In my opinion this is a bit of a narrow view. It definitely holds true for many Christians. But I think some religions like Buddhism may actually help you find a way without guard rails.

Yes. One place in space has different temperatures. I would assume even individual particles are not distributed by a Maxwell distribution, so the concept of temperature is hard to apply. The background radiation has one temperature. If you add the sun, however, you already have a problem as the sun radiation is not in thermal equilibrium. So depending on how you look at it, you get different temperatures. The particles have a high energy, so also a high temperature. But they are so rare, that radiation is the dominant mode of heat transfer and determines the temperature of a thermometer placed in space.

I think it is actually the other way around. You can consider the air inside the balloon to have internal energy from the heat. And additionally you have to make room for the balloon in the atmosphere, so you have removed the atmosphere from the volume the balloon takes, which also needs energy. If you consider both you arrive at the concept of enthalpy (H = U + pV), which is very useful for reactions in the atmosphere as pressure is constant. For this example it is not that useful as outside pressure changes when the balloon rises.

Another way to see it, the pressure has no “real” energy. In a ideal gas, the only energy comes from the kinetic or movement energy of the atoms. Each time a gas molecule is hits the balloon envelope it transfers some momentum. The cumulative effect of the constant collisions is the pressure of the gas. If the balloon is now expanding slowly, each collisions also tranfers some energy, in sum building the work the system has to do to the atmosphere. Leading to a decrease in internal, so “real” energy in the balloon. This corresponds to a decrease in temperature.

The stratosphere is heated not by the ground but directly from solar radiation leading to higher power input at the upper layers. So the top is hotter and now convection never starts and you get no cooling of the air when rising.

While I agree in general, one point is a bit to simplified in my opinion

In other words, there are fewer air molecules per cubic foot (volume of air). The molecules are farther apart and can hold less heat energy. Because “heat” is what we say when we mean molecules are moving around.

Less molecules mean less heat, it has nothing to do with the temperature, if you just decrease the density by removing half the molecules, you have the same temperature.

It cools down because it expands adiabatically. Consider a very thin balloon filled with air which is warmer than the surrounding. This now rises up, but as it does, the pressure decreases, causing the balloon to expand. During this expansion, the balloon transfers energy away from itself, because it has to push away air, to make room for expanding in the surrounding. This work cools the air inside the balloon. Assuming the air inside is dry, it would cool around 10 °C per km it rises. Now if you think about it, the balloon just stopped the inside from mixing with the outside. If you look at a large “piece” of air, it does not mix very fast, so you can remove the balloon and just consider what happens with warm air heated from the ground.

Now this does not mean, it has to be cooler when higher up. The same points hold, inside a house, but there it is often warmer when higher.

The best explaination is when looking where the heat comes from and goes too from the air. The atmosphere is mostly heated from the surface of earth, so the bottom and cooled from the upper layers. So naturally it gets hotter where it is heated. The question is now by how much? There are three modes of heat transfer in the atmosphere: radiation, conduction and convection. The first two are very slow. Connection is fast but has limits. Consider the piece of air, if it rises, it cools. So at some place it may be the same temperature as the surrounding air, so it stops rising. This means the convection works only when the air gets cooler by 10 °C/km going up (~6.5°C when the air is moist and precipation happens). So this temperature gradient is observable very often.

Yes, the file itself (so the data and inode) is not gone as long as the handles live on. Only the reference is gone. You canstill recover the file. https://superuser.com/questions/283102/how-to-recover-deleted-file-if-it-is-still-opened-by-some-process#600743

Ja das stimmt, da hab ich aus der Physik kommend zu anwendendunsorient gedacht.
Aber für die Frage ob komplexe zahlen gebraucht werden, reicht es, eine isomorphe alternative zu haben. Die komplexen Zahlen haben auch nicht mehr mit Quantenmechanik zu tun wie die Matrizen, nur sind sie leichter handzuhaben.

Die gesamten 2x2 R Matrizen nicht, aber es gibt eine Untermenge die ein Körper ist und isomorph zu C. Nämlich alle die sich durch Linearkombination der Einheitsmatrix und der Rotationsmatrix um 90° ergeben.
Also a+ib ~ [[a, -b],[b,a]]
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1028371/complex-number-isomorphic-to-certain-2-times-2-matrices#2644514

Dann sind aber die Effekte durch Windräder und Katzen auch nicht vergleichbar, die treffen nämlich sehr unterschiedliche Arten.

Insofern ist der Vergleich mit Hühnern auch nicht schlechter als so.

The links are actually only random images from an image search with the terms “solar eclipse through tree leaves” and “iss in front of sun”.

I think you have in mind, that the rays are not parallel because they have to arrive at different positions. As you say, this is negligible, and it can even be avoided by the tilting of the mirrors. However, the rays start from different parts of the sun, and as the sun is huge, this angle is not so small.

