swansont

The USNO structures weren't domes, since they didn't need to rotate laterally (only elevation changes). There's a solid black line in that building on the right that could be where the telescope can view. Can't see the other side because of the "B"

What is the orientation of the system? Google maps suggests that it is N-S, which means it's possible that this was a transit telescope. At the Naval Observatory was had these - you can measure when a star passes by the N-S line, and use that to make star charts for celestial navigation. There are buildings built some distance away so that the telescope can sight in on a target known to be on the N-S line and calibrate the scope. At USNO the targets have been demolished, but the transit telescope building foundations remain, and there are still some trees used as windbreaks to make sure the air would be still for sighting in on the targets. You can see the foundations on the center line, one just to the east and one just to the west of center. The remaining rows of trees are just to the northwest (aligned with the foundation on the left of center) https://www.google.com/maps/place/United+States+Naval+Observatory/@38.9215924,-77.0679255,834m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b7b62f93f61443:0xeba717baca31d77d!8m2!3d38.9216743!4d-77.0668837

It's not that you are challenging my authority (I don't think you are). It's that you post a physics question, and then as support/justification/application of it, you post fiction. Where physics need not work. You also post nonsense, which leaves us to figure out what you're talking about. You are wasting peoples' time when you reject a legitimate answer because you couldn't be bothered to properly frame your question. It's rude. You did not describe your energy needs. One item of many that you need to do up front, before asking these questions, if you are going to then disregard the answers. You must provide context. I can't see the connection between this and generating visible photons from an antenna. If you're asking about gravitational effects from photons, who cares where they came from? Who cares if they are in that narrow range we call visible light? "visible photons from an antenna" are two specific criteria that seem important, but since you have other motivations here, you need to explain why this is important. No, that's not how this works. Physically impossible things do not go in mainstream threads. They go in speculations, if you are proposing something (where you are expected to provide a model and/or evidence), or they go in the trash.

Of what use is it as a conceptual tool, if it doesn't work? How do you assess whether or not the idea applies to a specific situation? You need an objective way of determining this.

! Moderator Note An article that you, once again, fail to cite and from which you do not provide relevant passages. (Fix this going forward, in addition to all of Strange's notes about your behavior)

People are giving you the benefit of their experience and their time to answer questions. I would appreciate it if the discussion were the result of a sincere inquiry rather than having my chain yanked.

Your breath is cooler than the soup and warmer than the air. There is no inherent contradiction, if that’s all there was to it. Blowing on the soup promotes evaporation, which is a cooling process. Blowing through an aperture means there is expansion afterwards. If the pressure and composition of a gas remains constant and it expands, the temperature goes down. (an ideal gas follows PV = nRT, so they would be proportional under that condition) edit: see below

So why it an issue that I said n has to be constant? The thing is, if you change one variable, the others can change, and where the energy goes depends on that. Temperature changes, for example, represent a change in energy that’s not available to do PV work.

He didn’t say that. He said the technology to detect such an event will come online in the next decade. Please, please, please quote the relevant section of text so we don’t have to search for what you are talking about. Perhaps the act will force you to (re)read the text and you will improve your comprehension of what was said.

You can’t solve PV = nRT without also knowing what happens to all the variables. T changes. Does V changes? Does n?

Second paragraph: “But there's another class of event that definitely exists in the Universe that can output even more energy in a shorter amount of time: the merger of two supermassive black holes. Although we've never seen such an event...”

No No, again You never said how much you need. This works for incandescent light bulbs, though it is indeed inefficient.

The normal way of using an antenna gives EM radiation that’s of order the size of the antenna, so we’re talking smaller than a micron. An alternate way that would work would be to heat up the antenna so it becomes incandescent. Why would electromagnets generate visible light?

You said the field was perpendicular. It’s not. No amount of tap-dancing changes this.

Quartz transmits down to ~150 nm, so the transparent aluminum is worse http://www.tydexoptics.com/materials1/for_transmission_optics/crystal_quartz/

At ~25,000 ºC the peak wavelength of emission is at ~116 nm, and the transparent aluminum transmission cutoff is ~200 nm, so it would tend to block/absorb much of the light you want transmitted.

No. It would be more reasonable to say that he said/implied money has no intrinsic value.

Check out Gibbs and Helmholtz free energies, which relate to non-PV work. Note that they, too, make assumptions about variables being held constant. https://socratic.org/questions/what-are-helmholtz-free-energy-and-gibbs-free-energy

The laser was chopped, and was also around 1W of power. Did you use similar power levels? The video says it's caused by heating, not the PEE.

There are a bunch of ways that you can rearrange the thermodynamic potentials equations, but you need to be careful. W = -P (delta V) assumes constant T and n You can't just pop it into an equation where T and/or n is not constant

Why would it? What problem does transparent aluminum potentially solve? Please make some kind of connection between the two ends of your conjecture, and have them within reach of each other.

It is both literally and figuratively true, and a proportional response to the imagery that we are the Roman inqusition.

I doubt that you have. The field from a current-carrying wire would be circular, as given by the right-hand rule. You need to present ideas for experiments that will work if you are wrong but accepted physics is right. Being accidentally right isn’t a valid test. You have to present your discussion here. Given that you’ve already gotten things wrong, it’s improper to ask that others put forth such effort to debunk you. It’s also what the forum rules prescribe.

Contemporary physics doesn’t assert this, so that’s a bad start. Can you make any quantitative predictions with your conjecture? You have zero math in your post. What experiment would falsify your idea? What if we put a large chunk of soft iron between them? Magnetic fields can indeed be shielded. (this would be an example of an experiment that falsifies your conjecture)

n isn’t the ideal gas constant. It’s the number of moles of the gas in the sample (kilomoles, to be consistent with your units)