Bender

Piezo energy harvesters are already available: https://www.piceramic.com/en/applications/energy-harvesting/energy-harvesting/ Some piezo-electric transducers can handle pretty low frequencies and can be considered "quasi-static", but it is true that they are more suited for higher frequencies.

Except that "exactly" doesn't exist. We can approximate "exactly" close enough for a coin flipping machine to work, but quite often (not restricted to QM), even such approximation is not possible. Note that none of the uncertainty and randomness of QM violate Newton's laws. You are free to believe in a pattern.

We did experiments and determined that a lot of things don't happen at random but appear to follow certain laws (eg tossing a coin). More recent, we did experiments concerning QM and determined that the apparent collapse of the wave function, while following a probability distribution, does indeed appear to happen at random. Then we did more experiments for hidden variables and such specifically for this randomness, and still found that it appears to happen at random. That is why random is the default: not because we lack theories, but because the best theories we have, which are supported by evidence, imply randomness. Obviously you can be right about underlying mechanisms, but it is not the default, because it is not supported by the evidence.

Experiments concerning QM suggest there is. (I'm not sure where you are getting at with the "mathematically")

If that's true, he's doing a pretty poor job. We're doing better than ever in nearly every aspect of life.

Do scientists even use the word "nothing" in this context, except in an attempt to explain something to a layman?

You propose adding complexity in the form of a mechanism we know nothing about (except that it has to be sufficiently complex to defy our understanding). Occam's razor doesn't like that. If you don't like the randomness, try the manyworlds interpretation. There is no proof for that either, but it avoids the randomness completely without adding anything.

Tldr. I'll just pick out one thing: you want a fan spinning at 150 000 rpm. What material will you use? A dvd shatters above 32 000 rpm and from what I can find in your post, you want a fan (much) larger than a dvd.

At the moment, everything points to option A. Simple hidden variable theories have already been disproven. Some complex hidden mechanism could exist, but lacking any indication of such, the default assumption is that it doesn't.

I doubt it. The probability is 1 in 6000 which isn't that extraordinarily low. The machine would still have to be very accurate and expensive. No breaking of the laws of physics. A box of bouncing balls is a nice example of quantum uncertainty manifesting at macroscopic scale, since it is a very chaotic system so any small deviation or uncertainty can have large effects after only a dozen bounces.

Most definitions of consciousness are fuzzy and/or depend on other fuzzy concepts such as "self-awareness" or "self-perception". There is no reason to limit it to living things, though. If a fly is conscious, so is my laptop. In my experience, people like to think that there is something special about consciousness. As a result, they refuse to define the concept too concretely, because when they do, the "magic" is lost. I wonder where this devoutness comes from. Even reputable scientists and atheists like roger Penrose feel the need to come up with funny theories to explain why our consciousness is super special.

A webcam and tracker software. Tracker works great because it can automatically extract acceleration info. Then relate the acceleration to the force with F=ma and m the mass of the bag. It would be nice to attach some clear markers on the bag. This probably belongs in engineering.

No. Mathematics is based on axioms. Physics is based on evidence. When someone proves any paranormal ability, they receive awards of millions of dollars. Given the greedy nature of humans, and the fact that nobody has clamed the rewards, I think it is pretty unlikely that there is anything paranormal.

The problem with your cat links is that I can find a lot of hearsay, opinion ("I believe..." ), speculation and plain nonsense (chemicals are evil), but very little actual data. Perhaps it is well hidden, after all I'm just browsing on my phone atm. Are there any actual studies that show an objective relation between carbs or plant proteines and medical conditions? I have little trouble with bladder problems due to too little drinking. Luckily our cat drinks a lot (and catches lots of juicy mice).

Fair enough. How does not being able to hunt affect a cats psychology? Our cat does a great job at limiting the mouse and mole population in our garden. I don't mind. What about the bugs? I don't need to. Such abuse is illegal in my country, and several such companies where closed recently for less serious abuse. citation required (and not just a few examples) What is it specifically that a cat cannot get from food with supplements? The manufacturer certainly claims that it contains everything a cat needs to be healthy.

