John Cuthber

There will never be more than 21 million bitcoins, and we currently have 18 million of them. So, the "mining" cost will soon stop. the figure of 1123 KW Hr per transactions is... puzzling. domestic electricity prices are of the order of £0.10 per KW Hr. Which implies that each transaction costs something like £100. And that doesn't seem plausible. Is that comparison the equivalent of taking the production cost, which for a Dollar bill is about 5 cents cost and adding it to the cost of every transaction involving that dollar? So, if I buy a book for ten dollars,the transaction cost is 50 cents for the price of preening the dollar bills. The bitcoin only needs to be "minted" once.

Before you discuss why or how something happens, you need to establish that it happens. You need to start with " does consciousness arise from within the thalamus?" Because the obvious answer is "no". Do you have a reason to think otherwise?

Do you mean... like cash? I'm fairly sure that the blockchain ensures that all crypto-currency deals are exceptionally well documented. Just like all forms of money.

It turns out that Rand Paul is well aware of lying. https://www.factcheck.org/person/rand-paul/

Even if you take the claim at face value, it does not make sense. If I give the local university money to research hair restorer, and that university also does research on chemical weapons, am I funding chemical weapons? If they say they spent my money on the weapons, does that mean I funded them, or does it mean they stole my money and misused it? So the interesting question is why is Rand Paul making allegations which do not even make sense? And the other question is why is the OP repeating them?

Say you have some uranium (VI) fluoride UF6, and it decays. It spits out a helium nucleus and forms Thorium and helium. But the helium nucleus is shot at at a huge speed. So, according to the conservation of momentum, the Thorium nucleus must be kicked the other way by the recoil. It is usually set moving so fast that most of the fluoride ions simply get left behind. Indeed, most of the outer electrons get left behind too So you get a mess of fluorine, helium, thorium (as ions) and electrons all moving in different directions.

Sometimes. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01009a040 But usually the energy released tears up the ions involved.

I suspect the temperature is so high that atomic nuclei get torn apart rather than fused. It's completely beside the point.

We don't need to rely on your guesswork. We know that ice sublimes in a vacuum. We also know how the melting point of ice changes with pressure. Raising the pressure reduces the melting point by about 0.01C per atmosphere of pressure.

If the equation given here https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/23-wind-turbine is correct, the available power for a 1 metre radius wind turbine in air with a density of 1.2 kg/m^3 travelling at 8 m/s is is 381 Watts. For a 1 metre diameter blade the available power is 95 watts. I can't be bothered to inbox you, but the best help I can offer is "check your maths".

Because , if you take away a debt, from someone, they end up in credit.

In principle, nothing. Three will be limitations due to strengths of materials. The big difference is that the same amount of pumping will only move a big piston by a small distance.

Release of internal energy. Supercooled water is unstable. It does. It draws it from whatever created the temperature difference in the first place. On Earth, that's generally the Sun. It's nothing magic; just physics.

Interesting , but impractical. Those observing the experiment would drown. I'm kidding, but the "observers" of these experiments are things like X-ray machines and lasers which don't take kindly to salt water.

Are you taking the p***? If you supercool water (for example in the cylinder of some "engine") and then induce it to freeze- say by shaking, it warms up to 0C as it freezes.

It is also why pressure vessel testing is done with liquids (usually water) rather than gas. Fundamentally, the idea depends on having a large "cold body" that you can use for cooling. And if you have that, you can use it to run a "stream engine" with, for example, butane, as the working fluid.

Nice graph. But the y axis is electric field strength, not "height", so you can't say that the photon has a width. You would be saying something like the width is "x volts per meter". Does that help in any way?

Even if the answer was "it's marginal" (Let's be clear; it is not marginal because the vaccine is way safer) then they should take the vaccine. It's a good idea not to spread diseases. Partly because it's antisocial. Partly because the more people get the virus, the more likely it is that the virus will mutate into something that does do lots of harm to the under 50s.

I wonder if Sandor will come back.

In the absence of any constraints (for example, if it was floating in space), if you start the system up (say, by remote control) the rotor will spin one way, and the stator (and power supply etc) will spin the other. An ant sat on the battery will see the stars moving and will deduce that he's spinning. Another ant on the mass "m" will make the same observations and deductions. If you let them communicate they will be able to establish that they are rotating in opposite directions around the same axis. Neither of them will think they are vibrating. Meanwhile back on Earth I can watch the tip of the second hand of the clock as it goes round. It's going more or less horizontally left to right 15 seconds later it's going straight down. Another 15 seconds and it's moving right to left and another 15 seconds and it's going vertically up. But it isn't normal to think of that as the sum of a left to right, and up and down motion. It's going round in a circle. On the other hand, going round in circles is just one option. if you can vary the phase and frequency of the L-R and U-D vibrations independently, you acn get pretty patterns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curve None of this is rocket science.

"New Hubble Data Breaks Scientists’ Understanding of the Universe" That's what research is for. It's called progress. However, my guess is that the headline is misleading.

Or one atmosphere if the temperature is high enough. In normal circumstances, air molecules travel at about the speed of sound (that's not a coincidence) If you want them to travel near the speed of light, that's about a million times faster (give or take) That means you need to increase their energy a million million times (because the energy varies as the square of the velocity) And the average energy is proportional to temperature. So you need to heat them up from about 280K to about 280,000,000,000,000 K I think that's about 10,000 times hotter than a supernova.

I think it's typically a horse that produces antivenoms.

Al they are saying is that, to a rough approximation, the deviation is roughly proportional to the square of the distance over which the light travels. They are approximating the curvature by a parabola. It's not a desperately bad approximation. Inches per mile squared is an odd unit, but ... But their claim that air is homogeneous is ,wrong, only slightly, but nevertheless, wrong. And by an interesting coincidence, the effect almost exactly cancels out the curvature of the Earth. Which explains their experimental results (without resorting to stupid stuff like a flat Earth).

Actually, that's the parabolic approximation to the curve. But it's not the point. Do you accept that the air is thinner at altitude and will therefore have a lower refractive index?