Genady

Not everyone. I don't. E.g., https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126248-what-does-emergent-mean-in-a-physics-context-split-from-information-paradox/?do=findComment&comment=1195979

There was a bang, and it has been detected: Secret US Navy underwater microphones detected Titan sub implosion | The Independent

"Twice the area of Connecticut" referred to where the surface search was going on, with the ships and the aircraft. On the bottom, the only place to look first was near the target, i.e., near the wreck of Titanic. Perhaps, the Titan was already there when the event happened and that's why the debris didn't move away. Thus, my opinion was wrong as I assumed that in 1 h 45 min they wouldn't be that far down yet. Maybe the contact was lost before the catastrophic event, and since the contact loss was a usual occurrence on these dives, according to the reports, they continued descend as planned.

I understand that the Titanic wreck is spread over such a big area because of the variable currents. These same variable and unknown currents could take the submersible anywhere in such area. Why the waters around the Titanic are still treacherous - BBC Future, an interesting article about the conditions there.

I know (have looked up) (sq. km, you mean). So, as per US news, the area is almost twice that of Wales. I don't think they search either Wales or Connecticut area on the bottom.

US news say the search area is twice the area of Connecticut. That makes it 35 000 sq. km. I guess this area refers to the surface area, where they are looking with the ships and aircraft. How does one find a 7 m piece of plastic on the ocean bottom 4 km below?

But by observing only a small subset of all phenomena you can understand only a small part of the "operating mechanism."

The submersible is either on the surface or on the bottom. If it is on the bottom, it will perhaps never be found. The search efforts will quickly stop after the rescue will turn to recovery. (MHO.)

This is interesting question.

The OP did not say anything about object/image distance. Rather about mirror/reflection size.

This is what I've found so far on this question: (What are submersibles, how do they communicate? (rte.ie))

You do not read it right. And I am tired of trying to explain it. You should focus on the reasoning rather than on the words. It is a matter of energy conservation, not of interpretation of the words. Good luck!

Only a very small slice of reality is around us in daily life.

I understand that you in fact mean "arbitrary."

Potential? It is used in engineering all the time! What conditions?

Units need to be compatible. They don't need to be the same. Compatible does not mean equal.

How do you know that this mathematical equation does not represent physical properties?

Ever heard of F=ma? m is in kg, a is in m/s2. Different units multiply just fine.

It looks as I misused the term "flow regime". Let's see what we agree on. When a fluid freely flows in a tube, its pressure on the tube walls in areas with a larger cross-section is higher and its velocity there is slower than its pressure and velocity in areas with a smaller cross-section. However, the statement, "when there is movement of a fluid within a solid body there is less pressure on every point of the surface of the solid body from the fluid" is incorrect. Less than what? Where is a tube with different cross-sections?

Any ideas on how to do this?

What makes you think that Turing Machine cannot be applied to real world, cannot learn from data, adapt and improve?

Yes, they are so stupid now that it is not difficult to make them smarter.

This is correct. This does not follow from the preceding paragraph. In the preceding paragraph, the pressure in two points of the same flow is compared. In the latter, two different flow regimes are compared.

AFAIK, the fine structure constant is one of about two dozen numbers that need to be measured experimentally and plugged in the SM by hand because there is no known way to derive them from first principles. When the founders of QM called it "the most fundamental unsolved problem in physics," about 100 years ago, there were not that many of such numbers and many other unsolved problems, e.g., quantum gravity, dark energy, etc., were not yet known or formulated. I don't think it is generally considered as such today.

Why compare everyday language with math. What we discuss in above is to compare math with logic. OK, compare with logic. What does it mean in logic?