You are not making an argument. You are claiming it works, and not addressing the problem. When I say this, do me the courtesy of acknowledge that I am saying it for a reason, not just to waste time. You are not answering the objection I have posed, nor are you even trying. You are at best appealing to magic, dressing up 'It just does' in fancy words, with no actual explanation.
If you are unwilling or unable to address the question, stop pretending otherwise and let someone more qualified respond.
There you go projecting yet again.
You aren't showing there is a problem. You are just claiming there is and not addressing the refutations of it.
I will not do you that curtesy until you demonstrate that you are not wasting time as you appear to be doing so. Your
reason appears to be just to waste time and act all high and mighty.
I have directly addressed the issue and you continue to pretend I have not.
You want to take what you alleged is the problem, and then completely strawman it, replacing the vibration with completely random motion and no connection at all between the various parts of the object, which would mean it would no longer be vibration.
Try coming up with a coherent argument which is actually based upon the problem you claim exists.
If you are unwilling or unable to demonstrate this problem, stop pretending otherwise and let someone more qualified respond.
If, however, you put a dozen people in a rowboat and have them all dance around like madmen, does the boat stay still because all forces naturally pair, or do non-paired forces in fact exist and topple the boat?
There you go either completely misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting it again.
Yes, all the forces pair, as they must.
What you are choosing to ignore are the external forces.
When they jump, they push the boat into the water, which then includes an external interaction with the water.
You also ignore gravity, which acts on the people and the boat, in quite a significant way.
Even your comment about toppling the boat shows you either don't understand the problem you are claiming to talk about or are intentionally misrepresenting it.
The boat itself toppling, with the people as well, is not bulk motion of the object. Instead it is just the components of the object moving relative to each other.
In the case of an object, the movement of each molecule is essentially random. If, at one instant in time, one molecule's vibration imparts velocity to the left, then the molecule it interacts with directly is not necessarily going to be one with strictly equal and opposite motion - in fact the odds of it doing so are non-existent. If it is going up, or left as well, what acts to balance the force of the original molecule? What is it that ensures a second particle will be countering the motion of the first?
Again, this shows a complete lack of understanding of the model you claim there is a problem with.
Try starting out simple, with 2 atoms, such as in a simple diatomic molecule like oxygen, then go larger and larger.
With this simple setup start with these 2 atoms travelling at some velocity, and note what the overall velocity of the bulk object is.
Now, without any external force, what is there to change the velocity? Well the only thing that can is some interaction between these 2 particles.
This naturally creates a pair and results in the 2 particles velocities changing in a quite predictable way such that momentum is conserved and the centre of mass remains moving at the same constant velocity.
Throw in an extra particle, and you still have the same issue. For any change you need an interaction between 2 particles which results in no net change in motion.
Throw in loads and you end up with a quite chaotic system, which APPEARS essentially random.
The molecule it interacts with does not need equal and opposite motion. Instead, all it needs is that the forces on each molecule during this interaction are equal and opposite resulting in no net change in motion. And the odds of that are unity.
It isn't that any 2 particles are countering the motion of each other. It is that any change must be countered by another change to result in no net change.
I do not claim anything vibrates. Your own physics claim that all molecules vibrate when they are not at absolute zero.
It isn't
my physics. It is simply physics.
And if you want to claim there is a problem with that, try to understand why it is vibrating, rather than just pretending it is completely random motion.
Completely random motion is quite different to vibration.
Why is everyone bringing quantum mechanics
Because you have claimed that this vibration is an incorrect representation which naturally leads to the limitations of classical mechanics at the quantum level and thus quantum mechanics. This is also what allows temporary violations of the laws of motion.
And that is really your only way out on this issue.
I am using this to demonstrate a flaw with your position.
You mean to assert a flaw. You are yet to demonstrate any actual flaw, and instead just continually just misrepresent it.
If you now do want to turn around a claim than molecules in fact are stationary when they possess heat, then I am content with that and we are done.
[/quote]