>> a deterministic universe is incompatible with the idea of choice > ># > >> A pre-determined choice is not a choice. > ># > >> no one is really in control of their actions. > >These are just more assertions lacking any given justification. You aren't bothering to try justify your position at all.

What is a morally relevant choice, if not the ability to freely determine which among a number of options to take? In a predetermined universe, there are no morally relevant choices, because there are no options. Claiming that a morally relevant choice can be made in a fully deterministic universe is like claiming that a person can successfully choose not to be affected by gravity. In a fully deterministic universe, human thought processes are no more sophisticated or chosen than the processes of water molecules flowing down a hill in a creek.

>> by definition > >A strange thing to say when you've not defined anything, and also clearly question begging. > >Also, it's very unclear what idea of free will is sitting in your head. You haven't tried to define it, but it seems like you're requiring that, for a choice to be free, it must be made on the basis of something other than the random chance, the facts of the situation, the character of the decision maker, their beliefs, or their experiences. What other factor are you looking for? In fact, why is determinism even a relevant consideration? When a decision is made, all those factors I listed, save random chance, have already been established and set in stone - even in a non-deterministic universe. How would a non-deterministic universe allow for whatever this unstated factor is?

A non-physically-deterministic universe allows (or rather does not forbid) mental processes, which some people think are categorically separate from physical processes, to influence the physical universe. And what that means for the free will question is that free will can exist because the choices made by a moral actor are made via a mental process and are not fully determined by the physical universe.

Hosting digital versions of things isn't the same as digitizing and/or translating them.

As far as I know, those websites don't offer a service where you just give them a manuscript and they do the work of digitizing it and/or translating it. And if they did, I doubt anybody would use it for important texts like this codex. Digitization and translation are significant expenses.

Even if it were true in general that at absolute zero there were no thermal motion of atoms, that wouldn't make things infinitely rigid.

When you push on something, your outer electrons are repelling the electrons of the other object (whether this repulsion happens because of the Pauli exclusion principle or electromagnetism or both is irrelevant for this reasoning).

Anything with mass, like an atom, doesn't move instantaneously when a force is applied. Instead, it accelerates. Therefore, it takes some finite amount of time to move the first layer of atoms back to their equilibrium position (i.e. how far away from your hand, or tool, or whatever, they would be if the two surfaces were just in contact). Similarly, it takes some finite amount of time to move the row of atoms, and the row after that, and the row after that. This is entirely independent of random thermal fluctuation of the atoms.

>>In what sense is the wave not reducible to the physical motion of the molecules? > >Generalized enough everything can be described as a transfer of energy. If you accept that 'transfer of energy' can serve as the definition of any process (wave, fire, typing comments on Reddit), then we are on the same page, and we now have universal and useless theory of everything. > >But if you insist that we cannot generalize like that because it omits important differences, then I repeat again: physical motion of the molecules is not a wave. Wave is a physical motion of the molecules in a pattern of wave.

What about "wave" is not reducible to the motion of the fluid particles?

Are you just saying that we have an abstract concept of a wave? Because that's true but pointless in the sense that we can't interact with abstract concepts, only physical realizations. There is no real wave which can be described exactly using abstract parameters associated with a general wave.

A pattern can't be a property of a single molecule because patterns, by definition, involve repetition in space or time or both.

But so what?

In what sense is the wave not reducible to the physical motion of the molecules? Every molecule that you conceive of is being part of the wave is simply bouncing around in its environment and responding to the forces to which it is subjected. As it happens, if you have a bunch of molecules in a fluid and you provide a particular external intervention, you can make the molecules move in a repetitive way. Are you saying that somehow creates a new entity that can't be explained by looking at its parts? If so, how many particles do I need to create a wave? Actually, even a single particle can oscillate in a wave. If you trace the time history of a single molecule in the ocean as a wave passes over it, you will see the wave in the motion of that molecule. So what is new when you have a bunch of them doing it at the same time?

>One can write a dissertation on emergent properties IMO, and I am not a PhD, but allegorically speaking, a wave on the liquid surface is determined by the physical properties of the molecules of the liquid, but cannot be reduced to the properties of a molecule.

Of course it can. The phenomenon of periodic motion that we call a wave is merely the result of individual molecules reacting to applied forces according to their properties. The wave has no existence outside of the molecules. Any properties that we attribute to it (e.g. amplitude, phase, frequency) are properties which exist only because of, and in principle can be computed from, the properties of each individual molecule. Conveniently for us, those properties are such that we can describe the motion of a large enough chunk of molecules using simple equations to a good approximation. But that's all it is, an approximation.

In the specific case of Wiesel, the simplest answer is that the Hungarian Jews weren't being murdered en masse (at least while they were still in Hungary) until very late in the war. It is actually true in general that the mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis didn't really begin until the middle of 1941.

