studiot

The internet is a wonderful resource. Unfortunately there are those souls who take delight in posting misinformation. Youtube hosts some really good videos of science and scientific explanations. Sadly it is also a target for hoaxes like this sounds to be. The 'bulb' is commonly a flourescent bulb, not an old fashioned filament or more modern LED type.

Whilst we are on the subject here is a question for you to think about. It is often thought that you cannot have a current without a voltage or a voltage without a current, but you can have either situation. Can you give an example of either or both cases, you should be familiar with at least one of them.

Glad to help, come back if you want more detail.

Yes 'beating carnot efficiency' is not appropriate or meaningful in this case +1 @Matthew99FYI Efficiency is defined as as output divided by input expressed either as a fraction or percentage. Nothing in the basic definition refers to energy, although the ratio quantity most often used is indeed energy. It is therefore important to always qualify a statement of efficiency by an explicit statement of the quantity or property measured. For the three processes you describe, the appropriate terms are emissivity, absorbtivity, and conversion efficiency. Google will help if you do not know what these mean. Carnot efficiency refers specifically to a cyclic process in which a working fluid is taken round a (thermodynamic) cycle from one state to another ..to another.. and finally returned to its original state. In the process energy is taken form a heat reservoir at one temperature and a different quantity of energy is added to a different reservoir. Heat reservoirs do not change temperature during this process, which is why I asked about the photocell heating up. Work is carried out as a result of this process. Entropy is not required to increase at every stage, only as a net result of one transit around the cycle. Your diagram shows reservoirs but no working fluid.

Good morning ans welcome, 10th grader. NO it is not dumb or magic to wonder about electricity. But electricity is a huge and very important subject. So you have to start somewhere, your teachers cannot tell it all to you at once. Since you mention the electron let me start there. Britannica puts is so well. The carrier of electric properties in matter. The basic electric quantity is electric charge. As far as we know electric charge is always attached to some particle of matter or another. Any particle of matter that has attached charge becomes a carrier of charge as it moves about. These particles could be electrons, protons, ions and are known as charged particles. Some are bigger than atoms (ions) some are smaller than atoms (electrons, protons). Atoms themselves are not charged, they are electrically neutral. Charge endows matter particles it is attached to with extra properties, that interact with matter's own mechanical properties. It also has some additional properties of its own. It is these properties that hold the sub atomic particles in atoms together and hold larger assemblies of atoms together as molecules. One of the special properties of charge is that there are two types of charge. We use the sign convention of positive for protons and negative for electrons and neutral (=no charge) for atoms. Ions can be positive or negative. I say sign convention because it is simply a way of distinguishing. It does not imply any special importance of one over the other. There are many such sign conventions in Science. Back to Britannica. A great deal of electrical theory was developed between about 1850 and 1900. As Britannica notes, the electron was not discovered until the end of that period. And the charge carried by the electron was not confirmed until 1910. So the electrical theory considered electricity as some sort of weightless fluid (they tried to weigh it) that could be transferred or flow from one body of matter to another. The flow of this fluid was called 'electric current' and supposed similar to currents of material in fluids like water. However this theory was shown to be inadequate and that there are, in fact, several types of electric current, even before the discovery of the electron. Nowadays we distinguish Direct Current which is made up of a flow of current carriers which could be electrons, protons or ions in solution. Alternating Current which is actually a flow of energy, no particles actually move anywhere though they could be said to move slightly backwards and forwards. Does this start to answer you questions ?

I should like to see a proper thermodynamic workup of what you mean by this. What is your working 'fluid' ? What is your working cycle and how is the working fluid recycled ? Why does the photocell temperature not increase ?

🤣 Thank you for that word, I must remember it in future as too many find unsubstantiated too much to chew on. +1

Remember 'no equal' also applies to the rabbit at the bottom of heap as well as the dog at the top.

Congratulations to the moderators/administrators for vaccinating ScienceForums against cranks. Today's clearout provides evidence of > 90% success against all cranks and 100% against 'anti-vaxxers'

But I could have written those numbers in a different order; the set would still have been the same. It has no centre. That is the point. It should be noted that it is also a representation if used to illustrate properties of the universe since it only shares some properties with whatever manifold the universe actually is.

It's a good job that Science does not follow those Greek Philosophers (Plato) who believed that we should adopt as groundwork our imaginary notion of perfectionand claim it is the universe's fault if our observations do not follow our imaginings.

