exchemist

1 hour ago, Genady said:

If this is the case, then the comparison to light is simply wrong, because one does not need a high velocity to escape a Newtonian BH. One could just crawl out of it.

What do you mean by crawl out? Do you mean a powered spacecraft or something?

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

When the science behind the reasons is not clear esp in a form that can also be clearly understood by a layman it creates a room for ambiguous terms and phrases to be used.
If you have the science behind it you would really know why it doesn't escape...which on itself will really lead you to something wonderful,that is,what escape from the Blackhole..... simplicity and consistency in scientific explanations leads to reduction in ambiguities....sometime when you try to bring clarity you end up with a pet theory.

 

Not sure I follow this. Are you saying people who can’t think straight may end up with pet theories? There does seem to be evidence for that, certainly. But that’s not what this thread is about.

5 hours ago, disobey said:

  Not that logic is hell.  But I have found that the average political forum views logical thought as hell.  And will ban you for using it.  For example, let's take a logical look at the topic of "racism."  If racism is wrong, what is wrong about it should be easy enough to point out.  So that if anybody came along and said something racist, what is wrong with that point of view could be pointed out.  Therefore settling the matter.  But the vast majority of forums won't let you say racist things.  The only logical conclusion as to why is because there is nothing wrong about such statements to be pointed out.  So if it isn't wrong, that must mean it is good.

  While I'm here, I may as well bring up another topic.  The holocaust.  If the holocaust happened, it should be easy enough to prove that it happened.  So if anybody said things to deny that the holocaust happened, it should be easy enough to prove that it did in fact happen.  But most forums won't let you deny the holocaust.  The logical conclusion as to why is because it in fact didn't happen.  Otherwise they would let you deny it and be proven wrong.  On that last note, I will show you something said by Roseanne Barr.  Who is Jewish.  What a moderator told me at another forum was that what she said was taken out of context.  (Before he banned me)  But look at how she says what she says.  She was being serious.  As if that wasn't enough, I watched enough of the interview to know that what she said wasn't taken out of context.  Also, the way she described how most businesses operate was spot on.  That aside, here is the clip.  Strangely enough, this can no longer is shown directly in the internet.  What is shown is a lot of damage control and plain BS on the matter.

 

 

 

 

Your logic is flawed. Another possibility is that forums don’t wish to waste time pointing out what is wrong with racist or holocaust-denying statements. We are not under any moral obligation to pay attention to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner. If we did, forums would be cluttered with tedious junk, of no interest to members. We’ve got better things to do than point out why offensive statements and badly argued positions  are so.

If you’ve been banned a lot it will be because you are an annoying bore, and/or the forums in question don’t want to be associated with your ideas.

Why not try Truth Social or something? There are plenty of outlets for unpleasant cranks these days.

5 hours ago, disobey said:

 

  Somebody else being wrong.  How interesting.  If it isn't philosophy, what is it.  Obviously William Casey must have has some "philosophical" reasoning for saying what he did.  The question is, and you can consider it a philosophical question, do you agree with what he said or not.

How can we agree or disagree with an out of context statement, relating to an unknown subject, from over 40 years ago?

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I try to have some variety, too.  Reuters, Guardian, LA Times, Washington Post, AP News, Daily Kos, Vice News (for its "underreported stories" emphasis), Politico, National Review (has retained a few conservatives with the capacity for independent thought), BBC,  National Public Radio (US), and The Atlantic.  

And of course Journal of Toenail Fungus for its guest editorials by deposed dictators, unique perspectives I can find nowhere else.

Oh I go to the National Lubricating Grease Institute Spokesman for that: https://www.nlgi.org/nlgi-spokesman/

56 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Mine are: Aljazeera, BBC, Reuters, The Intercept, Kyiv Post, Institute for the Study of War, Moscow Times, UK Defence Journal, Associated Press and Politico. I like to try and get varied perspectives as seen from different countries on similar subjects that interest me. I have noted that AP and ISoW are cited by the others listed quite a lot.

 

Financial Times, BBC, Guardian, Reuters, mainly. I also check Independent, Brexograph (headlines only, to see what the Swivel-Eyes are thinking, or being told to think ) and the Spectator and New Statesman for commentary.  And others from time to time on specific topics, e.g. Forbes, Business Insider, New Scientist, Nature publications etc. 

2 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

You get nothing more than an average Russian, a house and a car,

you only get a big mouth.

