studiot

This is a really clever trick, though I have never seen any conjuror perform it. Here is a picture of particles in superposition.

I have always loved this Norman Rockwell picture 600 × 635

Thank you for listening. It never was a mistake IMHO. But you missed some tricks out of your list. Geothermal and gravitational sources are both more reliable proven technology with a much greater service life expectancy than either wind or solar (of course both wind and solar rely on the same source).

Surely this belongs in the stories section ? Sounds like a job for an EE Doc Smith's Lensman.

Sorry, that's nothing to do with pressure. Mistake. I wondered if you meant to refer to Curie temperature as emergent ? It is certainly a tipping point.

I can't see why you merit a downvote for you opening post so I have added a balancing +1. It is clear from your second post that you are using old data, which is not only incomplete but in part incorrect to draw your conclusions. So you seem to have a genuine misunderstanding. Yes there have been many hypotheses over the years concerning the origin of the Moon and we still cannot be sure of the true origin. But, as we gather more data we can at least rule out those which do not fit observations.

I didn't say otherwise, did you not read the thread title ? This is completely off topic which is about using fusion energy to generate electricity. Read my comment you replied to again and you should be able to see that you have misread it.

A water planet ? Where did the water come from ? With Techtonic plates ? How did they arise on a water planet? Where did I say there would commonality between moons ? But the composition of the Earth, Moon, comets, meteors, asteroids, and of course the other planets and moons in the system are all different. But comparisons can be drawn. There was a hypothesis the the opposite happened. The present Moon separated from the Earth, leaving behind the Pacific basin. I think lunar geology has since disproved this one.

The reason I mentioned steam driven generators at the end of the exchange line is that we don't have many other feasible generation methods to hook a fusion reactor to. MHD direct has not yet been made to work, although feasible in theory. Wind and water turbines, or solar panels are not really suitable.

The short answer is no, not on the evidence we have available to us. Do you have any evidence to support this ? Like for instance a comparison of the rocks on the existing Moon and those on Earth ? Or some other explanation of Rodinia and Pannotia ?

Well I'm sorry I bothered, I won't bother in future.

Lovely. +1 Meanwhile back to the 1960s, us thick and uncultered scientists had to do an auxiliary O level in History of Art, for the good of our souls. To my suprise I discovered the art teacher ran an after school project hand grinding and polishing lenses and mirrors for an astronomical telescope for the school. The project had being going for a couple of years by my time and was not expected to be finished before I left.

Yes it is disappointing that we have not yet even passed the first hurdle, that of sustained controlled fusion. Obviously this needs to be achieved before we can overcome the technological details of extracting worthwhile energies from the process. We don't yet know what sort of process we will have only that extraction stragegies will necessarily depend on the process. If the process simply produces heat, it seems most likely that there will be a steam turbine/generator at the end of the chain. But different avenues of possible processes have been explored since Zeta, the first attempt I was aware of. Knowledge of the then hardly understood processes of Magnetohydrodynamics and Plasma Physics has been greatly enhanced since that time, as have new magnetic methods using superconductors and other better magnetic materials and ignition methods using lasers. So the research and attempts have not been in vain. I still wonder if the final solution will not by direct generation by MHD methods. As to your point about pitching for funds and other backing, Sadly successive UK governments have been busy dismantling research establishments wholesale and even have a track record of cancelling projects that are working well. So many enterprises have to function in a stop-go, stop-go world, never finishing anything.

Claimed to be the hottest place on Earth https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-59601560

