MigL

Hey Grinch, stop making everyone sad at Christmas time . ( Grinch is from Dr Seuss "How the Grinch stole Christmas" ) I recommend a movie called "Alpha", about a boy and his dog.

Don't let the artificially colored pictures fool you. The CMB is isotropic ( same in all directions ) to 2 parts in 10 000. You would start seeing deviations from 2.70 K after the 4th decimal place.

Tell it to bodybuilders/powerlifters, marathon runners or Olympic sprinters .

Let me clarify what the CMB is. The universe started off very hot. For a couple of hundred thousand years, the radiation that permeated the whole universe was hot enough that, if an electron were to attach to a proton ( hydrogen nucleus ) or a Helium nucleus, a gamma, or x, ray would soon come along and hit it with enough energy to cause it to escape. The whole universe was permeated by this plasma, where Hydrogen and Helium nuclei, as well as electrons, are kept from combining in this sea of high energy radiation. This is like conditions on the Sun, where temperatures keep elements in a plasma state, and atoms dissociated; you cannot see through plasma, the glow of scattering makes it opaque. But the universe kept expanding and cooling ( according to gas laws ), and at a certain point ( about 30000 K, temperature of last scattering ), the radiation was cool enough that it could no longer knock electrons loose, after they formed an atom. The glow of the plasma stopped, and the universe became transparent because radiation was no longer scattered, but free to travel to any observer ( even future ones like us ). Over the last 13 1/2 billion years, the universe has expanded by about a factor of 1040 times, and cooled by the same factor ( again according to gas laws ), which means that we would expect to see the afterglow of that plasma radiation about 1040 times cooler ( see Gamow ), and sure enough, but purely accidentally, two Bell Labs employees detected this much weaker afterglow ( see Penzias and Wilson ) at 2.70 K. That is the farthest we can see back in time electromagnetically, as before that the universe was opaque, and, we see it in all directions because it permeated the whole universe. Actually it was 'heard' in all directions because it is shifted to 1040 times longer wavelength/ lower frequency, by a square horn antenna in the 50s.

Sports are not necessarily about competition. You can get exercise by hiking, running or working out. I, myself, have never liked organized competitive sports. I joined my first gym when I was 16, and am in reasonably good shape for my age. I also remember being outside during all my evenings and Summers as a kid; you don't see that too much these days.

I don't understand what you are after, at all. Maybe you should work on your question posing skills. If you are at all unsure of what a term means, don't use it in your question. Or maybe keep it really simple, ask only one question, like "What does this term mean ? " I'm almost afraid to answer ( what I think ) your question, because you don't seem to understand people's responses, and go in all other directions. The function you are considering F(x) =x2 is NOT equivalent to x/x ( which is equivalent to 1 ), it is actually equivalent to x*x ( x times x, if you don't know what the little star means ). the x is a variable, which means it takes the place of any one number, just like the x axis on a graph has all the numbers on that axis.

I can see that replacing emergency generators, INow. Electricity is already expensive enough for people on fixed incomes; the financial burden of buying a battery ( and replacing it every so often ) might be better tackled by the 'sharing' of expenses by a community; a large scale community battery ( or means of power storage ), instead of distributed, home batteries. I know that sounds like Socialism, so you might not like it ( haha tables are turned ), but that is a way to even the load ( financial, not electrical ) between those who can afford a home battery, and those who can't, and may have to go without power.

Here is the way I envision it working. The nuclear power plant is sized to provide a median output, between the low draw periods ( like at night ), and the peak draw periods ( during the day ). The excess power generated during the low draw periods is used to charge a battery, heat steam, or pump water to a higher reservoir. When power isn't enough to supply the peak draw, it is topped-up from the battery, steam driven turbines, or water driven hydroelectric from the elevated reservoir ( dam ? ) The same can be done with renewables, but instead of high and low power draws, you have to consider high and low power generation. You generate more when wind/sun/tides are favorable, store the excess, and draw from it when conditions are unfavorable. As I said, I can see batteries for small scale applications, but to power a city they might not be feasible.

A regular PC power supply is approx. 6 x 6 x 4 inches and will put out 300-400 watts. At least 5v@12a and 12v@12a with trivial amounts on the -5v and -12v rails. You can easily find smaller power supplies made for small form factor PCs that are about3 x 3 x 6 in., and will do about 180 watts; that should be able to supply you with plenty of well regulated 5v and 12v for your needs, without trying to step-up a 5v supply to 12v.

Both nuclear and renewable energy sources need good storage solutions. Nuclear cannot do variable power output ( too quickly ) so it cannot ramp up for 'peak' times. While renewables cannot supply continuous power ( intermittent, depending on Sun, wind, tides … ) While lithium or solid state may be cost effective for smaller applications, laptops, cars, etc., I don't think they'll cut it for large scale power applications, such as power to a city. I would think more in terms of pressurised, insulated vessels of superheated steam ( which would slowly lose temperature and pressure, and literally be potentially dangerous bombs ), or pumping water to higher gravitational potential, and retrieving the stored power through Hydroelectric.