You can have a look at those homeless people in America,

those American make $12,000 per year, their living standard is lower than those South Americans who make $1/day.  Your GDP is a fake number.

 

I think you are the big mouth, not others.

1) The West laughs Russia lost a war to Japan, you must forget  the battle of Singapore, and the battle of Hong Kong, Two biggest jokes in history.

 

2) Muscovy was not ruled by Mongols. Please google the map of the Mongol Empire.

But Spain was ruled by Moors for 750 years.

And Europe was invaded by Mongol long ago, Huns came form Mongolia.

Later when Mongols arrived the Danube, the European Army ran away.

 

 

 

Your inferiority complex is showing. I remember similar stuff from the USSR when I was a child. They were taught that Russians had invented just about every modern appliance. Their government felt the need to boost national pride by changing history. In your case, you seem preoccupied with some kind of competition that a nation "wins" or "loses". That may be how China, or Malaysia, say, is being taught to see itself, because of an uneasy awareness that it has spent the last 30 years "catching up".  But don't try to change history. Nobody "laughs" at Russia because of the war with Japan. You are imagining that. Spain - in the form of Al Andalus - was mostly under Moorish rule from about 700 to 1250, 550 years, not 750.  But why pick on that? All manner of parts of Europe and the Middle East were ruled from elsewhere for considerable periods. That's what happens in history. Nobody but you thinks in terms of "Europe" or "The West" versus everyone else. It's simplistic, childish and divisive.  

41 minutes ago, Genady said:

Variations of this phrase in description of black holes are endlessly repeated:

(Black hole - Wikipedia)

(Black hole | Definition, Formation, Types, Pictures, & Facts | Britannica)

(What Is a Black Hole? | NASA)

Etc.

My question is, why they use the phrase "even light" as some kind of extreme, as if light is expected to escape from everything and everywhere? What is it about light that if IT cannot escape then NOTHING can? (I am not asking about the physics of it, but about the use of this phrase in the layman descriptions.)

Do they mean light is made of bosons, so even rather than odd? 😄

Actually I presume it is because they have just described the strong gravitation of black holes, so readers may be thinking that bodies with mass can't escape, rather than massless photons. 

9 minutes ago, Fermer05 said:

Причиной землетрясений является взрыв водяных газов.
Сообщество российских ученых. https://vk.com/rosuch
В геологически активных зонах земли располагаются глубинные разломы земной коры, в которые скапливается вода. http://www.crust.irk.ru/spp2/pages/maps.htm
Под действием давления, температуры и времени происходит процесс дегазации воды. https://clck.ru/34zziH https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_oxygen
В разломах размером с Байкал легкие газы скапливаются вверху разломов, а тяжелые внизу. https://clck.ru/34yQpG
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Озеро_Байкал
И как только соотношение газа и кислорода в одной из частей вертикальных разломов приближается - 1:10, происходит взрыв и волны от очага землетрясения разлетаются в разные стороны. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Каньон
После взрыва от очага землетрясения расходятся разломы, в которые устремляется горючая смесь. Землетрясение начинается с форшока, с небольшого взрыва, из-за которого газ и кислород смешиваются. Форшоки также являются катализатором и предвестником крупных сейсмических событий. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreshock
При разломах взрывается не вся горючая смесь, а только та часть, которая достигла нужной пропорции.
Продолжительность землетрясений и количество подземных взрывов зависят от количества горючей смеси в эпицентральной области.
Воспламенение горючей смеси происходит в результате сжатия горючей смеси, контакта магмы с горючей смесью или от электрического разряда.
Температура самовоспламенения газов около 500°С. https://www.ngpedia.ru/id659214p1.html
Представленную гипотезу легко проверить, взорвав петарду подо льдом. https://youtu.be/zFdF6-qaPSA https://youtu.be/UDLobrro2Ao https://youtu.be/U7pNie2403A
1. В образовавшихся разломах происходит разрежение, из-за чего разломы подсасывают воздух и затем закрываются .
2. После сейсмических событий разломы заполняются магмой, за счет чего формируется один из типов складчатых гор.
3. Стенки разломов имеют высоту более километра и ширину несколько десятков километров. и протяженностью в несколько сотен километров, из-за воздействия давления и температуры они становятся прочнее. https://clck.ru/34pyLR
4. Возможно, некоторые вертикальные разломы связаны между собой.
5. Возможно, тектонические озера, каньоны и реки образовались из вертикальных разломов. https://bigenc.ru/c/tektonicheskie-oziora-f68d86
6. Я считаю, что минералы образуются в вертикальных и горизонтальных разломах под воздействием температуры, давления и времени.
7. В недрах земли могут образовываться и другие горючие смеси.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
8. Между магмой и земной корой на обратной стороне земной коры могут образовываться овраги, в которых скапливаются магматические газы в результате дегазации магмы. https://www.ngpedia.ru/id659214p1.html
И как только соотношение газов приближается - 1:10, происходит взрыв и волны от источника взрыва разлетаются в разные стороны. После взрыва от очага сейсмических событий расходятся разломы, в которые устремляется горючая смесь.

