J.C.MacSwell

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yesterday was true, lets start from there...

LOL, yesterday and the days before, notwithstanding...but you have me there.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Do you really think they'd switch to the Donald?

Are there any fence sitters anymore?

I would hope not, but this is going to be much closer than it should be...which will still be true if the Dems win in a landslide...but can we really take anything for granted?

Trump may or may not be more likely to win than in 2016 or 2020, but IMO he's considerably more dangerous.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Not in its rest frame, but that’s not an inertial frame. In an inertial frame (i.e. in freefall) you would detect radiation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charged_particles_in_a_gravitational_field

(see Resolution by Rohrlich)

“The key is to realize that the laws of electrodynamics, Maxwell's equations, hold only within an inertial frame”

If it's radiating in any frame it should be radiating in every frame.

Since it is being accelerated in it's instantaneos inertial frame should it not radiate?

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

Not if the detector is comoving wrt to it. However, if the detector is in a locally inertial frame (ie freely falling past the charge), then radiation is detected.

 

Same event should take place in each frame, even if seen differently, correct?

What am I missing?

Other than inside neutral atoms, shouldn't any charged particle constrained in a gravitational field (so not in free fall) radiate, even if negligibly/undetectably?

Special conditions (that I don't understand) aside:

"According to the Larmor formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation. In some classical electron models a dmitistribution of charges can however be accelerated so that no radiation is emittedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition#:~:text=According to the Larmor formula,that no radiation is emitted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonradiation_condition#cite_note-Pearle_1978-1

14 hours ago, iNow said:

I am holding to a whisper of a hope that they are intentionally planning to do a candidate switcher-oo at the convention where Biden steps down and Harris / Newsom then blast a bunch of fresh energy into the race talking about things that actually matter (aka: something other than Cheeto Mussolini)

Not sure the voters would appreciate the bait and switch, especially to Harris. (Though I think there is currently a move to recover her popularity which is much needed to run on the ticket as VP)

On 2/18/2024 at 9:55 AM, Moontanman said:

Hello, my name is Samantha but I'm not an aardvark!  

 

Did INow get to it with his orange crayons?

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Foreign autocrats will pay it through back channels so he becomes even more of a dog in a leash subservient to their desires and demands than he already is. 

Pocket change for Putin.

On 11/28/2023 at 12:11 PM, mistermack said:

Up my wife's ass.

If I'm depressed, it's her fault.

Definitely a good idea to clean them once you're happy again...

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

45 years ago President Carter has helped me to escape from the USSR. 

We don't know how lucky we are, boys...

Fun fact: Jimmy Carter has lived post presidency more than 10 years longer than any other president ever has.

(43 years and counting...plenty of time for his successors to make any adjustments to changing circumstances)

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And that’s why she’s down in GOP polls and votes 

I don't think the fallout, if there will be any, from Putin doing in Navalny would have registered on any polls yet.

I would like to think that Trump's base is not as committed as he would hope (and given it's Tump you can read that as "he should expect"). They can't be all of one mind.

Even the rightmost news medias seem to be holding Putin for his treatment if not directly ordered assassination of Navalny. Trump has not yet commented, and has been a longtime admirer if not mutual supporter of Putin.

Haley is calling his silence out. Accurately. If she doesn't get at least a temporary bump in the polls at Trump's expense Trump will likely win in November if Biden struggles or if their is any significant drop in the economy even beyond his control.

Mostly my opinion of course. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel a little more optimistic. Hopefully I won't have to and I'll see that bump.

Also just noticed Stringy's post...hopefully that has an effect as well.

4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I certainly may be misunderstanding the point of the graph.  If the point was that there is a linear relationship between the greenhouse gases and warming then my comment about the timeline was off the mark.

Thanks. Hopefully thidmir will clarify and expand on the purpose of that post.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I was just pointing it out. The context of the thread is sea level rise in time, so knowing the variation in time is relevant. And the OP has yet to engaged with other participants, so who knows what their intent was?

I don't know for certain but the statement and graph didn't seem to be in support of climate denial...quite the opposite, though I really should have directed my post more at Bufofrog.

Hopefully thidmir will clarify.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Linear in concentration. As Bufofrog notes, this is not linear in time.

Wasn't that the context thidmir intended?

On 2/15/2024 at 4:56 PM, thidmir said:

There's one other thing, the there is a strong correlation between level of CO2 and global temperature, so greenhouse gases definiely need to be mitigate to avoid having to see what would happen if Earth warmed by 4 degrees Celsius. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What he owes is even more, because they charge interest. It comes to more than $450 million

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/16/donald-trump-real-estate-fraud/72267145007/

Assuming he ends up paying...who gets the money?

According to Lee Zeldin this could happen in the US as well:

"Former New York Republican Representative Lee Zeldin compared the death of Alexei Navalny to former President Donald Trump, saying that Democrats want to make sure the former president "dies in prison."

