studiot

Yes that is one hypothesis, thought some references would have been nice. Here are some A bit of a sensationalist site https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/ancient-terror-crocodile-deinosuchus-ate-dinosaurs and a more measure one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinosuchus Note that both refer only to supposition, not hard evidence. But both sites refer to older ideas about cretaceous environemntal conditions, although the central N. american shallow sea was mentioned. I suggest that the skin of a creature that spends most of its time largely submerged would need to have differences from that of a creature that spends most of its time in the open air. The most modern reconstructions by respectively Lascouara (Dakota) Attenborough (UK) and Packham (UK) suggest some differences including the intriguing question Were the flying dinosaurs beginning to dominate before the end , especially as it is known that sea levels were rising duting this period. These can all be seen from the BBC 'The Day the Dinosaurs Died' presented by Roberts and Garrod 'Earth' presented by Cchris Packham 'The Final Day' presented by David Attenborough

Thanks, swansont +1 More detail from 'The Oxford Scientist' https://oxsci.org/geologic-hydrogen-the-future-of-green-energy/

Even with the latest ideas as to the age of the Andes, they are less than 20 million years old. So that part of South Americal has changed significantly since say 100 mya. But yes, such a region would have supported lots of food species.

Use Spherical coordinates for the angular momentum operator [math]{I^2} = - \hbar \left[ {\frac{1}{{\sin \theta }}\frac{\partial }{{\partial \theta }}\left( {\sin \theta \frac{\partial }{{\partial \theta }}} \right) + \frac{1}{{{{\sin }^2}\theta }}\frac{{{\partial ^2}}}{{\partial {\phi ^2}}}} \right][/math] to solve [math]{I^2}Y\left( {\theta ,\phi } \right) = {\hbar ^2}\lambda Y\left( {\theta ,\phi } \right)[/math] for eigenvalues.

I meant to say +1 for reaching this conclusion for yourself and admitting it online. Remember that a T Rex needs a lot of food so will either have to hunt a lot of small game or some very big game. So it will hang about well stocked places. That is places that are also good for other creatures, perhaps plant eaters. So the lush areas of the planet.

How is this the answer to my question ? The thermal conductivity of Aluminium is about 237 W M-1 K-1 right the way down to zero K so your piece of wire must be drawing (thermal) energy into the ring at a rate given by the usual heat transfer laws. I do not have data for the mobility of phonons in a n Al lattice. The cirtical temperature for superconductivity is 1.14o K As drawn I think your wire is a red herring as charge equilibrium will quickly be established and there will not be two way electrical currents in it, otherwise conservation of charge leads to the inevitable conclusion that there will be a build up of charge somewhere.

Isn't 'free' a qualifier ?

Now we are discussing perhaps it is worth setting the question in the context of geological history. The dinosaurs age lasted about 150 million years between 210 mya and 66 mya when there was the a series of cataclysmic events which caused their mass extinction. This time period spanned from the middle triassic to the late cretaceous, during which there were significantly no ice ages. Prior to this time the land masses were mostly concentrated on the equator but had begun to spread out towards both poles. By the middle triassic (the first dinosaurs) these land masses had crossed the tropics, but significant portions of what is now North America, Europe and Asia were still between the equator and the tropics. The first T Rexes came somewhere between 90 mya and 75 mya, and they lasted until the extinction event. Now a T Rex is a very large animal that clearly requires a good deal of food. Good supplies are unlikely to be available in arid to desert conditions. Note there are no large predators in these conditions today. So the question of swamp living is not a bad one. The height of a T Rex is about 3 - 4 metres. Far greater than that of a modern crock or gator. This means that shallow water would be unlikely to be an impediment to the creatures. But as already pointed out, their anatomy is entirely unsuited to deeper waters. Even today you have to go a long way offshore to get to 5 metres depth in most places. T Rex would definitely not be at home in such conditions. From the triassic into the jurassic and cretaceous there were extensive areas of shallow warm seas and extensive areas of swampy conditions. So the dinosaurs were able to spread out over much of the earth's land mass and out competed other forms of animal life. Competition also further developed them into prey and predators, aerial and land based.

Can they ?

That was a friendly hint I offered. It would be sad if a possible good topic got closed by a moderator for rules violations, which is after all why they close things.