Амплитуда сейсмической волны может быть определена по следующей формуле: A = м/ч.
Где m – масса горючей смеси.
h - толщина горючей смеси.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave
В эпицентральной области происходят преимущественно вертикальные колебания земной коры с амплитудой более метра, а волны с амплитудой около метра расходятся от эпицентральная область.
1. Перед землетрясением часть животных покидает зону активного разлома. Думаю, животных тревожит запах газа, выходящего из трещин. https://clck.ru/34raLX
2. Газосодержание над эпицентральной областью можно определить с помощью газовой ловушки с лакмусовой бумажкой. Лакмусовую бумажку можно размещать в подвалах, которые находятся на линии разлома. https://m.fishki.net/3822287-kak-zhivotn …
3. Концентрацию газов в разломах можно определить с помощью скважин.
4. Землетрясение можно вызвать искусственно, пробурив скважину в свежих разломах. https://clck.ru/34pyLR
5. В отдельных сегментах разлома происходят локальные взрывы, форшоки и афтершоки, которые повышают давление и температуру в разломах, вызывая грохот, сотрясение и вспучивание земной коры.
6. Возможно, причиной аномальных явлений в атмосфере при сейсмических событиях является выброс в атмосферу горючей смеси.
7. Китайские ученые начали бурение скважины глубиной 10 000 метров. https://clck.ru/34zvXo

Образование планет сопровождается образованием трещин.
Одной из трещин является Срединно-Атлантический хребет, который находится в Атлантическом океане и расходится со скоростью от 0 до 3 мм в год.
Причиной расхождения хребта являются извержения вулканов и землетрясения, происходящие в стыке трещины, в результате чего размеры хребта увеличиваются как в ширину, так и в высоту.
В хребтах вследствие сейсмических событий образуются вертикальные и горизонтальные разломы, из-за которых трещина расширяется на миллиметры, гребень на сантиметры и эпицентральная область на метры. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading
Газы движутся по разломам, которые тянутся от горных систем к морям и океанам, в результате чего образуются морские землетрясения, и в результате горные системы атакуют океан.
Горные системы образовались сотни миллионов лет назад, уже после образования земной коры, когда земная кора под горными системами была значительно тоньше.
Чем выше росли горные системы, тем больше они провисали. Сдвиги, изгибы, провалы горных систем являются следствием неравномерного роста и проседания горных систем.
По трещинам образуются три типа гор:
а) Горизонтально-складчатые горы, образовавшиеся вследствие многочисленных извержений лавы на поверхность Земли.
б) Вертикальные складчатые горы образуются после сейсмических событий, когда вертикальные разломы заполняются магмой.
в) Глыбовые горы образуются при обрушении и разрастании складчатых гор за счет взрывов в вертикальных и горизонтальных разломах.
https://shkola.obozrevatel.com/news/goryi-kakie-est-vidyi-i-kak-oni-obrazuyutsya.htm
Из-за разломов уменьшается плотность и, как следствие, увеличивается плавучесть земной коры.
а) Высота континента над уровнем магмы зависит от плотности континентальной коры.
б) Чем больше разломов и пустот в горных системах, тем выше горные системы. https://habr.com/ru/post/369749/ Землетрясения и извержения вулканов -
явления природы, роль которых - усиление трещин в земной коре. А горные системы — это заплатки на трещинах планет.
Ежегодно на континентах регистрируется более миллиона землетрясений, благодаря которым увеличивается прочность и плавучесть земной коры.

Продолжение: Академгородок Форум Новосибирск. Наука. https://forum.academ.club/index.php?showtopic=1235578
Форумы Нижегородского государственного университета. Н. И. Лобачевский. http://forum.unn.ru/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10331
Моя страница ВКонтакте https://vk.com/id383138048

This is wrong, mad and in Cyrillic. 

