MigL

It has nothing to do with 'spinning' the death toll, JC. His policies, such as pressuring State Governors to re-open, and lack of policies, such as not making medical supplies available to certain States, have led to the situation in the US. Canadians and Americans are generally very similar, and our own response has been far from perfect. Yet Canada, with 1/10 of the American population, has 42x less infections. And 23x less deaths

And a 'wormhole, or any other means of FTL motion ( however improbable, just for discussion sake ) allows you to break causality. IOW 'see' things before they 'happen'. You are trying to apply physical rules to an un-physical ( FTL travel ) situation. I'm only telling you what that un-physical situation seems to imply.

Stop it, Joigus. You're making me blush .

The two ends of the wormhole would be local. Looking through a telescope 'sees' 4.3 years in the past. Looking ( and travelling ) through the wormhole 'sees' local ( don't want to say 'now' ) time.

This relates also to our other discussion regarding wormholes. All spatial points are separated by time also; the person next to you ( assuming social distancing ) is about 6.6 ns in the past. If you travel 'faster than light' through those two meters, you travel faster than causality, and are in effect travelling into the 'future'. ( to be clear, the 'future' of the person standing 2 m away from you, not your own 'future' ) The effect is more clear if you draw light cones.

Also competed in the Mr Universe bodybuilding contest in 1953 He was no competition for the much bulkier Americans.

Yet, still my favorite. My profile says 'Glorious Leader', but it used to say 'Scientist'. Can I still call myself a scientist ???

It is not the atomic element, but the intermolecular bonds that resonate ( stretch/vibrate/bend ) at radio and microwave frequencies.

Science is by definition, repeatable. Emotional responses don't allow for that. But I agree that the term 'scientist' is nebulous at best. Another example … Is someone who tries to expand our knowledge, either through experiment or theory, using the scientific method, but doesn't actually accomplish anything a 'scientist ' ? ( see A Einstein in his later years, working on a unified field theory; would anyone say he wasn't a scientist ? )

Mostly because they have to deal with people's 'emotions', to which the scientific method cannot be applied. Besides, if I use my definition, I can call myself a 'scientist'.

Well ...yes. Assuming such things as wormholes exist, while their associated problems do not … You travelled 4.3 LY in a short period of time, so you obviously went superluminal. But that planet ( in orbit around Alpha Centauri ) is not the same one you were looking at from Earth. On Earth you were seeing the light that left it 4.3 years ago; so you essentially travelled 4.3 Years into the 'future. Remember that the speed of light determines causality. It might be better explained from the opposing PoV. Say you are on a planet 100LY away. You look at the Earth through a powerful telescope, and see people dying from a pandemic called the Spanish Flu. You step through your wormhole, and get here instantly. But it is now 100 years later on Earth, and people are dying from a pandemic called Covid 19. You have effectively travelled 100 years into the future. And stepping through the wormhole again to go home, you will be back on that 100 LY distant planet, and 'see' Earth again ( through the telescope ) in the year 1919; you have effectively travelled back into the 'past'. You will see WW2 unfold, the Korean and Vietnam war, and eventually, in 100 years, you'll see Covid 19 arrive.

I prefer to think a scientist is anyone who thinks like a scientist. And since that's circular, I'll re-phrase to someone who uses the scientific method to solve problems. Is someone who gets his MSc, but decides to just teach ( without doing original research ) accepted and well-understood science to kids, not a scientist because he/she doesn't contribute to increasing our understanding ? Is an engineer who applies known science, and doesn't contribute to increasing our understanding, not a scientist ?

Very sad news, a legend of film, and the pride of Scotland, has passed. The orginal ( and best ) James Bond, Captain Remus. Jimmy Malone and John Mason, has passed after a distinguished career. Remembering Swansont's previous avatar, I offer my condolences.

Say you are looking at a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, 4.3 light years away. Now assume you have a wormhole connecting the Earth to this planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Space-time is 'local' at either opening of the wormhole, so if you step through, you emerge on that planet 4.3 years in your future. Not as you were seeing it from Earth.

Pandering to every group, and further sub-dividing society.

That's not really what it says. Time is relative so any superluminal ( spacelike ) travel will be faster compared to regular travel through space-time. That is what a wormhole would allow you to do. And to come back through the wormhole to your original starting point with only your travel time having elapsed. The wormhole, in effect, 'links' two distant regions of space-time and makes them local. The article goes on to explain how the standard model only allows for microscopic wormholes and the tidal effects of intense gravity, but those are not the biggest issues. Keep in mind that what a scientific model allows is not the same as what reality allows. IOW, there is a good chance that wormholes are not realizable.

