• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


swansont last won the day on August 13

swansont had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6140 Glorious Leader

About swansont

  • Rank
    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)
  • Birthday May 12

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Washington DC region
  • Interests
    Geocaching, cartooning
  • College Major/Degree
    PhD Atomic Physics Oregon State University
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation
  1. This really isn't a hard concept. You can't lose something you don't have. 1. If the people have no money, they aren't buying food. The farmer has lost no business. 2. If the farmer has no food, s/he has nothing to sell. S/He has lost no business. There is no admixture of the two situations where the farmer loses business.
  2. Forbes article https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2017/08/23/no-nasa-is-not-predicting-15-days-of-complete-darkness-in-november/#3d44b09b47f6
  3. But your counterexample is that it's both. Neither situation gets money to the farmers, which was my point, and something you did not rebut. How does them being fed by others affect the farmers?
  4. You are asserting that he will have zero defections, and there have been public declarations from people who say their vote was a mistake, they regret it, and would not vote for him again.
  5. I used to re-copy my notes (in clearer writing, too, since I wasn't rushed) when I was in school. Classroom notes on a pad, copied into a bound notebook.
  6. A problem here is that the top-down view often gives rise to a one-size-fits-all solution, which never works quite right, and there are gaps in what can be covered. (partly because of statutory limitations in what the government is permitted to do) Private charities can fill in gaps in that. Then you have people that don't trust the government, or have other kinds of trust issues, so they won't seek out certain kinds of help. Again, smaller, more targeted charities can fill that in. Going in the other direction, private charities are never going to do what the government can, owing to the infrastructure needed to implement the help. Calls for the government to get out of social services is misguided for that reason.
  7. ! Moderator Note You should have either posted (1) your attempt at a solution, or (2) asked for others' input for a solution. As I have already explained. It's either option 1 or 2. Am I not being clear on this?
  8. I don't understand the connection. Milankovitch cycles are much longer period than 18.6 years, so it's no surprise to me that nutation (which is not one of the components of the cycles) with an 18.6 year period would be ignored. And the title of the paper in question is about climate change, which is typically on much longer time scales than 18.6 years (recent history aside)
  9. Any new theory has to be consistent with what's already known. That's what is "locked up". The equations of relativity converge with those of Newtonian physics when you are moving slowly, and gravity is weak. That will have to be true of any quantum theory of gravity. The only new part is for when you are near the Planck scale. "Reality" plays no part in any of this.
  10. That's one of the reasons you practice: to see what information you need. Adding extraneous information is a tactic used in writing questions. I've done it. Students without a firm grasp of the material will often try and work the extra information into their solution. It's one more lever for seeing who knows the material and who doesn't. From a practical standpoint, it doesn't matter. It's the worst-case scenario in terms of buoyancy. It's also a bit of a lesson that you can't always envision all of the possible disasters that might befall your project. Just because you can't think of how you might end up with air in the pipe doesn't mean it won't happen. One of the more dangerous things you can do is say "that will never happen" for something that isn't physically impossible.
  11. I doubt that. There are a number of people who voted for him that are now disillusioned. Remember that not only did Hillary win the popular vote, there were an additional 10 million who voted for other candidates. You don't have to flip the ones that voted for Trump to oust him. It's enough that some of them stay at home, rather than voting, if they don't see a candidate of their liking.
  12. ! Moderator Note Then explain how. Or ask the question of how one might do this. As it stands, there is no science or engineering being discussed, and this is posted in engineering.
  13. Yes, it can be both. Thanks for agreeing with me. But the cause of the improved water supply is irrelevant. Contraception prevents pregnancy. People tend to have fewer children when it's available to them. Baloney. If your rather simplistic view was right we would not have multi-billionaires, because they would not be motivated to earn money once they got rich. The thing is, there is a wide spectrum of what motivates people. What motivates you is not likely the same as what motivates me.
  14. How would it do this?
  15. One anchor per 8m, so you don't divide by 2. If you have 800m, there will be 100 anchors Pi is 3.14 (small error; about 20 kg) You have the buoyancy force. Is there nothing pulling down on the pipe, other than the anchor?