I’ll try to explain it in more detail, sorry for the wall of text, it got longer than expected. In this case, we can use simplified ray optics and ignore the wave nature of light. This means, the light of the different mirrors or even pieces of mirrors just adds to one another. An important point, even if obvious, is that each point on the mirror surface can only have one orientation. Now we “select” the orientation of this point, we orient it in a way, that it reflects the rays from the center of the sun¹ directly on the sun.² But until now, we have ignored the rays which come from the rim of the sun. These rays start at a different position, namely the sun radius (695700 km). Due to different starting position, the rays have a different angle to arrive at the power plant, arcsin(sun radius / sun-earth-distance), which is 0.27°. Now we already oriented the mirrors parts in a way, that the rays from the center of the sun are reflected onto the satellite, but the rays from the rim of the sun come at an 0.27° differing angle. If the incidence of the ray on a mirror is changed by an angle, the outbound ray is also changed by the same angle. This leads reflected rays leaving in a direction 0.27° offset from the direction to the satellite. Assuming the satellite is at a height of 300 km and directly above, it is 300 km away, the smallest realistic distance. With this angle, it leads to a miss of plant-satellite-distance * sin(angle) leading to 1.4 km. This thought is valid for all points on the rim. Similarly, the rays between the rim and the center land between the satellite and 1.4 km off target. Hence the plant projects an image of the sun onto the satellite with a radius of 1.4 km.

¹ Well they actually do not come directly from the sun, they still come from very close to the surface, but they seem to come from the center of the sun and for rays it is not important how far they have already traveled. We can just assume the sun is a disc.
² If we assume the mirror is optimally shaped, we can reflect every ray, which seems to come from the center of the sun, perfectly on the satellite. Such a mirror would be part of an ellipsoid, with focal points at the center of the sun and the center of the satellite. In practice, it would be practically indistinguishable from a paraboloid with the satellite (deviance of 1.5 µm with a guessed plant size of 1 km). This is possible as the rays through the center of the sun falling onto the plant are, as you say, almost parallel.

Ich hab den Hinweis auf diese Studie in Wikipedia gelesen, wonach steht:

Soweit ich mich damit beschäftigt hab ist es nicht so klar wie ein kleines problem es wirklich ist. Deswegen ist es gut wenn weiter an diesen punkten geforscht wird. Ich stimme gern zu, dass das problem wesentlich übertrieben wird in der Gesellschaft. Und dass es den Ausbau der Windkraft nicht verlangsamen darf.

Der Vergleich hinkt. Die unterschiedlichen Ursachen treffen verschiedene Vogelarten deutlich anders. Für gewisse Arten (zb Rotmilan) macht Windkraft derzeit einige Prozent der durch Menschen verursachten Tode aus. Das ist derzeit noch kein großes Problem, wird allerdings die Windkraft hoffentlich stark ausgebaut, so ist es nicht mehr zu vernachlässigen. Damit sollte man sich auch jetzt schon Gedanken machen, wie das Problem verhindert werden kann.

Natürlich heißt dass nicht dass deswegen der Windradausbau stark eingeschränkt werden soll Auch sollte nicht dieser Ursache des Sterbens mehr Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt wird wie den anderen Ursachen, was derzeit passiert. Aber nur die Summe der Vögel zu vergleichen macht meiner Meinung nach wenig Sinn, da diese sehr unterschiedliche Lebensweisen, Häufigkeiten und Gefährdungen haben.

Yes, you are right, considering the rays emerge from a point. And yes, each panel or all panels in unison can act like a magnifying glass. However, if they focus the light on a point at the height of the satellite, they work like a magnifying glass, or telescope with a focal length of the satellite – power plant distance, so at least 300 km. Considering the angular size of the sun, this telescope would lead to an image of the sun, the size of 3 km.

No sun rays are not parallel. If you looked at the sun (don’t, it will burn your eyes), would you see it as a point or a disc? As a disc. Why? Because even looking in slightly different directions, you see the sun. So the rays from the sun are not almost parallel, the rays from other stars are, they look point like.

Two interesting images for you: A solar eclipse viewed trough tree leaves: You can see the partial sun disc by using the small free points in the tree cover as pinhole cameras. Sure, the tree cover does not have lenses, but they only make the image sharper, not smaller. In this image the focal length is only the height of the trees and the image is already a few cm across. It also shows that the rays from the sun are not parallel. If they were, all rays going through the small free spots in the tree cover would end up at the same spot on the ground.

International Space Station, ISS, flying in front of the Sun: As the sun and the satellite are far away, we can assume that the angular size of the original sun and the virtual sun image are approximately the same when viewed from the power plant. Hence, this image shows how the mirrors would form an image of the sun, where only a small part of it hits the sun.
As the sun is much larger than the ISS, the angle of rays which come from the sun is much larger than the angle of rays which hit the ISS.