In a medium, depending on its properties, light is effectively slowed down by absorption, and re-emission, by the electrons in the constituent atoms. This process adds time; In 'between' atoms, light travels at c. There is no time dilation. If by 'variable' you mean relative, both time and length are relative and 'related'.

The CMB is an Electromagnetic phenomenon. We don't expect Dark Matter to have any EM effects that can be detected.

This is probably off-topic but it has to do with your assertion of how gas particles behave. Particles in a gas have a mean free path ( before a collision ), and a mean free time ( before a collision ) from which we can get mean free velocity, which is a measure of their kinetic energy, or temperature, and the density, or pressure, of the gas. If a particle is 'pushed' at a velocity LESS than its mean free velocity, it has time and speed enough to reach the next particle and 'communicate the 'push', through a collision ( and momentum conservation ). No such thing as action at a distance. If a particle is 'pushed' at a velocity GREATER than its mean free velocity, a particle cannot reach the next to 'communicate' the 'push, rather, it is 'pushed into it, and the next, and the next, and so on. This is what a shock wave is, and what happens when you have 'supersonic' flows, and the particles are pushed together into contact ( that is the only time you are right ). Supersonic means faster than the mean free velocity of the gas particles, and is dependent on temperature and pressure ( density ). Mean free velocity is, then, an indication of the speed at which pressure pulses, where each particle communicates with the next, propagate through the gas; our ear drums pick up these pressure pulses as sound. Sound is, therefore, a longitudinal pressure wave in the gas ( air ). Incidentally, if you had ^.02 x 1023 bullets ( in a mole of bullets ) they would act the same way. Welcome to Statistical Mechanics 101.

So you are saying that because the Government considers it beneficial for the economy, people working, and off social assistance, it is right for them to keep subsidising fossil fuels ? Then if some other Government gets elected, that considers climate change more important than the economy, they can subsidise green energies ? Or is it only when you personally agree with the direction the Government takes with their favoritism ?

None of the above makes any sense. But the one that really stands out... You do realize 'sound' is a pressure wave, don't you ? Do you actually know ANY Physics ?

Sorry Joigus… Just like the Speculations forum has a requirement to back up assertions, the Humor forum has a requirement that at least one person laughs out loud. I believe Swansont is writing that in the rules as we speak . I'm sure they'll take them down once the statue's ready. retty sure the flags will be down soon. But when are all those clowns going to stop wearing those red MAGA caps ? Don't they know everyone looks even sillier wearing a cap ?

I'm not suggesting the free market should be the sole arbiter, but it is one of them. And you've answered every other question except the most pertinent one to this topic. If a company came up with a zero emission scheme for burning fossil fuels, would you still object to it out of purely ideological reasons, and do you think Governments should try to make it less attractive to consumers by fining its users, or rewarding users of other energy sources ? Or do you think that is a 'decision' for the markets to make ?

That's the signal from the beacon set up to warn interstellar civilizations that they are getting close to Earth. Home to a belligerent, self-absorbed and uncaring civilization … of dolphins! ( always blame someone else )

The turtle joke is funny, Phi. Dictionary definitions are not, Joigus.

Refraction is when incident light bends towards the normal, on entry into a denser medium; this is caused by the 'slowing' of light by absorption and re-emission. What do you think is length contracted ?

Governments haven't favored vaccine developers, They have actually hurt them ( in a capitalistic way ). Can you imagine if only one company had developed a vaccine on their own? Can you imagine the price and bidding wars by Governments trying to secure vaccines for their people? They would become the biggest, most profitable company in the world, overnight. Exactly. And also like the example of 'extra' votes for under-representation in the past, which you are against. Did you misunderstand the point I was making with that post about unequitable voting rights to combat PAST inequitable voting rights ? Saying that something was wrong in the past, and using the same mechanism to 'fix' that past wrong, is still wrong in my opinion.

Exactly. When the cost of the technologies to clean fossil fuel emissions becomes too high, consumers will no longer be willing to use them. And they decide when to switch, and to which new technology. no need for the Government to be involved in picking winners and losers

I understand your point, and agree that is totally wrong. As is bailing out Big Banks and GM ( but not people ), because they are 'too big to fail'. But if there was a technology that would result in zero GHG emissions ( if that is the target set ), I would not have a problem using fossil fuels. Why should the Government have any further say in that ?

I think you're confusing 'funny' with 'sad'. edit A lot of criminals will be able to spend Christmas and New Year's at home celebrating. He still has a month's worth of Presidential Pardons to go.

J Biden has promised to rejoin the international community in the fight against increased GHG emissions. Whether that's done with renewable energy sources, or some other technologies ( one such being increased nuclear ) is to be decided. I personally don't like Governments 'picking' winners and losers in technology and industry, by financial incentives like rebates/grants or fines/taxes. That is not a Government's mandate. The Government should simply set rules/targets and it is up to technology/industry to meet them. I would not care if industry continued using fossil fuels, as long as they could meet reduced emission standards through scrubbing/containment ( or other ) technologies. If the cost of these containment technologies becomes increasingly high, and has to be passed on to consumers, THEY are the ones who will choose which industry thrives, and which goes extinct.