"As the world reflects on the murder of Alexei Navalny at the hands of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, it's worth remembering that Democrats are actively doing Biden's bidding as they also try to imprison his chief political opponent, Donald Trump, remove him from the ballot, and ensure he dies in prison," Zeldin wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter."

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-compares-trump-navalny-democrats-want-him-die-prison-1870722

I think there is a slight difference between the two cases but I can't quite put my finger on it...

Though some Republicans like Nikki Haley don't seem to share Zeldin's view of poor Donald:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/16/navalny-death-trump-putin-00141899

Russia has been killing people for hundreds of years though...so we don't need another Tucker Carlson interview to understand why this should be okay.

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

Wow, Earth has really gotten fat!

Be nice! It's still a heavenly body...

It's either one of the big Ms, usually the lesser one, depending on which of them's acceleration is of interest.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

There may be other scenarios responsive to Fermi's Question.  And we are still at the beginning of an era of remote sensing of extra-solar planets, so it's not like all the anomalies have been studied and conclusions drawn.  Worth looking into that before dropping in a doom prophecy and confidently labeling it as "news."

Might be part of the equation though...along with distance and the fact that despite there being no preferred frame in physics...the cmbr represents a pretty substantial headwind if you want to get anywhere on those scales fast.

With regard to finding new places to thrive, we might want to think about taking better care of our planet before we plan it.

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Not that the individual level has much to do with the aims of corporate America, but I sold products on commission, and I/we wanted my wife to stay at home for a few years after my daughter was born, so yes, making as much money as I possibly could was my primary goal.

I just can't pretend things haven't changed since I entered the workforce. Today's corporate greed is worse than anything we've ever seen. Young people are hamstrung compared to how it was when I was their age, and it keeps getting worse. We can't solve many of The People's problems when We have no political representation, and so many folks are struggling to make the corporations even wealthier while slowly dying themselves. It's time to stop letting them whitewash all the corruption (which they've become so good at, since 93% of all paint and paintbrushes used in the US are made using prison slave labor). 

Many small businesses do essentially that, though usually taking on more overhead and risk.

I share many of your concerns with larger corporations, though I think they are useful and potentially can be more so, especially if we can...

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And I think public endeavors can be more easily designed to remove corruption and greed from the process, as long as we can keep politicians and lobbyists in check.

 

...accomplish this, and thereby properly regulate corporations such that what is incentivised is more in line with the Public good.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree. Every business model I've ever seen has the goal of "making money by doing/making X". They may also have other goals, but the need to maintain an increasing profit margin overshadows all else. It overshadows any moral or ethical considerations that doesn't revoke their corporate charters, and it practically guarantees that stupid, destructive decisions will be made in the name of profit when the choice between money and doing the right thing inevitably comes up.

When you started your career path was that your primary goal, to make as much money as you possibly could?

I suspect it wasn't, though I also suspect you preferred to be adequately compensated for your efforts, well above that of the average human on this planet. The fact that you could be successful in doing that has much to do with the fact that you live in a (far from perfect and really does need to be regulated and improved) capitalist economy.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

Though by all means change the bathwater and remember to wash the baby...even if the lobbyists claim the water smells great...

And don't fall for the "New improved Bathwater...now with Hydroxychloroquine!"

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Exploring the space around us is going to require a better motive than naked greed and profit. Find me a corporation that puts anything above profit and we can talk about them.

 

Very few ventures start up for the purposes of profit or greed alone. Almost all small businesses start up with other goals, and look to making profit simply to survive.

Matured businesses and larger corporations suffer more from naked greed and holding the bottom line as paramount.

It's incumbent on the political system to align the success of these corporations (especially larger more powerful ones) towards what's good for the people rather than what's simply good for corporate profit and greed. Lobbyists and questionable politics get in the way...but despite that it generally still gives better results in most areas than public enterprises...which are not devoid of effects of greed and other less than altruistic human attributes either.

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I think allowing anything offplanet that has as little compassion for humans as a corporation is a big mistake. We need to be able to trust them not to hold the whole planet hostage, and right now I sure don't. Ruthless business practices are so common on Earth, with corporations killing millions for profit, in "well thought out" campaigns of slavery, torture, and corruption. If they get offplanet and are allowed to keep those practices, there's nothing to stop them from gaining the upper hand for all time, nothing except their own altruism.

So you feel there is no room in space for any regulated private enterprise, but think that public owned enterprise can progress safely?

Surely you would need a World Government to control that or ultimately some nation allowing private enterprise will gain dominance in space.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Not if we wake up and realize the private sector only needs to fool us one last time to get all the marbles. In the words of Grand Moff Tarkin, you're far too trusting.

It will never be perfect, but a well thought out mix of regulated private and public enterprise will generally give substantially better results than just private or just public...though often the "well thought out" part is tainted by lobbying and less than fully honest politics.