Interesting ... Is this what Reynolds number indicates ? I always thought t indicated where 'laminar' flow changes to turbulent ( or ratio of inertial to viscous forces in a fluid ). Is this the specific energy interpretation ? Back to supersonic sub design … As John suggests, given enough power, it has to go supersonic; we are just trying to determine ( and mitigate ) resulting effects. I suppose the easiest way is to shoot hi-power bullets into water; at least initially, they would be travelling at 1500m/s. Never actually done this, but seen video of ( slower ) bullets travelling through water, and they do leave a vapor trail. Heat and pressure energy are quickly attenuated by the surrounding medium. Unlike a sonic boom, water is a good heat sink, and expansion takes care of the vapor pressure.

I'm thinking that once the sub got to supersonic under water ( 1500 m/s ), the shock cone would actually become a vapor cone, with liquid water on the outside of the cone, and an immediate change to vapor inside the cone, due to vastly decreased pressure. The cavitation wouldn't be behind the sub, but behind the shock cone and all around the sub. That would really make it interesting. You often see jets with moisture condensation inside their shock cone due to decreased pressure … ( the shock starts at subsonic speeds at 1/4 chord because local airflow, at the wing, is supersonic ) Looking forward to other members' input, and corrections.

There are two types of fluid flows in aero/hydrodynamics, compressible and incompressible. They can both be modelled by little springs between each fluid particle; when you push against one particle, it pushes against the next via the little interconnecting springs, and the fluid, in effect, compresses. If you push too fast, the little springs reach maximum compression, and the particles begin to 'pile up' into a bow wave. For air, this happens at Mach 1, and the air effectively becomes incompressible. Water is nearly incompressible from the get-go ( also, liquids and solids have transverse 'sound' waves as well as longitudinal ). That's why you see a bow wave on a boat doing 10 mph. That wave is the 'shock' of the particles bunching up because they can't move out of the way fast enough. Another ( huge ) problem would be cavitation. This is usually seen in pumps/propellers where the fluid can't flow fast enough into the area behind the pump/propeller blades, creating a low pressure area ( or even vacuum ) which tends to destroy equipment. For a plane the shock is the separation where supersonic air is drastically decelerated to subsonic ( inside the shock cone ), and it carries a lot of momentum/energy which is dissipated in the 'sonic boom'. If the 'sub' was at a shallow depth, with the surface close by, the spray pattern of the water shock into the air would be extremely interesting. to say the least. So the shock wave of travelling through water would be no different than through an incompressible fluid such as supersonic air, except for the cavitation problem, which I didn't consider on Sunday ( and which may make this idea a non-starter ).

A 'wormhole' is a shortcut through space-time, and, if used as a 'time machine', cannot get you back to a time before the wormhole was created. That being said, if the shortcut reduced a distance of 100 LY in regular space-time to one light month, it would still take you one month to traverse the wormhole. The length of the wormhole would be dependent on the topology of space-time as modified by the wormhole, and how it is 'constructed'. edit Purely theoretical, or for sci-fi, of course. I don't think wormholes are actually possible.

Two Broadcom distributors show up n a google search ... https://www.mouser.com/manufacturer/broadcom/ http://www.ameya360.com/mfrdetail/broadcom?utm_campaign=English&utm_medium=Google&utm_source=adwords&utm_content=guanjianzi&utm_term=Broadcom Otherwise you might try searching through eBay for used parts. The Pi 4 uses the BCM2711 4 core SoC, but that needs 4W; you might be better off with the lower power single or double core versions in earlier Pi.

Raspberry Pi uses a Broadcom processor, an in-house implementation of the ARM architecture ( see Acorn Business Machines RISC Microprocessor, a 32 bit outgrowth of the 8 bit MOStech 6502 processor used in the Apple II and Commodore/Atari ). I have no idea where you could source such a chip n small quantities. Your best bet would be either using a Pi motherboard ( with additions ), or cannibalizing one for chips ( de-soldering SM chips is difficult ). Here is some info on Raspberry Pi hardware ... https://www.raspberrypi.org/documentation/hardware/raspberrypi/

I have to wonder, then, how did other elementary particles, like the Quark colors and Neutrino flavors, come about ? They are certainly not 'made up' of Electrons and Positrons; and the current Big Bang/Standard model explains their origin fairly well. ( except for a few inconsistencies which may have something to do with the fundamental nature of quantum particles, such as matter/antimatter asymmetry, dark matter, Neutrino oscillations and strong CP problem )

So did I ( but I wasn't foolish enough to attempt writing an OS ). Now who's waxing nostalgic ?

Actually, they are just as possible as frictionless surfaces .