Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nothing at all. All the Earth's nuclear warheads would be a drop in a very large ocean. Each missile does a miniature version of what the Sun does on a much larger scale every day: thermonuclear fusion.What would happen if we shot all of our planet's nuclear missiles at the sun, either because we were being super moody that day or wanted to finally rid the Earth of them?
I was going to PM you about thatIs any one else concerned about the formatting of the thread title when it "breaks" into another thread?
According to the omniscient Stephen Fry, it's their lungs that are damaged; they get sucked inside out by the drop in air pressure near the blades. Ouch.In the first world we generally design hydro plants and wind farms with fish, and other wildlife, in mind.
It is more bats that should be concerned about wind farms than birds. Despite their amazing hearing abilities they don't listen to us when we tell them not to fly into the blades.
Hey physicist, is the universe created or was it always here?
Any cyclic model of the universe will have a problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases. This law, I believe (but don't take my word for it) is statistical and not a law of the universe, so violating it isn't necessarily bad, and would just necessitate extremely unusual conditions.For argument sake, you take the position that the universe was created ok... and I tell you the universe is an endless recycle phenomenom - that would be my position. Can you give me some philosophical issues and logical problems with my view? Thanks! I need some criticism for my view.
Scientifically, we don't know how the universe started, or even if it started. All we know is that it is at least 13.5 billion years old, and has been expanding from a singularity during that time. Personally, I think the universe is of finite age with a quantum mechanical origin.Hey physicist, is the universe created or was it always here? For argument sake, you take the position that the universe was created ok... and I tell you the universe is an endless recycle phenomenom - that would be my position. Can you give me some philosophical issues and logical problems with my view? Thanks! I need some criticism for my view.
Scientifically, we don't know how the universe started, or even if it started. All we know is that it is at least 13.5 billion years old,
and has been expanding from a singularity during that time.
I used to have the following quote in my sig:Any cyclic model of the universe will have a problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases. This law, I believe (but don't take my word for it) is statistical and not a law of the universe, so violating it isn't necessarily bad, and would just necessitate extremely unusual conditions.
I used to have the following quote in my sig:
The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell'sequations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation, well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
- Arthur Eddington
That pretty much sums up the untouchability of the Second Law
Weird beasties, aren't they?I looked into this and of course I found the platypus. Although the platypus is semi-aquatic and I am pretty sure they are a joke that biologists made up.
I can't confirm a negativeAs a biologist you can confirm that platypi don't exist. Right? Because that animal makes no sense.
But but but if space itself stretches, then light travelling at the same speed should cover the same new-space distance in the same new-space time as it did in the smaller space. There should be no need for adjustment.Because light has the distressing tendency to muck up otherwise nice physicsIt travels at a constant c, so if the space under it is being stretched, then it too is stretched. But it doesn't slow down; Relativity demands it travels at the same speed. So it stretches out as a sort of 'compromise' - i.e., its frequency drops, its wavelength spikes, etc. I tend to imagine it as a standing wave between two poles, and the poles are moved apart. The wave traverses at a constant rate, but the energy is 'stretched' further than it otherwise would be, so it appears (or, indeed, actually is) to have a longer wavelength.
You can bend the fabric of space time but if you stretch it then it will rip and the consequences are as yet unknown. Perhaps a wormhole will appear but this is highly unlikely for wormholes create paradoxes which are not allowed.But but but if space itself stretches, then light travelling at the same speed should cover the same new-space distance in the same new-space time as it did in the smaller space. There should be no need for adjustment.
I can't read the full article, but it sounds like just local entropy decreases in an open system, rather than a decrease in total entropy of a closed system.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?