1 hour ago, Dario44 said:

Name this compounds by IUPAC nomenclature system 

No. Do your own homework, you lazy git.😁 

1 hour ago, Externet said:

What flaws do you perceive ?

---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cozCZAhsE0

 

If you want us to watch a video, please at least summarise what it says, how long it is, and what your point is in asking us to do so. 

On 7/26/2023 at 8:19 PM, Scienc said:

I have a question about the value obtained by Rate Law. For example, in this case:

the value of rate obtained by this equation is the global rate of reaction, right, and not the rate of a specific specie, I know that using this global rate I can find the species rate, multiplying for his stoichiometric numbers.

Is my assumption correct? Because if the answer is YES, this question no make sense for me.

I was trying to solve this question:

I created this graph (Title is in Portuguese):

I used "1/[HI] x t," which indicates a second-order reaction with a rate law equal V = k[HI]^2, so, the slope of the graph is numeric equal for k, AND, if my previous assumption is correct, the value obtained for V is the global rate reaction, as a consequence, the constant (k) 0.0078 (L.mol-1s-1) represent the unique rate law and not of specific reactant (HI).

However, the gab, says that 0.0078 represents the rate constant (K) for the HI

For me, it makes no sense, because, if it is correct, the value of V obtained by rate laws is the rate of HI and not for the global reaction since k refers to him and not for the global reaction.

I may be out of date when it comes to modern terminology, but I don't understand what you mean by "global" rate of reaction, nor do I understand what is meant by a "unique" rate law.

A reaction rate can be expressed in terms of the rate of consumption of any of the reactants, or the rate of generation of any of the products, surely? No one of these is more fundamental or "global" than another, so far as I can see.  

Where do you get this rate expression for ozone decomposition from? It looks a bit strange, especially the inverse dependence on O2 concentration.  

4 hours ago, r2krc said:

 Hierarchical Structure of the Cosmos: Black Holes as Portals to Subquantum Dimensions

Abstract:
This piece delves into a theory proposing that our universe experiences cycles of growth, galaxy development, and eventual contraction via black holes. This process births subquantum universes. These interconnected universes, often labeled as "parallel," are nested within one another. Each primary universe can spawn numerous smaller, slower-paced sub-universes.

Introduction:
Throughout epochs, humanity has been captivated by the vastness of the universe and its countless galaxies. Observations of these celestial bodies reveal patterns, suggesting a repetitive and profound cosmic evolution.

Galactic Evolution and Black Holes' Role:
As the universe undergoes expansion, galaxies emerge and gradually distance themselves from each other. At the core of many galaxies is a formidable black hole, which devours surrounding matter and energy. Over epochs, these galaxies, becoming increasingly isolated, are consumed by their central black holes. Within these gravitational voids, matter disintegrates into basic particles, experiencing significant compression. Black holes have the capacity to stretch both space and time, propelling these particles into an expanded subquantum domain.

Black Holes' Dual Explosive Nature:
Black holes, despite their voracious tendencies, have boundaries. Upon reaching a saturation point in their internal expansion, they experience a dual explosion. One diminishes the black hole, while the other resembles the Big Bang, occurring in a subquantum dimension.

Emergence of the Subquantum Universe:
The explosion within the black hole initiates the formation of a new subquantum universe. This nascent universe, although more compact, mirrors its predecessor's evolutionary path, adapting and transforming over epochs. The cyclical nature of the universe, evident in diverse natural phenomena, is reiterated in this sequence. Black holes signify both the termination of one universe and the inception of another.

The Cosmic Web of Interconnection:
These subquantum universes, while termed "parallel," are not standalone entities. They are embedded within their parent universe, residing in an expanded dimension, thus creating a multi-layered cosmic structure. Each universe's unique temporal rhythm gives rise to multiple sub-universes. This cyclical phenomenon suggests that our universe might have evolved from a prior one.

Echoes from the Ancestral Universe:
Given the interconnected fabric of these universes, remnants from an ancestral universe might persist within its descendants. By meticulously examining spacetime and ancient cosmic markers, we might discern traces linking us to a universe predating ours.

Conclusion:
The behavior of the universe, particularly when viewed through the dynamics of galaxy evolution and black holes, unveils the potential existence of a multi-layered, interconnected cosmos. This theory, while still in the realm of speculation, beckons further exploration and challenges our conventional understanding of time, space, and reality.

