Genady

Yes. This was pretty much what I did. Here is my follow-up email to him:: >>>>> This brings up even more interesting puzzle. Compare the following texts: ... [from his email] ... [from the website] Except for a couple of words, the texts are identical. Can you explain it? <<<<<<

Absolutely. 100% agree.

He did not. Tells me that he thinks I am too primitive. I live on a Caribbean Island you know... Some people are surprised that we even have Internet here. It was a possibility, but he eliminated it himself. When I sent him a link to that website and asked, why the texts are identical, his answer was, "Yes, I read this website with different answers and agreed with this one."

I can think of other reasons. For example, he might be a little T****, a "stable genius" and always right.

I can think of it as a conservation of something. Regardless of how many interactions occur, for how long, and how far away they spread, this something has to be conserved, and this conservation means that all the things involved continue to stay correlated.

It does not seem to be so. He started his response with the words, "I think, that" followed by the copied text. His reply does not indicate so. Perhaps, but many of them can be refuted based on details of the exchange and other information. This or other reason, what do you think my response should be. Pretend that I "bought" it? Let him know that I've found his "trick"? Something else?

I did not copy the puzzle and I did not borrow it. I provided the link. I said where it comes from. I did not mislead about the source of the puzzle, but they tried to mislead me about the source of their answer. PS. They knew to search for the answer on the Internet because they knew from me that the puzzle came from the Internet.

Several days ago, I've emailed the "Floating Hourglass" puzzle (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132371-floating-hourglass/) to a relative, thinking that as former mechanical engineer he might be interested in it. Two days later, I've received his response with a clear and perfect solution. I was impressed and congratulated him with this success. But I was also suspicious because of the language of his response; it was not how he normally speaks. So, after a short Internet search I found a website, copyrighted 1998, with exactly the same text, verbatim. His dishonesty deeply offended me. I've taken some next steps but would like to know your opinions about this situation.

It didn't look distressed. Just sat there for a while but gone by the time I've uploaded the picture. Unfortunately, no. Found it like that. ===== 50 minutes later: Found it again. Evidently, it keeps slowly swallowing the rest of the tail:

or rather most of it: I thought they eat insects...

If I understand your question correctly, then this diagram answers it. See the parts (d) and (e). The source of the waves is on the left, the faraway receptor is on the right: and the explanations: As you see, in the first approximation, i.e., in the dipole case (d), the contributions cancel exactly even for different masses, contrary to your assumption in the OP ("the difference in mass of the two"). The outgoing wave survives because of the quadrupole (e).

Thank you. Well, I think that the OP has been answered (to my satisfaction.)

As we all know, the image I've presented earlier (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132496-what-it-is-like-to-see-the-color-red/?do=findComment&comment=1250647) belongs to phenomena called "optical illusions". But is it an illusion? By the definition in Optical illusion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster, optical illusion is But is it misleading? What is there misleading about it? It could be considered misleading if we expected the brain to perceive identically lights of equal frequencies. But why would we expect it? Why would brain evolve in this way? What it'd be good for? Brain is not a laboratory instrument. It is an organ that helps us to survive. Colors in the brain is a phenomenon by itself, which is related to but different from the colors in light. For example, I can imagine an advantage of seeing differently a red fruit hanging high on a tree against light sky background (not interesting) and the same red fruit hanging low against green foliage background (useful).

I don't think there are aliasing bars (if I understand correctly what you refer to) in the original. They are added by the zooming algorithm when the image is enlarged.

How many shades of red do you see here? I see two, but there is only one.