Ghideon

.

Trying an alternative just for fun:

This cut?

Google returns references to the paper "Graviton to Photon Conversion via Parametric Resonance" by Robert Brandenberger, Paola C. M. Delgado, Alexander Ganz, Chunshan Lin, first version submitted to arXiv on 18 May 2022.

Thanks! I did not think of repeating the query.

Interesting, I wonder what causes differences. I just tried: (ChatGPT 4, Mar 23 Version)

Thanks for your reply! I think I need to clarify; I'm speaking about a polarised debate on global level. Discussion here on the forum is quite objective. I'll continue to follow this topic. A basic example: some jurisdictions have rules about giving financial product advice. How will such rules be modified when tools such as ChatGPT are available and in use in regulated areas? I do not know but I'm curios. (I'm currently on an assignment in the financial industry) I had not seen the Hofstadter text before, I'll look more into what he as to say.

I just wanted to say that I find this topic to be one of the most interesting discussions lately, and I'm closely following the debate. However, I'm having trouble formulating a substantial contribution. One observation I'd like to make is that generative AI seems to have ignited an increasingly polarized debate between its proponents and opponents, potentially more so than many previous applications of computer science. Do you share my observation, or do you have a different perspective?

I prefer a different approach; having one separate email adress per online registration*. I prefer similar (or identical) user name for different sites and the ability to drop an email adress if it is misused. I notice that some sites allow for the user to enter username or email adress, maybe such an option will be available in this forum. Example screen shot from a random internet service: *) there are automated services for this to reduce any overhead or administration

Hello, I'm unable to find* a prof. Hal Puthoff using search engines, can you provide some reference to relevant work for this topic? *) I found other titels and similar names but no professor.

Thanks for the reply. I think your 'halt' is an excellent way to show what I think of but I lack the mathematic knowledge to express, +1. My reasoning: The outcome when step-by-step instructions is running in a CPU could as far as I know be expressed mathematically using boolean algebra and circuit logics. This includes the 'Null' or 'NOP'* instruction. But an instruction that requires an external interrupt does not necessary have any upper limit for how long it takes for the interrupt to occur. When the time is unbounded a "step" seems different from a mathematical perspective. I think my question is related to this statement: I'm curious what kind of mathematical functions are required and if/how that depends on the types of instructions and level of abstraction (CPU, Machine code, higher level) and if these functions are what OP described. *) No operation

Since this is speculations, what is your reasoning and arguments for making this claim? (The answer according to established models is "No, it is not correct to say that coldness flows into warmness when something cools down. ")

I'm not sure I follow the idea, maybe you can you define "step"? On a low level (interactions for a CPU) @studiot's halt* example could mean that the CPU will wait for an external interrupt. Are these signals part of your steps? *) I use HLT (x86) here

There is a function available by clicking "more options" for a post (may be different between devices and browsers) : This windows appear and the direct link is presented: Here is the result when using your post above: edit: x-post with @iNow

The opening question was "According to mainstream physics: Is heat "destroyed" in a heat engine?". Do you want the answer as stated by current mainstream physics of today? Or do you want the answer as it was in mainstream physics at some specific time in the past? (Or other alternative?). Since many historical references are brought up, can you clarify?

That question have ben answered several times already. Note that some of the input heat energy being converted into useful work output. This is the basic principle behind the operation of a heat engine.

(bold by me) By "account" you mean the total energy input? (Don't forget about the heat that is rejected from a heat engine.)

What does the bold part mean? (Bold highlight by me)

Advice: Maybe you can ask about what established science agrees upon to be correct instead? That may allow for the discussion to progress.

The idea that heat "disappears" during the performance of work in a heat engine seems to be a reasonable a way of expressing the fact that heat energy is converted into other forms of energy, such as mechanical work or kinetic energy, and is no longer available as heat. Note that text was written 1921 and science, and associated descriptions, may have moved on since then. The terminology used to describe the conversion of heat energy into other forms of energy can vary depending on the context and level of detail of the discussion. For example, in some contexts, it may be more appropriate to say that the heat energy is "transferred" or "converted" rather than "disappears", since the energy is still present but has changed form. Similarly, the specific mechanisms by which heat energy is converted into work or other forms of energy may be described in different ways depending on the level of detail and the theoretical framework being used. For instance: Level of detail: At a general level, the focus may be on the overall efficiency or performance of a heat engine or energy system, without necessarily specifying the exact mechanisms of energy transfer or conversion. Context: For example, in the context of engineering or applications, the terminology may be more technical and focused on the practical aspects of energy conversion and efficiency. In the context of a more theoretical or scientific discussion, the terminology may be more abstract. Theoretical framework: The specific theoretical framework being used to describe thermodynamic phenomena can also have an impact on the terminology used. Note that for more understanding and for adding ability to predict behaviour you may use models and mathematics in addition to written descriptions. Hope this helps guiding you toward the more specific answer you requested.

The mass of wind is not a well-defined concept as far as I know. Wind is better characterized by its velocity, pressure, and density. edit: x-post with @Lorentz Jr; good answer, see above

Thanks for the helpful analysis @sethoflagos! It confirms my understanding of the situation. My question was directed at OP; given this is posted in speculations I expected an analysis. Strawman does not work as an argument in science.

During this week I've (re)learned about the basic principles and laws of thermo dynamics and their physical consequences. For reasons unknown I did not like the subject at all when studying physics and I've not used it theoretically as an engineer. With the help of several regular members* I've improved my understanding by arguing in favour of mainstream science in a recent thread in speculations. The scientific definitions/concepts "temperature", "heat", "heat transfer", "entropy", "heat death of the universe" and more does now have a meaning. I might even take a look at the mathematics again, time will tell... Thanks, /G *) @sethoflagos, @studiot, @joigus, @exchemist ... sorry if I neglected anyone, I'm not going to dig through the 400+ pots in the thread again...

Physics. Open a thread in mainstream section and ask; there are many members with adequate skills that can explain the deeper details if my basic skills about Newton, Lagrange and Noether is not enough.