swansont

This has been upgraded to a permanent ban.

Yes. Moving a charge will create a magnetic field, and yes, a change in the field will cause current to flow (or induce a voltage if there isn't a complete loop for current to flow)

You lack the same assurance that someone who has never been convicted won't commit a crime either. The post-trial system is not set up to anticipate future crimes. (Good thing, too, since most of us commit crimes, even if we don't know we have done so. We'd all be in jail if it were to prevent future crimes)

That's not what it says. It says that Tuesday's high was recorded at 9 AM. Nothing more about the time can validly be inferred from that statement. The article I see also says "Posted Tue 24 Aug 2021 at 4:46pm" so "today" refers to Tuesday, not Wednesday.

1. It’s not magic. We notice that charges can attract or repel, and take advantage of that to move charges around. One description is as exchemist notes - a voltage gradient; stored energy being given to the charges. You could also look at in terms of forces, if you investigated at the microscopic level. 2. An energy input is required to get the current to flow, so there is no violation. Electrons flowing is current (in some cases, it could be protons); they are not distinct.

AFAIK the maximum PV cell efficiency is around 34%, so you aren’t describing a PV cell. There is no way to have the light spectrum and bandgap behave as you describe.

A human who invents something in the employ of another might or might not share in the patent. It depends on their arrangement. Further, an inventor can use tools to invent things. I don’t see a reason why an AI would change this.

How would that help? (assuming you actually meany copyrights) Patents and copyright are not the same thing.

If it’s not a thermodynamic process, you’re not going to be able to apply thermodynamic principles. A solar cell isn’t converting heat into work - the cell will produce electricity even with no temperature difference. The article basically says this. (“we can conclude that solar cell is a quantum converter and cannot be treated as a simple solar radiation converter”) The comparison is to a heat engine’s carnot efficiency using the same input.

Yes. I don’t see where it says what you claim it says. “Where are you getting this?” is a request for specific passages from your article. There’s nothing in that passage indicating that anything was omitted. It gave the max temperature, and the time it was recorded, for that one day. Your supposition isn’t based on anything said in the article.

Where are you getting this? And this? You seem to be adding context to the article that’s not actually there. In this case, a plural from a single reported instance. That’s not a valid extrapolation Reporting a high temperature at 9AM on a particular day does not mean that the 9 AM temperature is always recorded as the high. I would think it’s unusual, since highs usually occur in the afternoon. But if a massive cold front moved in, then you could get such an anomaly.

The emission has to happen in the rest frame of the particle, too. Synchrotron radiation is associated with large speeds because that correlates to a large acceleration. Are you going to provide your calculation of the wavelength of the emitted radiation?

! Moderator Note “prove me wrong” doesn’t cut it. The one making the claim owns the burden of proof

fredreload has been banned for repeated bad faith arguments and soapboxing

AOM elements are small and can’t handle high power. Efficient free-space coupling (80%) requires good beam quality, and they only handle a limited wavelength range. I don’t see the connection to the 2nd law.

Unfortunately they don't actually break down the numbers of vaccinated vs unvaccinated people in the hospital, and dying. This article says 59% of the patients are vaccinated. If my math is correct, this means that being unvaccinated means you are ~2.75x more likely to be in the hospital as a vaccinated person.

Nothing is going to be perfect, which leaves us with "lock them all up because we can't be 100% sure" There is no such thing as a 100% safe society, so where do you realistically draw this line? This is a matter of acceptable levels of risk.

But you also cite (paraphrasing) "this is what society wants" and the two are not synonymous. Society's psyche contains an element of revenge. There's a reason the affronted do not get to decide what the punishments is for a crime. Our elected leaders should be implementing a system that does not pander to the baser instincts of the constituents, and instead does what is in society's best interests. Saving society from itself.

! Moderator Note Please don't wast our time with claims you can't or won't support.

! Moderator Note I said none of that. Eversion was a topic of another thread, which was closed. You don’t get to bring it up here. By making this connection, this becomes an argument in bad faith.

I know that’s an idea that’s been kicked around by some. I don’t know how to evaluate it.

To distinguish between how nature behaves and fantasy? Yes, that's one reason.

A black hole might fulfill the reverse of this. I don't know if someone inside a black hole (for however long they could continue to exist) could see outside, and we can't see in. So if there was some inverse of this situation, possibly.

Light doesn't leave or enter the universe. We are inside forever.

There is nothing we can interact with outside of the universe. It is inaccessible to us.