While I personally lack the means to validate these theories, there are several methods to potentially confirm them:

1-Determining the Existence of a Parental Universe: To ascertain if our universe originated from a preceding one, we should investigate ancient cosmic signatures. By identifying traces older than those from our Big Bang and comparing their magnitude to our universe's cosmic markers, we can draw conclusions. A significant disparity in size might indicate our universe's birth from a larger predecessor.

2- Understanding Black Holes and Subspace Universes: To discern whether black holes give rise to internal subspace universes, it's essential to study a black hole throughout its lifecycle. By quantifying the matter it absorbs and its energy equivalence, and then contrasting this with the energy it emits upon its demise, we can make inferences. If a black hole expels less energy than it ingests, it suggests the presence of an unobservable subspace where the surplus energy might reside.

I wonder if this theory is possible. I couldn't find any proof that goes against it. I'm curious what you thinking about this theory of mine ?

Most of this fails to make any testable prediction and is therefore not part of a scientific theory, but just metaphysical speculation. The one thing you do say which seems to be testable is that stuff about black holes exploding. Is there any evidence for this?  

9 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

Well, excluding marketing costs, related taxes, supply and demand, considering only the necessary ingredients and processes involved, is the cost of producing beer (not other expensive wine) usually (a lot) higher than non-alcohlic drinks?

Getting at actual production costs is very hard, for commercial reasons, unless one is actually in the business. Data I’ve seen on line for brewing suggests ingredients plus production, excluding packaging, is only 30% of total costs, with another 30% or so being due to packaging. The rest will be distribution, sales and marketing, tax etc. For soft drinks, I imagine these non-production costs would be similar with the obvious exception of tax.
 

 As for the production process itself, my guess is beer production is more complex, with more steps in it, than soft drink production, since it involves malting and fermentation, which are fairly subtle biochemical processes, whereas soft drink production is just a matter of blending. Also it takes longer, which increases working capital.  I would not like to put numbers to the difference. 
 

But you can see from this that even if production costs were twice as high for beer as for soft drinks, that would only make total cost about 15% higher. Tax will be the other big difference. 
 

Actually there may be 3rd element in some cases. Glass bottles are a hell of lot heavier than PET packaging. This may have a big effect on distribution costs.

36 minutes ago, kenny1999 said:

Generally speaking, is the cost of producing beer (which include cost of ingredients and necessary manufacturing process, excluding marketing costs.) higher than most of other non-alcoholic drinks? In my country, price per ml for beer is usually a lot higher than most of other drinks e.g. coke or other sugary drinks. 

In addition to @Sensei's point about excise duty on alcoholic beverages there is also the need to avoid confusing cost with price. Price is set by supply and demand for the goods in question. The connection to cost can be fairly indirect. 

1 hour ago, PeterBushMan said:

The West  just cant not win, it lost all wars and all trade wars, and will lose all tech wars.

1) in WWII, Russia killed 5 million Nazi soldiers and took 4.5 Nazi soldiers as POWs. --- East Front, WW2, wiki.

France last 6 weeks and lost 2.2 million soldiers.

2) In WWII, Russia defeated 600,000 Japanese soldiers in Manchuria and lost 10,000 soldiers.

The battle of Singapore, The battle of Hong Kong, The battle of Philippines,

the battle of Indonesia are jokes.

 

3) The West lost all trade wars,  if you talk about the really GDP - buying power, China is No 1, India will be No 2 in 2050, Indonesia will be one of the top 5, Japan is No 3 now on paper. No European country will be in the top 5.

if BRICS drop the USD, the USA will be world 4th largest economy

 

The entire West cant crash Russia's economy.

 

4) Just watch the videos of those Chinese cities, have a look at their train stations, shopping centers, the USA looks like a third country.

 

 

 

Not to mention their prison camps and surveillance cameras...............

48 minutes ago, AnimaAeterna said:

Well you make a valid point. If we assume everyone is equally greedy, then what we're trying to solve is human greed in general. But regardless if greed is more common with those in power or not, It's still a big thorn in our shoe. It could be indeed that the opportunities to satisfy greed are greater for those in power, but it could also be that greed finds success in the system and bears an advantage to acquire power. In fact it might be a complex combination of these and much more. Figuring that out is one of the first steps to solve the problem I think.