Where is the 'centre' of my example set ?

These statements were qualified eg 'can turn to crap' Before your statements were unqualified ie they were absolute, despite your protestation to the contrary. If valid, that means they must apply to all Science and All Philosophy. Now I offered you a counterexample concerning concrete and you eventually say Whilst claiming there was no counterexample, instead of asking what I meant if you don't know a dammed thing about that subject. Is that good Philosophy or godd Science or what ? Now I actually made it quite as plain as I could that I was offering a counterexample by writing underneath the second quote of your work in this post However since you don't understand concrete (nothing wrong with that, there's lot's of things I don't understand) and also since you have ameliorated your original absolute statement to a more qualified status I will offer you a different counter example to both. For most of human history Astronomy and Astro navigation has rested on a false premise, yet functioned extremely well and continues to do so to this day, even after the premise was corrected by Copernicus. Science continues to work with the known-to-be-false premise of the astral sphere because it produces such accurate results so easily compared to the work of measuring or calculating the real situation. There are in fact many such known false models in daily use in Science for much the same reasons.

You should reread swansont's post about this several times as these are not guesses, wild or otherwise. I endorse MigL's comments about representations as well, most especially geometric ones superimposed on topological set/theoretical notions. +1 This is where your idea of infinity and of edges is flawed. Consider the following set {1, 2} Ths set is finite ie not infinite. Let me 'expand' it {1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4......1.9, 2} Is the expanded thread set any 'bigger' geometrically ? Edit:- oops I originally said thread when I meant set. Does it take up more space ? Does it have any geometric shape at all (with or without edges) ? Let me expand it again {1, 1.11, 1.12, ................1.99, 2} Can you see where this is going ? I can continue 'expanding' my set indefinitely yet I have no edges, or geometrical form. I can even turn it into an infinite set if I wish Theories of Big Bangs, Multiverses etc are about topological objects called manifolds which alway have non geometric properties and sometimes geometric ones as well. That sometimes allows us to make rather poor geometric representations of the topology of the manifolds in question.

Thank you for this useful information. I am not doubting you, just trying to establish a few facts. I am not a volcanologist or meteorologist, my main knowledge of geology is engineering geology and geophysics. You have indicated that experts you have approaced have been lukewarm in their interest. A pity. I have a suggestion. Dr Ian Stewart presented a BBC series called Earth The power of the Planet in the early 2000s. He included a section where he was taken into the Australian Outback by an expert meteoroligist to hunt for meteor fragments and another section on volcanology. I suggest you approach him as he will either have a personal interest in your story or the contacts with those who will. Perhaps even in the TV industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Stewart_(geologist) @Bazil_SW Here is a paper on the 2010 eruption in Iceland. Ejecta certainly reached Brum and further. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00572 I haven't found any such papers on the 2021 eruption. It's probably too early for papers on this yet and it was much smaller and gentler anyway.

Euclid Book 1 definitions 1,2 & 3. Another interesting property to consider. Here is a version of the sketch I asked you to draw. Although of different lengths, all three lines OA, OB and OC contain exactly the same number of points as shown by the dotted lines putting them into one-to-one correspondence. This can only happen with an infinite number of points if the lines are composed of 'planck lengths of equal length'

@Bazil_SW I looked at you two videos but could not determine very much. In particular I could not determine the trajectory of your object. Did you actually see it fall ? (Some of the objects in the article I linked to were actually witnessed 'dropping out of the sky) Can you say if it fell more or less straight down or if it came in at some flat trajectory angle or what ?

This is a misunderstanding of the nature of infinity. Take an ordinary piece of graph paper. Now mark scales along each axis, say 0 to 1 each way. Draw a line from zero to 1, 1, straight or curved, it doesn't matter. That line you have just drawn contains infinite number of points. This is because of the particular nature of infinity that any sub interval of an 'infinite' line 'contains' an infinity.

