Define "patriarchal" or "matriarchal". In traditional terms: patriarchal = higher fertility rates. Matriarchal - higher participation of woman in economy = higher productivity (for the same amount of population). Therefore matriarchal is more successful when high fertility strategy goes into a dead end or when low fertility rates problem is solved.

1 hour ago, koti said:

There is a limit of the amount of shades of a color you can distinguish between. It varies quite heavilly between individuals, circumstances and technologies but its certainly not true that you can divide the visible spectrum indefinitely and distinguish between the resulting colors. Though there is an infinite amount of colors located within the visible spectrum just like there is an infinite amount of numbers within the limit between the number 1 and number 2. It doesn’t matter if you’re seeing the colors in real life or you hallucinate, color perception happens in the brain anyway in any case. 

I'm talking not about shades of colors, but about true colors. Shades exist within some finite spectrum. But humans cannot see ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays, for example. If we do then it would add to some principally new colors we never seen before and therefore cannot even imagine. But since EM spectrum is infinite (possibly), then we can potentially perceive an infinite amount of true colors, not only shades between them.

According to modern physics electromagnetic spectrum is infinite. There is no limit to energies photons can have and therefore no limit to frequencies EM waves can have. Does at mean that in theory humans can see an infinite number of completely different colors? And if yes, what kind of brain do we need to have to have ability to see an infinite numbers of colors? Especially, if we assume that people may hallucinate and imagine this colors without actually using their eyes?

Do exist some chemical elements (for example metals) in which a few atomic orbitals would be half full and there would be no energy overlap between them? Subsequently in solid state they suppose to form a few bands such as s-band, p-band or other bands which would be a half full and there would be no overlap?

A new cathode material for Li-ion battery was predicted with an outstanding promises.

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4891868?ver=pdfcov&journalCode=jcp

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261324842_Ultrahigh_Energy_Density_Li-ion_Batteries_Based_on_Cathodes_of_1D_Metals_with_-Li-N-B-N-_Repeating_Units_in_alpha-LixBN2_1x3

It would have higher energy density than Li-air battery if predictions are correct. Could they be right?

On 3/3/2019 at 5:21 PM, arc said:

Bombing and attacking Soviet cities on the Pacific would have had little no strategic value to the Japanese strategies outlined above. They were running on the edge of a sword, so to speak, and they knew it. Inciting the Soviets would have only decreased their chances of success. 

I wish you would make some citations supporting your argument.  

 

 

I they would attack USSR together with Germans in 1941 they would finish it quite fast, probably. 

16 hours ago, arc said:

 A repeat of Khalkin-Gol  defeat could have resulted in a full advance of the Soviets into much of Japanese held territories.

Unlikely. In 1941 Soviets were so busy with repelling Germans, they wouldn't be able to send any significant forces to protect their Far East. Even contra, in Dec. 1941 they withdrew a few Siberian divisions as their last hope and the last reserve to defend Moscow. If Japanese would unleash the same strength and fury against USSR as they did it against US, all Siberia and Russian far East would be theirs just in few months. They had strong Navy and even plenty of air carriers to attack Russian cities and towns on the Pacific. Fortunately they didn't do it, of course. But really strange why not.

I think no other war in history had so many potential alternative scenarios which could have easily change the course of entire history as WWII. It includes:

1) Why Japan chose to attack US in Dec. 1941 instead attacking USSR together with Germany and Italy in Jun. 1941? Wouldn't it have a much better chances of success? And what would happen if Japan would attack USSR instead of US?

2) Why Germany proclaimed war on US in Dec. 1941 right after US proclaimed war on Japan? If Japan failed Hitler and proclaimed neutrality in war in Europe, why Hitler decided to remember an ally obligations in Dec. 1941? Wouldn't it be much clever decision for Germany to abstain from war with US? Would US proclaim war on Germany and open second front in Europe in 1944 if Germany wouldn't do it first? Especially when Japanese attacked US without any preliminary agreement with Germany about that?

3) Could Hitler won campaign in the East if he would attack USSR in different time of a year? For example during the spring of 1941 and not in summer? Could he won if he would capture Moscow? 

4) If Hitler would succeed to occupy entire continental Europe, would US be able to win by use of nuclear weapon only? And if yes, how many nuclear bombs would be needed?

5 hours ago, Strange said:

The "classic" double-slit experiment uses waves (it can be done with ripples in water, sound light, etc). You can observe the waves going through the slits without affecting the outcome.

Most commonly a version with electrons passing double slit is mentioned. I'm not sure if any quantum entanglement (or spin) is involved. Usually they don't mention this. They claim electrons start to behave like particles when observed.

It is speculated that a consciousness of an observer could affect the classic double-slit experiment outcome. Could it really be a case? Is it possible that it is just a particles (let say photons) which affect the electrons and change their behavior? How can you make an observation without using some physical mediators (like photons) and avoid their interaction with an observed particles (like electrons)?

