If Heat Is Motion, Why Isn’t All Motion Heat?

[sol_2001]

Homework Statement

If heat is merely molecular motion, what is the difference between a hot, stationary baseball and a cool, rapidly moving one?

Relevant Equations

No relevant equations as it is a conceptual question.

This is from the Exercises for the Feynman Lectures on Physics, Exercise 1.1. I believe that a hot stationary ball has more thermal energy due to the inter-molecular motion within the baseball, whereas a cool, fast-moving baseball has more kinetic energy due to the motion of the whole macroscopic object in a particular direction. Is that correct?

 

[kuruman]

I agree, no relevant equations are needed. However according to our guidelines (see item 4), in order to receive help, you need to show some credible effort towards answering the question. So please tell us what you think about it. Start by considering what is moving and how in each of the two cases.

 

[haruspex]

Homework Statement: If heat is merely molecular motion, what is the difference between a hot, stationary baseball and a cool, rapidly moving one?
Relevant Equations: No relevant equations as it is a conceptual question.

This is from the Exercises for the Feynman Lectures on Physics, Exercise 1.1. I believe that a hot stationary ball has more thermal energy due to the inter-molecular motion within the baseball, whereas a cool, fast-moving baseball has more kinetic energy due to the motion of the whole macroscopic object in a particular direction. Is that correct?

Is that the exact wording of the question? I ask because in scientific usage "heat" only refers to the transfer of energy between bodies. Molecular motion within a body is "internal thermal energy". See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy.
If that is the wording, your answer looks good enough.

It is interesting to consider intermediate scenarios. What about a system consisting of two balls orbiting each other? Two million balls? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon