Leaderboard

Oh, please. This isn’t about the Israeli people or even about the country itself. This is all about Benjamin Netanyahu being at his weakest ever point since first getting elected, being unable to even form a coalition government, and facing numerous corruption charges. This response is his way to deflect and redirect attention so he can retain power like all good autocratic leaders do. It’s part of the playbook, and we’ve seen this exact movie plot multiple times before.

Circa 1978, while touring an American tool and die shop, we got to see a set of 'die shoes' that were apparently bought(imported) from a Chinese organization. They were sub-standard and honestly looked like something from the Flintstones. They have certainly come along way. 'Good On' hard work; this should inspire any hard worker.

Eh, I am not sure that I would like smart fascists over dumb ones, though.

studiot, I believe we are in agreement, though I would add that while flux is certainly defined in terms of any surface, the gravitational flux that I was referencing is over a closed surface. Otherwise, it would not be unique for a given mass. Flux is more commonly applied in Gauss's Law in electrostatics, but it applies equally well for gravity, since both are 1/r2 functions. swansant: thanks for the links. All: Many of you take issue with my assertion that space is not nothing, and in retrospect, this is reasonable. So, let me rephrase: My fundamental assumption is that space is not nothing. In fact, I am advocating the paradigm shift in thinking that space is the only truly physical thing. That's pretty bold, I know, but the more I pursued this, the more things fell into place. I think the thing to do is take a step back and present my thoughts in bite-size chunks, as swansant recommended, using the tools he has recommended for adding equations. Eventually we will get to my home experiments, with quite shocking results. It might be best to begin this in another thread. Kind of reboot and start over. I'm open to suggestions. Either way, one thing I will say is that nothing I present will break existing laws of physics. For example, I won't claim that relativity is wrong, or that Coulombs law is wrong. That would be serious crackpot stuff. However, what I do want to show is that both gravity and electrostatics may be subsets of a larger theory, just as Einstein showed that Newtonian physics is a subset of a larger theory. Don't get me wrong - I am no Einstein (just ask my wife and kids). This is something I just stumbled upon and the further I followed it the more it worked. Anywho, unfortunately I have a day job and family obligations, (last week I was on vacation) so I probably won't be able to post more than once a day. But that's probably good - let each post soak for a day and see what it catches. My next post will be the first part of my thoughts on matter, with the first paragraph revised to make it clear that I am assuming, not asserting, that space is not nothing. Hopefully I will do this tonight, but no promises. Thanks and regards.

That's part of it. But to my mind the more significant part what would happen assuming the temperature of the liquid butane did drop to -10C. In that case I think the relative rates of diffusion would be determined chiefly by the surface ares of the hole compared to the surface area of the liquid. I've now added chiefly because of one aspect my earlier post did not take into account, which is that as I recall the rate of diffusion is inversely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight. The MW of butane is 48 +8+2 = 58 and that of air is 29 average, exactly half. So the air will diffuse 1.414 time as fast as the butane, per unit area, but the liquid area will be a lot greater than the area of the hole. I actually think there may be another effect too, thinking more about it. As soon as the butane vapour become significantly diluted with air, the partial pressure of butane will drop lower than 1bar and so more butane will evaporate. So there will actually be still a net flow of butane out of the hole, I think.

Thank you for that clear answer. I agree that the dimensions (in metric) of volume are m3. So you are very reasonably equating space with volume. One of our doctoral members is fond of doing this. Please forgive me for wanting to start with some basics which we can all agree on, before proceeding to your more exotic assertions. I asked for two reasons. Firstly you enjoined me to read your introductory pdf. There you state your priciple that somehow swops or interchanges volume and mass as your breakthrough insight. Is this also the basis for you suggesting ? I commented that gravitational flux is an example of Gauss' Flux Law and you seem to agree with that. Only it is not necessary to integrate over a closed surface. That is only when you can equate the total to a finite value. The total field (integral) passing through a given surface, closed or not, will always give you the flux, if you can evaluate it. However I did comment that for the field lines (flux) to pass through that surface there must be additional space on both sides of it. A surface is two dimensional and has units m2. We are dealing with three dimensional space with units of m3, as already noted. Now I also said So I think we agree on the definition of flux, ΦG as ΦG=∫Sg.dA But wait, g=Forcemass=mass∗accelerationmass=acceleration So we have a mass over mass cancelling situation Please note that there are lots of different symbols and anmes about for some of these terms so I have used the Wikipedia symbols that are available to everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_gravitation You download images by drag and drop (not recommended) or clicking on the 'choose files' as indicated in the image below. This will download images (jpg is best, I use greyscale where possible to save size) to thumbnails at the bottom of your input text. Click in the text to place the cursor where you want to place the image and then click on the thumbnail. The other outlined thing are the symbols for superscript and subscript in the toolbar at the top. These are really useful as you can create near scientific notation with these plus a couple of characters by using charmap.exe (part of Windows) to find the hidden characters availble from your font sets. Much easier than Latex, (you need to use MathML here) . Tex can be accessed by going to an online editor to assemble your maths and then copy pasting from there. https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php?latex or http://www.sciweavers.org/free-online-latex-equation-editor

