MigL

yet you are the one who brought up the Kirov battlecruiser, not the Kirov class of battlecruisers. As for 'ignorance', this is common knowledge and has been for 20 years. See here for a fairly good read of all the problems this class of ship has had Kirov-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia Even the flagship of the Northern Fleet, the Pyotr Veliky ( Peter the Great ) has had many difficulties "Construction of the fourth ship, Yuriy Andropov, encountered many delays; her construction was started in 1986 but was not commissioned until 1998. She was renamed Pyotr Veliky (after Peter the Great) in 1992.[7] She currently serves as the flagship of the Russia's Northern Fleet. On 23 March 2004, English language press reported the Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief, Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroedov said Pyotr Veliky's reactor was in an extremely bad condition and could explode "at any moment", a statement which may have been the result of internal politics within the Russian Navy.[11] The ship was sent to port for a month, and the crew lost one-third of their pay."

A 'vessel' filled completely with water at 1 atm, submerged under water at 10 atm, will experience some compression stressess, and on opening a valve to equalize pressure, there will be very little, if any, movement of water since the 'vessel' is already filled. However, as the pressure is now equalized, the 'vessel' will now relax from the compression stresses, and, depending on materials used, there could be some expansion ( back to normal ) of the 'vessel', and so, a limited inrush of water.

The Kirov ? Really ? If the Russians had gotten that right, it would have been the only one, as they failed miserably with their carriers, and had to sell them for liquid funds to India and China ( where they turned out to be crap and almost unuseable ) Did you forget to mention that the Kirov never actually made it out of the Mediterranean Sea, where, during tis second deployment, it suffered reactor damage ? It has basically been mothballed since the 90s, and although the Russians announced plans to overhaul the whole Kirov class nuclear missile cruiser fleet, the Kirov itself ( sometimes known as Admiral Ushakov ), and its sister ship, Admiral Lazarev, were beyond repair. Get your military analysis from Jane's, not YouTube.

I liked the ibsightful ( and humble ) answere given by exchemist early in the previous page ... "My limited, chemist's understanding of QM is that you can't really speak of an "objective" EM field configuration for a single photon. If you could, it seems to me it would be a classical object rather than a QM one." QM does not allow us to say anything about certain properties of a quantum particle, until we interact with that quantum particle, thereby changing that property. If that were not the case we would be dealing with a classical particle. There is a difference.

An electrolytic capacitor is two thin aluminum sheets with an 'oil' impregnated paper separator between them.. This is rolled-up into a tube, encased in an aluminum or plastic housing, and capped at either end wth rubber, through which, the connecting leads are passed. This is by no means a sealed assembly. Over time, the 'oil' impregnating the paper, tends to dry out, even without use. With use , the process of drying out is posibly accelerated due to increased temperatures. This 'oil' is not simply oil, but an organic chemical compound, selected for various properties; most important are dielectric properties, temperature resistance and stability over time, AND resistance to drying out. As no electrolytic capacitor manufacturer provides 'lifetimes' for their products, it is basically a crap-shoot as to whether thyll still have the same capacitance after many years. Their 'lifetime' will certainly exceed the manufacturer's warranty of the product they are in. If, on the other hand, you are designing equipment, and don;t wish to run into such problems, use a more expensive sealed type of capacitor, but as Studiot explained, those have failure modes also. Please don't ask the same question a 5th time.

Why not separated. Or excluded ? Personally, I've always thought you either have superposition, or you don't. There is no actual 'opposite'.

Of course there's an explanation. The simplest is that, to measure the speed of the second oppositely directed light beam, you need to be in the FoR of the first light beam. And since light has no valid FoR, you need to use SR addition rules ( Lorentz transformations )from a valid third frame. Where you will always measure c to be the maximum speed.

