Ghideon

A: Connect a volt meter to a battery, take the reading. B: Connect long wires to the battery poles and measure at the end of the wires, read the value of the voltmeter again. Explain why I get near identical readings while you state that there should be a drop: Or are you referring to the resistance of the wire? So that your example only applies when short circuiting a battery with a wire with a certain resistance (ohm) per unit length? What is the unit in which you measure this minus, suction and plus, blowing and how is the unit defined?

Hello. Some notes from a rather basic electricity perspective: Have you ever used a volt-meter? I can measure* the near identical voltage at the power source as when connecting cables of various lengths. That seems to contradict your statement. Can you explain? Can you explain how multi-strand and single strand cables can have similar performance if the "wind is spiral-shaped". * Unless voltmeter operates outside spec.

No problem, welcome to the forum! I agree. And this is an interesting topic. Regarding the opening question, and in addition to Phi's link, here is some info on the history of plate tectonics theories. The articles also contains some references covering competing theories (for instance expanding earth) and reasons why scientists abandoned them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_development_of_tectonophysics_(before_1954) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_development_of_tectonophysics_(after_1952) Note: the pages are marked as having some issues so some care may be needed when reading. But usually the references sections may point in the right direction.

Could you present a plausible mechanism allowing that to happen, and explain how it works? Without usage of those substances maybe the current scientific consensus regarding this topic would make more sense?

Good point, thanks! I forgot to post the source: Data structures and algorithm analysis in Ada, Mark Allen Weiss. Below is the introduction to the proof. I think the text by this author has the purpose of simply discussing differences between online and offline versions of bin packing algorithms. Lower bound for the asymptotic case is not detailed. The point is to give a simple proof that offline algorithms cannot guarantee optimal solutions, hence the required details for a full understanding of the offline algorithms' best performance is missing. I also note that this book was used in the early introductions courses. Thanks! I'll read it.

I found the proof i based my statement upon, it was sorted under data structures (not algorithms) for some reason.

Ok. Haven't touched this topic for a long time, I don't remember limits or unbounded number of items in the proof. edit: Checked, my book was printed in 1993, guess I'll have to read some to catch up.

I assume the proof continues? Probably it uses the observation that if the online algorithm uses less than 4/3 OPT bins it must maintain that ratio at all times. A proof can use that observation and, as per the image, use two sequences of items of sizes (1/2-a) and (1/2+a) 1/2>a>0.

If you prefer to not listen to the expert members interpreting the paper for you then may I suggest that you improve your own knowledge to a level where you are able to draw valid scientific conclusions?

No. Note @strange said everywhere. Not anywhere.

Then I guess you are using an incorrect source. The paper seem to be about a possible event that have already occurred. And obviously the event failed to harm the universe. Even if there is no universal "now" there is still a difference between "past" and "future". The event causing neutrino mass, if it happened, had no effect or a positive effect on the universe from our perspective: we are here discussing it. Without phase change(s) in the past that might not have been possible. I just checked official statistics here and my numbers are in the same range, give or take a few years. @Bmpbmp1975 Quite short compared to any numbers for any of the competing models for the ultimate fate of the universe.

@Bmpbmp1975 When reading papers please not that the jargon may be intended for readers with extensive knowledge about the specific topic. This may be confusing when reading about "change" "recent" and similar. Make sure you distinguish theoretical changes in a model from physical changes to universe itself. Example: Neutrinos were long believed to be massless, recently that has changed and in current models neutrinos have a tiny masses. That does not I repeat NOT, imply that any cataclysmic event happened in cosmos in 20th century that made neutrinos gain mass. It means that scientists made better measurements in 20th century and updated the models with the new knowledge. Neutrinos did not change, they stay the same. Example: Decay to vacuum with larger neutrino mass; the possible recent phase change discussed above. If that happened it was a real event in the universe, affecting neutrino masses back then. It is not an ongoing process that drastically changes the properties of the universe now. Note the differences between the two above. Side note: Earlier large scale changes, where one example is the possible decay that generated neutrino mass are not bad. My opinion is that the changes that resulted in a universe where galaxies, stars and planets can form are good events.

Ok*. If you are interested in the physics behind how your initially suggested ballon device is impossible as power source, just post a question in the mainstream section; there are plenty of members that will help. *) Hydrothermal vents related power may be more plausible than your original idea.

Harnessing power from thermal vents seems to be a completely different idea. I can't judge the plausibility of the rising ballon idea vs other ideas* But all those ten ballons required energy to be filled in the first place. Unless filled by magic, they were filled one by one. You have already spent energy to fill 10 ballons when starting to fill ballon number 11. *) Discussing deep sea turbines driven by heat from the vents etc. seems like topic for a separate thread

The multiplying you describe does not exist. Each one ballon that pops up at the surface is replaced by one refilled ballon at the bottom. Every ballon has to be filled.

Can you define it so that it can be calculated?

Ok Answer: It is a dead horse. It takes energy to compress 300 cubic feet of air to 18 ATM. When losses are accounted for there will be more power needed to run the system than it will generate.

Is that something you intend to answer or is it a question to the forum?

It is not yet known if stars were disappearing: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.05068.pdf More research is needed. The paper is, AFAIK, focused on stars that is missing in observational data. That does not necessarily imply that they vanished from the sky.

I agree, we just have to wait for the next report (emphasis mine) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.05068.pdf Appearances will likely be included in future parts. (emphasis mine): https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.05068.pdf

It depends on what you want to model. In Unity3d you could script for instance F1 only and let the engine calculate the internal forces between objects and rods that would follow. That lets the engine model how the objects A,B,C will move. Or you could script F1, F2 and F3 (or any combo if you wish) and let the engine calculate the resulting movement. Here is an analogy that applies to the assembly above trying to explain the difference. We assume zero gravity. Let's say you have an arm for a humanoid object such as a marionette . "A" is the shoulder, "C" is the elbow and "B" is a hand. Unity3d lets you apply a force to for instance the shoulder "A". F1 would be like rising the marionette's shoulder up/right with a string. Next you decide what you want to model; a rod or string in control of each joint or a loose, hanging "rag doll arm". Applying F3 and F2 equals strings or rods attached to B and C, forcing the elbow up/right and the hand down/left. If forces F3 and F2 are not applied the resulting movement would be how a rag doll arm would behave in zero G. "A" would moved to F1, "A" pulls the rod that is pulling C with in turn pulls B via the rod B-C.

Hint: Start by checking if the conclusion believe matches the above condition

Hello. can you show a calculation of the energy required to run the machine compared to the energy it generates? Intuition says there will be no net power generated. (But I may have misinterpreted the principle behind the devices)

Good point. I guess the author of the article meant one moment from a cosmological perspective. From the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.05068.pdf

"there one minute gone the next". Since the observations that were compared could be performed decades apart the vanishing objects could have dimmed over several years or moved to another location. Not necessarily disappeared from one minute to the next as a fick of a switch.