My thoughts are that drawing on Navier Stokes as a comparison is not enough to posit dark energy or dark matter. N-S has the characteristic that, although difficult to insoluble, it arise purely from conventional dynamics. No additional Physics is necessary. Bringing the numbers game into consideration; The suggestion to messers Navier and Stokes that a large enough lump of metal could spontaneously explode would have been fanciful. But their work did predate knowledge of radioactivity. Later (and therefore additional Physics) can be used to predict the size of a lump of Uranium that will spontaneously explode as a fission bomb. The size is not of astronomical proportions. Astronomical sized bodies of lighter elements such as hydrogen, helium etc will spontaneously ignite in self sustaining fusion dynamics. I would suggest that both of these activities are emergent phenomena. So I suppose that N & S might have thought such phenomena emergent but with the addition of new Physics. Yes Physicists love to separate out or isolate effects. But can this always be achieved ? Consider adding 3 + 4 = 7 Yet if we add a vector of magnitude 3, separated out from a vector of magnitude 4 by orthogonality we get a vector of magnitude 5. Is this an 'emergent' pair ? More numbers The number of bricks to form my arch is irrelevant. The pieces may be much smaller than a brick - pebble sized - or much larger as large blocks of stone. Obviously many more small pieces will be needed to form the arch than from large pieces. It is even conceivable to form the arch of a single piece - you do not actually require two or more interacting pieces ! A small point about corbels. There is no emergent structural action in a corbel as there is in an an arch. Corbels and arches act in structurally different manners. Corbels work by supporting a bending moment in the bulk material , which has small but not zero tension stength The configuration is such as to allow the tension remain within these low limits. But in a true arch there is zero bending moment and zero tension. This really is an interesting thread, which is showing up some interesting answers.

How does any of this affect my technical comments ? Did the peer reviewers not ask what was being plotted on the axes ? The article I was presented with was almost certainly not peer reviewed. Perhaps the Nature article was, I don't know. Perhaps the Nature article told us what was being plotted on the graph axes. I lost the will to plough through paper, referring to paper, perhaps referring to........ Rayleigh introduced his waves in 1885, although these are not Rayleigh waves.

Well researched and reported. +1

Yes I understand that and I'm sure you understand that there is only one length, it is just that different observers will assess it differently. That is the point of my little story and the point swansont has been trying to drive home. I can't see how apparently accepting the OP false statement that there are two lengths as opposed to two assessments of one length helps.

Do you not think this statement gives the wrong impression ? Here is a story There is a long straight road through the middle of my village where the speed limit is the standard 30mph. However so many drivrs fail to observe the speed limit that the local neighbourhood watch has set up a speedwatch. They have two identical portable radar guns and their procedure is to calibrate or synchronise the guns by observing Jeff driving through the village, whilst standing together at the roadside. Having agreed that both guns give the same reading, Jim gets in the car with Jeff who follows behind a driver driving through the village. Jack stays by the roadside and reads the speed of the driver on his gun as a steady 40mph. In Jeff's car, Jim reads a different steady speed of 10mph on his gun. So does the errant driver have two speeds ?

OK so a single oscillator is not a wave and you cannot have a wave without a collection of oscillators. But does a collection of oscillators always make a wave or is there more to it ? So what is an 'event' and how are they distinguished ? And how does Smolin's definition conform or reduce to the standard definition of an event in spacetime ?

And ?

Thank you for the article. Sorry to pour a bit of cold water, but I have some doubts about the scientific veracity of both the article and its publication site. I am wary of a site that also offers articles like "Did Hubble discover God ? Einstein amazed" and "DNA code points to a creator" The article offers a description of wave motion that we teach as an introduction for 14 - 16 year olds at 'O' level. It has actually been known for a century and a half or more that there are more types of waves than transverse and longitudinal. Some (Rayleigh waves) are even named after the Physicist who studied them. This is not to say that the Hong Kong scientists have not discovered something interesting and perhaps new. But the article does not say what is vibrating in its diagrams. (Plots c and d) Pressure is not a vector. The demonstration device (in picture a) looks like some sort of focusing device. An array of sound sources. It is well known that the sound output is more and more narrowly focused the more speakers you put into a line array. This fact is used in stage speakers. Pictures d and e seem to me to show interference from multiple sound sources. However the group of pictures are entitled negative refract induced by the spin- orbital interaction in momentum space. The false colour appears to give intensity values, but intensity of what ? It does not say. So perhaps the scientists have engineered a clever way to manipulate sound.

Lovely pic +1 Perhaps you would like to consider and list the characteristics that make it emergent ?

Two things. You never told us what you are growing in this soil. Conventional gardening wisdom is that since to are relying on in place soil microbes to do anything to the dust, you will lower the nitrogen levels of the soil whilst they perform this task for you. In the long run it may improve the soil, but that will take more than a year and by then you will have more leaves.

confused or not listening ? I'm done with this thread.