Leaderboard

Geothermal power stations outside places with hydrothermal resources (ie local volcanism) to tap into are not being built much and appear to rely on hot rock that is nearer the surface. I think they do have significant advantages - can follow load as well as make power continuously. If costs can be reduced - and if some of the price distortion for fossil fuels get eliminated. But I think we may get more benefit from reducing costs for drilling boreholes for ground source heat pumps. These usually don't need to go much more than 100m and offer the potential for interseasonal energy storage, ie pumping heat down them during Summer for use in Winter. Even more appropriate for large buildings and district heating systems than for individual homes. I expect borehole heat pumps to be more energy efficient than cold weather air source heat pumps - and air source to be more efficient than resistance heating or gas or oil. But in the presence of reliable electricity the air sourced heat pumps may be a cost effective option.

If both our inner motivations and life influences are determined, then there would seem to be no relative degrees of freedom. In compatibilism, some actions may feel more free than others, but all are woven in the web of causality. Even if I use a coin flip to make a decision I feel I can't.

Yup. Linen is more absorbent than cotton and also allows more rapid evaporation of that moisture. Linen makes a somewhat rougher weave, as it is looser woven, but the loss of smooth finish is more than compensated by its cooling qualities IMO.

Yes, it has no hold on me now. I can take or leave it. Once in a while I'll ask for one from close friends when I'm with them. On my own I couldn't care less. It was permanent yellow finger tips that finished me off with smoking.

That would definitely lead to a Gödel-like situation. If I know this listing in advance, I can adapt my behaviour so that I will not do some of the actions on the list. The only way to avoid that, seems to be to account for me knowing the list. But that would change the list, and therefore my actions, and therefore the list... An easier way would be to keep the list secret, and read it the day after. Then I could be astonished about how well Laplace's Demon did his work. But it would have no impact on my actions. And neither on my evaluation of how well my actions were in accordance with my knowledge and intentions. No. It applies to everyone who is able to predict my actions, as long as I am not manipulated by somebody else. Where I do agree that a logical deduction was involved, to do so, and act according to my logical conclusion makes my action free, it is not the logic itself that makes me free. How many people have come to the conclusion that they should stop smoking, on perfectly logical grounds, but do not succeed? That is a good question. And it would take some precise definitions to answer the question. But my short answer is: yes, we are one person, but we have conflicting motivations, and maybe also doubt about facts. That means a person is not a rigorous unity. Oh yes! But nobody promised you a rose garden, is it? And that is exactly why I made my remark. When you pose something, shortly after I posted an opposing view, it would be interesting to know what your arguments against my position are. Exchange of arguments is one of the corner stones of philosophy, and this is the philosophy forum. And also SFN is a discussion platform. It would be a pity when threads are just independent opinions without arguments. Having an opinion is easy, especially in philosophy. To have a well argued opinion is definitively more work.

Continuing from my previous post: This can be further developed by manipulating the arbitrary constant to obtain: (ds)² = exp(k (t' – t'0))² ((c dt')² – (dx')² – (dy')² – (dz')²) where t'0 is an arbitrarily chosen value of t' at which the metric is locally Minkowskian For the general case: dƒ(t')/dt' = a(ƒ(t')) 1/a(ƒ(t')) dƒ(t')/dt' = 1 Let F(t) be such that: dF–1(t)/dt = 1/a(t) Then: F–1(ƒ(t')) = t' – t'0 where t'0 is an arbitrarily chosen value of t' ƒ(t') = F(t' – t'0) dƒ(t')/dt' = dF(t' – t'0)/dt' = A(t' – t'0) (ds)² = A(t' – t'0)² ((c dt')² – (dx')² – (dy')² – (dz')²)

https://www.google.com/search?q=ssl+certificate+checker "TLS Certificate expiration The certificate expires January 28, 2024 (62 days from today)" "Certificate Name matches scienceforums.net scienceforums.net Valid from 30/Oct/2023 to 28/Jan/2024 IssuerR3 R3 Valid from 04/Sep/2020 to 15/Sep/2025 IssuerISRG Root X1 ISRG Root X1 Valid from 20/Jan/2021 to 30/Sep/2024 IssuerDST Root CA X3" https://www.google.com/search?q=configure+firefox+ssl+ignore https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20088/is-there-a-way-to-make-firefox-ignore-invalid-ssl-certificates Try: "enter about:config into the firefox address bar and agree to continue. search for the preference named security.ssl.enable_ocsp_stapling. double-click this item to change its value to false."

