Leaderboard

Counterpoint: no, it's not. You choose to interpret it that way, which is followed by ranting about how stupid the notion is. But it's your choice. Even in biological evolution, the origin of life is excluded from the theory - that's abiogenesis. So your insistence that a program has to create itself is just performative nonsense.

I wonder if there is a language difficulty because you seem to be asking questions (which is good) rather than trying to preach. But I would say that you are posting too much at once. So I am going to start with the first part of your post and begin to answer these questions. Then we can see how we go. So the Moon orbits the Earthonce every 27.3 days which makes it angular speed of 2π / (27.3 x24) radians per hour. This is approximately 0.01 rads/hr.. (It will become clear why I am using these units) The Earth also rotates at an angular speed of 2π/24 radians per hour Which is approximately 0.26 rads/hr. Since both rotations are in the same direction the net rotational difference is their difference or 0.26 - 0.01 = 0.25 rads/hr. The radius of the Earth is 6731 kilometres. So if a static bulge is to keep up with the moon is must travel at 6731 x 0.25 km per hour. This agrees with your calculation. A wave travelling at this speed is the basis of the simple dynamic theory. But this theory is only applicable within the following constraints. If the depth of the water is d in km then waves of wavelength L will propagate witha velocity of v = √(gL/2π) for waves in deep water. Where g is the acceleration due to gravity in km/hr2 which is 127008 km/hr2 This makes the wavelength as (1600*1600*2π) / 127008 or 127 km. However this formulae is only valid for d/L greater than 0.5. Now the average depth of the ocean is around 3.6 km and tha max depth is only 11 km (NOAA) So dl << 0.5 and the condition is not satisfied for the deep water formulae. Which makes the ocean too shallow for a simple resonant system. So instead we must use the shallow water which then includes the effect of the bottom and other topography. The formula for such waves is given by v = √(gd) Which is good to around (1600 * 1600) /127008 km Which is approximately 20km. This emans that the wave equation is no longer homogenous (equal to zero in this case) There is now a forcing term involved as well and the theory is known as forcing. Does this help and do you wish to continue ?

No. What it means is that the answer to the question of “how much mass/energy is in a region of spacetime” depends on what kind of geometry that region has. Depending on considerations such as symmetries (Killing fields), asymptotic flatness etc a certain definition may apply, while other definitions may not work. So one has to be very careful which one is to be used. Note also that being in relative motion wrt to a gravitational source does not change the geometry of spacetime, it only changes the coordinate description of it.

I remember when laptops used to 'burn' your lap. QCs will give you ( severe ) frostbite, and produce even more wasted power than bitcoin mining. Maybe after we finally get cheap fusion power ... I'm not worried about anyone breaking into my encrypted data for a long time to come.

You must have gotten a lump of coal from Santa because you're still cynical and a little abrasive 😄 . Why not consider this a learning opportunity for all ? This property, energy, we define as the ability to do work, is essentially a property of the configuration of the system. Whether the system is moving gives us kinetic E and/or temperature, and its positional arrangement in any external or produced fields, gives potential E. I would add that 'intrinsic' energy, or mass, is only a property of fundamental particles, such as electrons, quarks and neutrinos. Most of what we normally consider 'mass' is tied up in various levels of binding energy ( molecular, atomic, nuclear and baryonic ) and is correctly identified as potential E, due to the positional configuration of the system. One could make the stretch that even elementary particles' intrinsic mass/energy is due to the configuration of the system as it results from the coupling to the Higgs field.

Happy Festivus!

In principle, yes, if you have an array on the scale of the GW wavelength https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00996

The sun has energy owing to its mass (mass is a form of energy), and the gravity (gravitational potential energy). It undergoes reactions which emit radiation, which also has energy. The term 'solar energy' merely points out the source of the energy. The radiation isn't part of the sun anymore.

There is only one sort of energy. Material objects and fields may posses energy by a variety of different mechanisms. All of energy theory springs from these two facts. Much of that theory is about transferring the energy from one body or field to another; the energy transferred may end up in a different form (ie using a different mechanism). Most of the terminology refers to these mechanisms by which the body or field possess or transfers the energy. Solar energy, electrical energy, nuclear energy etc etc. So when you use such terminology you need to specify not only the energy but also the mechanisms involved.

