studiot

And I am unsure of an answer from the scanty description of your pond and its environment. The presence of lead is alway a 'potential' hazard the severity of which depends upon circumstances. If unsure then you could simply change the lead weights for some small stones.

Yeah they're both ghosts in the machine. nor is there a real Professor Challenger.

Just read Professor Challenger.

Well done, can you say more ?

I don't follow what the keyboard thickness has to do with it, although some keyboard actions are slower than for other keyboards. Some operating systems, eg Windows, allow setting the response time of keyboard and mouse, which must be significant.

https://www.axair-fans.co.uk/news/applications/understanding-basic-fan-laws/ This should do ya.

Not really. The sound energy starts off in the atmosphere as mechanical (pressure wave) energy. The fluctuating pressures are applied mechanically to all surfaces, causing transfer of mechanical energy to the objects with these surfaces. The mechanical surface energy is then converted within the body of the object to heat energy by internal processes, as the energy spreads theought the body. In the process the body is warmed the body ever so slightly. The slightly warmed body will then transfer a small proportion of this heat back to the atmosphere. This amount is a very small percentage of a very small number. Note that 'soft' objects absorb more sound than hard ones.

This is not even correct by non relativistic (Newtonian) mechanics. You are deceiving yourself.

I think it only fair and proper that we not only simply say the OP is wrong because of experimental measurement. We should also analyse his argument and point out its flaws (if any). The above part of the OP statement is incorrect, as shown by Fizeau's experiment (not Morely), in addition to being fundamentally contrary to SR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment

Since you have decided to return, perhaps you would like to revisit this question of yours from earlier in the thread. The answer to this is yes, but not in the way you might expect. There are (simple) graphical ways of comparing by direct measurement on the same piece of paper both frames at once. What is done is to compare the length of the same line as drafted (not sketched) in two different ways. In fact more than this can be achieved. In his book "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Max Born shows exactly how to do this with no more than simple high school maths. Furthermore he derives Lorenz from this diagram in three different ways showing that each time the formula arrived at is identical. One of these is directly from Maxwell. I would thoroughly recomment this book to anyone looking for simple but correct insights. Another good source (more easily obtainable in the US) is the treatment by Wangness in his Introductory Topics in Modern Physics. This is a bit more mathematical, but the author is very chatty (but still compact) and his justifications are physical, rather than mathematical.

Good afternoon and welcome. Have I the pleasure of addressing the dead half or the live half? As regards your very reasonable question, let us start with a few facts and figures. First and foremost. There is not a lot of energy in the sound from yoiur hifi. Let us say you have a big hifi with two 100 watt channels running at 75% power on the dial. So your amp is outputting 150 watts electrical. But loadspeakers are notoriously inefficient. Particularly bass speakers which can be only 1 % efficient. Even the best speakers will not exceed 30%. So this brings down the sound power output to somewhere between 1.5 and 50 watts. Once this sound is in the air it impinges upon surfaces such as doors, windows, curtains, upholstery and so on. All of these materials can move flex, wave, twist and so on. Some more than others. The sound energy is thus converted to mechanical energy of these actions. In turn this flexing etc warms up the object and so the energy is turned into heat. Heat is the final destination of all sequences of energy conversion. Does this answer your question?

Lots of folks have mentioned mosquitoes. But there are thousands of varieties and only a few carry Malaria. https://www.who.int/features/qa/10/en/

Good suggestion +1 I'll add the following to this. The stones should not be all of the same size, whatever size you choose. The gravel should be 'graded'. This means it should include a range of sizes from the biggest to quite fine. The point is that you are trying to get the smaller sizes to fill the gaps between the larger sizes. And then the even smaller sizes to fill the smaller gaps and so on. This produces a dense compact 'pavement' to run vehicles on. Original roads were made like this by McAdam. These were further compacted by the action of traffic wheels and weights grinding them together. Single sized aggregate will always be unstable and slip about under the action of wheeld vehicles. Zapatos comment about angular stones being better than rounded oned quite correct. These achieve better particle interlock.

Do you want to give us any more information?

