Leaderboard

Optical Rectenna can convert Infrared radiation - radiant heat - directly into electricity but in practice so far the yields are extremely low. Like an antenna does with longer (radio) wavelengths - like the old "crystal radio" that powered itself from the radio waves. Not sure how that works in entropy terms - heat loss in the conversion? Of all the out there possibilities this would be one I'd like to see get some serious attention because if they can be made to work we could not only make electricity from waste heat but from radiant heat of all kinds, including down-radiation from clouds and atmosphere by night as well as from sunshine by day.

Atop the SC building: I think the original framers meant everybody. Why have it chiselled on the highest court in the land otherwise? That motto was meant to inspire confidence that everybody would be treated the same. If the president is not explicitly excluded, one can reasonably conclude that 'everybody' meant every person in the land. It was put up in 1912, but derives from an 1891 case: "The words "equal justice under law" paraphrase an earlier expression coined in 1891 by the Supreme Court.[7][8] In the case of Caldwell v. Texas, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court as follows, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."[9] The last seven words are summarized by the inscription on the U.S. Supreme Court building.[7]" - wiki Just in: WASHINGTON (AP) — With Donald Trump listening intently in the courtroom, federal appeals court judges in Washington expressed deep skepticism Tuesday that the former president was immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The panel of three judges, two of whom were appointed by President Joe Biden, also questioned whether they had jurisdiction to consider the appeal at this point in the case, raising the prospect that Trump’s appeal could be dispensed with on more procedural grounds. During lengthy arguments, the judges repeatedly pressed Trump’s lawyer to defend claims that Trump was shielded from criminal charges for acts that he says fell within his official duties as president. That argument was rejected last month by the lower-court judge overseeing the case against Trump, and the appeals judges suggested through their questions that they, too, were dubious that the Founding Fathers envisioned absolute immunity for presidents after they leave office. “I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” said Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush. https://apnews.com/article/trump-jan-6-special-counsel-immunity-appeal-64eec975e6a602949eb4b90315239318

@Phi for All hits on this topic regularly, but it's NOT faith... Trust as a term to describe this works just fine. We trust it, and we trust it because evidence suggests we should, and that trust is rewarded because the evidence keeps affirming it. We trust the sun will rise tomorrow morning (or that the earth will rotate in a way that makes the sun once more visible to us over the horizon) and we have evidence that informs this trust. Faith, however, is different. Faith is continuing to believe despite the evidence. When the evidence contradicts that faith, the evidence must be wrong or dismissed. That overlaps in some ways with the concept of trust, but it's not informed or updated in the same way that our trust in scientific models is. The trust is provisional, too... Faith is not.

The results are in. Apparently 17000 dead as a consequence of HCQ. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S075333222301853X

The big difference in colour is caused by soot in the first flame. Because there's not much oxygen, some acetylene decomposes to carbon which is heated to incandescence. The blue colour of the other flames is due to emissions from hot C2 molecules (if I recall correctly). A Bunsen flame would be a lot hotter if you could run it with acetylene. It's a fuel with a higher energy density.

mar_mar has been banned for soapboxing and bad faith arguments.

Why are you here? You already have all the beliefs you want and already know that any contradiction to what you believe is wrong. So other than annoying the people here what could you possibly hope to achieve?

Looking at human development is like looking at rainbows; you can only see the 'separations' from a distance. In this case temporal.

I saw a Homo Erectus drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's. His hair was perfect.

This is a much cleaner way of saying the exact same thing I was previously attempting to communicate here. Thx for the contribution

https://www.commondreams.org/news/rich-untaxed-wealth Imagine what could be done with even a 10% tax on that kind of wealth.

The EU and UK is trying unpack the byzantine tax strategies they use to currently hide 'excess' taxable wealth. It needs comprehensive global co-operation though, otherwise they'll just keep moving it.

