Leaderboard

What difference does it make what anyone “believes”? I always felt that the best response one can give to MLHs isn’t scientific at all, but political - the USSR and Maoist China believed it to be real, and that’s to say an awful lot given the global political, military and intelligence situation back in the day. Had this been fake, you can be absolutely sure that the communist bloc would have found out about it, and oh boy would they have had a field day with that

Folks, you have not followed OPs logic properly. Remember things in the past are old, and old things don't work. Which is why everything older than 30 years ago is just garbage, everything 20 years ago is suspect, everything 10 years ago barely acceptable and everything we do now is new and exciting until 5 minutes ago. You clearly are not going with the times of disruptive technology, where nothing really exists or persists and where we re-invent a new wheel every time someone gets high.

I suspect distaste for homosexuality is inborn in many of us. Given that we have a drive to be attracted to the opposite sex, we find the idea of sex with someone of the same sex a big turn-off. Consequently we may find the idea of a sexual approach from somebody of our own sex rather disturbing. If that is homophobia, then I am a homophobe. It seems to me that the blanket term "homophobia" is thrown around too easily. One needs to draw a distinction between personal sexual taste and the attempts by some to condemn different (minority) tastes in others. It is the latter that society should refrain from.

Welcome! And no issue with the language. We'll do our best.

When Apollo 11 landed on the moon in July 1969, one of the scientific experiments deployed by Buzz Aldrin was the ‘Lunar Laser Retro-Reflector’ https://wtop.com/science/2019/07/the-experiment-still-running-on-the-moon-and-tv-re-runs-50-years-later/ “The idea behind it was we needed to accurately measure the distance between the earth and the moon, see if that distance varies, map out its orbit,” explained Todd Jaeger, a lunar laser expert who used to work at NASA, and is now with Heraeus Conamic, a German technology company that made the fused silica reflector mirrors used in the experiment. When Buzz Aldrin left the moon lander, he laid out the reflector module on the surface that enabled scientists here on Earth to shoot a laser at the moon, and have that light reflected right back them. “It comes back, I take that round-trip time, divide by two, multiply it times the speed of light, and great I’ve got the distance,” said Jaeger. “The actual signal comimg back from the reflector has gone down to about 10% of what it was, but luckily lasers have gotten 10-to-100 times more powerful,” Jaeger said. “So we’ve made up for that degradation from moon dust and micrometeorite impact, etc.” So if human being didn’t land on the moon, what have scientists been bouncing laser light off for the last 53 years - UFOs ? The LLRR was also featured in an episode of of the Big Bang Theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v52LFgUq-8&t=23s

Okay, let's try and work our way through this step by step. No it wouldn't. 100% of the enthalpy of the hot working fluid is thermodynamically available for conversion to work, but all real machines have their inefficiencies. So in practice, you may only recover, say, 80% of this as nett work output. We would call this figure the isentropic efficiency of the machine (as opposed to the thermal efficiency). The remaining 20% of the energy input would be discharged to the cold sink with the working fluid at a significantly higher temperature than the cold sink. I've underlined that last part because it is crucially important. It's where the excess entropy is being generated. This is were we need to be extremely careful about which efficiency were are talking about - the theoretical Carnot limit or the real world isentropic efficiency. In the theoretical world there could be a near zero heat flow into a cold sink at absolute zero. In the real world, there would be a significant heat flow. .Only for a machine with an isentropic efficiency of 100% which is not a practical proposition. For a real world machine impeding the heat exchange is equivalent to heating up the cold sink. Less of the input energy is now available for conversion to work. The two scenarios are not equivalent. In fact they are polar opposites. Absolutely not. They are diametrically opposed. From the extreme difference in temperatures on the cold side of the machine. Correct. The work produced is limited by the isentropic efficiency. Reread my first point in this post. You're conflating the Carnot limit with actual machine isentropic efficiency. They are entirely different concepts. Confusing the two leads to absurd conclusions especially at absolute zero. Again focus on the phrase 'maximum efficiency'. Can we agree that this is different from 'actual efficiency'? Here you are allocating an isentropic efficiency of 100% to the machine. I'm finding it difficult to picture 4% of the output of a typical hair dryer as a 'massive heat transfer' and indeed how one would see it. I see no science here. You've gone a long way down a rabbit hole and need to find your way back. It's taken me quite a while to wade through all the steps in your thinking so I'd be grateful if you spent a similar amount of effort in trying to understand what I've presented here. Obviously, I'm only too happy to assist with further clarification.