Your second paragraph really put things in perspective though. I mean, most certainly there are good politicians. Could the problem lie with those in power who have a large influence in politics?

 

Well, It's not like there's nothing we can do. We could have moaned about a wide range of things we've managed to solve or improve over the years. We can extend the estimated span of existence for humanity. We are indeed, to a great extent, what we are born with. But we are also what we are exposed to. And we are also what we choose to be. It's a combination of these, at different levels. We can adapt, and in fact that is probably the most important feature of our species.

It seems to me the way to control the effects of greed in political life is laws, standards and codes of conduct against corrupt practices, transparency, and a vigorous, free and serious press. (The role of law is vital, which is why recent events in Israel are so troubling.) 

28 minutes ago, AnimaAeterna said:

It seems those in power tend to be greedy and not very inclined toward science. I often wonder if this is simply human nature. It seems that in order to attain a position of power you require certain inclinations and mindsets that tend to include a certain level of greed, among other things. 

I suspect It's far more complicated. Positions of power often involve stepping on eggshells and trying to please several parties (or at least not offending some parties). But I also feel a lot of it is related to greed and lack of empathy for other people. 

If this trend continues, and corruption along with it, where are we heading? How can we solve this problem? I feel like this topic would easily unravel into several subtopics but still I could discuss this for days. There's so much I'd like to understand about why things are this way, and what we can do about it.

It feels like, in our pursuit of knowledge and mastering nature, human nature is one of the things we understand and can adapt to the least. 

What makes you think those in power are any greedier than other people? Do you have evidence for that? Could it not simply be that, when one is in power, the opportunities to satisfy greed are greater?  

After all, many people enter politics to make the world a better place, as they see it. Most able people, if they are motivated simply by greed, can get greater rewards in other professions.

6 hours ago, HawkII said:

We use the Tide somehow.

Each H2,O gets more Gravitons given to them by the Moon temporarily

I require assistance

There is no evidence so far that gravitons even exist. They are just a conjecture at this stage, suffering from problems with the mathematics. From what I understand, detecting gravitons  - if the maths is ever sorted out - is expected to be a practical impossibility, requiring enormous, planetary or stellar masses. To date, gravitons are not part of any physical theory, since we have no theory of quantum gravity. The whole idea may turn out to be misguided.
 

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Maybe some esoteric type of event in geoscience or astrophysics?  Asteroid impact or something impacting a point on a planet or sun?  

It looks to me as if Rayleigh waves, as observed in earthquakes, seem to be of this type: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_wave 

4 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

 

 Experiments need to be conducted to test and find out exactly what happens. Perhaps the phenomenon is very brief on the time scale, like the appearance of quantum vacuum fluctuations.

Here, for example, in physics, when energy is negative. Do you know that in quantum solutions, when they had negative energy, it was a sign that antiparticles existed?

https://fr.lambdageeks.com/when-energy-can-be-negative/

And here, there is a way to make the energy of an object negative.

https://fr.lambdageeks.com/can-energy-be-negative/

But surely in the gravitational case it is only -ve relative to infinite separation of the bodies concerned, which we arbitrarily set to "zero" by convention. 

Could it be a Rayleigh wave? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_wave

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

I remember Susskind mentioning that Feynman "certainly was a showman".

He was clearly that. But then so are many of the best educators. Often, however, these are not the best researchers. Feynman seems to have managed to combine both. But there was obviously quite a big ego at work.

1 hour ago, Z.10.46 said:

Yes, I agree with you regarding the Casimir effect. However, the question here is why we retained infinity to assume that no object with mass can exceed the speed of light, even though when attempting to regularize this infinity using the zeta function, we obtain a finite value for the expression of the relative mass M(v)=m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which equals -M(c) and can explain the expansion of the universe, for example..

But can't we reach the same conclusion about c being a speed limit just by considering limits? I'm no mathematician, but I understood the point about limits is you can see where a function is going without resorting to infinities. 

9 hours ago, juvilty said:

I already looked at that, but only appears other scientist named "James C. Clemens", after this I searched about him ad discovered that he only had writted two papers, the one I already talked about and another small text called "Effects of 1,1,3-tricyan-2-amino-1-propene on the Collagen Content of Connective Tissue and Wound Healing". He had his papers published by the University of Pennsylvania.  

Plenty of people publish papers who are not "renowned". He could have been a PhD student or something, or he could have simply left academia to do something other than research.  Does it matter?