exchemist

Latin phrases from centuries ago are not a definitive guide to modern science. It seems there may have been such a time. Before matter coalesced, one would presumably have had a sea of quantum mechanical entities, none of which can be said to be in “motion”, in the classical sense of following defined paths, because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

Why do you suddenly bring politicians into this discussion? These graphs are the result of scientific research.

If it has been stable from 1000 to the start of the industrial revolution why do you think it would be radically different 1000 yrs before that?

Here's a graph covering the last 1000yrs: From: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GB004247

Interesting. Maybe it is this Rayleigh-Taylor fluid dynamic modelling that is the really new contribution, then, i.e. the mechanism that drives the progressive delamination that others had already proposed. As you imagine, a chemist finds this misuse particularly ridiculous. By the way, re hydrogen, I understand hydrogen is predicted to have a metallic structure when compressed sufficiently. However I don't think anyone has succeeded in forcing it into a metallic state so far, though there was I think a (strongly disputed) claim to have done so a year or two ago.

Like astronomers' perversion of the term "metals", you mean? 😁

OK but presumably that is "parasitic" induction in the wire, from the alternating magnetic field around the transmission line. This is about running a generator as a motor, and also in some way involving a non-zero Earth voltage, allegedly. The only way I can envisage that is via a large enough earth current for the grounds's natural resistance to cause a potential difference along the ground. (From what I read, livestock can be electrocuted this way, due to PD between back and front legs! So bit of an own goal for any farmer who tries it).

(La) masse does in fact appear in my Cassell French/English dictionary as having an additional electrical meaning of ground. Does this rely on using the earth to complete the circuit so that the return bypasses the meter, or something?

Bon, d'accord. I did not know "masse" means ground, or earth, in French electrical terminology. Next time I'm at the house in France I'll try to remember that, in case we have any electrical problems.🙂 It makes sense that if 2 generators are connected in parallel and one is generating a lower voltage than the other, then it will run as a motor until the 2 voltages match. But it will do so by taking energy from the higher voltage generator, not from the ground. The ground is not a reservoir of energy. When you speak of the the "voltages" of the 2 generators, you are implicitly stating their voltage relative to a ground voltage of zero. The ground is zero by definition. You have not drawn a circuit diagram, so it is a bit unclear what is earthed or grounded in your scenario and why anyone might (misguidedly) think energy can be extracted from the ground. But the notion of energy companies "hiding" some "principle" does not make sense. It's a mature technology and there are plenty of electrical engineers who don't work for energy companies, so it's a bit ridiculous to imagine there is some secret principle that they would not know about. Could this story be part of some scam that the writer is trying to sell to people?

This ignores the whole, well-established phenomenon of the greenhouse effect, whereby certain molecules in the atmosphere (chiefly water, CO2 and methane) absorb, and re-emit in random directions, the IR radiation that is continually being re-radiated up from the ground and oceans warmed by the sun. This creates a longer path length for IR radiation to escape from the Earth into space, delaying its escape and causing the net amount of heat retained by the earth's surface and atmosphere to increase. I'm sure you are right that the energy in light captured by photosynthesis will not be available to be re-radiated as IR radiation, but this is not the main issue. Changes in vegetation cover are important, certainly, but that is because photosynthesis absorbs CO2, rather than because it reduces the re-radiation of IR.

Well that is obviously a ballocks conspiracy theory. But what on earth are you talking about when you say “mass”? Mass of what?

Yes occasionally I play it for laughs. Sometimes I put on a fake Indian accent (which I can do from my time in Dubai) and start arguing with them in the Indian style. Sometimes I ask the if they really enjoy a job in which they have to lie all day long. But it doesn't do to be abusive, since they can retaliate by ringing up in the middle of the night. My late father was the last person to call me on the land line so when the land line goes I'm almost sure it will be a scammer.

Yes, my plan is to say "Just to start by checking we are talking about the right computer, what's the IP address of the one with the fault that you are referring to?" Probable answer: "Click....dzzzzzzzzz........." But if they come back with a series of numbers it won't bear any relation to the real ones - I hope!