As noted, that is not how evolution works. We are apes and we share a common ancestor with extant apes, including chimpanzees. It is like asking why your cousin did not evolve into your brother.

Thank you. Is not the intersection of Mickey Mouse and Lady Chatterly one of the greatest things you could drop into the imagination of a humor columnist? Anyone who had to suffer their way through D.H. Lawrence's vastly overrated classic (I would rank it as his worst work) will appreciate Ms Petri's mash-up. I liked the bit about how Mickey couldn't remove his gloves during the love scene due to copyright reasons.

It only takes generations when one of those generations is unwilling to change. Pick any three major progressive changes and if you can avoid the obstructionists, things will move quickly. Offhand, I'd allow ranked-choice voting, just so we can break with the two parties that only represent corporations, and get some actual citizen representation going. I'd also nationalize something major, like food production, so healthy food was a right rather than something you have to earn. And my fave right now is to expand the USPS to compete with Amazon, including a vendor portal so small businesses aren't smothered. People who have no food insecurities and access to the means to prosperity aren't as likely to have lots of kids. Same goes for folks who are better educated, so a focus there can only help with overpopulation. We really need to stop supporting the industries that spend money to spin fear because we spend more when we're afraid and frustrated.

Look at the picture for case 2: You can count, \(n=13\). You can measure, \(R/r_n \approx 5\). If your formula, \(P_n = \displaystyle\frac{n \cdot r_n}{2\cdot R -r_n}\) were correct, then \(P_{13}=\displaystyle\frac{13 \cdot 1}{2\cdot 5 -1} \gt 1\), which cannot be correct because it has to be \(\lt 1\) for any \(n\). So, your result is wrong.

Fine, tell me why "it would already have been done" if it were possible... when it's still being worked on? The only thing which has "gotten into me" is a desire to understand your objection and ensure my own stance is accurate. Will you help with that? "If it were possible, it would already have been done." How do you accept this as valid when clearly there are other reasons which may explain the delay?

Surely your result, \(P_n=2.0944\) is wrong because \(P_n\) has to be \(\lt 1\) by its definition.

Are you seriously unable to think of even one single alternative reason this hasn’t been demonstrated yet as of right now today?

You expect me to know every detail of every claim that as ever been made. oooook

I don't acknowledge every claim there is, including ones made by those "scientologists." Again, none that I'm aware of.

I don't think scientologist claims count. Otherwise, I'd have to count absolutely everything any random person made. I was waiting for iNow to ask for an example, but since he's not asking for one, I'll ask him for one instead. Uhhh ok got the "no sir I don't like it" Mr. Horse minus one, I mean heck he could've at least given one example

They screwed up, and making supernatural claims. Calling it "scientific claim" doesn't make it one.

ChatGPT is a fair reference, maybe not legitimate in a true physical academic manner. Still being fair enough. Physics of today is different of physics tomorrow. And physic of today is stalled. This most enlighten and serious physicists agree on. -I am not spamming, I'm researching.

The GR, SR and QM math makes it true. Still, your issue is relevant. These fields of physics are purely governed from corresponding formulas and math, which lately have been stuck - because of the lack of understanding or misconception of space and time. Maybe we have the stuck reason exactly here. Time is in its pure entity-form not coherent with space in its true form. Space and time are not essentially not the same. Though the involved math separate on these basic two entities. Ppl doesn't.

No, sir, if you support evolution theory, you have no moral right to say that I am stupidity, (though I'm ok with this, indifferent) because evolution is a change, as I am told. And you gave me a value judgement. it's a comparison. But I am different, not better, no worse, I am above judgements, according to evolution theory. OR. Judging me, you are saying that humans are better than apes.