Why do make it so personal? Assimov explored the question in some depth, but he had to make it sci-fi because they didn't exist when he was writing; he doesn't have all the answer's, but he did ask some profound question's. It's almost like you've got a vendetta against the very idea of a sentient machine... Like in the freewill thread, where you seemed frightened by the idea of an AI with right's; is it a sort of god complex type thing? Like in the bible where it says that we have dominion over everything that's not us...

So? I don't think so. In fact, that the number of missing sequences is greater than the number of sequences is kind of what Cantor is proving. Although Cantor's diagonal method is only generating a single sequence missing from a list, because the number of sequences in a list is aleph-0, and the number of possible sequences is aleph-1, then the number of sequences missing from a list is also aleph-1. Cantor is proving that aleph-1 is greater than aleph-0.

I gave the equitation the resulting unit F, so did Newton. If it is a "new" / unknown force, -then its new and unknown. And it required a completely new equation. I am the one that can decide the outcome of that equation, if the outcome is correct or false is a different story.

Let's look again at F=GM/r^2=a Of course, all these units are important to us. But mathematically, the units M and r are unimportant, only the numerical values are important. The units make us understand a relationship, but basically we don't know what F is. Units do not contribute to understanding the nature of F In Newton's time, this question was a very hot potato, just as it will be if the law I now assert may/may not be true. A new F - law can very well be built on a factor without unit. Mathematically, the unit in this regard are irrelevant. Experience will determine whether a new F law is right or not. But that not means guarantee that we will reach a deeper understand of the the nature of F. One may wish that F, which is linked to mass and enerti, should contain the same units as F linked to space. But this wishful thinking is mathematically unjustified. I can only agree with you, it sounds very logical, but it is not certain that nature follows our logic Perhaps the exploration of the nature of space is a completely new slate? Again and again we have to realize that we do not have the tools to solve plenty of big challenges that continue to pile up. It requires enormous energy to reach high speeds, - it requires infinite energy to reach c, - therefore there must also be a corresponding resistance. - Something is preventing. - To claim that we know the cause of that is too stupid. - We should be open to possible solutions. Somewhere we have to start to dig deeper into the rabbit hole. The nature of the new Force (Relativist Resistance Agains Motion ) It is usually not the mathematics itself that is decisive for whether the introduction of a new law is accepted or not. But to a much greater extent if it can solve the challenges we are facing. It is therefore interesting to see and understand a little more about how significant an influence we are exposed to when it comes to Dark Flow. Let's say that Dark flow is 1000 km/s - RR = 5.5e-6m/s2 DFA is an equivalent value and therefore also = 5.5e-6m/s2 If a galaxy's inclination is 100% linear with the Dark Flow axis, this will periodically reduce RR by 300km/s = 5e-7m/s2 . This is then the acceleration imbalance between DFA and RR, - and this explains that it is interactions between RR and DFA that are responsible for a galaxy's energy and not the galaxy's / galaxy's own mass. The large orbits are therefore totally controlled by RR and DFA. When an object moves under an atronomic object, this can cancel out DFA. Therefore release of Dark Flow Related Tension (DFRT) happens = 5.5e-6m/s2 In a cosmic context, this is a rather significant factor. Therefore, we will see many more objects (than Oumuamua and Borisov) that move in a way revealing to completely under the control of DFA, - just as galaxies are. And therefore we cannot explain this energy either. This means that we should expect to discover far more objects that move more or less North / South, - and which we wrongly think "must" come from other solar systems. RR is a result of converting kinetic energy to mass. RR requires a force for a cash speed to be maintained. Otherwise, we will see deceleration which occurs opposite to an absolute direction of movement. RR is not a classic force, and therefore will not be able to be combined with other forces. This is maybe also the reason that the mathematic not always is similar to classis Forces. A better understanding of the new F, - can certainly contribute to our having to recognize again and again that such a force is lurking and that we now have a tool to uncover it. It takes a long time to recognize that RR is now exposed and therefore finds it harder to hide.