swansont

https://www.fastcompany.com/90687369/this-ingenious-wall-could-harness-enough-wind-power-to-cover-your-electric-bill I've run across art projects that pretended to be science over the years and didn't stand up to scrutiny, and this has a faint whiff of that given the lack of any detailed analysis. But it's an intriguing idea 20 mph wind is about 600 Watts/m^2 so even if you are only harvesting 10% of that energy, a 10m^2 wall gives you 600 W of electricity. 24 hours of that per day gives you 14.4 kWh, which is only about half of what's claimed, but my assumption of only harvesting 10% of the energy could be too low*. Seems like the ballpark is that the device could be legit. If people are looking into making it, it probably means there's something there. *Betz's law places the maximum at just under 60%. Utility scale systems are something like 45% efficient. I don't know what something like this wall clocks in at

It's three, really - gravitational field, warping, and particle exchange. The former two are classical, that latter is quantum, and in that regard this is no different than electromagnetism having classical and quantum models.

Considering we've seen that military members have participated in the sedition, this loyalty to the constitution can't be considered to be universal. Their loyalty is not supposed to be to the commander-in-chief.

I think the author is taking some liberties in demonstrating his thesis. "The main error in Hasenöhrl’s first thought experiment is that he did not realize that if the end caps are emitting heat, they must be losing mass—an ironic oversight given that it is exactly the equivalence of mass and energy he was attempting to establish." From the description, it sounds like Hasenöhrl was arguing that radiation has mass, not that mass and energy are equivalent. Conceptually these are different. The other arguments were for the equivalent mass of particles moving through some field which impedes their motion. Again, not an investigation of mass-energy equivalence. Somewhat unrelated, we have "If we think of c, the speed of light, as one light year per year, the conversion factor c2 equals 1" which is just a wretched abuse of unit analysis IMO, but in line with the use of "natural units" (which essentially means "ignoring units to make the math easier")

! Moderator Note Do you have a question or something that leads to a discussion, or are you just posting a press release?

That’s not a valid link, and you need to summarize it here. Telepathy is woo and nonsense. You have to establish it’s real, independent of the mechanism. Entanglement and teleportation are real quantum effects, but it smacks of snake oil here; an attempt to legitimize the pseudoscience by tying it to a shiny bit of science that’s not really well-understood by most people, especially outside of physics To answer the question in the title: yes. Photons can transmit information slower than c, so entangled photons can do this.

Can you summarize the objections?

Which doesn’t matter if people ignore the law. Congress, too. How’s that going?

I’m not sure what you would add. People who are flouting the rules aren’t going to be stopped by more rules, and the same for people who choose not to enforce them

What did you find after asking this on a search engine?

Laser light is not a plane wave; usually it has a gaussian profile, and some (e.g. laser diodes) diverge because of diffraction. The dots are likely laser speckle

I was taught it was more like 1/10, and you do it 3-4 times. More water and there’s diminishing returns on dissolving contaminants. As Peterkin points out, too much and you don’t get any physical dislodging of particles.

You persist in focusing on the wrong argument Yes, causality is a separate issue.

But the point is that you have to do something to it to turn it white. It’s the part that turns white.

That is (or was) something in the registration process one had to explicitly acknowledge. ! Moderator Note If that’s going to be your attitude, it would be hypocritical for you not to afford that same freedom to other members. Their attitude manifests in downvoting you. It’s not their problem, so there’s no point in going off-topic to complain about it.

I thought the white part was the shell (on some eggs). On the inside, there’s the yellow part and the clear part. The latter turns white when cooked.

You continue to attack a straw man. Nobody is arguing for the particle theory of light, or the wave theory of light. It’s not one or the other. That was settled more than a century ago. If you continue to claim that light never exhibits particle properties you will continue to be wrong, and also contradict your own descriptions of light exhibiting particle behavior.

Look at any species that has subpopulations; sometimes this results in speciation if the populations remain isolated and enough time passes. But you are correct in one thing; it’s my understanding that the races are arbitrary.

Nobody is making the argument that it was. You’re attacking a straw man. The argument is that localized interaction is particle-like behavior, and inconsistent with wave-like behavior. Please take the time to notice that this does not mention the behavior at other places or times. Also that this is inconsistent with “never acts like a particle” No, light doesn’t act that way, but waves do. If you have objects floating on water and a wave goes by, the wave interacts with all the objects. It doesn’t pick one. This is not merely my opinion, this is what physicists deduced over a century ago.

The primordial atom was Georges Lemaître‘s idea. But speaking of temperature, it was too hot to have nucleons until about 10^-6 sec, according to Big Bang theory. https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2018/12/the-first-element

How is that consistent with "never"?

You said you have a 1 mp at t = 1 tp and now you say you have 1 nucleon. As I stated, these are different by ~19 orders of magnitude in energy. Well, not really. It's the shortest time we can make sense of in current cosmology theory (i.e. in GR)

Pretty sure this is not part of Big Bang cosmology, and is not consistent with your model, either. A nucleon's energy is around 1 GeV, while the Planck energy is ~10^19 times bigger

My.interpretation has announced their desire not to return with a foul-mouthed tirade, and we have taken them up on their offer

The equivalence between a charged sphere and a point charge (and similarly with mass and a uniform sphere for gravitation) is shown in the shell theorem. Can you point to the error in its derivation?