Ghideon

A guess to start the discussion: would moist and other residues in the vented air interact with the wall material over time? How much moist is vented out from the microwave oven?

Ultrasound is sound waves with frequencies higher than the upper audible limit of human hearing. There may be individual differences, an approximate upper limit is 20kHz. 10 GHz is pretty far above that limit so you probably mean something else?

Unfortunately something seems lost in translation. Maybe you mean composition rather than copying? Composition over inheritance is quite useful principle. Edit: Any other members interested in comparing large scale structure of distributed systems and software design on a smaller scale? We could go ahead and discuss, OP seems to be on a temporary leave.

Are you referring to statically typed object oriented languages such as C++ and ADA vs dynamically typed languages? How has OOP become "more static"?

Ok. What are the major differences between "modern OOP" and its roots that would like to discuss?

The Actor model* has properties that is useful in distributed computing, for instance in recent cloud computing or IoT environments. In antifragility** there are four design principles, typically found in systems capable of thriving in a complex environment; modularity, weak links, redundancy, and diversity. Actor model can be useful to address these principles. The model have been around sing the 70's and I think it will continue to be applicable both internally in large systems and when creating larger architectures consisting many interacting systems. I do not see a very thigh relationship between first part and second part of your statement; feel free to elaborate. (note: I have not watched the video) *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor_model **) Example: Anti-fragile ICT Systems - Kjell Jørgen Hole's For this initial discussion wikipedia definitions are good enough: IOT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_things, Cloud computing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

Can you provide a reference or enough context for a fruitful discussion to take place?

By currently accepted models I mean the models used in established scientific theories; in the context of this thread and the discussion of light that means classical electromagnetism or branches thereof such as optics, electrical and electronic engineering. And, if necessary, Quantum electrodynamics.

So why do your attempts at explanations deviate so much from the currently accepted models?

I noted that one and found it interesting! There are papers that argues Pythagoras and Just tuning system has a biological connection: (emphasis mine) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037988 @altaylar2000 Note the integer ratios in the paper and in @joigus picture. But I do not know the significance of this example since (as I stated in an earlier post) there are papers claiming other results.

I tried to to draw logic conclusions from your descriptions. Let's try this instead: Please describe your personal model of light. What does your model predict better or different than the currently established theories?

Can you elaborate? Regarding the original question; I did a quick search and I am unable to find consensus. Some papers argue that musical ratios such as octaves are connected to physical properties of the human ear, example: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037988 But other papers argue that perceptions of musical octaves are learned: https://www.quantamagazine.org/perceptions-of-musical-octaves-are-learned-not-wired-in-the-brain-20191030/ Link to paper: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)31036-X

So does that mean that you claim that for an observer in the vacuum of space the sky looks completely black? The sun and stars are only visible if the light is reflected off a mirror?

You seem to use some non standard definition of "reflected"? How would detection of photons require a reflection?

Good point. They may also try to affect searches; an algorithm could possibly rank an issue that was resolved higher than a something that the algorithm considers to be an open discussion.

Have you ever looked at a fire, a computer screen or stars? Do you see them because of reflection of light?

I tried WolframaAlpha and the result seems mathematically correct: i is the symbol used to denote the principal square root of -1, also called the imaginary unit. (from WolframAlpha's description) You can also search for "i" on WolframAlpha read more about the definition. Here is a direct link: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i&assumption={"C"%2C+"i"}+->+{"MathWorld"}

Solar activity. According to wikipedia attempts to correlate weather and solar activity have had limited success but it may still be useful as a starting point in a work of fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle You could change the 11 years to four years and make it have more impact on the planet. There are papers discussing connection between the 11-year cycle and for instance tree-rings. So in my opinion it would not be too unscientific have a fiction solar system where harsh winters occur due to solar cycle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#cite_note-Luthardt2017-10

You are correct. I did not intend to argue that the force never exceeds the static value, sorry if my post was not clear on that.

My point is: when during the attempt did they record dip? I did as well, thanks for your comment that made me look again. I now draw the conclusion that the scale is reduced below that of the weight a second time possibly matching @studiot's observation(?). First time is at approximately from a to c, while bending knees to prepare as mentioned before. Second time is near point f just before leaving the scale on the way up. Assume the individual would not actually jump but instead reduce their force just so that they end up standing on tiptoe. Then the flat segment would show the static value (the mass of the individual) at some point slightly later than f. I tried myself and unfortunately my digital bathroom scale locks the value once a static value is reached. My scale is not affected by movement once it has performed a measurement, I need to step off and wait for it to "reset". This has no impact on others observations, I'm just noting that bathroom scales seems to be constructed to behave rather differently under the dynamic conditions described in this topic.

Please have a look at my attempt at explaining the researchers recording. My interpretation is that the scale reading is low while the body is moving down ("A" in picture). The individual in the measurement bends their knees fast and that results in a low force pressing the scale.

@studiot Thanks for adding science to the thread. Letters a-h are from your image: a: standing with straight legs without movement. Reading of scale is constant since body is at rest. b: Bending knees. While doing this the centre of mass of body is initially accelerating down; any force from the scale acting on the body is less than the weight of the body. Scale is reading less than mass of body. b-c: tightening of leg muscles stops acceleration down to have the body stationary with bent legs. While the body decelerating the scale reads more than the mass m. c : starting the upwards push. There is no flat segment of the curve so the body is not at rest with bent legs for any extended amount of time. d: beginning to push/straighten legs to jump. e: (approximately) heels leaves the scale since legs are straight, pushing with calves muscles; force is lower than while using upper leg muscles. f: the body is airborne. h: landing There is a brief moment e-f where the scale would read less than the body mass while the body is standing on toes. The body is not at rest relative the scale during that period of time. I am not an expert, my interpretation may be completely incorrect.

In the context of this thread I believe that Newton mechanics and specifically F=mg will predict what happens when a mass m is put on a typical household scale. Flesh or wood or bones or quick silver or gravestone or whatever will not have an effect*, Newtonian physics is applicable in this case. OP seems to argue that Newtonian physics fails to predict the force if the mass m consists of flesh. I fail to find any evidence in this thread or in any mainstream physics supporting that opinion. (Disclaimer: Of course not counting engineering limitations, using the scale outside of limits, not keeping the mass stable or other out of context reasons.)

You might want to use the quote function. The above looks like a support for awaterpon's claims, was that the intention? Can you elaborate; how does what you describe result in awaterpon's claims flesh (and bones) and physics?

What are the properties of flesh (and bones), according to your idea, that makes the difference?