Yes we heard about your storm on our news. My sympathies. Well I'm sorry you did not pick up my light hearted way to offer a counter example to your absolute claim. "It ain't necessarily so" is a famous song and part of the lyrics originally from Gershwin, but covered by several popular artists since. https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/6009935/George+Gershwin/It+Ain't+Necessarily+So+[From+Porgy+and+Bess] Perhaps if also read (and answered) the actual counterexample you would understand. Well if you can't or won't understand your own language, I can't help it. I have already explained the meaning of the word 'great', which goes back to Saxon times and is still used in that context to this day. For example there are two villages in the Chilterns distinguished by the words great and little. Great Missenden and Little Missenden. These are actually older than England itself! When I lived in Greater London, I lived in the London Borough of Brent. There were then more people in Brent than in the whole of the County Somerset, where I live now. Indeed there were more people in Brent than in most of the cities in the UK. Yet is is a medium sized entity making up a small part of what was known as Greater London. Grater London comprised two cities and up to 35 boroughs. The City of London, the City of Westminster and the rest of the London Boroughs. As a matter of interest why do you think your own Great Lakes are so called ? Could it be because they are very large lakes (though not the largest in the world) ? And do you consider Lake Superior to be somehow better than the others ? Or is it again a geographic term ? Can you explain the difference between truths and facts ? Nowhere did I say or indicate 'dominant in any part of medical science' I was complimenting you on offering a mechanical explanation, when chemical explanations failed. And merely observing that this was not the only example of such happening in medical science. Digestion actually offers several examples to do with diet: Roughage, for instance is often neglected in diet. Cotton wool sandwiches are sometime prescribed. I have never heard of someone 'working Science' so my best guess was doing Science. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I still maintain that science now deals with more facts or truths (if they are different) than Philosophy. Since you like to introduce value judgements into Philosophy, would Philosophy be interested in the distance between the 53rd and 54th branches on my next-door-but-one neighbour's apple tree ? I don't think this distance (which must have a value and so must be a fact) is of any philosophical interest. But it could be of scientific interest as data for some project. Just as my counterexample of the production of high quality concrete offered in my last post.

No parenthesis was used so it should be taken to mean p = 2.4. Strictly to make the difference and indicated multiplication your could (perhaps should put the 2 and the 4 each in their own brackets, but I have never seen this done in that way. I am a little surprised at your continuing difficulty since you yourself identified that the bold dot is used by Silvanus to signify both the decimal point and the operation of multiplication. The original book by Silvanus was published in 1910 and at that time there was a fashion for printers to use the bold dot in the middle of the line to avoid confusion a small dot being lost at the bottom of the line. This bold dot symbol is still available today and I have shown it in my revision examples of the use of symbols for powers and roots below. Note I have used the modern star in the middle to represent multiplication. The star was introduced to avoid the ambiguity of using one symbol (the dot) for two different things. [math]{t^{2 \bullet 4}} = {t^{2.4}} = \sqrt[{10}]{{{t^{24}}}}[/math] [math]{t^2}*{t^4} = {t^{\left( {2 + 4} \right)}} = {t^6}[/math] [math]{t^{\left( {2*4} \right)}} = {t^{2 \bullet 4}} = {\left( {{t^2}} \right)^4} = {t^8}[/math] I hope these help

OK, the future in English. The perfect tense refers to a completed action (verb) A completed action is over and done with and often cannot be repeated. For example I have eaten the apple happened in the past so is past perfect. But say in the present I hold an apple. Obviously I have yet to complete eating it, or even perhaps to start eating it. So in the present I eat the apple or since this takes time, I am eating the apple which is the imperfect tense. But say I do not, which in 2 hours into the eat the apple until my lunchbreak, which is 2 hours into the future. So I say that, "At lunch, I will eat my apple." Which is the unspecific or simple future. or I can say, "At lunch, I will be eating my apple." Which is the future imperfect. or I can say, "After lunch, I will have eaten my apple" Which is the future perfect. That is further into the future following the completion of eating of my apple. I cannot refer to something that will happen in the future whilst I will be eating my apple - I must use the future imperfect for that. So Once I have eaten my apple my lunch will be completed. Perfect While I am eating my apple my lunch will be interrupted. Imperfect

Silvanus' answer is correct and follows the standard rule for differentiation of a power. if [math]u = {t^p}[/math] then [math]\frac{{du}}{{dt}} = p{t^{\left( {p - 1} \right)}}[/math]

We try to be helpful and encourage genuine members. You say Birmingham ? I don't know if there was any connection to this event Winchcombe is not far from Bham.

The energy level of each s, p d f etc orbital varies with atomic number and there are some crossovers. Here is a plot, showing how complicated it gets as Z increases

If there is only one sort of singularity or even just one 'singularity' why does it need to be qualified by 'absolute' ? So you are changing your definition ?