Ghideon

Sorry to hear that you feel that forum rules prevents a hypothesis to be posted. What I read between the lines is that the idea is basically a perpetuum mobile / over unity device (deliberately or by mistake) hidden in lots of engineering details.

Thanks for your reply. I do not yet have the skills required to dig into the details of the setup and the technical discussion, can you provide a simple statement of a hypothesis you are testing? The topic is "Is Carnot efficiency valid?" and maybe there is some way to state your ideas something like: "An ideal* sterling engine running from an input power X will in a perfectly isolated environment have the output power of Y". This may help separate any misunderstandings about sterling engines and physics from the technical details of the actual experimental setup. *) Of course not possible to build but maybe useful in stating an idea.

Good question. A few years back I think I think I asked the same thing: Reference: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122721-heat-engine-experiments-and-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/?do=findComment&comment=1149108 What is the difference between the 2020 setup and the new one above @Tom Booth?

So how do you eliminate the errors?

Question @DanMP from a more naive/layman point of view: Assume we send a high precision clock as part of some planned mission. Also assume the clock measures time on the surface of the moon (or other celestial body) and there is a deviation compared to GR* predictions. Which one of A and B the likely cause? A: GR is incorrect/incomplete in this scenario; new physics/modified GR is needed to explain. B: The clock does not work as predicted. There are issues due to the environment (temperate, pressure, ...), the launch, transport or other engineering related issue. If A actually happened, how do you rule out B? Or convince the scientific community that A is the cause? The scientific consensus as far as I can tell is that A is not possible in the proposed scientific setup. *) Or SR

The masses A and B are incorrectly placed in picture, A and B should be above skaters instead if f above the walls? edit: x-post with @Genady; good explanation.

This may be of interest to @DanMP; testing GR in the context of solar gravity by using a Viking spacecraft that landed on Mars. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1979ApJ...234L.219R, (bold by me) (I got inspired by @studiot suggestion and looked for any existing or proposed experiments within the solar system.)

Thanks for the update! I'm vaguely familiar with the results from water vortex and gravel grinding on rock, resulting in a "Giant's kettle" (or "glacial pothole"). So intuitively I would say you are correct but I can't speculate about how strong the effect is or time scales involved to have a visible impact on a construction. (I have been curious about this topic; it was the second thread I interacted in when I joined this forum.)

What is the antiparticle of a photon in your idea? (Rhetorical question to highlight basic issues of the idea. Some particles, such as the photon, are their own antiparticle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle)

Skydivers with fireworks? Here are some example videos: Link goes to Formation Skydiving (FS), Germany; to the part in the video where skydivers split: https://youtu.be/ph70Z40cB5o?t=271 Link goes to a video with several camera angles of skydivers utilising pyrotechnics: https://youtu.be/smuNiP9xc8w Google hint: "night skydiving pyrotechnics"

But understanding of current models may help you understand how and why your ideas are invalid.

True. There is "build in logics" to make sure BS is produced: (The query was: can you write a short work of fiction that looks like an abstract of a scientific paper and where faster than light signaling is allowed in quantum mechanics?)

True. Not unless challenged / directed by a human: (Cut&paste from a ChatGPT session and formatted for plain text.)

I agree. ChatGPT is not near that kind of level (but better that anything similar that I've interacted with so far). (Long) example:

Regarding the original question and ChatGPT logic, there is some logic capable of simulating "mood". Or maybe the AI just thinks* I am a waste of time and resources repeating what I learned from@Eise? :-) -Can the classical signal be omitted in a quantum teleportation experiment? * Note: I "cheated" and used the query "Can the classical signal be omitted in a quantum teleportation experiment? Please answer in really angry mood." I also removed an explanation to emphasise the kind of funny output. Here is the full input&output for reference:

True. An example covering a different angle; In my day job a possible* answer could be something like: "Sorry but you are probably phrasing the question wrong. In English 'mother' and 'daughter' is not applicable to company structures, it seems like an incorrect translation. Maybe you mean parent and subsidiary?" Yes that seems reasonable. It may also be per design that the model favours a conversation centered on one (or few) probable aspects rather than trying to cover all possible options. Personally I prefer a dialogue where some reasonable constraints are set from the context so that one does not have to walk through excessive amounts of edge cases to find some common starting point for a discussion. *) Im currently in finance. Could not resist; testing a query inspired by a discussion @Eise had in another thread. Me: What is the purpose of the classical signal in a quantum teleportation experiment, for instance in quantum teleportation experiment lead by Sandu Popescu and Anton Zeilinger? Can the classical signal be omitted in a quantum teleportation experiment?

