Leaderboard

Interesting, any thoughts on how to apply this into use? https://scitechdaily.com/physicists-discover-a-remarkable-new-type-of-sound-wave

Sherwood & Prausnitz (1962) give the following relation: Enthalpy of Soln. (CO2) = 106.56 - 6.2634x10^4/T + 7.475x10^6/T^2 kJ/mol Plug in 273.15 for T, and this gives around -22.6 kJ/mol at normal water freezing point. So when you release the pressure, the heat of solution is lost to the escaping gas, and your drink autorefrigerates to a supercooled state, the released gas bubbles providing nucleation points for the formation of (typically) frazil ice. About 3g ice per litre of CO2 released as a rough estimate. This effect may be enhanced by the factors mentioned above by Swansont.

Interesting. I wonder if you would need some kind of wave guides to keep that going. The resonators that produce it seem to be very special, and I'm not sure that once the waves are on the air the vortices would be maintained. But sounds good, and sorry for the lame pun. As to applications, I simply don't know, besides the obvious: More degrees of freedom imply that more information could be carried by the wave.

Well researched and reported. +1

Greetings, Unless otherwise inspired, this will be my last entry on this topic. After a revelation of sorts, I’ve hesitated to engage further discussions of this nature. My hesitancy involved a critical understanding of what homeostasis--the driving force of brain function--truly suggests about the basic nature of mind and consciousness, generally, and humanity overall. If you’ll recall from my prior comments, homeostasis infers a system of brain function where maintaining functional stability is the primary progenitor of all behavioral expressions and responses. In greater context, our actions and reactions, thoughts and feelings emerge from a biological system balancing on what seems a razor’s edge of stability with afferent stimuli balanced against efferent responses within the brain. The manifest expression and nature of mind and consciousness are essentially a balance between extremes ultimately suggesting that we do not function without instability. If you truly understand the significance of that last suggestion, you’d probably understand why I’m hesitant to engage further discussion on this subject. However, I said I would discuss the nature of our unconscious mind in brain function in my previous post and so I shall. Our conscious mind is merely a product of unconscious processes, which means that our consciously perceived and recognized behaviors emerge from processes that occur below or beyond the threshold of our conscious awareness. In the brain, those processes begin when afferent stimuli enter the thalamus. The thalamus isn’t well understood or recognized, in my opinion, for its prominent place in our brain’s evolution. In my model of that evolution, the thalamus emerges as the first iteration of our contemporary brain with a right and left hemispheric configuration. It was a proto-brain where all stimuli initially arrived and from where all efferent responses ultimately issued when at its functional pinnacle. Presently, even without its congenital cortical connections, research suggests our thalamus would serve its evolved function sufficiently to viably sustain life. It’s likely that the thalamus is where our instinctive, reflexive behavioral responses originate. Our unconscious mind, accordingly, appears to be more reflexive and doesn’t appear to engage a thought process. If true, this would suggest that the unconscious mind doesn’t quite conform to my initial definition of “Mind” at the beginning of this discussion; wherein, its expressions and responses should appear to emerge from a thought process that produces behaviors independent of instinct. What isn’t very clear to most of us is that our unconscious mind does indeed provide evidence of a thought process as suggested by the most active state of unconscious brain function—REM sleep. I will end my discussion here but will remain available for your further thoughts and critique if interest persists.

Yes, there are two lengths, if you like. The point about relativity, which you seem not to have absorbed, is that measurements of length (and time) are not absolute. There is no single "true" value for them. Any measurement of them depends on the viewpoint (frame of reference) from which they are measured and all are equally "true". If you still can't grasp this I suggest going back to your books and reading carefully what relativity says. Nothing can inhabit two different reference frames at once. So you can't do QM (for example) from the viewpoint of two different reference frames at once either. Which means that relativity does not lead to a superposition of states, as you originally suggested.

Dark side of the Black Hole

Maybe endless amusements for dolphins? Or to cook fusilli pasta?

If there are 2 observers in different reference frames they will measure the lengths as being different, so yes the same ruler (for instance) will have 2 different lengths, one for one reference frame and another for the other reference frame. I think that has been said multiple time in this thread. Are you going to just keep asking the same question?

I think a significant minority have surgical procedures but still far from a majority: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/#:~:text=As a whole%2C less than,in the future (7).

Here's an example of emergence I like: a Mexican wave as an emergent phenomenon.

This sentiment is absurd for the vast majority of trans-females. Not to put too fine a point on it, but what are they going to 'get off' with if they have been surgically reassigned? It's an incredibly serious commitment. The real reason for feminists kicking off about it is that "women have fought for a long time for equal rights, now men are hijacking it"... words to that effect. They want to keep that gender/sex space for themselves; for those that "menstruate"! Clearly, they wish to discriminate. Ironic.

(1) Any Alien species visiting Earth, would certainly be technologically advanced. (2) They would also more then likely have studied us for a period of time, and in that study, realize that while not as advanced as they are, we certainly are not anything like the comparisons we often hear, eg: Ants on an anthill/ human. (3) Being advanced and understanding 2, they would not have anything really to fear, and in deciding to make contact, would do it in a way that had their own protection as paramount, without any projection of violence etc towards us. (4) They would also most likely announce any proposed official revelation of their visit before hand. (5) On our part, if 4 was undertaken, I don't believe we would approach them belligerently, and enough reasonable people along with the science would prepare peacfully for that first contact. Some points I take as a given to support the above....Any Alien species advanced enough to take on interstellar travel, would not really want for anything. Everything we have On Earth is spread throughout the universe in large enough quantities, and for us to approach any Alien species in a belligerent fashion, would not really make any sense. I see the same approach made in the name of humanity/mankind, if and when we find evidence of life elsewhere, that has evolved beyond the single cell stage and approaching our own advancement and/or intelligence. Or perhaps the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is somewhere near what I believe first contact should/would probably be like.

If he stopped using the ellipsis so much, that might have become apparent. I don't know what he gets out of being cryptic all the time. The correct way to use ellipses is when the omitted part of a sentence is presumed to be easily understood by the context. His aren't.

Because some of us are filtering the science through a PC filter and some of us refuse to accept that.