Strange

Thank you.

Many speciation events would fall into this category. (But not all because the definition of species is not as simple as just the ability to reproduce.) If the size match is not correct then ... does this imply we should consider chihuahuas and great danes to be separate species?

No one knows where the universe came from. (If it came from anywhere.) It can be seen.

Well, we really don't know. According to GR anything that falls into the black hole rapidly falls into the singularity at the centre. So, if the black hole were "active" (lots of material falling into it) then the inside would not be a vacuum - it would contain the stuff that had fallen in, on its way to the centre. On the other hand, if it reasonably isolated so nothing is falling in, then the inside will be a vacuum. On the other (third?) hand, string theory describes black holes as being full of "fuzz". One challenge here is what you mean by "vacuum". In intergalactic space, there are just a few particles per cubic metre. That is a much better vacuum than we can make on Earth. But, basically, the presence of gravity is independent of whether the space is empty or not. If there is gravity in a vacuum then it would, perhaps obviously, be due to the presence of mass outside the area that was a vacuum. (Note that gravity has an infinite range so even in the vacuum of space between galaxies, there will be gravity from those galaxies.) I guess from the title of the video, this is about Cerenkov radiation (can't watch videos). In that case, it is produced when a particle moves through a medium (air, water, glass) faster than the speed of light in that medium (which will always be slower than the speed of light in a vacuum). So the "speed of light" limit is actually the "speed of light in a vacuum" limit. (Haven't been able to watch your 2nd video, so not sure what that is about ...)

I would imagine the number would normally have been in the hundreds, rather than 50-ish. But I have worked on a couple of projects where they pushed the limits of how large a die could be and the numbers probably weren't far off that. It varies enormously, depending on the technology, the type of circuit, the size of the die, etc. Defects are pretty much randomly distributed across the wafer so you can work out a curve for the probability of a fault in a die versus the die size. But it isn't quite as simple as that because there are areas of the die that are more susceptible to faults than others (for example, it might have no effect if it is near the edge of the die where there is no circuitry). And then it depends on what the device is. A memory chip will have large amounts of redundancy so if there is a fault that stops one row working, that row can just be marked as invalid and we still end up with a working device. (In the case of flash memories, where there are regular failures of memory cells during their lifetime they constantly map out new defective cells as they fail to keep the memory working at full capacity for longer.) In the case of a CPU a defect anywhere in the circuit will probably render it useless. Although, modern feature sizes mean that CPU dies contain large amounts of memory, so you can get better yield because of that. I would say this is the most confidential manufacturing data there is. Companies will often present their latest (and even up-and-coming) technologies at conferences, etc. But they will never talk about yields. Yield is very variable. It normally starts out quite low with a new process (possibly worse than the 30% figure) and then will improve dramatically as the process is tuned. For high volume memory chips (DRAM) it can be up in the high 90s (I think. Even I was not privy to accurate yield figures).

! Moderator Note Discussion of semiconductor manufacturing technology moved to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116814-semiconductor-fabrication-split-from-do-objects-move-faster/ (partly as a test of my new powers!)

Like anything else, a single particle can be stationary (relative to you), moving at a steady velocity or accelerating. Locally (where "locally" can mean up the scale of galaxy clusters) there is no effect of the expanding universe, because things are held together by gravity and inter-atomic forces. Not really. But here is a weird thing: according to GR, acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. That means that when you are sitting still in your chair you are, according to GR, accelerating upwards (because you feel a force pushing you into the chair). And when you are in freefall from an airplane, and your speed constantly increases, you are not accelerating (because you feel no forces on you).

I don’t see anyone saying that. I don’t know what that is supposed to mean. A sphere is too what? Your the expert. You tell us. And then tell us what the point of this thread is? Does a kangaroo have a biscuit? (Your question makes no sense.)

Absolutely not. When you’re signing off millions of dollars to start manufacturing you need to be pretty certain it will work.

As I have spent a large part of my career designing CPUs I know this not true. But you carry on with your irrational beliefs.

The human race? Scientists? Those who know about these things? It’s just a generic pronoun. You can find plenty of books and websites describing this. You could start with Wikipedia, I guess. But I’ll leave you to it. I get the impression you are not really interested.

And, just to emphasise the fact that space is not “stuff” being created, we mean space is being created like when you have a party and push all the furniture to the edges of the room to create more space (ie distance between things).

Do you have a reference for this? The nearest I could find is: https://www.livescience.com/50928-wolf-genome-dog-ancient-ancestor.html Which says that modern wolves and dogs have a common ancestor (which would also be consistent with their DNA being very similar). And it looks like the history of the dog could be more complex with multiple domestications and cross-breeding: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-wolves-really-became-dogs-180970014/

True. But in the inverse square law you also need to consider the radius. (And precession requires 3 dimensions as well.) It seems that all you are saying is that there are some problems that can be reduced to 2 dimensions. But so what? That is not exactly new or interesting. And it doesn't change any known physics. So what is the point of this thread? Do you have an alternative theory to present (with appropriate mathematics and testable predictions)? Or was it just a rather banal observation?

How do you have a spherical surface in two dimensions? Perhaps you could provide a mathematical explanation?

There you go. That "solid state physics theory" is the (quantum) physics of semiconductors. A bit more detail here: https://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/TimLenoir/SiliconValley99/Transistor/RiordanHoddeson_Inventtransistor.pdf

That is (as far as we know) the entire universe. It is not a case of matter expanding into empty space. The universe has always been completely full of matter. As the universe expands, that matter becomes cooler and less dense (basic thermodynamics).

Then what is the reason for them being proposed? Dark matter has nothing to do with expansion. So the visible mass is to small to match what is observed. From that we should be able to work out how much non-visible mass there needs to be, no? Presumably this is a work of fiction, then: From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy I don't have info that no one else has. (But it looks like I might have info that you don't have.)

It is expanding. But not INTO anything. (That would imply there was something outside the universe. But if there were something "outside", then that would be part of the universe.) It may be easier to visualise it as the universe cooling and getting less dense.

It is not expanding into anything. It is either infinite or finite but unbounded.

I know that. But I also know that transistors were developed based on quantum theory. "It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was performed by Szilárd, with Einstein merely acting as a consultant and helping with the patent-related paperwork,[1] but others assert Einstein labored over the project.[2]"

People are fantastically imaginative. And there are good reasons for thinking the moon is spherical (the phases, for example). So examples of early moon landings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landings_in_fiction The trouble is that the Einstein Field Equations are complex and non-linear. So the known solutions involve very simplified cases. A Schwarzschild black hole (perhaps one of the most commonly used solutions) assumes an eternal, unchanging spherical mass in an empty universe. Given how far apart things are in the real universe, this is still a good approximation. More complex situations, such as a pair of orbiting black holes, require massive simulations to find out what happens. Actually, he patented a refrigerator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator Janus is describing the effects of special relativity. If it weren't for special relativity, and therefore quantum field theory, you wouldn't have the computer you are positing this on.

Watch who you are booing, sonny!

"oops" *smooths fur on side of Silvestru's face and offers a sardine*

Is that because of Godel's incompleteness theorem?