No physical mechanisms predefines future events (or is there one ?).
So, I could state that the future does not exist yet and the past as ceased to exist.
in that statement I have a problem with the definition of existence. Does the definition of existence exist itself ? This is (is it ?) more a problem of terminology than philosophy or physics.
We have never observed anything in the universe just popping into existence from nothing (...)
if we did, that would be a major shift in physics. in this regards I heard of (or read of) two candidates :
.1 if universe's expansion continues to accelerate, (it would mean) dark energy is increassing.
.2 an excess of hydrogen (clouds) outside of galaxies was observed that is difficult to explain with current cosmology.
I know these are not direct observation of something popping up, ...but still.
in my post header you will find a link to the original post. This place is for my personal archiving and testing.
Nevertheless, if I follow what you are saying here you mean to say : by changing frame of references we can violate conservation of energy ...or am I missing something ?
My misquotation was on purpose.
in the same thread of thoughts : if there was a system without the first law, anything could appear as if by magic !
...that is, until the 1st law appears.
I did make I have made many mistakes, much worse than this one and on many occasions. I would say : don't be so hard on yourself since it's important to forgive ourselves.
I do believe the following correction should be made again to your text though :
Gravity is an [edit: inverse squared] function, so it gets weaker at an exponentiala squared rate as you move away from the source.
I believe in this community you have to write the word "rule" in the title, like so : Banana? Banana rules !
(you can edit the title even after posting, that is, if you want so)
Anthropologically speaking this is the best answer. Our brain needs a certain span of time to establish perceived reality.
No physical mechanisms predefines future events (or is there one ?).
So, I could state that the future does not exist yet and the past as ceased to exist.
in that statement I have a problem with the definition of existence. Does the definition of existence exist itself ? This is (is it ?) more a problem of terminology than philosophy or physics.
Bonne fête Camus !
(si toutefois vous êtes grand-père. Sinon, bonne fête à un grand-père de votre choix 😋)
Votre imagination est juste car je n'étais pas au courant.
I guess this tilted vertical axis wind turbine could be great on land as well.
This is a very good formulation and completely in line with current physics...
...from which I am trying to break away a little bit !
Please, let us move this conversation under the main post at : https://lemmy.ca/post/5016031
Thanks for your time and attention.
if we did, that would be a major shift in physics. in this regards I heard of (or read of) two candidates :
.1 if universe's expansion continues to accelerate, (it would mean) dark energy is increassing.
.2 an excess of hydrogen (clouds) outside of galaxies was observed that is difficult to explain with current cosmology.
I know these are not direct observation of something popping up, ...but still.
I think there must be a mechanism behind the (stated) laws. This is what interest my reflection.
On a side note :
is there something in nature that prescribes the conservation of energy ?
(please, if you answer this, do so under my other comment (big bang...) ...I don't want to lose track of the main topic).
I am trying to find a loophole for the origin of the big Bang or whatever created the universe.
P.S. What I'm saying could be something like : "if a system is empty it doesn't contain the first law".
in my post header you will find a link to the original post. This place is for my personal archiving and testing.
Nevertheless, if I follow what you are saying here you mean to say : by changing frame of references we can violate conservation of energy ...or am I missing something ?
Please, let us move this conversation under the main post at :
https://lemmy.ca/post/5016031
My misquotation was on purpose.
in the same thread of thoughts : if there was a system without the first law, anything could appear as if by magic !
...that is, until the 1st law appears.
i made this post (one month ago) :
How to browse ipfs:// ?
Bottom line : it went nowhere.
Last i bought was $1.71 CAD / kg
(made in Canada www.italpasta.com )
@anotherlemmyuser 's is $1.06 us$ / 750g so ... $1.41 us$ / kg ... , so ... $1.90 CAD / kg
The price has I've got in Canada, is about 10% lower than that one in Malaysia.
Humanity is so stupid when it comes to "territory" and we are not the only species that acts like beasts about it.
bad bot
reposting this thing four times. bad.
At sea level air is about 1.25 kg/m³, so for one cubic kilometer cloud that is :
1 250 000 tons.
I put your result into table
to show a problem at 51 km and above... since density decreases monotically with altitude.Clouds can be easily 10 cubic km.
I did makeI have made many mistakes, much worse than this one and on many occasions. I would say : don't be so hard on yourself since it's important to forgive ourselves.I do believe the following correction should be made again to your text though :
I believe in this community you have to write the word "rule" in the title, like so :
Banana? Banana rules !
(you can edit the title even after posting, that is, if you want so)
You can start where ever you want :
(Please excuse this joke : I could not resist)
Hey @Jeredin@lemm.ee
This one, @FlowVoid@midwest.social, has the correct answer...
So, don't believe in the crackpot idea that it would be exponential