If my quest not was meaningful - it would be metaphysics. If my quest is meaningful - it is physics. Because physics is meaningful. In that case, time is what is measured by clocks. Can any other statement of what time is be truly meaningful? Some relevant aspects of time and length: Can time be applied on energy? No. Can time be applied on mass? Yes. How come that these are the cases? When the mass equivalence stated via E=mc^2 is current. -Mass is energy, and energy is mass. -Still not at the same "time". There is a transition period and a physical distinction between any specific amount of the mass or energy states. Either being mass or either energy. This is not like quantum physics with its duality aspect. Energy or mass are a governed by transition and distinction. Two high energy gamma-ray photons colliding is a typical example here. Between the annihilating processes involved there exists energy states but no mass. And when masses being expressed no energy is at hand. (E=mc^2 conversions takes time.) So, .. continuing.. if ppl think that this is correct in a general manner.. Think of a sphere with mass (kg) in empty space (zero gravity) rotating at a fixed pace its own axis, its center not moving out of its x, y, z frame but all time rotating keeping its x, y and z position. Still any specific point on its "equator" is though changing position by some length frame (m) and within some time frame (s) - depending on the specific energy originally applied. So it is keeping a steady RPM in empty space. Then, if no input- (impulse) energy ever was applied, no rotation would be at hand. And when energy (impulse) is applied a fixed rotation occur. This means that time (s) and length (m) only is achieved by energy. Impulse creates a fixed RPM situation. And steady energy supply gives an accelerating RPM situation. Time and length therefore needs energy applied on any mass whatsoever for to be manifested. If energy is applied (added) to other energy no time or length are manifested. In this manner time and length are connected and in absolute need of energy. Observe that also no length is manifested without energy. I.e. E=mc^2, the energy equivalence function, gives mass, gives matter, gives length dimensions at this matter or mass. Also the radius (m) at the sphere is manifested from energy. There is more about this general reasoning, still I rest with this respond. This is partly my primer time and length physics scaffold. So, is the general "message" here physics or metaphysics?

For short: Time is duration changes in matter, caused by the impact of energy. And if these durations have a fixed or very steady pace - it's a clock of some sort. "Time is a what a clock measures", - doesn't give the total physics view or understanding.

I should point out that I am considering what time is to be distinct from what time does, although it is understandable if people conflate these two notions. Yes, it's most or very easy to "conflate" the aspects of what time is and what time does.. Obviously, maybe I am doing so. (I won't say I regret my stand of point, still I'm taking in what other ppl here are telling..) (I'm reading and trying to comprehend.) time doesn’t pass without changes in matter? No. In an academic and very well educated stad of point the reason for the here assembled rejection of my "ideas" or most of what I was "expressing" in my recent longer post should then, in summary, be that the "spacetime" itself is manifesting "energy" according to modern physics. Oh yes, there is a fundamental connection between these, given by Noether’s theorem - translation invariance in time corresponds to a conserved quantity, which is precisely the energy-momentum tensor. Without time, there would be no meaningful notion of energy-momentum. In this definitive rejection of this statement I see that, the photon is a fair example of that time is applied on energy. Pure energy at c speed (m/s). I will continue in the studying of physics.

…and ? a dynamic field changes in time. What’s the connection? Energy maybe..??. And you informed that energy is just a property in physics. So energy cannot be a connection in it self. Though electromagnetic fields got direction and a time property... Where the photon, for example, got linear momentum (direction and time [m/s]), spin and energy. Yes, energy via the photon is the connection.

How about no "goalpost" at all and say "I'll let the gummit figure out how to apply the financial penalty, since mere financial disincentive is what I offered in the first place"? I buy the bonsai, you peeps can prune it

Common ancestor was also an ape which had descendants: chimpanzee and a human. Do i understand correctly? Common ancestor is a "parent". What comparable to those "between" changes happened to humans since they turned to homo sapiens? And if you say that is evolution is a change,i.e. mutation, you deny all those gifts and talents and knowledge of humans. Forget about consciesness. Change is an act or process through which something becomes different. Humans and apes are different. Humans are no better no worse. There's no place for comparison. Like red is not better than green But if we talk about talented people it's a comparison.