As you point out, Moishe is deported to Poland in 1941 and barely escapes the mass murder being perpetrated against the Jews there. But when he returns to Hungary to warn the rest of the Jewish community there, he is ignored or not taken as credible. The specific reason for this is going to be different from person to person who didn't believe him, but it basically just comes down to denial. That is, although the Germans had spent years demonizing Jewish people, before roughly mid 1941, they actually weren't murdering them on a large scale. Of course the Jews were rounded up into ghettos and concentration camps, but those weren't actually designed or operated with the intent to kill everyone there. It was only after the invasion of the Soviet Union, and later the Wannsee conference, that the Nazis decided to kill as many Jews as they could, not only in the territory they seized from Poland and the Soviet Union, but also in Western and Central Europe.

In that historical context, Moishe's warning is a very early sign of what is about to happen. Unfortunately, in many disasters, the very earliest warnings aren't taken seriously. It is almost axiomatic that any power waging war on another will have at least isolated incidents of war crimes. It is therefore possible, in 1941, to write off even accounts as horrible as Moishe's as isolated incidents which were abominable but which wouldn't have indicated that the German policy was now to murder all Jews.

And remember, until late in the war (1944), Hungary, which is where Wiesel lived, wasn't occupied by the Nazis, and the Hungarian government didn't deport Jews to concentration or extermination camps in Germany and elsewhere. Because Hungary was a German ally, it might have been tempting, even after hearing about the monstrosities occurring Poland and Russia and even in the rest of Europe, to believe that as a Jew in Hungary, you would be safe from Nazi persecution. After all, why would the Nazis invade their own ally?

You are correct at an extremely high level that the differences in fracture stress and strain between materials (and indeed even between samples of materials) are related to the strength of the atomic bonds within the materials and the crystalline structure and microstructure.

However, that is not an accurate description of what happens to a metal under strain. First, it entirely ignores the possibility (and actual behavior) of elastic strain. Second, even confining ourselves to plastic strain, it's a fundamentally incorrect description of what happens.

It is true that the most common mechanism by which plastic strain occurs is through the movement of dislocations, defects in the crystal structure of the material. But it's not generally true that the strain is taken up by the destruction of dislocations. In fact, it's the exact opposite. When just enough shear stress is applied to begin shifting atoms relative to each other within the crystal structure, existing dislocation patterns within the material begin producing additional dislocations under the applied shear stress. These dislocations entail, by definition, the local shifting of one plane of the crystal relative to another. So when dislocations are generated under shear stress, they accommodate that shear stress by allowing the material to shift in a local way. It is the fact that dislocation generation allows local relief of stress which explains why dislocations are preferentially generated. In order for the crystal to deform along an entire slip plane, all of the atoms must move at once. A dislocation entails the movement of a much smaller number of atoms, on the order of hundreds to thousands.

But the dislocations themselves impose a stress field around them which impedes the movement of other dislocations. So in order for these dislocation sources to produce additional dislocations, they must be subjected to higher stresses. This explains the phenomenon of work hardening, which is present in every metal. If you stress a metal adequately to deform it plastically, additional plastic deformation requires you to exceed that stress in the future, absent any intervening processes which allow the dislocations to heal.

If it were the destruction of dislocations that was responsible for plastic information, metals would actually get softer as they were worked. This is because dislocations disappearing reduces the amount of stress required for those Frank Read sources to generate new ones. And there will always be dislocations present in a crystal at a temperature greater than 0K because it is entropically favored.

If we ignore this effect, and just concentrate on what happens once you have a single crystal without dislocations, under your theory, materials would get far stronger than we can make them at a macro scale today. If there really are no dislocations in a crystal, the amount of stress required to plastically deform the crystal is the amount of stress required to move an entire layer of atoms at once. The amount of stress required to do this is only about an order of magnitude less than the actual stiffness of the material. For a generic steel, this would imply that the fracture stress would be about 20 GPa. But we can't make steels that are stronger than about 1/10 of that, no matter how much we work them.

More likely it's a combination of preheat/superheat/reheat. If you follow a little packet of water through a plant with feedwater preheat, then superheat, then reheat, you get "three times" through the heater. But the description does leave something to be desired.

Also the hundreds or thousands of turbine and compressor blades

Conventional turbofan engines don't have a gearbox or transmission. The closest thing they get is that they might have two or at most three shafts for their turbine/compressor stages.

Sound, as it is conventionally understood, requires a medium to propagate which can reasonably be approximated as a continuum. That isn't true in the vast majority of space. Events like supernovas create shocks, not sound.

Every algorithm is a set of "if this, then that" steps. That's the definition of an algorithm. Why are you asking this question? Do you have a more specific question?

The obvious application is that if you want to design a control circuit for something that's able to move around and you want to be able to tell it to remain in a specific place, you use a PID controller to actuate whatever it uses to move itself. PID stands for "proportional, integral, derivative".

