Bender

We have three types of colour sensitive cells in our retina. If different spectra trigger them all equally, we see them as equal.

Eg a green led produces some light that is detected by red and blue photodetectors. Since the centre is much brighter than the sides, all three colours get saturated and White is recorded.

It is not wrong. You just have to use the order of operations properly. m/s/s = (m/s)/s and not m/(s/s)

Do you think entropy maximisation is a purpose? I would argue that a system left on its own, in absence of purpose, is going to evolve towards more entropy.

So our purpose is to fly into a black hole, maximising entropy?

Flash will cause nuclear fusion reactions in the air in front of his fist before reaching light speed. No physics need to be broken to turn the scene into a nuclear wasteland. He'll also need pretty strong bones not to shatter his arm with the inertial forces on his fist and pretty strong skin for it not to rip off as it wants to lag behind the bones.

For any macroscopic system, it's more like throwing heads eg 10^20 times in a row. You can throw coins from the beginning of the universe to the very end: it will never happen. Edit: In retrospect, throwing heads 1000 times in a row already qualifies for the "will never happen" category. So you only need a system of roughly that amount of degrees of freedom / particles to completely ruin your odds of decreasing entropy with a tiny amount.

There are several options for your question, depending on the interpretation. I'll give the two most popular ones: 1) manyworld interpretation: you are entangled with the cat and the camera. When you watch the recording, one version of you sees a living cat, while another version of you sees a dead cat. 2) Copenhagen interpretation: macroscopic objects are never in superposition and Schrodingers cat is a false thought experiment. It remains unclear what exactly constitutes a "macroscopic object", which leads us to the measurement problem. Interesting. I wonder whether this result does not invalidate the Copenhagen interpretation.

I was just watching some videos I made earlier on my phone and clearly noticed banding in one of them. Curious how I never noticed it before. Serenidipity is great.

Why would this possibility lead to infinite battery renewal?

Too many craters inside to be a recent mining site. But nice one

I don't think V=IR is the problem. The problem is the lack of context or applicability that often goes along with it.

If you can set the virtual shutter speed or scanning frequency, that's what you need to start experimenting. With any luck they even allow to turn off anti-banding algorithms. That's almost like affecting a stepper motor by singing at it. I guess if the amplitude is high enough, but I doubt a bat could produce enough volume.

Check out the voltage - current curve of a transistor, and tell us where you see ohm's law in that.

I think some photography apps allow shutter speed control on phones. But it brought you the magic of how technology can interact in curious and interesting ways. When it comes to wonder, science easily beats magic Since ultrasonic motors don't use ultrasound, this is extremely unlikely.

I think there is no point persuing the bat thing. CharonY gave you the answer. Just Google "banding camera" and you will see plenty of pictures exactly like yours. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.

Current Intensity. (But originally from the French Intensité de courant) I can't remember seeing E used as voltage before, with the exception of the actual electromotive force. In my experience V or U are much more common.

I think this is the essence of the problem. Whether something "looks" wrong is irrelevant. What matters is whether it can be used to make predictions which are then verified experimentally. Einstein's theories excell at that. If you make any predictions with your versions, your results will be too small with a factor of about 2. What also matters is communication, such as not Starting (a paragraph) In the middle of a sentence [collection of words]

Go to the library and pick up a physics text book. There is no half in the equation because when you derive it properly, it is not there. The E in the equation also does not represent kinetic energy. Your calculations are nothing but numerology and thus meaningless and irrelevant to this topic.

You can't hear the ultrasound a bat uses for navigation. The screeching you did hear must have been some other sound bats make. Possibly, the ultrasound hit the resonance frequency in some component of your camera.

Could you give an example relevant to this thread? It still does not explain 1) why most do work 2) why none of these engineers took the opportunity to claim a Nobel price. Engineers love opportunities, and it is otherwise pretty hard for an engineer to get a Nobel price.

I am not going to download a pdf that requires giving my email address. However, perhaps you should also explain why engineers, who have designed countless devices and processes based in one way or another on conservation of energy, never noticed that these devices do not work.

The snow on top can melt in sunshine or simply because it is no longer freezing. If it starts to freeze after that, the wet layer on top becomes ice, which is harder. When the soil is not or only supperficially frozen, the heat of the ground can melt the ice on the bottom. Either way, the snow in the middle won't melt for several reasons: - snow is a good insulator, so heat can't get to the middle. - it takes a lot of energy to melt ice/snow. Melting the top or bottom helps keeping the rest of the snow cold by absorbing heat.

In a way I was overcomplicating by first discussing a flat belt instead of a timing belt.

I'll take some credit for changing your viewpoints but I give you at least as much for actually changing it and even more for admitting it.