The discussion centers on the temperature of water at the bottom of a waterfall, specifically whether it is higher due to increased kinetic energy (KE) as described by the equation KE = (2/3)kT. Participants assert that while the water may be slightly warmer at the bottom, this is not solely due to kinetic energy from the waterfall's motion. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of kinetic energy from Earth's rotation and translation, but ultimately concludes that these factors are not relevant to the temperature increase observed at the waterfall's base.
PREREQUISITESStudents and professionals in physics, environmental science, and engineering, particularly those interested in thermodynamics and fluid dynamics.
DLeuPel said:Of course I imagine that when they refer to the bottom, they refer to a part of the waterfall that is still falling.
This question is related with the definition of what is temperature regarding the movement of molecules. This of course translates to kinetic energy but that would mean that the Earths rotation, translation, etc should be considered as KEdavenn said:I suspect that isn't correct
Consider why it might be so
Edit
Actually, thinking about it, there's 2 possibilities for why it would be warmer at the bottom ...
This question was correctly answered for you yesterday in your other thread -- what you are saying is not correct. Please just accept the answer instead of starting a new thread to try to make the answer go away. Thread closed.DLeuPel said:This question is related with the definition of what is temperature regarding the movement of molecules. This of course translates to kinetic energy but that would mean that the Earths rotation, translation, etc should be considered as KE