Each GPU core contains 128 Arithmetic Logic Units, ALUs, for a total of 1024 ALUs. Fabbed by TSMC in a 5 nm process, they have 4 hi-performance CPU cores, and 4 lo-performance CPU cores, for a ( claimed ) world's best CPU performance per watt.

oh sure. Throw me under the bus... 😄😄

Ahh That's where the problem is ! I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. You mentioned earlier about us having our heads buried in the sand... Maybe you should get your head out of your a*s. What exactly are you a Prof. of ?

Newton is not applicable at relativistic speeds. Wiki on Kinetic Energy Kinetic energy - Wikipedia Especially relevant is the section on 'Relativistic Kinetic Energy of Rigid Bodies'. Do a little research before posting nonsense and embarassing yourself.

What if we added Antimony to the water of the oceans ? Would that help ? I'm sorry, I'm being silly and facetious. Seems to be a requirement in this thread.

Too late ! By the way, mass and inertia are not the same thing either. Mass is resistance to inertia change. So now you've stated that mass, volume and inertia are equivalent. Can you get more confused ?

Nobody 'jams' the satellite transmitter , although there have been attempts at lo-orbit satellite killing missiles. What you do is 'swamp' the local reciver with spurious noise, burying the signal. It is a simple matter for a trio of AWACS, at say 200 mi. distance, to pick up the satellite signal, do triangulation and transmit the modified ( and not quite as accurate ) signal to the networked, and securely linked, F-35, which then fires its missile, and V Putin is history.

This thread seemed to be a good learning opportunity for MPMin, who gave the appearance of being very interested certain ideas. Until the guy with the 'crazy' eyes, who calls himself a Prof. derailed it.

How many more times ??? You've been told repeatedly over the last two weeks that your recollections of pre-WW2 science are wrong, yet you shrug off each instance and either move on to another inane subject, or double down on your previous claims. What is the point of letting you know what is wrong with what you are saying ? You only chose to ignore it. That is not discussion. That is an obstinate old fool, who believes he knows more than he actually does.

Specific gravity is otherwise known as relative density. It is usually a ratio compared to the density of water, and as such, it is a unit-less number. Do a dimensional analisys and see which of us doesn't make sense mathematically. Stick to what you know; ask about what you don't.

Because electromagnetic radiation can be seen as a repetitive signal of a specific frequency and wavelength, you might want to look at the effects of gravitational time dilation, such that light experiences a relative ( between different potentials ) stretching of the time-base ( red -shift ) as it climbs out of a gravitational well.

All of that gibberish is inconsequential to the property of mass. Stick to what you know; ask questions about what you don't.

GPS is a 'local' receiver of time/location information from the orbiting satellites. You might be able to 'swamp' the local receiver so that it can't detect the satellite signals, but a military system would use AWACS, software translation, and a secure digital link ( see NATO's Link 16, for example ), to transmit location information, and still get the job done. V Putin is lucky his 'enemies' are not like him. If someone wanted him dead, he would be.

If there is an event horizon present, then the wavelength of any radiation emitted within( that travels at c ), is stretched to infinity ( and its frequency reduced to zero ). IOW, nothing leaves the event horizon ( simplistic explanation ). If the gamma ray was emitted well outside the event horizon, then yes, as Eise explained, it would lose enough energy climbing out of the gravitational well to be red-shifted to much longer wavelengths, such as those of visible light. There is something to be said for a well-posed question.

You gotta stop living in the past. Science has moved on since B Franklin. AJB was ( still is ) one of our most well respected members. Don't be putting him into the same sentence as idiotic perpetual motion machines. Stick to what you know; ask questions about what you don't.

Mass ( inertial ) is that property of a system, that resists changes in inertia, of that system. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the definition of mass as I know it. If you should need an explanation, be sure to ask.

you don't seem to have reflected on much during your vacation. Why not stick to what you know, and try to learn some science from the many people here who are knowledgeable in it ? If you wish to discuss the history og Grumman's Bethpage ( Long Island ) facility, its many Navy fighters, its lunar lander program, many unbuilt projects, and collaboration with Northrop, I would be more than glad to engage in conversation. As for science, I'm sorry, but you are out of your depth.

Try that with a military GPS.