1

Just Chat! / Re: Why is Brexit a right-wing cause?

« on: Today at 22:24:40 »

I think it is too early to say nothing will happen because of brexit,

Nobody was saying that.

EU would probably be having a very expensive debate in Brussels at this point on how to appease Putin.

They didn't. They sent support.

If a government was prepared to invest, tax and legislate, brexit opens up numerous possibilities.

Those possibilities were open, but the government didn't do them anyway.

Imports of foodstuffs produced in a cruel, explotitative or environmentally unfriendly way should be banned.

In reality, Brexit means we will probably end up eating American stuff that doesn't meet our (or EU) standards of quality, safety or animal welfare.

Products produced from polluting sources (coal fired electricity, chemical discharge etc) should be legislated against.

Not really because that would stop other people trading with us.

I doubt we will see any government have the bravery to do anything meaningful,

They "bravely" made themselves an their friends much richer.
You could argue that illegally proroguing parliament was brave.

2

General Science / Re: What's 0^0 ?

« on: Today at 13:42:56 »

Imagine that, for some reason, I couldn't multiply 3 by 4.
Most of the time it wouldn't matter.
But, if I wanted to cover my 3 by4 metre room, I wouldn't know what area of carpet to buy.

On the other hand, I could get some carpet and cut it to fit the room.
And then I could weigh it and also weigh a square metre of carpet and if I divided one weight be the other I would get 12 which is the product that I somehow couldn't calculate.

I can't (reliably) calculate 0^0.
But if I ever find myself in a situation where I need to know what  0^0 is, I can work it out from the context.
If the value of 0^0 matters to some real-life calculation, you can use reality to calculate 0^0.
If it never occurs in any real-world calculation then it never really matters what the value is, and you can set it equal to the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

3

New Theories / Re: Do mechanical vibrations of atoms expend energy?

« on: Today at 13:28:04 »

oh hoho you make me laugh

Then one of us is achieving something useful.

4

Just Chat! / Re: Why is Brexit a right-wing cause?

« on: Today at 12:48:09 »

Switzerland solved the land border problem

I didn't realise Switzerland had a comparable history of political violence.
Or were you trying to say that two very different things are the same?

that Brexit isn't a left- or right-wing plot,

Support (or not) for the EU isn't a Right or Left thing.
But Brexit was done by, and for the Right.

Anyway, perhaps you can get back to answering this

Just curious; if brexit was reversed, which benefit would you miss most?

5

Just Chat! / Re: Why is Brexit a right-wing cause?

« on: Today at 01:08:53 »

The effect of incompetent negotiation has been a shambolic mess in Ireland

No negotiation could solve the "Schrodinger's border" problem.
The brexiteers simply lied about it.

6

Just Chat! / Re: Why is Brexit a right-wing cause?

« on: Today at 01:07:11 »

OK, you and I may well disagree on the merits of the EU. (Though, like you and , for example, Jeremy Corbyn, I'm not that happy with it.)
The EU, on the other hand is clearly in favour of the EU. Whether that's because they genuinely think it's the best for the people, or if they are just on the gravy train, the people in the EU making decisions really support the EU.

Economics happens; it's rare that economists predict its path well but the UK leaving the EU was pretty much guaranteed to have a significant effect on the UK economy. There will have been long arguments about whether the effects will have been good or bad.

But, notwithstanding the economists' ability to predict it, there will have been an effect.

So, imagine it's 5 or 10 years ago and you are a Eurocrat. For one reason or another, you want the EU to continue.
Either you think the Brexit that's being talked about will be good for the UK, or you think it will be bad.

But you really don't want any country's departure from the EU to be any sort of success, because that will destabilise the EU (and harm your gravy train or the benefits of the EU depending on your personal opinion).
And the other EU ministers all think the same way about Brexit being a bad thing for the EU.

So... if you think that Brexit will harm the UK, your view is "**** them! Let them leave. It will crash their economy and all the other countries thinking of leaving will learn that it's not a good option".
On the other hand, if you are scared that Brexit will be a success, you will think "the EU really needs to pull together on this and screw over the UK if it leaves. (Just to make sure that nobody thinks leaving is a good move)".

And, of course, if the UK's biggest trading partner wants to screw our economy, they can. They are simply much bigger.

So, either the UK economy is screwed because of Brexit directly, or the UK's economy is crewed because the rest of the EU sabotage it.

One way or another, Brexit screws the UK; simply because the EU thinks the EU is a good thing.
No strategy that the UK could employ to address that is relevant. At best, it chooses the other path for our act of self-harm.

And, fast forward to today,  it has done.
Why is anyone surprised?

And then there's the master stroke of setting out your battle plan by announcing that you will leave.
Only a total idiot tells "the other side" what their negotiating strategy is before they start.
But Cameron, who was essentially pro EU, decided to announce that the UK would leave.
There wasn't a political reason for that. He could have called for a second (non- advisory) referendum.
He could have said to the EU "we are thinking of leaving; make it worth our while to stay".
But the decision was announced (to many people's surprise) that we would go regardless of how bad a deal they offered us.

And that decision was essentially made before the vote.
The claim had already been made; "sunlit uplands" "considerable upside" "we hold all the cards".

