John Cuthber

Where to?

Eventually, the effect of diffraction is that all the photons hit all the walls

Fresnel has been dead for nearly 200 years and is presumably past caring that his mechanism has been superseded. Incidentally, if you cite the source- which I presume is this https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_L7LDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=Admitting+that+light+consists+in+vibrations+of+the+ether&source=bl&ots=eShD3bnEPM&sig=_db4_zXKmUipVfHZ7-72PL_8kOc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivisnNlJbXAhWDXRoKHcLPAJYQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Admitting that light consists in vibrations of the ether&f=false then people can see what the **** you are on about

Strangely, he did so, here.

Actually, since the thing he's most famous for is showing the ether doesn't exist, that's as far as you need to read before you realise that the wall of text isn't worth reading. That's a common misconception. If I run a mile and back at 10 miles an hour it takes me a fifth of an hour. (A tenth of an hour each way) If I run on a "travelator" that's doing 1 mile an hour then, WRT the ground I run a mile at 11 miles an hour and a mile at 9 miles an hour. The first "half" takes 1/11 hours and the second half takes 1/9 hours Overall it takes 1/11+1/9 ie 20/99 or 0.202020 hours. That's not 0.2

That would be absorption and we have said that's not happening- the mirrors are 100% perfect

I'm not sure that's a problem. A photon hits the right hand side of the box, and bounces off with sightly less momentum because some is transferred to the box. The box is now moving very slightly to the right. But when the photon hits the left hand side of the box it's hitting something that is moving towards it, and it gains momentum from that interaction. If anything, I think the conservation of momentum shows that the light does (ideally) bounce forever- if it stopped, where would the momentum go, and which way?

It's also possible for things that are not glucose to give a positive result. I think vitamin C will reduce Benedict's solution.

As far as I can tell, it's Hecht's maths and he probably got it right. Why do you ask?

Or that the ground isn't flat, but that's not as "exciting" so it gets overlooked. Nobody has said that rockets are "efficient" at anything except burning stuff. Given the temperature of the gases as they leave the rocket, it's pretty clear that they do burn stuff well. The "efficiency" of rockets for space flight etc is measured in terms of the "specific impulse". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse It is silly to claim that "NASA is concealing" it when you can find it on WIKI.

Today I learned that Intel will sell you a chip with 17 qbits https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-delivers-17-qubit-superconducting-chip-advanced-packaging-qutech/ And it needs rather specialist cooling ( 0.02K). Classical computing isn't dead yet, though it may not be long.

Dilute some of the acid 1000 fold with clean (rain/ deionised?) water. Take 1 litre of water from the pool. Slowly add the diluted acid and measure the amount you need to get the right pH. For the rest of the pool you need 120 times as much acid. (Probably best to start with, say, 3/4 of the calculated amount initially and see how that goes). Incidentally, it might not be possible to get the pH to 7.5. The cement etc might buffer the pH rather higher than that and you don't want to dissolve the concrete.

LOL "... and there are a lot of other facts." So it includes everything, but points out that there are bits missing.

As I laze around on a Saturday afternoon I consider the idea that what lasers do would be lazing if they used ztimulated radiation or if they were lazy.

How did you come to the conclusion that there was a "Z" in that?

If you could get an LED that produced such as narrow range of wavelengths as a laser does, there wouldn't be much difference.

What's the resolution like on radio telescope arrays these days?

You have demonstrated that other techniques must also be used. Well spotted. Here's a link to some of the other ways we measure stellar distance http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjp/

I did By whom? and you didn't answer. This one https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130007/is-the-mechanics-of-the-wave-function-in-the-quantum-mechanics-deterministic is particularly good. It says "Some people say that a measurement is not deterministic, but..." and goes on to show why it isn't random. and then the second answer says "the Copenhagen interpretation gives no account of what the collapse process is and by what mechanism it occurs, and this has led to dissatisfaction with it in some quarters." So, essentially, you have shown that oen person wondered if it was random, but they were set straight by two others.

Simple alcohols like isopropanol will not fluoresce in the accessible bits of the spectrum. However, lots of other things will. If you rinse your fingers in IPA you will probably get a solution that fluoresces somewhere in the UV. Washing powders are other massively bright fluorophors. It's probably not an aflatoxin impurity that's causing the problem, but it could be almost anything.Disinfectants may contain things like quaternary ammonium compounds which will fluoresce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzalkonium_chloride

By whom? If you can't answer that the whole thread is pointless. It's like saying "making bread is often taken as a random process". If nobody actually takes it that way, there's nothing to discuss.

By whom?

Perhaps the word "thinks" in that sentence should have quote marks.

OK, two things, firstly you haven't got the hang of the inverse square law. I'm going to invent a unit- Called the "thingy" It's the circumference of the Earth (about 25000 miles). By your logic, after travelling from the moon a signal will have travelled roughly 10 thingies and will therefore be attenuated 10*10, i.e 100 times. Monitoring a signal that's only been reduced a hundredfold shouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, if I measure he distance in metres it's about 384 million of them, so the attenuation must be about 10^17 fold. When you work out what's wrong with that, you will see what's wrong with your post. Then there's this bit "if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal but a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth" Well, for a while, NASA did leave a signal source there because, while they were there, they sent back signals. The Russians received them. If they hadn't, there would have been hell to pay. And, finally, your idea that the inverse square law means you can't get a signal here from the moon is just silly. The light scattered by the moon follows the inverse square law. You can see the moon. The inverse square law doesn't stop signals reaching us from the moon.

Our mains supply is nominally 50Hz and it's very close to it, but it varies slightly. You can monitor it if you get bored http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/services/balancing-services/frequency-response/ But all the power stations in the UK run at the same frequency at any given time. Presumably the French grid does the same. But are the two grids synchronised to eachother?