A quick web search reveals there is a UK body called WRAS: https://www.wrasapprovals.co.uk that actually approves materials for use in potable water applications. They appear to have approved one or more silicone greases. If you are not in the UK, I have no doubt there will be equivalent bodies in your country.

A property, of a physical system of some kind, where the "physical system" may involve matter and/or fields (EM radiation consists of oscillating fields). (In English it is spelt "physics" by the way.)

Are you in the Luddite club, do you fear the future? You are coming across like a kid with his fingers in ears and eyes shut, bawling.

Yes, a Geiger counter can be used to measure length. My car is 15 Geiger counters long would be an example.

Of course AI are not exchanging DNA, but they ARE rejecting flawed forecasts and reinforcing successful ones… I.e. engaging in a form of selection, aka: evolving… and this is happening quite rapidly. But your record of having an enormous chip on your shoulder about all things AI remains unblemished.

A fundamental problem with GR is that it is for the most part a local theory. That is, it deals with the various fields at individual points in spacetime. When one changes the coordinate system, the numerical values of the various components of the fields at the various points change according to how the coordinate system changed at those points. And the change in the components at one point is largely independent of the change in the components at another point due to the general nature of coordinate transformations. Thus, for many types of fields, it is impossible to create a total over a region of spacetime, quite simply because changing the coordinate system changes the total in a way that GR does not allow. And because there is no preferred coordinate system in GR, there is no way to say which value of the total over a region of spacetime is the correct value. So, it is impossible to have a total energy-momentum over the entire universe. Furthermore, regions in spacetime are four-dimensional, whereas we tend to think of three-dimensional regions and totals over three-dimensional regions, which also depend on the particular coordinate system.

I know you are having to translate this from the Russian, but you would perhaps be taken more seriously if you didn't mix up established English terms. Tidal movements rarely crash into anything. The 'wave' analysis of tidal phenomena is not about a tidal wave, which is an entirely different phenomenon. Yes vertical water movements due to tides must be accompanied by horizontal water movements. But these are termed tidal streams. They are not ocean currents, which have a different origin and coexist with tidal activity. Actual water movements are always the sum of all influencing factors, wind, topography, river discharge, ocean currents, turbidity curents, occasional earth movements, seasonal distances of the Moon and Sun, to name the principal factors.

That's a rather narrow view of the situation in the Middle East, as if all would be solved if only Hamas were not there. Hamas has only been around since 1987. It is not as if we had no issues prior to that. In addition, prior to October 7th Hamas only had the support of around 12% of Palestinians. In addition, one group of people (Israeli government) just wants the other (Hamas) gone. No compromise, no peace, no deal, nada.

Pre October 7th, the "policy" of the Israeli government had been one of marginalization and containment. Of course, that turned out to be an utter failure. It only "worked" for a while, until it completely didn't. Not really; see above Why should I ask someone else for a solution if I already had one, Your Brilliantness?

Can a Geiger counter measure length? Thought this thread ended on page 1 How many oranges is an apple?

p.s. this thread needs more memes Bet that's not the Geiger counter I'm talking about!

The same reason you expect science to do some metaphysical proof. Yes, really.

Seen a lot of news articles lately about upcoming magnetic storms and their impact on human health: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/familyhealth/magnetic-storms-in-january-2024-anticipating-impact-timing/ar-AA1m2YfQ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=EdgeStart&cvid=2ac33d5b533f441398bc86eb57ce3bd0&ei=22 A lot of these articles mention how magnetic storms are bad for the heart.

You took up the question, so now it's to you. Uh, what? I don't see anyone in this thread successfully using science to prove anything, least of all you.

Obtuse? You mean the point in this entire thread where someone "proved God" via science? I'm reminded of "how many fingers am I holding up?" You dehydrated? It's not a game. The Internets is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

What do you mean? It's the title of the entire thread. Did I just miss someone doing it? Not the Geiger counter I was talking about. I want one that measures in Geigers (see above previous screenshot)