The vegan diet is the cause, because if the parents had just given their baby regular food, there wouldn't be a problem. Being ill-informed wouldn't have caused nutritional deficiencies if they had just given their children formula, like everybody else (if breast milk is not an option). In the case of children dying from spoiled meat, the persons responsible for the spoiled meat get the blame. Try not to mix in double standards of your own here. If people don't own cats, the alternative is not free-roaming cats; the alternative is (in general) no cats. As a result, owning a cat most certainly increases suffering of mice and birds (and moles and squirrels...). What if the vermin is not a threat to our survival? Cockroaches, ants, bed bugs... none of them kill humans. So you are ok with mutilating animals because they annoy you (affect your well-being), but not to eat them? Vegan cat food.

I haven't heard of a baby dying of an omnivore diet. Have you? (something went wrong in my link in the previous post, where you can find plenty of examples of children dying after eating spoiled meat. I fixed it now. I didn't specifically search for babies.) So what about cats, vermin and bugs? Is it ok to own a cat, tremendously increasing the suffering of mice and birds? Is it ok to commit genocide on vermin? Is it ok to mutilate bugs and leave them to die slowly?

Most stolen cars have their windows closed at the time of theft.

You are dead wrong about media not reporting meat-related child deaths. Especially for babies, who don't eat meat yet, milk/formula is just safer. It contains everything the baby needs, no supplements required. Same for older children and even adults: a vegan diet requires more thought and consideration. But my main point was that a vegan diet isn't all great and also has its weaknesses. Thank you. I don't see why that is a problem though. I would be pretty poor at having to think about supplements, so I just eat a lot of different things for a balanced diet. Cattle farmers are professionals and know what the animals need to remain healthy. Likewise, bakers add Iodine to bread, so I don't have to worry about my iodine levels. I am also still interested in your opinion about pet cat ownership, vermin extermination and bug squatting.

Citation required. Vegans aren't all good, though. There are plenty of examples of babies dying from a vegan diet. Other babies die from neglect too, but these vegan parents usually care for their children but are badly informed, partly because of questionable anti-meat propaganda. For the ill-informed, eating meat is safer and healthier. So rather than doing anything about it, you would rather wait a thousand years for the off chance that it changes in the direction you want it to change?

I completely agree with this, primary school children will has less trouble accepting the rudimentary concepts of quantum physics and relativity. Once those concepts are part of their worldview, they will have less trouble building on them when the mathematics becomes available to them.

Why would the air cool down under the car? Why would it meaningfully slow down the air flow? It just means you either have a lower air flow to ventilate your car, or you need a bigger fan and a bigger solar panel to keep the air flowing.

I'm going to need a source for this one. Air moves around between shadowy and sunny regions, and the limited data I could find on the issue suggested that only the air very close to a hot surface is actually warmer. How would that skirt work? Where would the air come from? There isn't that much air underneath a car, and even if you could suck it completely vacuum it would run out very quickly. (on top of the fact that that air isn't actually cooler.)

The sphere in my example has a radius (let's call it A). I'm just wondering what r you would use in your formula. I'm assuming here you merely misunderstood my question and you are not suggesting a rotating sphere has no angular momentum. If that assumption is wrong, please let me know. (studiot is making a different, but also very valid point about how to apply your idea to point masses) I'm still looking forward to your demonstrations of how you would actually calculate anything based on your ideas about angular momentum. Have you made any progress?

If a sphere rotates around its own axis, which r do you use in your formula? (by "your", I mean the way you seem to interpret it and the fact that you give the impression that it is the only formula related to angular momentum you know about, but here you have yet another chance to prove that impression wrong) I'm still looking forward to your demonstrations of how you would actually calculate anything based on your ideas about angular momentum. Have you made any progress?