Oh, by Metacor do you mean Mercator? As in Mercator's projection, the one used by navigators, as it plots compass bearings as straight lines?

Yes, you make a good point! What Carnot did, as I understand it, was to associate a "work value" with a quantity of caloric, which depended on the temperature of the caloric. So in his analysis, he thought the amount of caloric rejected by a heat engine was the same as the amount absorbed by it from the hot source. Clausius later showed this to be wrong and that work and heat were both energy. However, one benefit of Carnot's way of thinking was the idea that caloric (heat) has a temperature, just as a fluid like water does, and it is that which determines how much work it can do. It also has the benefit of assuming that caloric (heat) has to be rejected from the cycle at the end, i.e. what a heat engine does is allow caloric(heat) to fall through a temperature gradient, like water in a water mill, and thereby get it to do work. So that set the scene for the correct idea that you can't convert all the input heat into work, with no waste heat.

Lifting anything to a point of higher gravitational potential requires you to put energy into the system in the first place; likewise, producing magnets of substantial strength also requires lots of energy. Whatever motor device you then construct based on these, you will never get out any more energy than you originally put in. You simply can’t cheat nature. So I really don’t get the point of all this? We already have hydropower, and we already have photovoltaic systems - these aren’t new inventions. You really don’t want any more unnecessary mechanical parts such as moving iron balls etc, since these just reduce the overall efficiency of the system.

Just to clarify my position, Studiot ... Mathematics treats lines, surfaces, volumes and higher dimensional manifolds as infinitely sub-divisible. Physics, on the other hand, may describe a space-time which is quantized and has a smallest possible value. Now Mathematics will allow you to treat andrepresent those many sub-divisions, no matter how large their number, but if you want to 'count' possible events in a section of sace-time, Physics may have some constraints as to the maximum number of those events.. Perhaps Geordief should indicate which viewpoint he wishes to consider. ( I will excuse your thinking like a Mathematician, if you excuse my thinking like a Physicist 🙂 )

Homophobia is a fear. Not just a lack of attraction towards those of the same sex, but fear of those who are gay, and/or (especially) that you might be gay. That sounds like learned behavior.

I’d say a feeling (or any kind of mind-state in general) is never in itself reprehensible, because it is the result of very many different internal and external causes and conditions that we generally do not choose to put in place. What we can choose though - at least to a degree - is how to act in response to our mind-states. Thus, merely having personal distaste or discomfort over anything is ethically neutral, whereas (eg.) beating someone to a bloody pulp because of such mind-states, is not.

Well put +1 I think it is a crucially important life skill to - in some situations - be able to respect things that we don’t personally like. This isn’t always easy, since we generally tend to equate our own preferences, views, beliefs and opinions with some notion of “truth” about the world. It takes a certain amount of introspective awareness to recognise this dynamic and suspend it, if and when necessary; sadly, not everyone is able to do this.

You said that "The BBC is one of the most trustworthy news sources around." The BBC had a program about the relation between Russia and China. It says China dominated Russia at the time of the Manchuria Empire. The BBC makes itself a joke. China was conquered by Mongols and Manchus, China dominated nobody. 1)Mongols killed 50% of the Chinese population. ---"According to the Chinese history not more than one hundredth part of the population survived, the countryside was covered with human bones, the cities left desolate..." Ref: “The Mongol Conquest Of China And Its Consequences”, by George Tait Edwards. ---Before the Mongol invasion, Chinese dynasties reportedly had approximately 120 million inhabitants; after the conquest had been completed in 1279, the 1300 census reported roughly 60 million people. Destruction under the Mongol Empire, Wikipedia --The figure put on the Mongolian invasions of northern China from 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both of the order of 35 million. Mass killings | Guinness World Records --Bayan, the Mongolian Prime Minister suggested killing all Chinese with one of the most popular surnames. Bayan of the Merkid, Wikipedia -- “In cases of murder, one could ransom himself by paying fines which were: for a Mohammedan, 40 golden coins: and for a Chinese, one donkey (which was the cheapest).” Genghis Khan’s Yassa. 2)After Mongols conquered China, China became a part of Mongol Empire, the Chinese King was ordered to commit suicide. Emperor Gong of Song, Wikipedia 3)” Earlier historians had emphasized the power of Chinese to “sinicize” their conquerors… (But) the Grand Council operated only in Manchu until the 1730s, and many other important edicts and memorials did not have Chinese translations." New Qing History, Wikipedia ---Manchurian King, Yongzheng said that, “Heaven (The God) detested that the inner lands (China) had no one with virtue and so in concern ordered we outlanders to be lords of the inlands., then it is the people of the Middle Kingdom (China) who are no better than birds and beasts.” Ref: “Resolving Confusion with a Discourse on Righteousness”, by Manchurian King, Yongzheng. 4) Manchus ruled China till 1911. In 1911, China became an independent country. (the last photo)