The problem seems to me to be that you have posted this as a speculation. So strictly you are speculating that T REx may have been aquatic or semi aquatic, rather than asking the question Why do we not consider that T rex was aquatic in a biology or geology or section ? A speculation is a guess by you and a question is a request for information. And as swansont has said, you need evidence to back up your guess (speculation).

You haven't answered my question. One end of your wire is at a higher temperature than the other. These are the conditions for a thermal electric current to flow. Please also note that you are in breach of the requirements for ot posting the material on the forum. However congratulations on the one piece of maths you have noted in your paper . At least your equation is dimensionally consistent, unlike so many speculations we get here.

Is there not a thermal counter current from the warm chamber to the cold chamber in the wire ?

😀 +1

Just a quick shuftie for those worried about bugs. 500 ml spray bottle alcohol cleaning / sterilising solution £7.95 + delivery (Amazon) brand new wired pc keyboard £7.45, deliverd (ebay) but I have seen cheaper elsewhere. Personally I'd be more worried about the wave of bed bugs currently sweeping Europe and that has now reached our shores.

Indeed but Physics uses more than just simple (linear) proportionality. A very simple example would be the statement The Kinetic energy of a moving body is proportional to the square of its velocity. There is also what is known as inverse proportionality.

What's insane about it ? You might like to note that much asian cooking (curries etc) depends upon ghee, which is clarified butter, rather than oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghee Ghee is supposedly better f or you than the solid state butter.

Your words, not mine. I think you could profitably review your ability to credit other people as well as contradict them. So what is different in a dog's psyche compared my rabbit's, that my rabbit does not chase balls or balloons ? Cats are also hunters and also chase moving objects, but do not play fetch. @Eise Here is a passage from Robert Mills examining the place of determinism in Physics

I don't know. But How did "do not necessarily obey" (my words) become "do not obey" (your words) ? Further thinking could be one of those borderline nouns since thoughts themselves are abstract, but they need something physical to give them existence. Free will is a type of thought so also needs something to support it. So free will entails some measure of obedience to some physical laws. Dogs will chase objects, even when they don't actually know what the object is or is not. Take a dog for a walk and throw a stone, stick, ball something concealed in your hand.

Thank you for properly joining the debate. +1 You have posted the explanation I asked for about your video, the explanation that should have been in the same post as the video. See how easy that was ? I can now offer my comments which are that I do not find it surprising that the dogs chased the balloon. Dogs are a hunting animal that catches prey by chasing them, unlike some hunting animals that doe not chase such as many spiders. Having said that I think Eise is placing too much emphasis on a particular type of determinism. So I will move my spotlight from free will to determinism, and then offer a new example for discussion. The Universe contains more than one kind of object and English divides these into two classes, although it could be argued that there are at least borderline objects with a foot in both camps, if not more actual distinct classes. Formally these are called abtract nouns and concrete nouns respectively. Concrete nouns have a physical presence in the Universe and obey the laws of Physics. However as you point out not all these laws are deterministic. Some are random in nature. Abstract nouns do not necessarily obey the laws of Physics. So here is my new example. Recently I posted a comment in a thread about artificial intelligence involving pictures I had selected. Ahah 'selected' . Do I detect some free will creeping in ? I could have selected each picture from a list of candidate pictures, each of which would have acceptably represented the meaning intended. But the selection could have been made by some random process, which could not have been uniquely determined.

But I was since influencing the outcome is a form of determinism, and randomising is the antidote. Which is why I keep saying the subject is really multifactorial.

Interesting tale. +1

🙂 +1 I believe there has been some talking at cross purposes in this thread. I also believe that offereing plenty of real examples and discussing and explaining them helps to get your point across.

I didn't say they couldn'e, I am asking you as the OP to include them and other methods. As a for instance the point of a Hungarian goulash is that the paprika and onions are gently cooked together in oil just prior to addin the meat, followed by the other ingredients. A similar example of this is to cook the meat in a slow cooker or slow microwave with a bag or perforated ball of 'pickling spice' include in the pot, but this spice is removed at the end before serving. Your Halal reference will not, of course, include pig products. But a good way to cook Ham is to place several cloves of garlic along with a clove of cloves individually in slits in the joint, and then add a spoon of brown sugar to the boiling water. The boiling water also then is used to cook the greens and carrots which gives them extra flavour.

Surely you understand that the point of a multiply blind experiment is a deliberate attempt (as i mentioned earlier) to exlude observer bias so that the observer can't know anything about the randomly selected subject and therefore can't influence the outcome in any way ?