Genady

Here is the Paper: einstein_electrodynamics_of_moving_bodies.pdf (umd.edu) Where is the Error?

IMO, you should compare cross-section areas rather than widths.

If the tube's diameter is almost equal to the ball's diameter, the velocity of the fluid near the ball's equator might be quite high, I think.

Perhaps, it was this: Solar panels - an eco-disaster waiting to happen? - BBC News There was a little discussion about it in the other thread: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/131667-solar-panels-etc/?do=findComment&comment=1241447

I don't care about your respect. I care about physics.

Nope, your explanation was wrong then and it is wrong now. I understand - you don't.

For a contrast, here is the ChatGPT's latest attempt: Me: There is a table and two boxes. When the small box is under the table and the large box is on the table, the distance between the top of the small box and the top of the large box is 170 cm. When the small box is on the table and the large box is under the table, the distance between the top of the large box and the top of the small box is 130 cm. How tall is the table? Solve without algebra, if possible. ChatGPT: Let's approach this problem without algebra and solve it using logical reasoning. From the given information, we can determine that the distance between the top of the small box and the top of the large box is 170 cm when the small box is under the table and the large box is on the table. Similarly, when the small box is on the table and the large box is under the table, the distance between the top of the large box and the top of the small box is 130 cm. Now, let's consider the scenario where the small box is under the table and the large box is on the table. The total height in this scenario would be the sum of the height of the small box and the height of the table. Thus, we have: Height of small box + Height of table = 170 cm Similarly, in the scenario where the small box is on the table and the large box is under the table, the total height would be the sum of the height of the large box and the height of the table. Therefore: Height of large box + Height of table = 130 cm Now, let's subtract the second equation from the first equation: (Height of small box + Height of table) - (Height of large box + Height of table) = 170 cm - 130 cm Height of small box - Height of large box = 40 cm From this equation, we can deduce that the difference in height between the small box and the large box is 40 cm. Since we want to find the height of the table, we can determine that the height of the table is equal to the difference in height between the two boxes, which is 40 cm. Therefore, the height of the table is 40 cm.

Cool. This works, too. +1 And gives me idea for another trick:

That's what I meant "without algebra", and that's the same mental picture I've used. +1

Correct. +1. Couple words, hidden, about your "trick"?

No, it is not.

How tall is the table? BTW, I could not make ChatGPT answer this question correctly, with or without algebra.

Right. +1. Counterintuitive, isn't it?

Good! +1 And,

It might seem that if we continue this way, we get a series 1 +1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ..., which converges to 2. That would mean that by building the tower this way we can make it maximum 2m "wide". However,

I thought that you were saying this. Anyway, I think this generalization is wrong. There are many paths to survival.

I can't agree with this generalization. All? My ancestors? Maybe, but I can't find it.

Sorry @Externet, I've misread your statement above. I agree with you, as well as with So, this "project" is off the table as well.

Reminder:

Yes, 100% government ran. Regarding the hurricanes, look here (we are #2, in alphabetical order): 7 Hurricane-Free Caribbean Islands – Caribbean Blog (home.blog)

I understand this. As I have mentioned above in this thread, here, where I live, almost half of electricity in the grid is already generated by wind, and the plan is to get 60% by 2025. That's why I consider other factors.

I am not sure how to apply this hypothetical scenario to an AI of today, because it is a TM with only two symbols in its character set, namely 0 and 1.

True. However, the transportation to recycling facilities and recycling process will add to the net disadvantage of initial manufacturing and transportation. Are there efficient wind turbines for individual use?