swansont

That’s not what he says. He says that neutrino mass is the combination of 3 masses - the electron, muon and tau neutrino masses. He does not say type of mass or kind of mass.

I recall trying to run my stirling engine on a hot day. I put it on a mug of hot water and it would barely run - too much friction. When I put ice cubes on the top plate, it ran pretty well. Since the source of heat was the same, the only way this could be the case is if I was converting more heat to work - the efficiency increased.

Yes. So why do you keep bringing it up? Nobody else has used caloric in their explanations. The thing is, while caloric was abandoned, the thermodynamic principles it attempted to explain are still there. Heat is transferred. Some of it can be converted to work. It just isn’t because of caloric moving about. Yes, I just explained that. Physicists do idealized systems all the time when discussing theory. Why? There is no real engine that follows the Carnot cycle. You just agreed to that. Fill up with heat? I would think someone railing against caloric theory would avoid treating heat as a substance.

They don’t fission to form the same isotopes. The shell model explains why the fission yield curve has two peaks

And the Carnot cycle is unachievable. It’s an idealized case, like frictionless surfaces and elastic collisions in classical mechanics. The Carnot cycle assumes reversible processes, which don’t physically happen. It’s like calculating the maximum speed of a dropped object by ignoring air resistance. Similar to what studiot said, these idealized analyses apply to imaginary situations.

What are we looking at? What is the magnification?

Like in the Hafele-Keating experiment? I’d say there was a point in doing that.

I saw a twitter thread that showed a case where the AI just fabricated the sources, presumably using the most common terms and most-cited authors, because that’s how the algorithm works.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion is supposed to be posted here But uranium fission does produce variable daughter nuclei

“Centripetal force is towards Earth on the sunny side (and if I'm correct cancels the force from the Sun exactly), while centripetal force is away from Earth on the dark side” (emphasis added) Seemed obvious to me. YMMV

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted, per forum rules

I was using the reference frame that Willem described. Which seems reasonable in answering a question they posed (and which doesn’t raise an issue of shielding gravity)

! Moderator Note This is a discussion board for science, not semantics. This would be a discussion of whether “non-mathematical” means absence of math, or having elements that are not mathematical. Surely one can introduce a topic that is less trivial.

A scale that compared gravitational attraction, e.g. balance scales, yes. But e.g. a spring scale measures the normal force, which would vary with the acceleration. Not that we necessarily have devices sensitive enough. In the earth reference frame it does. Toward the center vs away from the center.

China has been pushing against a rising population for almost 50 years with its one child policy. Russia I’d believe, wanting a bigger army, because of a long tradition of using their soldiers as cannon fodder. But you need a decent economy to outfit a modern army, and a bigger population doesn’t automatically mean a better economy. Look at India (to some extent) and its neighbors.

What about countries where there is no right to vote? That’s one possible cause, but another is increased lifespan from medical advances.

Why is it irreversible? What level is “not enough”?

You misunderstand the analogy. The heat flow is analogous to the energy being converted from potential energy and extracting work. Your focus on water being a fluid is misplaced. It’s the energy of the fluid, not the fluid itself. The potential energy is reduced. Nothing has to happen to the water.

How so? The sentence does not really make sense; how can an engine be falsified? The efficiency claim could be falsified, though. Build an engine that exceeds the efficiency limit, and it would be falsified. That’s how you falsify scientific claims - with an experiment.

And you can post video as long as the discussion can proceed without having to view it. IOW, as long as the lengthy explanation is there.

So you’re coming up with a new definition of stuck? “For example, I say my engine got "stuck", apparently frozen.” But it wasn’t a mechanical part? How does a non-mechanical part get stuck? To be stuck, doesn’t it need to be something that normally moves? You definitely need to post pictures, with circles and arrows on them, because your descriptions are lacking sufficient detail.

Mechanical devices getting stuck violate NO principles of known science.

What thermodynamic principle does an engine getting stuck demonstrate? No, it was for re-introducing material from a locked thread.

It reminds me of the UFO=aliens crowd. Improper extrapolation from the data, cherry-picking, and of course the “it must be aliens” conclusion when the phenomena are unidentified.

That would make you one of his sockpuppets.