Yes i am, because it is unimportant if the light comes from the sun or the moon or a 3km large satellite (assuming they would have the same radiance). It would be important if the power plant were ten times larger, the satellite would be closer or larger. However in this case the limit to the power is is the etendue of the light at the satellite. The maximum power is the etendue at the satellite times radiant flux of the sun.
If you want a fun and interesting read which does explain a related “problem”, there is a relevant xkcd

I could explain it to you in at least five different ways in detail, three of them i have already done in short here in the comments. However, you never argued directly against my point. You don’t talk to me seriosly but laugh about it.
This is not what a serious disussion looks like like. If you want an explaination, i would be motiviated to take the time and explain it in detail.
Note that i listened to your point, considered it and argued why it plays no role. You have not considered my explainations.

No i am talking about all the mirrors as one surface, no matter they are really one or consist of small pieces

For the 65 W/m^2 i already used the size of the whole system, so all 10000 mirrors.

The sun has a angular diameter of 32 arcmin. (see here) Hence, the rays hitting one point of the one mirror, have come from different angles, namly filling a circle with this angular diameter. By reflection, the directions of the rays changes. But rays hitting the same spot on the mirror which were misaligned before by 32 arcmin are also misaglined by 32 arcmin after the mirror, independent of its shape. Therefore, the rays emerging from the power plant diverege by at least 32 arcmin. This is not a problem for operation, as this leads to a size of 4.6 m at an estimated maximum distance of 500 m between tower and mirrors. When the mirrors point at a satellite however, a distance of 300 km leads to a beam diameter of 2.8 km calculation

Even an ideal mirror can only project a point source onto a point. It is impossible to focus the rays of an extended source onto one point. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue if you want to know details. With conservation of etendue you can also calculate this in a similar way.

The problem is the size of the sun. If you could look at the sun (don’t, try the moon its approximately the same size in the sky), you see it has a relatively large angular size. Its not just a point in the sky.

So the problem, the rays from one point of the sun are almost parallel. But the rays from the different points of the sun are not. So they also aren’t parallel after your mirror. They spread in an angle similar to the size of the sun on the sky. And this is much larger than a satellite. So you cannot focus all energy on a satellite.

It holds if the light spreads wider than the target. So also for directed light sources at large enough distances. Even a perfect mirror must spread the light in the same angle as it is incoming. Hence the beam would at least 3 km wide at the satellite. Therefore the satellite can only recieve a Illumination of ~65W/m^2 which is a few percent of the normal sun brightness of 1300 W/m^2 in space.

Another way to look at it, the mirrors cant make the sun seem brighter only larger. From the tower you see a large solid angle around you the mirror, therefore, it can seem like you are at the surface of the sun. However, fro. the position of a satellite, the power plant only takes a small solid angle, so it seems like a “smaller” sun. Assuming 400 MW and 1 kW/m^2 (at surface) solar power, it has an area of 400000 m^2, so a solid angle of 4.5e-6 sr from 300km while the sun has 70e-6 sr. So ten times smaller, therefore weaker. Note however here i did not account for attenuation in the atmosphere

It holds if the light spreads wider than the target. So also for directed light sources at large enough distances. Even a perfect mirror must spread the light in the same angle as it is incomming. Hence the beam would at least 3 km wide at the satellite. Therefore the satellite can only recieve a Illumination of ~65W/m^2 which is a few percent of the normal sun brightness of 1300 W/m^2.

Another way to look at it, the mirrors cant make the sun seem brighter only larger. From the tower you see a large solid angle around you the mirror, therefore, it can seem like you are at the surface of the sun. However, fro. the position of a satellite, the power plant only takes a small solid angle, so it seems like a “smaller” sun. Assuming 400 MW and 1 kW/m^2 (at surface) solar power, it has an area of 400000 m^2, so a solid angle of 4.5e-6 sr from 300km while the sun has 70e-6 sr. So ten times smaller, therefore weaker. Note however here i did not account for attenuation in the atmosphere

Yes colors have a meaning. However, they change ober time and culture. So why not use the word which describes exactly what we mean?

I agree, nowadays blacklist/whitelist has practically nothing to do with skin color. However i do think it is weird to use the same words for describing the appearance of people and good/bad.

Well i would be indifferent to the renaming to primary, because it doesn’t really matter to me what they call their branches, as long as it is descriptive. primary also conveys the meaning. I would probably continue using main/dev because i see no reason to change.
I am not someone who says “You should change this!”. I just say, think of it, there are some reasons to change and the only reason to keep it, os that we did it always like this. I think there are reasons for selecting better words. And I am only annoyed by people who are outraged by things others do, which does not really affects them negatively. I get it that someone wants to continue using blacklist, master, etc. and I am ok with that.

Even ignoring the question of racism, they are still stupid names.

Imagine teaching a child about this and it asks: Why is white allowed and black not? The only answer is, because it is like this for a long time. If we name them allowlist and denylist, it is obvious to all English speaking people. Shouldn’t we strive for descriptive names in programming?

However, if you use names whitelist an blacklist, you need to make the implicit connection white-positive black-negative. Yes obviously this does not make you racist if you do this in programming. But is it good?