Suggest you read the link I provided about the age of the universe. Extrapolating from the Big Bang hypothesis, one suggestion is an initial singularity, meaning that the whole of spacetime expanded from an original, infinitely small, 4D dot. So there would have been no "before", since time itself would have started at that point. But it's conjecture, since one can't apply the laws of physics to such a condition. But of course you're right that we don't know - it's conjecture. What we can say, though, based on observational evidence, is that the the cosmos seems to have expanded from a small, dense state about 13.8bn years ago. Such a small, dense state implies there was, for whatever reason, a low entropy condition 13.8bn years ago. So that is sufficient, by itself, to account for the universe not having run down to thermodynamic heat death today.

Sorry ignore last query, I've found Alt key + clicking on Wifi icon reveals it. So now I am armed with the "innocent" questions to ask any telephone scammer claiming there is a fault/malware on my computer or router, heh, heh. 😁

Thanks, that seems clear enough. I have found the internal and public addresses of the laptop. For completeness, do you know how I can get the IP address of the router?

The induction is due to the magnet, right? So the magnet will lose energy. If the fluid is frictionless, the vortex can continue, since the slowing down of the magnet will not slow down the rotation of the fluid.

What? There has not been a literal passing of infinite time, according to the dominant cosmological model. The universe is thought to be ~14bn years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

I had always thought "German Physics" was specifically antisemitic and that's why it was anti-relativity - and suspicious of QM. Wasn't Heisenberg labelled a "white Jew" at one stage, because of QM?

The Szilard letter, warning Roosevelt not about fission but specifically of the danger of Nazi Germany getting an atom bomb, was written by Leo Szilard, in collaboration with Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner. Szilard persuaded Einstein to sign it, correctly believing that would carry more weight with Roosevelt and those advising him. Far from warning of the dangers of nuclear fission, the letter insisted it was vital the USA should start its own bomb programme. This became the Manhattan Project, which took over from the already existing but underfunded British Tube Alloys programme. Einstein ran from the Nazis because he was Jewish, as did so many eminent other physicists in continental Europe. Hitler stupidly created a massive brain drain of scientific talent. So that was simply rational self-preservation on Einstein's part. I'm not sure where you get this about him uniting people. How do you think he did that?

But the universe is a closed system, surely? After all, there is nothing "outside" it. So while Schrödinger's remarks make perfect sense, they don't tell you anything about the universe as a whole. The argument you cite about gravity looks wrong to me. No gravitational process reduces net entropy, so far as I can see. I wonder if the author of the Noema article has confused entropy with simple "disorder" in distributions of matter. Entropy is "disorder" of a specific kind, namely disorder in the way energy is distributed. Gravitational attraction may pull things together, but this converts potential energy to kinetic, which ultimately is converted to heat, which dissipates, increasing the disorder in the energy involved. I have never heard of gravity being described as anti-entropic. Do you have a source for that?

If you read your Wiki link, you will see why this c.19th “paradox” does not trouble modern cosmology. According to the current model, the universe is not infinitely old, and so it has not had time to “run down” to thermodynamic “heat death”. So the laws of thermodynamics are fine.

Because the induction will act as a brake on the rotating magnet. Just like regenerative braking on a locomotive or an electric vehicle. The bulb radiates electromagnetic energy, which comes from the kinetic energy of rotation of the magnet. So it will slow down and stop.

I think this is a bit naïve. You seem to be thinking that because Einstein's life, actions and writings were (mostly*) thoughtful and honourable, he displays Christian values. But we see around us every day evidence that many people who consider themselves good Christians support all manner of unworthy causes and actions. One example that springs to mind is the US Evangelical support for Trump, who is quite obviously a thoroughly evil man. So I can't see that the correlation between personal goodness and Christian belief is particularly strong, as rule. *Einstein had affairs while married.

I see the WHO has been at pains to point out this is not another Covid. The disease seems to be contagious, so won’t be passed without physical contact.