No that's not possible. All proof-of-work based cryptocurrencies rely on the enormous expenditure of computational energy to verify the transactions. If verifying blocks is cheap, the protocol doesn't work. There are some efforts to mitigate the problem, such as green crypto mining. But one argument for the eventual failure of bitcoin is that it's out of spirit with the age. Bitcoin wastes energy extravagantly; and we live in the age of conservation. Not endorsing this service, just a link I googled randomly to illustrate that people are thinking about the issue. https://www.perpetualindustries.com/gem-cryptomining.html Another alternative is proof-of-stake, which is more energy efficient than proof-of-work. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/proof-stake-pos.asp

As the title in the thread says, Incredible news...at least that is the way I see it. First attempt and success! The other point seems to be that China is progressing at a reasonable rate, without comprimising safety and success. Also the landing process and mechanisim seems less complicated then Curiosity...no sky crane. From the link....."A 200 square meter (2,150 square foot) parachute was deployed and later jettisoned, and then a retro-rocket was fired to slow the speed of the craft to almost zero, Xinhua said. The craft hovered about 100 meters (330 feet) above the surface to identify obstacles before touching down on four buffer legs". Bring rocks back from the Moon, the beginnings of a space station, and now landing a craft on Mars.... they are doing pretty well I suggest.

There is one assumption you are making that I would question. I don't think air will get into the box. The issue is not so much the speed of the molecules as their diffusion rate. Don't forget that while they move fast, the mean free path is very short as they keep rebounding off other molecules in random directions. For air to get into the box, the speed of diffusion, which is the net rate of progress, taking into account all these random collisions, has to exceed the flow rate of gas out of the hole. Doesn't it?

Gold is no more valuable than paper, if what you need to buy is a loaf and there's none on the shelves.

You can do this by dimensional analysis. If the air is made up of just nitrogen, \[\left[P\right]=ML^{-1}T^{-2}\] (units of pressure) And your fundamental constants are the mass of the nitrogen molecule, \( \hbar \) and \( c \) (the speed of light.) \[ \left[\hbar\right]=ML^{2}T^{-1} \] \[ \left[m_{N_{2}}\right]=M \] \[ \left[c\right]=LT^{-1} \] Your pressure must be, \[ P=\left(m_{N_{2}}\right)^{j}\hbar^{k}c^{l} \] Gathering all together, \[ M^{j}\left(ML^{2}T^{-1}\right)^{k}\left(LT^{-1}\right)^{l}=M^{j}M^{k}L^{2k}T^{-k}L^{l}T^{-l}=M^{j+k}L^{2k+l}T^{-k-l}=ML^{-1}T^{-2} \] So the power equations are, \[ j+k=1 \] \[ 2k+l=-1 \] \[ -k-l=-2 \] whose solutions are, \[ k=-3 \] \[ l=5 \] \[ j=4 \] So your pressure would be the order of, \[ P=\frac{\left(m_{N_{2}}\right)^{4}c^{5}}{\hbar^{3}}\simeq2.5\times10^{51}\:\textrm{Pa}\simeq2.5\times10^{45}\:\textrm{atm} \] That's like \( 10^{29} \) times the density at the centre of the Sun. I think you're gonna make a black hole. Don't do it at home! Even though this is just dimensional analysis, if you take \( m_{\textrm{air}}=.7m_{N_{2}}+.2m_{O_{2}}+.1m_{H_{2}} \), you get a better approximation for the average mass of the air molecules.

no more jokes about people like this from me. Short but moving doc. https://www.youtube.com/c/SoftWhiteUnderbelly/playlists some really good docs on this channel. Check it out.

Listen... if you google, 'consciousness of the brain' you come up with thousands of papers on the subject. Start by reading them. That is how I learned. And I know, they dont know or have any real agreement about consciousness in the brain. so keep looking. Someone will uncover it.

You could change the material of the resistor by replacing one atom at a time. In this case creating an air path with laser with the same resistance and slowly replacing the resistor. You could also shave or transform the material, that would be out of my scope. The voltage would drop a bit but it is the same entity.