The Semantics of Science Are My Area of Expertise
Let me take one more shot at explaining the error that I think you slayers are making.
There are three things:
1) Energy, a thing;
2) Heat, heated, or heating (flux), a process in which energy changes its location; and
3) Relative temperature (up, down), the result of the process of heat, heating, and being heated (or the result of flux).
You slayers have, IMO, erroneously assumed that the LoTs (Laws of Thermodynamics) refer to #2, a process. In actuality the LoTs refer to #3, the result of the process of heat/heating, relative temperature (up, down). And this involves the net gain or loss of energy, which, BTW, is not directly measured or measurable but is inferred from the temperature measurements. In short, you have made the common mistake of conflating the concept of heat (flux) with the concept of temperature measurement.
I understand perfectly what the 2nd LoT refers to, and you are correct, it refers to “heat”, which is the “result” of the energy.
The word heat is ambiguous. This ambiguity lies at the heart of your misconception. If you clear up the ambiguity you will eventually also clear up your misconception. But that is going to take a lot longer than you think. (Trust me, I know.) You need to be extremely deliberate about clearing up any ambiguity then, and only then, you need to rethink your argument.
You keep speaking of this “ambiguity” … There is no ambiguity here. Temperature has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Temperature is an arbitrary measurement and has nothing to do with the exchange of energy nor the heat as the result of that energy. This is simply “energy” and “heat” .. period.
That you believe temperature has nothing to do with it is the problem. The laws of thermodynamics were developed to explain (interpret) the data — and that data was, you guessed it, temperature measurements.
You slayers have conflated the concept of flux with the concept of relative temperature measurement. In casual parlance these two different concepts can be referred to as “heat, heating, an/or heated.” This is the source of the ambiguity. Only if you stop using the ambiguous words, (“heat, heating, and/or heated”) and you employ more scientifically concise terminology (such as “flux” or “temperature measurement”) is there any chance for you to overcome this misconception.
Like I said, it’s going to take you a long time to get over this. The problem is deeper than you realize. Ambiguity is what created the misconception. But ambiguity is not itself the misconception. The misconception involves a false belief about the nature of flux that you formed when you were under the spell of the ambiguous terminology. Flux (notice I didn’t use the ambiguous word heat) does go in all directions (up, back, down, sideways, etc.). A relative increase in temperature (notice, once again, I didn’t use the ambiguous words heat or warmth) only takes place in the cooler object (as an implication of its proximity to the hotter object). And a relative decrease in the rate of cooling does take place in the hotter object (as an implication of its proximity to the cooler object). The hot to cold only stipulation of the LoTs is in reference to the measurable change in temperature in the two objects. That’s it. The LoTs do not say that the flux only goes one way. They say that the relative increase in temperature only goes one way.
IOW, as a result of the ambiguous terminology you formed a false belief that flux only travels from hot to cold. But avoiding the ambiguous terminology is not going to kill the belief. Beliefs do not die easy. It’s going to take time.
The semantics of science are my expertise. Many people carry some form of scientific misconception that has its origins in semantics. (It’s especially common in evolutionary theory, for example. And climastrology. And, to a lesser degree, in meteorology.) Once these beliefs are formed they are almost impossible to refute. The intellectual mechanism that is involved is the same intellectual mechanism that underlies the human tendency to form strong religious beliefs.
Additionally, once beliefs are formed people tend to collectivize with those to whom with which they share the same beliefs and the same semantics. The internet has exacerbated the problem by making it really easy for people of similar scientific beliefs and similar semantic assumptions to find each other, allowing them to reinforce each other’s misconceptions and providing them moral support for stubbornly adhering to their semantic assumptions. (Sound familiar?)