swansont

8 minutes ago, Prajna said:

That still doesn't compute here, @swansont, maybe it's just me being thick. The object is lifted, seemingly by the magnet, and thus its potential energy has increased and surely some work must have been done to achieve that, n'est-ce pas? What did the work? Surely you understand what I mean and I hope you are not being pedantic with regard to terms. In this example (to remove ambiguity, I'm referring to a permanent magnet fixed to some structure above the object, say a small sheet of metal).

The work done is provided by whatever or whoever is holding the magnet. The magnet does not move into position where it can lift by itself.

11 minutes ago, Prajna said:

How does this relate to my response to @swansont above? Is it an attempt to answer that? My example refers to a permanent magnet rather than an electromagnet. It seems to me that the magnet is doing work rather than redirecting force. Or are you saying the magnet is redirecting the force I am using to hold the magnet up? What if the magnet is affixed to something?

Magnets are another example of redirecting; magnetic forces are perpendicular to motion, so they do no work. 

5 hours ago, Emma Jesus said:

It's sure that ephedrine helps losing weight but there is no clear evidence for the "numerous deaths" especially since many countries have not banned its consumption, and it does not appear that this specifically poses problems. What is certain is that it must be consumed in small quantities.

17 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Absolutely it will stop with no input, I expect nothing else.

So the input is where the work is done.

17 minutes ago, Prajna said:

If I hold a magnet above a ferromagnetic object the object (if it's not too heavy) will be attracted to the magnet. That has increased the potential energy in the object, so work has been done, has it not?

And the work will be done by you in moving the magnet - it takes more effort to move a magnet in the presence of another than it does in free space. That’s you doing work, not the magnet. 

1 hour ago, Prajna said:

Turning the rotor merely provides switching for the magnets. Unless I'm mistaken, the torque required to do so will be determined by friction in the rotor bearing (and some trivial air resistance) and eddy drag on the finger that is in the magnetic field (and, balanced out, attraction into the magnetic gap on entry and exit from the gap). The output torque on the flywheel will be determined by the magnetic field strength of the magnets (and some friction, da dah, da dah). Where am I falling down on my understanding? The rotor doesn't determine the output except in terms of how quickly it effects the magnetic switching. Or is there some other principle at work?

Magnetic forces don’t do work. 
 

If you built this, you would see that it doesn’t run on its own. If you stop cranking, it will cease motion.

The work in this system would be provided by whatever is turning the input rotor. Nothing inside the device is supplying energy; there are only losses to be found there.

18 minutes ago, NeptuneSeven said:

would sincerely like to thank all those who took the time to read this post and response. As:

1.  Edge theory does not proceed from any traditions in physics, 

2.  I have only begun to 'set the table' so to speak, before setting out the meat.

3.  The physics you refer to, to continue the analogy, uses chopsticks.  Edge theory uses spoons and forks, so chip stick skills don't apply.

4.  The intent is to resolve the issues the current issues in physics that chopsticks have failed to solve, and, as the JWST revealed, those problems grow larger every day.

5.  If you took the time to learn the 'spoons and forks' of Edge theory, we could get to some very testable predictions.

Alas, this is not the forum for that.

18 minutes ago, NeptuneSeven said:

This has already been accepted for publication by a significant publisher

A journal? With peer review? Are you going to make preprints available?

Quote

The intent is to resolve the issues the current issues in physics that chopsticks have failed to solve, and, as the JWST revealed, those problems grow larger every day.

I don’t understand. What are “these problems”? How are they growing larger? How do you conclude that standard physics won’t solve the problems?

Cosmology isn’t a huge slice of physics, though it’s more visible (as it were) than other areas.

30 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Protecting against interception of information is one side of the coin.

The second side is whether the data that was sent came from a legitimate source.

The second side was not brought up in the OP, which was simply asking if there are ways to password-protect files. 

I’ve had documents sent to me that were password protected. Microsoft docs and pdf files

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

 I recall a competitor in one of the single sculls events at Henley Town Regatta who registered to race in the name of H Janus. This was in the days before the Amateur Rowing Association insisted on ID membership cards.  

Calling your son Janus seems an invitation to trouble, whether or not you know your Roman deities. 

I hope H didn’t stand for “Hugh”

To me a shortened version of a first name is not a nickname. i.e. I don’t consider ”Tom” to be my nickname. Nicknames I’ve had are Swanny (grade school) Stouffer (college), Puft (navy OIS), none of which are gender-specific.

SNL had a series of sketches about gender-neutral nicknames. The lead character was Pat, and nobody knew their gender. Also mentioned are Terry and Chris, and homophonic names like Frances/Francis, Jean/Gene

It’s random - any pick has the same odds of winning.

Picking unpopular number increases the odds that, if you win, you will be sole winner, or at least have to share with fewer people, as your quote says. So the expected payout increases. 

14 minutes ago, Sensei said:

If you look at the biomass of organisms on Earth, you will see that most living organisms do not have sex at all or are hermaphrodites.