√ A large tick here. (just to show off how much I enjoy using Charmap.exe)

I seriously suggest you study (your) split thread in Moderators can we please have a split thread to discuss the nature of time?

Greene King is my favourite. The point is that a streams of particles model does not allow the light to spread out into the space between the streams. But because the stream is made of particles, there are necessarily gaps along the stream between the particles as well as side to side between the streams. Rays are at least continuous along their length.

Hopefully you noted my point about the difference between streams of particles (photons), waves and light rays ? This is still about light rays not waves or particles. However Strange does make a very good point about the inverse square law. +1

Guessing you mean the 3 in 3 x 105 I have not heard one either. Google gives this, which is slightly more restrictive than my (engineering) version. https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/pre-algebra/basic-operations/scientific-notation

It is also worth noting that this is a discussion site. Different members use it for different types of discussion and certainly not all are cranks. You can usually recognise cranks by the fact they are a one horse show, and do not listen (properly) even to comments about their one horse (eg Flat Earthers). Other members use the inefficient method of learning by making a (test) statement (sometimes quite startling or provocative) and perhaps allowing others to explain why they are wrong. This is rather than the method I (and probably you) used, which was to study the writings of reputable persons in the field of interest. Such people are often from non academic backgrounds, some are autisitic in some way. These can be very frustrating and difficult to hold discussions with. Such discussions find their proper place in Speculations and serve a useful purpose. But the rules here allow One subject per thread Any one member to start one thread on a specific subject; but he can participate in as many similar threads by others as he pleases. These are intended to prevent things getting out of hand and indirectly encourage careful writing of the opening post. The better the OP is crafted the better the thread. The fact that they are prepared to consider well presented alternative ideas speaks volumes for the site. Either of the approaches which run "Whilst on my last trip I had this great idea that the universe is supported on the backs of four giant turtles, but it is for you to do the Maths to show it" "I (the greatest) know better than the whole load of you planks, here is my Word..." Do not go down well. The only person in History who managed the last one to my knowledge was Charles Parsons with the Turbinia.

mantissa /manˈtɪsə/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: mantissa; plural noun: mantissas 1. Mathematics the part of a logarithm after the decimal point. 2. Computing the part of a floating-point number which represents the significant digits of that number. Origin mid 17th century: from Latin, literally ‘makeweight’, perhaps from Etruscan. Translate mantissa to Use over time for: mantissa Translations, word origin and more definitions From Oxford Sorry I see an error in my list 2348.56 = 234.856 x100 = 23.4856 x 101 = 2.34856 x 102 = 0.234856 x103 = 2348.56 x10-1 = 23485.6 x 10-2 = 234856 x 10-3. This should be 234.856 = 234.856 x100 = 23.4856 x 101 = 2.34856 x 102 = 0.234856 x103 = 2348.56 x10-1 = 23485.6 x 10-2 = 234856 x 10-3.

I don't think so. Light enters the medium. Agreed. Some of the light passes through all of the medium and makes it out the other side. Agreed. But. Some of the light must make it partway through the block before it is absorbed. So what is the difference between this light and the light that does not make it that far through the block? Well some of it is scattered and still makes it out of the block ! That is how Raman spectroscopy works. I said it is complicated and the first thing is for Tim to recognise that he is talking about rays of light not waves or photons and idealised rays at that.

Apples and oranges. Not really. Milliseconds or femtoseconds, they are still quantities of time, whereas apples are not oranges. It has also been claimed that there is no relationship between absorbance and refractive index. That is not true, the Kramers Konig curves are well used by spectroscopists.

Well I have seen quite a few threads on the subject in SF. Furthermore they tend to be quite length ones, with no one ending up banned unless they become abusive. You, too, have had lots of space here to put your case. I'm glad youthink them both 'simple' I'm still learning lots about them and fully expect to go in doing so until I peg out.

Yes and furthermore that time is variable within the limits of uncertainty. However we do say that the bottle of champagne that stops abruptly and launches a ship then smashing to a thousand pieces decelerates. I think an alternative answer is to suggest to Tim that he should distinguish between rays of light and other descriptions. That may be more productive.