exchemist

Simple application of the laws of thermodynamics will tell you that the energy input cannot be less than the energy output. If this device is an attempt to get more out than you put in, it won't work.

As others have pointed out it's a terrible video. Pointing a camera straight at the sun with no filter is a lousy way to see an eclipse - all you get a bright splodge. As to your (strangely naïve) question, you can measure the speed of motion of the clouds, relative to the zone of maximum brightness, by comparing its position with 2 clear areas in the cloud. At 0:05 there is a clear area above the zone of max brightness and one below and a bit left of it. On my screen, these areas have moved ~5cm relative to the zone of max brightness by the 1:05 mark, i.e the clouds are moving at 5cm/min relative to the sun, on my screen. The magnification (zoom) of the camera also changes. On my screen these two clear areas are 2cm apart at the start of the video, 4cm apart at 0:13, 6cm apart at 0:15 and 10cm apart at 0:44, indicating an increase in magnification from 1 to 2 to 3 and finally to 5x. So at 5x, the rate of apparent motion of the clouds will be 25cm/min, i.e. ~4mm/sec. Later he zooms in even more, leading to an even faster rate. But he's holding the camera unsteadily and tends to keep it trained on the clouds, rather than fixing it on a stand so that it points steadily at one point in the sky, where the sun is. So that makes it look as if it is the sun that is "moving" diagonally down and right, whereas in reality it is the clouds that are moving up and left. And obviously, if you magnify the image by 5X or more, the rate of relative motion, of clouds w.r.t sun, will increase 5x or more too. So there is nothing strange going on here. As with the credulous stories some of us have seen previously of spontaneous combustion, or people being strangled by their own thymus glands, a bit of analysis is all one needs to make sense of it.

"Nick" as a noun means a small cut to an object or a person, and to nick something is to make such a cut. It is also English slang for jail (gaol). As a slang verb, to "nick" someone is for the police to arrest them. Assuming you mean nickname, there are quite a few androgynous ones, especially involving originally masculine names that have been feminised e.g. Jo for Joseph, Josephine or Joanna (N.B. "Joe" almost always refers only to Joseph), Pat for Patrick or Patricia, Lou for Louis or Louise, Charley/Charlie for Charles or Charlotte, etc. Nick itself can be a nickname for Nicholas, but I have never heard it used for Nicola or Nicole - Nicky tends to be used for the feminine forms. (Old Nick is a nickname for the Devil, by the way.)

What snails do is fertilise one another, I understand.

But you also get that with hermaphrodites like garden snails.

From what I read, the evolution of sexual reproduction is one of the unsolved problems in evolutionary biology. So a good question that is still awaiting a convincing answer.

I suspect a large part of the Biden strategy is to avoid the USA becoming too reliant on China for all its low carbon technology, which is a clear risk the way things have been going recently, whether it be the current glut of Chinese solar panels (I read that some people in continental Europe are even using them for fencing panels!) or their dominance in purifying lithium for batteries. No doubt the malevolent idiot Trump will tear all that up on principle (i.e. because it was Biden's idea) if he returns to power, even though independence from China is one of the things he talks about.

I've already given a link to read about that, earlier in the thread. Have you read it? If not, why not? But if you want to pursue this subject I suggest you need to start a new thread about it, as it is a quite different topic from the title of this one.

The problem with your idea is that the energy in sound waves is generally extremely low. There is a convenient table in this link: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound/u11l2b.cfm. from which you can see that a 100dB sound has an intensity of only 0.01Watts/sq. metre. So, far from it representing an unlimited source of energy, sounds is not going to be much use for energy extraction.

What is the point of this machine?

It's just a new concept for a battery. I repeat, the protons do not take the place of electrons, in any way. They take the the place of the lithium ions in a conventional lithium ion battery, that is all. The electrical circuit remains entirely conventional, with metal wires, through which electrons carry a current, as usual.

......thereby bringing in Edge Theory and @NeptuneSeven into the discussion as well?....................

The rate of time depends on the frame of reference, sure, but that does not make it subjective. The decay rate of the radioisotopes in your example would be affected in the same way, whether they were accompanied by an observer or not. Just as the decay rates of atmospheric muons are affected, without them being in any way conscious. So yes we can agree time ( and equally distance, by the way) are relative, but neither of them is dependent on the presence or absence of an observer.

How then do you account for the age of the Earth, say? The decay rates of radioisotopes seem to me an objective measure of duration, applying to inanimate entities (atoms).

It is not the truth. There is no centre, according to the Big Bang theory: https://www.astronomy.com/science/ask-astro-where-is-the-center-of-the-universe/

Nonsense. A time delay of a millisecond or so does not make the information received and interpreted by the brain a "lie" at all. If you want to talk about how the brain "lies" to us, you would do better to start a thread on how the brain makes assumptions about the information it receives, which can in some cases prove faulty. And neither of these is anything like the delusions experienced by someone undergoing a psychotic episode.

It seems rather obvious that sensory and mental processes in the nervous system and brain, involving as they do cascades of electrochemical reactions, must take a finite time to take place. What has this got to do with physics?

None of this makes any sense at all. For example, what can "primes could be seen as carrying specific vibrational qualities" mean? How can pure number "carry" a "quality"? And what is a "vibrational quality"?

While a lot of this seems to be gibberish, the "proton battery" is interesting. I was not aware of this. However, as I understand it from the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319918302714 the protons do not take the place of electrons in such a battery but play the same role as Li+ ions do in a conventional Li ion battery. In a Li ion battery, Li+ ions move into and out of a metal electrode, whereas in this "proton battery" it is H+ ions that move, across a Nafion membrane, into and out an activated carbon electrode. The "battery" is described as being a reversible fuel cell, in which water is electrolysed in the charging phase, loading the electrode with H atoms, which are then released and combine with oxygen to re-form water in the discharge phase. What I am not clear about, from reading the paper, is how the oxygen side of things works. Oxygen must be generated in the electrolysis phase and oxygen must be recombined with the emerging H+ to re-form water in the discharge phase. Is this oxygen released as free O2 and is fresh O2 from the atmosphere used in the discharge phase? Or is the O generated during electrolysis somehow sequestered within the cell and made available again for recombination with H during discharge?

I found this paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8867790/ suggesting there has been some work on a dipstick type test for progesterone. No idea how close to commercialisation such a concept may be. One issue may be that, as I understand this, it needs to be semi-quantitative, rather than a simple go/no go (like a Covid test for instance), as one needs to know whether the level of progesterone in the blood is above a certain threshold, rather than simply whether it is present or not. Developing tests like this with the necessary degree of reliability for use by non-professionals is not straight forward and the commercial incentive/clinical need may not be sufficient to support the effort.

It has always struck me as rather surprising that empty space should have quantitatively measurable properties, such as e0 and µ0.

You are having the “Theorist experience”. The modus operandi is to keep throwing in new bits of semiscientific nonsense, to keep you coming back to correct his “misconceptions”. But it’s all just a game, designed to waste your time. He can keep this going interminably. If he’s who I think he is, he has been doing this for years, under a variety of identities. I rather think Coxy123 was one of the more recent ones here, also Splodge, Pbob and others. Elsewhere he was for a while Theorist Constant 12345, under which name some of us first came across him.

I wonder what happened to the Flying Bum: https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-see-the-flying-bum-airlander-10-2021-9?op=1 It looked quite an interesting idea and had an emissions profile similar to trains.

ZZZzzzzzz…………

Yup. A very familiar timewasting technique, I think.