swansont

How do you test it? How do determine if that’s the “truth”? All you have are observations. If you don’t have that, all that’s left is philosophy (points at metaphysics)

Alternate viewpoints are fine, in general; there are many instances where you can explain a phenomenon by analyzing the energy, and also by analyzing the momentum.

Your map is only valid in one frame of reference

No, I made no mention of speed. There are relativistic corrections to the energy. Synchrotrons are classical and you can talk about the speed of the electrons. No, but you don’t know the speed. The explanations talking about this are making an invalid connection, using a classical equation/concept where it’s not valid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein–Gordon_equation#Derivation

There are relativistic corrections to the energy, which do not explicitly require having motion. The explanation that it’s relativistic speeds is pop-sci/watered-down. QM uses things like energy and momentum operators, and you solve for energy eigenstates. Which differ when the energy gets to be an appreciable fraction of the rest energy.

! Moderator Note You were the one who brought up functioning brain. Your original claim was “can you act, before you think?” This is moving the goalposts; both use of a fallacy and arguing in bad faith, both of which violate the rules

! Moderator Note Critiques of GR and exploration of an alternative model is OT - split

Science cannot answer this. It’s a metaphysical question. One can’t affirm that GR is reality, only that it models observed behavior very well. In that model, gravity isn’t a force. In the Newtonian model, it is. You’re obviously quoting someone. What is the source of this quote?

“Recorded” is not the same thing as “measured” The image caption on the right says they use a max/min thermometer. It measures the high and low over some time period. It does not mean either one occurred at 9 AM. It means that’s when the numbers were recorded. This implies for a 9 AM recording, the high is for the previous day, just as your link says (Minimum temperature is recorded against the day of observation, and the maximum temperature against the previous day) https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100141761

It’s not infinite, and the application might dictate the desired geometry.

At that energy there would be no KE left over, so the electron isn’t going anywhere, and you might need more to satisfy conservation of momentum (especially a factor for indirect bandgap materials). Some electrons would be dropping back to the ground state. Plus you will have reflection at the surface.

Just pointing out that something does not need to absorb thermal radiation, i.e. heat, in order to heat up. (an issue with our colloquial use of the terminology). A microwave oven would be a common example.

The voltage generated is proportional to the number of turns. Every loop counts toward the area that is experiencing the changing magnetic field. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html The reason for more turns depends on the application. The voltage might be the important factor. You might be using the solenoid to create a magnetic field by supplying it with current, and a longer solenoid has a more uniform field inside of it. You could be current-limited but not voltage-limited, and want a stronger field.

Its temperature can go up, since absorbing non-thermal photons will do work on it. And work can get converted to thermal energy quite easily.

There are some that don't bring anything new to it, which is a big "meh" in my book, but the Dead have a unique sound. Also in the "unique sound" category is Johnny Cash's version of "Heart of Gold"

If you learned something it's not a waste.

Merging photons is possible in some materials but it is an inefficient process, and does not work over the entire wavelength range for a given material. I have repeatedly stated that these are not processes for which thermodynamics is applied, seeing as they are not driven by temperature differences. As such, the thermodynamic limit is not particularly relevant, which is supported by the quantum efficiency being around 34% and the Carnot efficiency being 95%. A solar cell is not a heat engine, the mental gymnastics of a few articles notwithstanding. In general you want to apply the best model to a problem, and thermodynamics is not the best model if it's not a heat engine. At best, you can apply thermo to parts of a problem I never said that the process would be 100% efficient No. Some absorptions would create phonons.

Speaking of great covers of well-known songs, one of the better ones IMO came up on my playlist this morning. The Grateful Dead's version of "Good Lovin'" (made famous by the Rascals)

! Moderator Note A problem here is that you are not defining your terminology, and we run into the fallacy of equivocation. (Yes, you can act before you think. There are reflex actions, which require no thought.)

There is no threshold.

Thermodynamics precludes this possibility. You can't convert heat to work with 100% efficiency. You can't swap out work and heat; they are not identical

Energy does not "carry" entropy. Energy is a property of other things, not a substance unto itself. ... And, to the point of some of the other discussion, not all radiation is heat. The linked paper, for example, talks of a "monochromatic sun" which is not physical. A monochromatic source is not thermal; there is no temperature you can assign it, so calculating a Carnot efficiency with that is nonsensical. The thermodynamic treatment of the energy of a monochromatic source would be work, not heat

You still haven't shown anything to indicate that this is true. You are extrapolating from a single data point. if you go here https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/australia/sydney/historic?month=12&year=2019 you'll see that the record high for Dec 19 2019 was set at 2 PM. It wasn't recorded measured at 9 AM. The low was recorded at a different day and time, as were the humidity extremes. These temperatures are recorded when they happen. If the high is recorded at 9 AM it's because that's when the highest temperature happened.

Which is not the discussion I was having. Introscience is proposing locking someone up for life because they might offend again. Or not, because now they say they aren't advocating for that.

You are describing multiple violent crimes after someone has been incarcerated and released on parole, which is not the scenario under discussion. Existing law should be sufficient to put such a person away for a very long time, so I don't see how it's relevant to the situation Intoscience had proposed. So what's the point of discussing it? This part isn't about rights. The victim's rights haven't been violated, unless the perpetrator is a government entity. How is this relevant? Has anyone proposed not having some kind of response/punishment to a crime?