Animals (specified in the OP) ≠ organisms

Plants can be male & female

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But you also get that with hermaphrodites like garden snails

Where does the other genetic material come from if the individual self-fertilizes?

If there are two, then you’re doing what sexual reproduction does, so it it’s an advantage, then it’s an advantage.

And AFAIK most hermaphroditic animals are invertebrates so there might be some limits on that mode of reproduction.

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Can anyone explain what a "magnetic moment" is?

It describes a magnet in terms of the torque the magnet would feel in an external field

A magnetic dipole (e.g. a bar magnet) with moment u in a magnetic field (B) feels a torque of u X B (u is a vector)

The magnetic moment of a wire loop with area A and current I is u = IA (with a direction given by the right-hand rule)

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

What is the advantage to having human individuals divided by sex? 

Genetic diversity. You’re getting genes from two different individuals each generation, or possibly each instance of mating.

There’s no fixed reference, so how can you say the sun is moving at all? Or are you referring to the green crescent, which is due to an internal reflection in the lens? That moves because the camera is moving.

54 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

It seems I have disturbed many 'scientists' here. My apologies. I'll quit

I think it’s “perturbed” and it’s from pointing to issues that we already know about and account for as if they are unknown, and somehow a problem. 

You might be befuddled by the ramifications of a finite speed of light but I assure you that others are not.

(multiple threads merged)

How is your idea testable/falsifiable? What specific predictions does it make?

14 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

My point is that we will never observe simultaneity, even if the observed objects are at different distances of 1 Planck length one closer by us .That is why I said that we observe a mixture of different past times and not the same past time. In order to observe the present, the information carrier (light) should have infinite speed, and the transmission speeds from the eye to the brain and the speed of processing and coding of visual information to be infinite. ...and you are right we not need 'more truth' to survive and be observers and discover some nature's secrets. I didn't say our brain make a bad job for survive but our brain don't have capability of discover  all nature secrets.

In physics we use instrumentation when it’s needed, which avoids the issue. Eyesight is exceedingly nonlinear and not easily calibrated. In areas where eyesight is used it’s generally where delay issues have no impact. 

14 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

About time , we live in present , we perceive a mixture of past different times , our brain makes a "correction" and we perceive the present and simultaneity ( a good trick of our brain) , we remember the past ,and travel into the future 1s/1s.Time is only a measure of changes ...remember all units of time are a fraction of a periodic change of something....Clocks are devices to compare who measure the change like a ruler who measure distances ...1 meter=1 unit from a change in position.With clocks we compare any change who has a speed of change . ( not all changes have a speed of change) . We can't travel in the past : Imagine a rock formed billion years ago who we " send" in the past ,  millions years ago...that rock will be there twice in same time and same Universe ...absurd

None of this is unknown, nor unaccounted for. 

A number of sites say at least 400x is needed to see cells and cell structure

14 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Time is relative, depending on the opinion of an observer. An observer who went a few times in the neighborhood of a black hole and returned back to Earth has another idea of the age of Earth and the decay rate of these radioisotopes, than an observer who stayed on Earth. Time is relative. No absolute property of the universe in itself. Since Einstein there is no universe with absolute time properties (and absolute space properties). 

 

Which is irrelevant to the proposed issue of consciousness 

43 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

Is yesterday still here? Does the past exist?

Is the future already here? Does the future exist?

No, there is only the 'now'.

And what is the duration of 'the now'?

The 'now' cannot have any duration because otherwise it would have a past and a future, which is not 'the now'.

So the duration of the now must be zero.

 

No past, no now (zero) and no future = no time.

 

So time does not exist.

If time doesn’t exist, how can anything have a duration? How can such a notion exist, without time?

How can your post exist, for me to respond to (now) if it did not exist in the past? There is an order to (causal) events, which tells us that time exists.

2 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

I am feeling here is not a real intention of finding together the truth ... you want to someone tell you the truth and you only to reject or aprove...a wrong way ...sometime when you have no arguments you use an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument .Sometimes we can't see the forest because of the trees

Wasn’t the notion that the brain does a bad job of assessing simultaneity below some level of precision your argument?

If not, perhaps you can clarify what your argument is. My point is that your brain is only giving you as much truth as you need to have a chance to stay alive, as a result of evolution and within the limits of biology, chemistry and physics. We know it “lies” to us. It doesn’t seem to matter with regard to simultaneity, and we have imaginations and dreams, which are probably a positive rather than a negative.

If you think it should give you more truth, you would need to explain how that would happen within the constraints we have.

7 minutes ago, Maartenn100 said:

In other words: the 'now' could never be reached. Because it would take an infinitely long time to reach the now from an infinitely distant past.

Sounds like one of Zeno’s paradoxes.

This, of course, has nothing to do with consciousness. There’s plenty of evidence that time passed without the benefit of conscious entities being around. But don’t let facts get in the way.

“For the first time since the mid-20th century, over 95 percent of this year’s planned new electric-generating capacity in the United States is zero-carbon.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/

5 hours ago, Swudu Susuwu said:

Sources: https://swudususuwu.substack.com/p/biomimetic-robots-run-off-of-proton