swansont

But it can produce it; that's how an incandescent light bulb works. The AC current heats the tungsten filament. The (50 Hz or 60 Hz) frequency is much too high for there to be a modulation of the thermal output. If you modulate a current you will emit EM radiation at the modulation frequency - up to a point. Eventually you can't get the electrons in your antenna to respond, and also have difficulty in generating a signal to drive them at the frequency. (These may be related phenomena) The generation and modulation of electromagnetic waves in this [Terahertz] frequency range ceases to be possible by the conventional electronic devices used to generate radio waves and microwaves, requiring the development of new devices and techniques. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation So you aren't going to generate light signals from an antenna with a THz input signal, and this is several orders of magnitude below optical frequencies. And you aren't going to modulate a signal at those frequencies, either. What you can do is modulate a light source like an LED or laser, at much lower frequencies. (I've sent sound signals across the room this way - modulate a laser with the headphone jack output, capture the light on a photodiode, remove the DC component, and send the signal into an amplifier and speaker)

! Moderator Note Pure conjecture like does not meet our requirements for rigor. Do you have a model? Can you make testable predictions? Do you have evidence to support this?

! Moderator Note This trolling is below our standards

Modulation on a wire would be radio, if the signal is RF. It would not produce visible light. These are not the same thing. That’s not modulating signal on a tungsten wire, it’s modulating an LED. Are you interested in learning the science, or are we chasing another fiction?

Only if they come from a thermal source. The microwaves in an oven of that type do not emit thermal radiation (heat), they do thermodynamic work. (this is an area where the terminology is often used in a rather sloppy fashion. Also a shortcoming of thermodynamics, where you have heat and work as your two options. I don’t think non-thermal radiation sources existed when thermodynamics was being developed)

I see only punishment listed. No hint that anything else is being considered.

Infrared and radio are different parts of the spectrum, so it would not be a radio, as such. However, you can modulate and detect IR and send a signal. Often along a fiber optic, with a laser (which is not a thermal source, so it’s not heat). Thermal radiation would just be noise, and any modulation of it would have a very limited bandwidth, depending on how fast you could heat or cool the source.

Makes no sense based on your experience and intuition*, which is not the same as that of many scientists, especially one familiar with the problem. *this is one reason why we urge people in speculations to become familiar with the science surrounding the problem they are trying to solve It's hard to see it. Maybe we've missed a similar amount of stuff in the ocean, because it doesn't reside near the surface. There was a time, not so long ago, we didn't notice protons and neutrons and electrons. Had no clue they were there — too small to see — until we built the tools to detect them. We've only known about the different atoms for a relatively short time. How come people in 1700 had no clue about Tellurium? Or most of the elements, for that matter? (Only a dozen or so were known at that time) How did we miss all that? There was a time when people had no clue about other continents in the world. They had to explore to ind new places. But being unaware doesn't men these other places didn't exist.

I'm sorry, is this relevant to my point? Did you, or did you not, make a 1:1 correlation between justice and punishment? Whether or not we have substituted punishment for revenge, there are justice systems that rehabilitate and serve to separate people who are a danger to society. We aren't talking about war, you already postulated that sociopaths are fundamentally good.

You seem to be talking about the legal system, and have assumed that the sole function of it is to punish people. Which is incorrect. While not universally embraced, it also serves to separate people who are a danger to society, and also to rehabilitate people, and possibly other functions. So I submit that the premise that justice is solely associated with punishment is flawed. If someone has transgressed the rules of society and can show they did not act of their own volition (owing to their life experience), the system should still separate them if they pose a danger to others, and rehabilitate them if possible.

I searched for the manual, but since you didn't give the model number (again) I haven't found this particular device, but there is an indoor and outdoor temperature and humidity, and mention of an outdoor sensor and what happens of it can't get a signal from that sensor. Does that apply to your device? In your picture the top row has an icon that suggests a radio connection of some sort, and the second row says "in", suggesting that is the indoor display. Both rows have battery displays, so removing and installing the batteries might reset the device.

! Moderator Note Too much hand-waving, not enough actual science.

It’s sealed pretty well. Why would the pressure be below atmosphere? If there’s already some air in there, it would start at atmosphere. And cold. Also, if the water is going below the ice, the ice will float on the water. Hot water can make the pipe expand, leaving a gap for the water.

No, it reflects a small fraction and transmits most of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations#/media/File:Fresnel_power_air-to-glass.svg

! Moderator Note Discussions must take place here, without requiring anyone to download anything. You may open a new thread if it complies with the rules

Hot water evaporating

Basically. Water around the rod of ice seals it, so as the water turns to vapor and expands it has nowhere else to go but up, so the rod rises. Just like a piston. edit: see below

Second derivatives give information about the curvature of a function, much like the first derivative tells you the slope.

No, general relativity predates atomic clocks by ~40 years This being physics, one would need to quantify this by using a mathematical model. Gravity would affect the nucleus, too.

AFAIK they are independent.

I would guess 66% is the relative humidity. You can probably find a manual for this online, which would describe the display. Make sure you include the model number in your search.

One suggestion: use variables and substitute the values at the end. In the long run this will make solutions easier. What is the frictional force between block 1 and block 2?

The "shape" is often interpreted as the curvature of the universe, so in a sense, it is what you asked for, even if you did not realize it. Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by the shape. As I said before, a volume is 3D, and you aren't going to be able to put that onto a 2D map. The best you can do is a projection, or, alternatively, you could represent the components at some value of R on a map. Much like a map of the earth's surface is at some rough, nominal value of R. You can also have a map of the ocean bottom. But it would be difficult to map both the surface and what it looks like 5km below the surface on the same static map. Did you miss where I explained why these are not equivalent? (things that are close to 2D and others are 3D, and how many items are in the image)) It sounds like you want a 3D spatial map of the objects in the universe. How do you represent objects that could be 10 LY away from us, and 20 LY, and 30 LY etc., etc. (as you would have if you look in the direction of the Milky Way for the first 60k LY or thereabouts) out to 45 billion LY, that all might be along a line of sight? IOW you're standing in a dense forest and you want a picture of the whole forest - all the trees. Can you do that from that perspective? One thing you might look at for deep space, in certain directions, would be Hubble deep-space pictures. But it won't tell you the actual depth of the image; it's just a projection onto a plane.

! Moderator Note We're not interested if all you are going to do is preach. Rule 2.8 Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

! Moderator Note The last post before you resurrected the thread was a request to answer questions. So it appears Bignose did not share your opinion that there weren't a lot of outstanding issues.