, 05:42:39 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 02:55:46 AM

Quote from: sobchak on May 20, 2021, 11:33:26 PM

So it seems to hold in a wide and varying number of instances, no?  Unless all our engineering is completely incorrect?

Engineering and physical science are very different beasts. Engineering can focus on 'close enough.' You don't need still objects when building anything, the simple fact of a bus driving down the street a block over is going to make the ground shudder that little bit and make things move.
More than anything, this proves my point - even the things uspposed to rely on objects at rest simply do not.

Once again, Im really struggling to follow your logic from what you are writing. 

I'm not sure how the widespread use of Newtons first law in engineering somehow "proves your point", which I originally thought was that you are of the opinion that the kinetic energy of molecular collisions and vibrations is not the internal energy that can be transferred from one object to another as heat, but now seems to me to be about the universality of rest or the need for perfect balance or something like that?

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.
Over the course of discussion, this shifted to the fact I disbelieve the typical explanation for heat-as-vibration, which is one resolution to the above problem.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. 

And if you want to say that the concept of no net external forces is scientifically meaningless, that's okay with me. 

I would disagree though, I think it has lots of meaning as an idealized concept, and an incredibly useful concept in practice. 

Guess that is the nature of opinions! 

Speaking of opinions, getting back to the idea of the kinetic energy of molecular collisions as internal energy that can be transferred from system to system as heat, what is your opinion then on what is going on.  Do molecular vibrations not occur in your mind? or do they not contain energy?

and if they are not the source of heat flow, what exactly is? 

Speaking of opinions, getting back to the idea of the kinetic energy of molecular collisions as internal energy that can be transferred from system to system as heat, what is your opinion then on what is going on.  Do molecular vibrations not occur in your mind? or do they not contain energy?

and if they are not the source of heat flow, what exactly is?

Everyone's certainly welcome to believe their own things. Dissenting opinions are a good way of being sure you're following it for a good reason, and not just because it's what you're used to.

I don't believe molecular vibrations occur in the way that is described. Molecular movement does occur, as is obvious on a macro level, and logically smaller forces would see it occur on a molecule-by-molecule basis, but it is not nearly the constant thing that the heat model suggests - if you could divorce something from the larger world entirely, all the forces causes by stray wind and passing cars, it would truly be at rest regardless of its temperature.
Heat, I believe, is simply an intrinsic property - the physical manifestation of heat is akin to the physical manifestation of velocity, it exists purely in how the object behaves. No molecule-level anomalies are required.

Quote from: sobchak on May 21, 2021, 06:57:31 AM

Speaking of opinions, getting back to the idea of the kinetic energy of molecular collisions as internal energy that can be transferred from system to system as heat, what is your opinion then on what is going on.  Do molecular vibrations not occur in your mind? or do they not contain energy?

and if they are not the source of heat flow, what exactly is?

Everyone's certainly welcome to believe their own things. Dissenting opinions are a good way of being sure you're following it for a good reason, and not just because it's what you're used to.

I don't believe molecular vibrations occur in the way that is described. Molecular movement does occur, as is obvious on a macro level, and logically smaller forces would see it occur on a molecule-by-molecule basis, but it is not nearly the constant thing that the heat model suggests - if you could divorce something from the larger world entirely, all the forces causes by stray wind and passing cars, it would truly be at rest regardless of its temperature.
Heat, I believe, is simply an intrinsic property - the physical manifestation of heat is akin to the physical manifestation of velocity, it exists purely in how the object behaves. No molecule-level anomalies are required.

I also like heterogeneity of thought.  In my mind, crazy, wild ideas and opinions are great as long as they are not malicious in nature!

Okay on your opinions on molecular vibrations.    What leads you to this opinion?  Is it just how you feel?  Have you studied much chemistry? I love physical chemistry and find it deep and compelling.  Have you looked much at it?

Okay on your opinions on molecular vibrations.    What leads you to this opinion?  Is it just how you feel?  Have you studied much chemistry? I love physical chemistry and find it deep and compelling.  Have you looked much at it?

I did some years ago - I will admit I am a little rusty these days, though if pressed it shouldn't take me too long to refamiliarise myself. It was interesting enough, though I cannot pretend I saw it as much more than an ever-increasing list of elements being tacked on. That is one of the things that made me first become wary: so much of the modern-day consensus seems like things being thrown at a hypothesis until something sticks, as opposed to moving past it. It suggested a motive beyond mere honesty to me.

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.

Newton's laws deal with forces and motion.  Thermodynamics deals with heat.  They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 06:16:04 AM

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.

Newton's laws deal with forces and motion.  Thermodynamics deals with heat.  They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.

Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2021, 11:01:37 AM

Quote from: snomial on May 21, 2021, 06:16:04 AM

Ah, I think I know where the disconnect is. I've technically been making two cases, and have crossed the streams as it were with the multiple discussion threads going on.
This began with criticizing the mainline scientific worldview due to the contradiction between the model of heat and Newton's first law, specifically how the concept of 'at rest' is a scientfically meaningless one when side-by-side with what the rest of the scientific consensus says.

Newton's laws deal with forces and motion.  Thermodynamics deals with heat.  They are two very different fields with similar terms that can have very different meanings.

Any sensible scientific model is interconnected. Claims in one areas affects claims in other - bits where they chafe show a model that is slapdash and irrational.

What chafe?  Where is the contradictions?  Beyond personal misunderstandings and intentional misstatements about terminology.