All Activity

Oh, yes, the atomic physicist retired from the Naval Observatory pointing out errors to the guy who makes up mathematical symbols and uses AI to claim others are incompetent. It's been so thrilling from the sidelines!

I think the key element that is left out is that key to science is the self-correction element. It is not about absolute or truths, at all, but the idea that over time, things will be incrementally more accurate. As such, it is more about trust in the process, rather than trust in people. Rather unfortunately, some folks do not realize that and focus on the persons instead.

I found aphantasia very interesting for the discussion of what we consider disorders or impairments in the mental realm. On its face, aphantasia seems like a deficiency in terms of what some claim is is mainly sensory imagination. Yet, in everyday life folks do not seem to be really affected by it.

I didn't give your a red mark..I don't get any joy out of that..am not a fun of swansont...you have cornered him,that's a great thing👍....However given he is not a specialist on your area of expertise...he has done a great job engaging you...he could have opted to keep quiet...what a good show when two titan lock horns...at least I see with good understanding swansont can be cornered.

Nish Kumar, on BBC sounds, is far more entertaining... What makes you think that this is an argument?

What does that mean?

@KJW I don't get the context of "The number of moles is inversely proportional to the molar mass." in van't hoff's factor. The definition/formula in book seems self-contradictory.

I meant LiqA/LiqA+LiqB

It was the part where you agreed that your work differs from GR 10000000000000000000 orders of magnitude would be remarkable Keep telling yourself that. It’s not at all a sign of being a crank

Well, no, not really. Switzerland is a different country. And this is basically the same argument as before, about the timing of something vs the underlying sentiment; I see you omitted the paragraph that follows your quote, that shows the result of a vote to prohibit new construction. These lame “arguments” are rather tedious. You’ve obviously convinced yourself of something, but it’s not based on any facts you’ve shared.

Lifespan would also be an important factor.

https://www.openculture.com/2026/02/why-some-people-think-in-words.html ~9 minute video in link I’m a mix of visual, inner monologue and emotional Take the surprise some have expressed in recent years upon finding out that the expression to “picture” something in one’s head isn’t just a figure of speech. You mean that people “picturing an apple,” say, haven’t been just thinking about an apple, but actually seeing one in their heads? The inability to do that has a name: aphantasia, from the Greek word phantasia, “image,” and prefix -a, “without.” I remember finding this out not that long ago (perhaps here; it’s come up a few times) Also that among those who visualize there’s a wide spectrum of what that entails.

For those who just can't get enough of this thread, tune into BBC Brit - Channel 120 on African Dstv - and watch endless repeats of 'Pointless'

@swansont On what basis this thread was moved to speculations? What did you find so speculative? Was it the remarkable agreement with empirical data across 10^20 orders of magnitude range? Or was it the lack of adjustable parameters and refusal of curve fitting? Or was it full open source methodology derivations calculations and results publicly available at willrg.com ? At least have some dignity and scientific honesty for open scientific dispute! Moving this thread without a word while I was away is just pathetic! Ahhhh I know! You moved it here because you ashamed of how your glairing incompetence was publicly reviled on the last few pages. This is worse than pathetic! You have no right to call yourself a scientist! Shame!

The main practical discriminator is scale. Given an amenable geography, hydro comfortably works with GW. Flywheels work with MW. Ditto weight-lifting. The efficiency figures for pumped hydro are clear enough. Large water pumps have a hydraulic efficiency ~85%, and Francis turbines (typical design for large units) can reach ~95% efficiency. Pipe and distribution losses add a couple of per cent each giving the overall round trip efficiency of ~75% I quoted earlier. I don't believe solar evaporation losses are a thing in Wales. But bear in mind that the context is trading up low cost wind energy on a stormy night in November to high value peak load GW at very short notice on Christmas Eve with perhaps a ten-fold increase in billable revenue - and the efficiency only needs to be reasonable. Availability at required scale is the ultimate measure.

Good points. As I say, regardless of the comparative efficiencies I am sceptical about weights in old mine shafts etc., as I just don't see how enough weight can be shifted, compared to pumping water.

Don't forget that winching systems rely on belt friction for cables to grip pulleys etc. (capstan equation and all that good stuff), and high ratio gearboxes can have significant losses. I wouldn't contradict your expectation as such, but I'd prefer to check the data first. It may not be quite so clear cut. Again... no free lunches. Not to mention the capital costs involved... (Apologies for delayed response - network went awol for 24 hrs) Does anyone actually understand this? Is that 30MW for a millisecond or a millennium? Surely the unit of interest is Joules.

Ok, I have more arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Switzerland

There’s still conversion from mechanical to/from electrical for a flywheel that represents a loss. That’s the comparison for pump efficiency. The analogue of spin-down is the evaporation that was mentioned

I’m going by a memory from the story told before seeing it in college, ~45 years ago, at an annual “bad films” showing before Halloween

It is also noteworthy that it would be a bit of a mistake to see cohesive strategies everywhere in the Trump administration. There are of course folks who do have a plan, such as Vought and Miller. But as Trump is too lazy (or dumb) to follow all that, his public remarks have been used repeatedly in court to undermine arguments of government lawyers in court. I think Trump is used to pick and choose whatever reality he fancies at any given point but at least so far that doesn't really work in court. I may be wrong, but isn't KJW's point that foreign relations is a clear area where the constitutions gives the federal government the primary power limits state powers? I.e. the idea of declaring something relevant to foreign relations (or anything else primarily in the fed's jurisdiction) would be a means to move jurisdiction and thereby effectively curtailing state powers. I do not really see a realistic path to that. But then, since Trump mentioned it, I think it is a fair bet that there are folks strategizing about that.

The details matter because Turnip steadfastly denied that they ever happened. His insistence of no influence from foreign powers weakens any later claims he might make. Civil unrest "carnage" or drug "invasions" are easier, and the red meat his followers are hooked on. Even the RW leaning Roberts court has deferred to the doctrines of states rights - that's how we got Dobbs v Jackson, our SCOTUS ruling on abortion rights sent back to the states. Several conservative justices have made clear they view the Constitutional framework for states rights as sacred. Not even Turnip can intimidate them away from that. And a recent decision or two has affirmed that states retain control of their elections. He might use civil unrest to leverage a delay, because an extended delay allows more time to subvert the various legal and institutional checks presently in place on his regime. We've already seen what 13 months with a GOP majority Congress can do to batter away at such.

But I fear that they also don't particularly care. After all, pretty much everyone during his first administration who exited have remarked how little Trump understands basic concepts, including foreign relations. And of course, the first few weeks of the second Trump administration made it exceedingly clear. I am also pretty sure that the pentagon was understood what is happening, with Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense. The pentagon is not really outward-facing and there have been reports of levels of confusion and demoralization. Yet, clearly, there is no formal pushback, (as opposed to Trump 1.0) and it is not clear what would have to happen before there is.

I was under the impression E Wood used footage of B Lugosi from another unfinished film after the actor's death. "It also posthumously bills Bela Lugosi (before Lugosi's death in August 1956, Wood had shot silent footage of Lugosi for another, unfinished film, which was inserted into Plan 9" Plan 9 from Outer Space - Wikipedia

Isn’t that the one where he died during filming and they also used footage with an actor of much different height?