swansont

And the Carnot cycle is unachievable. It’s an idealized case, like frictionless surfaces and elastic collisions in classical mechanics. The Carnot cycle assumes reversible processes, which don’t physically happen. It’s like calculating the maximum speed of a dropped object by ignoring air resistance. Similar to what studiot said, these idealized analyses apply to imaginary situations.

What are we looking at? What is the magnification?

Like in the Hafele-Keating experiment? I’d say there was a point in doing that.

I saw a twitter thread that showed a case where the AI just fabricated the sources, presumably using the most common terms and most-cited authors, because that’s how the algorithm works.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion is supposed to be posted here But uranium fission does produce variable daughter nuclei

“Centripetal force is towards Earth on the sunny side (and if I'm correct cancels the force from the Sun exactly), while centripetal force is away from Earth on the dark side” (emphasis added) Seemed obvious to me. YMMV

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted, per forum rules

I was using the reference frame that Willem described. Which seems reasonable in answering a question they posed (and which doesn’t raise an issue of shielding gravity)

! Moderator Note This is a discussion board for science, not semantics. This would be a discussion of whether “non-mathematical” means absence of math, or having elements that are not mathematical. Surely one can introduce a topic that is less trivial.

A scale that compared gravitational attraction, e.g. balance scales, yes. But e.g. a spring scale measures the normal force, which would vary with the acceleration. Not that we necessarily have devices sensitive enough. In the earth reference frame it does. Toward the center vs away from the center.

China has been pushing against a rising population for almost 50 years with its one child policy. Russia I’d believe, wanting a bigger army, because of a long tradition of using their soldiers as cannon fodder. But you need a decent economy to outfit a modern army, and a bigger population doesn’t automatically mean a better economy. Look at India (to some extent) and its neighbors.

What about countries where there is no right to vote? That’s one possible cause, but another is increased lifespan from medical advances.

Why is it irreversible? What level is “not enough”?

You misunderstand the analogy. The heat flow is analogous to the energy being converted from potential energy and extracting work. Your focus on water being a fluid is misplaced. It’s the energy of the fluid, not the fluid itself. The potential energy is reduced. Nothing has to happen to the water.

How so? The sentence does not really make sense; how can an engine be falsified? The efficiency claim could be falsified, though. Build an engine that exceeds the efficiency limit, and it would be falsified. That’s how you falsify scientific claims - with an experiment.

And you can post video as long as the discussion can proceed without having to view it. IOW, as long as the lengthy explanation is there.

So you’re coming up with a new definition of stuck? “For example, I say my engine got "stuck", apparently frozen.” But it wasn’t a mechanical part? How does a non-mechanical part get stuck? To be stuck, doesn’t it need to be something that normally moves? You definitely need to post pictures, with circles and arrows on them, because your descriptions are lacking sufficient detail.

Mechanical devices getting stuck violate NO principles of known science.

What thermodynamic principle does an engine getting stuck demonstrate? No, it was for re-introducing material from a locked thread.

It reminds me of the UFO=aliens crowd. Improper extrapolation from the data, cherry-picking, and of course the “it must be aliens” conclusion when the phenomena are unidentified.

That would make you one of his sockpuppets.

If you had an irrational fear that it’s somehow a contagious condition, or that its mere presence is harmful, amped up by certain societal pressures, you might. There are men that blame attraction to (and sometimes the resulting assault on) women on the women. This seems to be under a similar umbrella

An obvious candidate is cultural pressure to conform to some “normal” behavior that is defined by the majority. (Which cuts down on challenges to authority, so it’s often perpetuated by that authority, even if they behave “abnormally” in private)

Since you apparently need this spelled out (and I really shouldn’t have to): you have shared a link saying that seafood is necessary for proper evolutionary brain development ca. 2mya. If we provisionally accept this (others have challenged it), it’s separate from the claim that we’ve lost 100cc of brain volume 40k years ago. Your assertion is that this loss is because “we” no longer have the same diet Where is the evidence that all humans stopped eating seafood? Your position requires this. If this loss of volume is an evolutionary disadvantage and is diet-related, why did the humans who lived on the coast and ate seafood suffer this loss? Shouldn’t people who eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains? You presented evidence that surfer’s ear is present in ~half of 23 Neandertal fossils and an indeterminate number of others (only one is uniquely identified in your link) You didn’t show that it “disappears” from the fossil record.

What’s the evidence that the diet has changed? Did all humans stop eating seafood? Is there evidence that populations that eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains? The abundant presence of fish bones and shellfish remains in many African hominid fossil sites dating to 2 million years ago implies human ancestors commonly inhabited the shores, Is this any different in the last 40k years?