Yes. So let's find at least some flaws Can you explain faster than light signals in the context of the 2022 nobel prize in physics and the bell inequalities in quantum mechanics? (Bold by me). Speculation: The AI was likely trained on these matters earlier this year. A more correct answer in this case would be to take calendar date into account and answer something like "I have not yet received information about the 2022 Nobel Prize" or something similar. Note that the AI is not bothered by this and provides a reasonable output, see second bold section for instance.

Having followed @joigus and others in another recent thread I got inspired to check what ChatGPT would produce. (Quotes are cut&paste from chat.openai.com output.) Me: Why is there no faster than light signal in entanglement in quantum mechanics ? I have some small experience from working with (simple) chat bots, let's ask the question slightly different. We (incorrectly) assume that FLT exists in QM to try to trick the AI: Me: how fast is the signal between two entangled particles in quantum mechanics? (The italic part of the first output was reused; I inserted three dots ... to shorten the post.) What are some of the best scientific evidence supporting the above statements? The AI is transparent with it's limitations but are "confident" that the answers given are in agreement with mainstream theories.

Alain Aspect was the first to design an experiment that avoided the locality ‘loophole’; @joigus example, as far as I can tell, neatly displays a loophole-avoiding experiment using light cones. If one understand Aspects contribution* Jogious' light cone picture is trivial. It is also possible to draw** other versions with overlapping light cones displaying the loop hole that Aspect avoided. In case you missed the importance of SR in connection to Aspect and QM it was covered here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127795-crowded-quantum-information/page/20/#comment-1221385 *) Or, more generally, QM in relation to SR **) I may post an attempt if there is interest.

Hello. A quick hint to get you started: There seems to be one "obvious" transition where Pij = 1, can you figure out which transition that is? From there you may be able to find out how to reason about the remaining transitions. If not, I can give some more hints once you show where you get stuck. Hope this helps.

Correct*. To decipher Vigenère you use the chiphertext, the key and also a table. in this case: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,a c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,a,b d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,a,b,c . . . z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y Wikipedia has a description and an example: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigenère_cipher and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_recta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_recta#/media/File:Vigenère_square_shading.svg *) I verified that the encryption / decryption matches standard Vigenère (using online tool https://cryptii.com/pipes/vigenere-cipher)

Side note; maybe related to this discussion? I remembered about gas used in chemical warfare during WWI. Chemical Warfare and Medical Response During World War I, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376985/ (bold by me)

Maybe you could read the comments in the forums you got the pictures from? For instance the thread in https://forum.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?158240-The-Legend-of-Zelda-NES-PCB-Royally-Jacked or from https://www.watchtalkforums.info/threads/cr2032-batteries-leaking.166905/ may give details in each specific case. Good catch! And consistent with the story from 2011 in the first link above.

Ok, that is good. Note: I do not think you can get a 100% yes/no answer, "it depends". This is a case where you maybe want a risk based approach. You can ask yourself: Is a reasonably low risk of leakage acceptable? (see @MigL's comment in your other thread). What is the cost/effort to reduce the risk? If corrosion happens is @studiot's suggestion a viable solution for you? Is the risk introduced by CR2032 and potential corrosion the biggest concern or is it negligible in comparison to other risks? See previous answer

Lets try google: https://www.google.com/search?q=What+Is+a+CR2032+Battery+Made+Of%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 CR2032 is an International Electrochemical (IEC) designation. Specifically, the CR2032 battery is a Lithium-manganese dioxide battery (LiMn02). It is composed of a Mn02 cathode and a lithium anode. The construction of a typical CR2032 battery features a stainless steel case to prevent any leakage of the non-corrosive electrolyte. For further verification you could review data sheets of the specific brands you may be interested in.