swansont

Thermodynamics and realistic expectations

! Moderator Note You forgot to provide evidence of this claim. Back this up before you proceed to any conclusions

Geometry. Light from a point or line source expands as you move radially. It’s related to perspective - why things look smaller as they move away.

I like MigL’s descriptions better, since they don’t involve things shrinking that don’t actually shrink.

Yes, but the objects are (or can be) locally at rest.

I don’t see how you concluded that I had a problem. I was commenting on your objection that he used an approximation. How did you derive this equation? How do you reconcile the units of the integrated part of the equation with the other terms?

If you can’t make specific predictions and compare with evidence, you don’t have a theory. You have, at best, a conjecture. At worst it’s a WAG, and it needs to be more than that.

Brexit’s another disaster, but I was only considering options in the US.

It's "sheet" If you have a system that is 25% efficient already, how could you get an improvement of more than a factor of perhaps 2? So far it sounds like your experiment yielded nothing (which is not surprising) so your factor is currently zero. And if it were this simple, someone would have noticed by now. As it is, resistance of conductors generally increases with temperature, which lowers efficiency of electrical systems. You need to support your claims with some physics.

This reminds me a little bit of a recent idiotic argument I saw about sea levels rising - that if that happened, people would just sell their houses. But, of course, that ignores the obvious question: who would buy them? As the OP points out, we have disasters just about everywhere. So the question of why don't they move raises at least two issues: who's going to buy their homes, and where are they going to move to? If they live in such a disaster-riddled area that nobody would want to live there, who will buy their home? And since just about every area is prone to some sort of disaster, how can they move to a safe area? The other problem with "Another natural disaster in that state?" is that disasters usually don't hit a whole state, and so the people involved in one disaster are probably not the ones impacted by the next one. It's a fallacious argument. You don't want to live on the gulf or Florida coast, because of hurricanes? Who does fishing and shipping? Don't want to live in tornado alley? Who does our farming? Don't want to live in an earthquake zone, or be near wildfires, or snowstorms? What regions do we have left?

Then your worldview is incredibly contrived. You are responding to movie-plot scenarios, rather than actual conditions that one could discern by gathering scientific data. And because of that, zapatos's description isn't really off the mark.

The field is zero inside of a conductor My recollection is that the process is energy dependent, so low energy photons are less likely to undergo the process (low energy means less likely to form virtual pairs, or the pairs last for a shorter time), which is a reason they use gammas in two-photon experiments, or that they only worry about the process under those conditions

Is the point here that people make stupid arguments? Why does one have to respond to them?

Extrapolation from what? “But it's still popular enough that libertarian and non-libertarian voters alike don't want to go as far as banning it outright.” carries with it the implication that that’s what you were suggesting But you haven’t provided any examples of this, and yet you are implying it’s widespread. Good lord, you watch too many movies.

There’s more than one sense of “field” and you may be conflating different ones You can talk about the concept of an electric field, and that field would be everywhere, but also that the value of the electric field is zero, so there is no field in a region. So “light propagates as a wave in the Electromagnetic Field” is that first sense, but not in the second, because the EM wave is the field. (I’m not prone to phrase things as “light propagates as a wave in the Electromagnetic Field” because I take the second approach: if E=0, there is no field) The CMB can be described as a photon field, but nothing propagates in it. That makes it sounds (to me) like it’s a medium, and it isn’t

iNow’s response to your proposal to ban driving, then. I was hoping for something more compelling than an obvious counter-argument to a ridiculous proposal. Germany no longer has the Autobahn? If they still do, I don’t think Europe has banned cars. I’ll admit it’s been a while since I’ve been to Europe, but I remember lots of cars. The transit was good, but I was in urban areas where that might be expected. Another pronouncement without evidence. We have not discovered this? I think where I work we’ve done really well figuring that out. Is that really a problem? Stealing homework? Oh, come on. Some teachers can carpool. Most could not. The ones for whom it makes sense were likely doing it already. So you just make it up?

So use the exact equation. The derivation doesn’t actually rely on the approximation, IIRC If you comply with the guidelines (provide evidence, etc.), go ahead. What are these variables? Mass, force and velocity? What if there’s no force, or the object is at rest? What does this have to do with mass-energy equivalence?

But the alternative has wide-ranging impacts, which you have not addressed. There are a number of people who opt to use a car instead of mass transit, so they have made this choice already. With COVID we’ve discovered which jobs support telecommuting and which do not. Do you have data on how often people try and do work while driving, or is this just more mythology? I don’t recall running across such appeals. Can you provide examples? Perhaps it’s in response to people trying to ban it.

Why won’t you answer the question? Is it because traffic deaths don’t even crack the top 10? So your presentation of “tens of thousands” looks like sensationalism when one realizes that ~2.8 million people died in the US in 2019? (also that traffic deaths have been falling) By focusing on deaths you conveniently ignore other impacts that matter to people and would factor in to any decision to drive, and also the difficulties of any transition to some other system. Which remains mythical at this point, because you haven’t done more than give a cursory description of an alternative. It also makes this an appeal to emotion, rather than facts. Your approach treats driving more as a luxury that can be given up rather than a necessity that would have to be replaced.

Out of how many total deaths? Put this number in context. Where does it rank in the different causes of death? Perhaps because most reasonable people understand that in getting from point A to point B efficiently, cars are the best solution, all things considered, and there’s no replacement that could be deployed in a reasonable amount of time.

They aren’t. The premise of your question is false.

! Moderator Note No, they are not. Math can be applied to many subjects, or be done independently of an application. We’re not going down this rabbit hole

invasive-feces banned as a sockpuppet of 13mh13

! Moderator Note No. -1 does not mean -16 , and 1/1e-4 is not equal to -1 ! Moderator Note You have to stop doing this. You asked a math question, so stick to math. If you have a physics question, ask it in physics. You’ve not clarified what you meant in the OP, so go ahead and ask a new question, but this us done, and you have to stop making up your own math, and stop acting like math and physics are interchangeable

Yes, and how does this have an effect on lensing? You can remove that bias. Anisotropy would remain after the correction