1) Russian proposed the element table. It is the greatest work in chemistry. Russians are Nothing to do with Europe. Russia is the North. India is the South. China is the East. US and UK are the West. UAE and Saudi are the Middle. 2) It is fun to see how the Big Mouth West to fight with the East. 2.1)--Japan defeated Russia in Manchuria. Japan lost 80,000 soldiers. Russia lost 70,000 soldiers. Russo-Japanese War, Wikipedia --In WWII, Russia defeated 600,000 Japanese soldiers in Manchuria. Russia lost 10,000 soldiers. Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Wikipedia 2.2) --Japan defeated the British Empire in Singapore. Japan lost 1000 soldiers and took 100,000 POWs. Battle of Singapore, Wikipedia --Japan defeated the British Empire in HK. Japan lost 700 soldiers and took 10,000 POWs. Battle of Hong Kong, Wikipedia --Japan defeated the USA in Philippine. Japan lost 4000 soldiers. America and its ally lost 125,000 soldiers. Japan took 100,000 POWs. 23,000 American soldiers were killed or captured. Philippines campaign (1941–1942) , Wikipedia --Japan defeated Holland in Indonesia. Japan lost 700 soldier, America and its allies lost 100,000 soldiers. Included 48000 American, English, dutch soldiers. Dutch East Indies campaign, Wikipedia --Japan defeated France in Vietnam. France last 5 days. Japanese invasion of French Indochina, Wikipedia --Japan defeated Germany in China. Japan lost 700 soldiers. Japan took 3000 POWs. Siege of Tsingtao, Wikipedia

1) Russians are Nothing to do with Europe. Russia is the North. India is the South. China is the East. US and UK are the West. UAE and Saudi are the Middle. 2) How the Big Mouth West to fight with Japan. 2.1)--Japan defeated Russia in Manchuria. Japan lost 80,000 soldiers. Russia lost 70,000 soldiers. Russo-Japanese War, Wikipedia --In WWII, Russia defeated 600,000 Japanese soldiers in Manchuria. Russia lost 10,000 soldiers. Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Wikipedia 2.2) --Japan defeated the British Empire in Singapore. Japan lost 1000 soldiers and took 100,000 POWs. Battle of Singapore, Wikipedia --Japan defeated the British Empire in HK. Japan lost 700 soldiers and took 10,000 POWs. Battle of Hong Kong, Wikipedia --Japan defeated the USA in Philippine. Japan lost 4000 soldiers. America and its ally lost 125,000 soldiers. Japan took 100,000 POWs. 23,000 American soldiers were killed or captured. Philippines campaign (1941–1942) , Wikipedia --Japan defeated Holland in Indonesia. Japan lost 700 soldiers. America and its allies lost 100,000 soldiers. Included 48000 American, English, dutch soldiers. Dutch East Indies campaign, Wikipedia --Japan defeated France in Vietnam. France last 5 days. Japanese invasion of French Indochina, Wikipedia --Japan defeated Germany in China. Japan lost 700 soldiers. Japan took 3000 POWs. Siege of Tsingtao, Wikipedia

All above is true to the limit of what was said Without seeing the effect of everything else it does not seem to apply The point being true or false, what can be done by some is not to conform to all And again it really does not matter, what is done can not be undone and all Physics apply and the laws of thermodynamics apply in what is done and what was said above applies and it done not change the facts that if something is real and it does something it does that seems unreal does not change the facts that it really does the things it does Why comments do undo the do unviewed by the commenter This is why I invite all to see for themselves if it does or does not do in fact what is does: all comments without viewing and saying down for up is a simple non-true witness to the event as stated. contact info deleted if you do not look: Please: Do not look like a fool later. because this technology is being shown not just here but everywhere and soon worldwide. It is in the disbelievers best interest ( Just Don't leave a comment ) This is for the World's use that is all it is for, Nothing more Thanks Tom End of my comments on this topic 1 / 24 / 2023

They forget their 50 years old technology?