And So the EU knew that all they had to do was wait until we realised that we had to trade with someone and they could dictate terms.
And that was predicted before the vote took place.
So you can't really blame the negotiators- their hands were already tied.
I accept they were incompetent, but they were also irrelevant.
The other side of the table simply had to wait until the UK was desperate for a deal, and then offer them a poor one.
And, by that stage it was true, not just of the EU, but of everywhere else.

The thing is, I'm no genius politician. I'm not some prestige diplomat. But I worked that out. I knew Brexit would fail.

And, while I don't think the Tories are necessarily wonderfully clever, I accept that, even if they are less bright than me, they can hire someone brighter.

So, they went into this knowing what would happen.
And they did it anyway.
And a lot of them have made a stack of cash from doing it.
They have also given the USA a trade deal that lets the US "bid" for the NHS and trash our environmental and welfare (or humans and animals) laws.
So they stand to make even more money

Do you think they did that by accident?

7

Just Chat! / Re: Why is Brexit a right-wing cause?

« on: Yesterday at 18:02:49 »

What bout " BrReEntry " ?

I wondered about that.

Just curious; if brexit was reversed, which benefit would you miss most?

But nobody seemed to answer.

8

New Theories / Re: Do mechanical vibrations of atoms expend energy?

« on: Yesterday at 18:00:13 »

without some experimentation done by a reputablle source.

The experiments have been done.
That's why Kryptid was able to cite evidence and data like this.

let's take a look at the numbers. The Earth receives more solar energy from the Sun in a single hour (173,000 terawatt-hours) than humanity consumed in an entire year (160,000 terawatt-hours in 2017: https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/

To find out how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun in a year, we multiply that number by 24 hours in a day, times 365.25 days in a year to get 1,516,518,000 terawatt-hours. So humanity's energy consumption in 2017 was only 0.0105% of the total solar energy reaching Earth. This means that the amount of heat we are adding to the environment is on about the same order of magnitude, about 0.0105% of how much the Sun is already heating the Earth up (or less, since solar energy itself already accounts for some of humanity's energy consumption).

The Earth's temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Kelvin since the late 1800's. Since the Earth's average surface temperature is around 288 kelvins, that means the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.35% over the last century or so

Did you not realise that?

Did you imagine that he might have made it up?

9

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: Yesterday at 13:03:05 »

The stationary heat around the nucleus I speak of creates a gravity field. It is bound to the nucleus. Electricity in the electric shell is stationary conventional transferring heat.

Word salad.

10

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: Yesterday at 13:02:23 »

But north and south are determined by the nucleus.

Nope.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: Yesterday at 12:28:29 »

I mentioned these merely to show a counter example of Bard's claim that all waves experience diffraction.

The pictures do not show waves.

What do you think they show?

Pulses.

12

New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?

« on: Yesterday at 12:27:22 »

hf is the energy of a photon. Obviously if you have more photons in a box, you have more energy in the box. That doesn't mean that energy is quantised, only that photons are.

Can you add radiation energy by half a photon?

No.
Because, as Alan said, phonons are quantised.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: Yesterday at 08:50:01 »

I mentioned these merely to show a counter example of Bard's claim that all waves experience diffraction.

The pictures do not show waves.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: Yesterday at 08:48:49 »

It does on a guitar, because the ends are fixed. You might somehow induce a travelling or compression wave with a magnetic excitation of a steel string but the resulting frequency (MHz) will be far too high to contribute to the "wide rich sound...."

I'd like to see the maths on that. Take the average guitar string as having a length of 1 metre and the speed of sound in steel to be 5km/sec

15

New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?

« on: Yesterday at 08:37:05 »

In energy equation E=n.h.f, you can change E with constant f by changing n.

Only if there's an interaction with something else.

16

New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?

« on: Yesterday at 08:35:57 »

Gravitational potential energy and electrostatic potential energy has no frequency in their equations.

Nor do they refer to a single entity. You need  a "system" of at least two particles for gravitational or electrical potential to exist.

That's a separate class of problems.

17

New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?

« on: Yesterday at 08:33:52 »

Some sources mention that n is the number of photons.

Which sources?

A universe containing only 1 photon doesn't allow anyone to exist, let alone to think.

Nobody said it did.

18

New Theories / Re: Do mechanical vibrations of atoms expend energy?

« on: 08/06/2023 22:39:45 »

Well good luck to you guys! pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.

It's obvious that you are wrong.
I didn't find it stressful pointing it  out.

19

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: 08/06/2023 22:26:40 »

elements that have cube numbers like 27 and 64, and their neighboring elements, make up the magnetic compounds.

Interesting idea, but wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heusler_compound

Also, we know that the magnetic properties are largely determined by the electrons, not the nucleus.

A numerologist would try to convince us that oxygen (with atomic number is also magnetic but it's only paramagnetic and, of course, hydrogen (atomic number 1) isn't magnetic.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics

« on: 08/06/2023 17:59:41 »

nobody has ever insulted me with the title of philosopher!

I had assumed you were a PhD.

But a gentleman wouldn't draw attention to it, surely?

I wasn't aware that PhDs were handed out by gentlemen.