In the case of trying to maintain the same position, one part of the decision of how hard to try to move in a particular direction would be how far away you are from your set point at that instant. That's your proportional control. If you're really far away, you probably want to push pretty hard to get back so that you can spend more time at your set point. Another part of the decision of how hard to try to move would be how long you have been away from your set point, and how far you were over that time (you probably want to push harder to get back to your set point if you've been very far away for a very long time, but even if you've gotten very close, if you've been away from that set point for a really long time, you need to push a tiny bit harder to get back exactly where you want to be). That's the integral control. And, of course, the derivative control is obvious: if you're away from your set point and your velocity is still in a direction away from your set point, you definitely need to push harder back towards your set point.

The integral component here is reliant on absement.

Standard lightweight plastic grocery bags are generally low density polyethylene, which has a glass transition temperature well below room temperature without plasticizers. What's more likely to be happening is some combination of crystallization and thermal breakdown of the polymer.

Everything deforms when pressure is applied. Alloy wheels are actually considerably less stiff than steel so they will deform more under the same load.

Um, pressure drives flow from regions of high pressure to regions of low pressure.

Also, Betz's law isn't a law to maximize efficiency. It tells you that because fluid has to leave the back of the wind turbine, it has to have some energy. It can't move at zero velocity. It's impossible to extract 100% of the kinetic energy from the flow for this reason. Betz used a simplified but reasonably accurate model of how a wind turbine works to derive a limit on exactly how much kinetic energy can actually be extracted, even from a perfectly efficient turbine, to be compatible with the fact that the air has to go somewhere.

You sure do, or at least I believe that you do. That doesn't change the fact that in order for the boat not sink, it has to displace slightly more than the weight of water equivalent to the weight of the boat plus all of its occupants. For any given boat, if you put more weight in it, it must displace more water (or be able to provide additional dynamic lift, but that's irrelevant for rowing sculls). Your boat and your boyfriend's boat have approximately the same freeboard, but his boat absolutely must have additional volume displaced below the waterline, and that necessarily induces additional drag.

It is absolutely true that any particular boat will sit lower in the water if it's carrying more weight.

>Yes of course. Most metals are not found in their pure elemental forms and need to be smelted in order to isolate them. The same applies to brass. Melting is would destroy the brass crystal structure and allow the copper and tin to be separated based on their different melting points and densities.

If you melt a sample of bronze completely, you end up with a solution (not a mixture) of tin in copper that won't stratify by density for the same reason that a solution of ethanol in water (like vodka) doesn't stratify by density.

It's possible to separate tin from copper through repeated partial melt cycles, but yield would be absolutely terrible.

>Edit: Based on this paper it seems the most common method of separating copper and tin in brass is by chemical extraction. There are some acids which dissolve tin but not copper. Soaking brass in one of these acids will eventually lead to the tin being leached out of the brass, leaving behind solid copper and a liquid zinc solution. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319610312001706

Note that this process is performed on slag that's particulate matter with a diameter less than 100 um (effectively sand) because otherwise the surface area to volume ratio is impractical.

It hasn't changed. Maryland derives the duty to retreat from the common law. But the common law has also held since at least the early 17th century that a man's home is his castle (i.e. his place of safest refuge -- meaning there's nowhere else he can retreat to) and that there is therefore no duty to retreat before a use of deadly force which would otherwise be justifiable. This was established explicitly by the Court of Appeals in 1963 (Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963)) but was the law in Maryland before that date because Maryland inherited the common law from its colonial government.

If all you want to do is make the clothes dry faster, you are much better off hanging them by one end than hanging them by middle, draped over the line.

A typical garment, if we ignore things like pockets, has four surfaces. If you imagine wearing a t-shirt, you have the inside and outside surface of the front portion of the shirt, and you have the inside and outside surface of the back portion of the shirt.

If you hang an article of clothing by an end, the outside surfaces of both the front and the back of the garment are exposed to the atmosphere. The inside surfaces of the front and the back of the garment are, of course, in contact with each other. So of the total surface area of the garment, counting both inside and outside, half of it is exposed to the atmosphere and half of it is in contact with other wet material.

If you hang an article of clothing over the clothes line at roughly its midpoint (let's say with the front of the garment on the exterior), the only surface that is exposed to the atmosphere is the exterior side of the front of the garment. Because of the fold, the exterior side of the back part of the garment is now in contact with itself. So you've lost half of the total surface area exposed to the atmosphere. This will obviously mean that the garment will dry significantly more slowly.

It is definitely not the case that in a solid at temperature greater than absolute zero, the constituent particles of the solid are not moving. In fact, at 3,000K they would be moving quite quickly relative to liquid water at room temperature. It's just that the restoring force from the pressure would be adequate to confine them to their places in the lattice.

I don't even think it would be possible for pressure to decrease with increasing depth. Pressure must be continuous unless something like a shock exists, and every additional shell adds some amount of gravitational pressure which is greater than or equal to 0. If somehow a situation existed where pressure were higher in outer layers than in inner layers, the pressure would drive movement and compression of the material in between such that the stress developed was adequate to support the pressure.