The discussion revolves around the temperature of water at the bottom of a waterfall, specifically whether it is higher due to kinetic energy considerations. Participants explore the relationship between kinetic energy and temperature, as well as the implications of Earth's motion on this relationship.
Participants express differing views on whether the water at the bottom of the waterfall is indeed warmer, with some questioning the validity of this claim. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached.
There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of temperature and kinetic energy, as well as the influence of external factors like Earth's motion on the temperature of falling water.
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