Is it legal to bribe a potential plaintiff and provoke him/her to file a lawsuit against someone if he/she wouldn't want to do it without a bribe and persuasion? How such situations are treated in modern civilized countries?

1 hour ago, Nod2003 said:

Hmmm, sounds like producers would need  to use some lower tech Ni-cad batteries or similar to make up the difference, with resulting lower efficiency.  Either that or there would have to be fewer cars.

Isn't Cadmium even much scarcer than Lithium? And extremely toxic...

On 1/29/2019 at 9:01 AM, Nod2003 said:

when considering electric cars, I know that batteries often use rare elements.  I’m not sure how much of those are in the batteries of say a Tesla, but are there enough of those ores at reasonable price to actually replace the petroleum using vehicles?

Doubtful. The total proved reserves of Lithium are 16 mln. of tons. It would be sufficient just for 160 mln. of vehicles at 100 kg of Lithium per vehicle.

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

We are limited because of the size off  our skull.

A brain that's 10 times larger is rather heavy and then you need an elephant-like body to support it.

Possibly. Or assume it is not going ta walk at all, which is of course a worse scenario.

Is it possible to create a "superbrain" using modern or near future technology? Something that at least 10 times larger than human brain? Can we create a new race of conscious creatures in this way? Would they be thankful us for their creation? How can we make them good and morally perfect?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The physical influence is a separate effect from the collapse of the superposition. This sounds similar to the measurement effect being confused with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

How exactly? Do you want to tell that when electrons are illuminated but unobserved their behavior doesn't change?

(sorry I didn't reed the entire thread...)

But when particles (let say electrons) are observed doesn't it mean they are physically influenced? For example by photons if we use light to observe them? Can this physical influence by other particles be responsible for the change in their behavior?

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

By keeping it colder than -252.8^oC

For how many days?

On 1/14/2019 at 5:34 PM, harlock said:

Don't forget steam engines. They push nuclear ships/submarines...

The last steam coal-locomotive(around 1950, designed and devoloped by the engeneer Livio Dante Porta) was more than 20% efficient!... 

So I'd say there're several ways to replace oil cars.

-Hybrid pellet cars'd can be powered by agricultural residues: bagasse, cotton stalk, cereal straw, etc... 

-Fuel cell cars have the best efficiency and are powered by very clean carburants: bioethanol and hydrogen.

-Electric cars.

-Maybe cold nuclear fusion cars 

Do you think there is enough agricultural residuals to power all the cars in the World?

Cold fusion suppose to be safe enough to fit in modern cars. Perhaps it needs to be aneutronic like boron-hydrogen fusion. Definitely not in this century and maybe not even in this millennia.

Well, I think that even if that type of supercapacitor is going to be "leaky" and wouldn't be able to store charge for a long periods of time, it still could be useful in some particular areas. For example brake energy recuperation or DC/DC conversion.

It seems detailed patents of Goodenough on glass battery has been published. However he provides little explanations what is "low and high Fermi energies" of alkali metals are. Any suggestions?

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/john-b-goodenough

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

The electrolyte is one of the electrodes of the capacitor. Is that what you are suggesting: to use the semiconductor as one of the electrodes? What would the insulating layer be?

 

There is no need for insulating material as difference in work functions serve as an "insulator" by itself.

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't understand what you are saying. But if you have something that is conductor because of either free holes or free electrons, it will be a conductor that carries current. That current can flow from a metal wire (electrons as charge carriers) into the semiconductor (holes as charge carriers) and into another metal wire. If that were not true, then transistors would not work.

So if you try and make a capacitor by separating two pieces of metal with a material that has holes as charge carriers, then you will end up with a resistor (with very low resistance).

I meant not a dielectric capacitor, but a supercapacitor similar to those which use ionically conducting electrolyte. Instead of ions we have holes and in place of electolyte we have a P-type hole conductor.

Current will not flow into semiconductor if work function of metal is higher than that of semiconductor. Electrons always flow from lower to higher workfunction material.

I think the most difficult here is to predict how different materials will behave at nanoscales typical to ultracapacitors. Some sources claim that workfunction is often more related to contact surfaces than to the bulk material properties.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

A conductor is a conductor. It doesn't matter (much) whether the charge carriers are holes or electrons. (Holes have higher effective mass and so generally lower mobility, which means the conductance is higher ... if I remember correctly.)

That's true. But hole conductor conducts only those electrons which lay below conduction band. They will flow in opposite directions with free electrons in metals when electric field is applied.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

How can you use a conductor as the dielectric?

The nearest thing I can think of is using a (reverse-biased) diode as a capacitor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicap

1) In suppose to conduct holes but no electrons. So, when electrons are transferred from one electrode to another one, it doesn't permit them to return back.

2) It does have quite a different structure from what I described.