joigus

I was a little confused when he started talking about fighting height with height. It became clear when I started listening to it from an Antipodean point of view. 🤣 "Love" is perhaps not the word I would have chosen for the brilliant point he makes, but I understand. As to Trump and his only-too-obvious scratching anybody's back as long as they scratch his... The only possible antidote I see is education. Not his, it's too late for that. As to his ilk, it's too late too: Once people are in their forties+ they're just too set in their ways. I hope it's not too late for the upcoming generations. Good standards of education that only the most ignorant of course will fear as indoctrination, ignoring the extent to which they have been indoctrinated by others. Education in critical thinking is critical.

Point taken, but I'm not so sure about that. Being thwarted seems to defeat the purpose with "true believers." But even true believers are bound to be sensitive to the possibility of becoming a laughing stock, as long as they're not made the object of cheap laughs. I think humour, in some of its many forms --perhaps not necessarily sarcasm--, as long as it's refined and intelligent, and has a seed of reasoned criticism in it, and not bordering sheer insult or epicaricacy*; can be quite useful. Give you an example. I've heard many arguments against belief in the Christian god, but IMHO nothing as powerful as that memorable bit by George Carlin: "Organised religion has actually convinced people that there is a man living in the sky; who watches everything you do every minute of every day; who has a list of ten specific things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he's got a special place for you to burn and suffer in anguish till the end of time... ...But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money. He's all-knowing, all-powerful,... But somehow he can't handle money!" ----------------- *Epicaricacy: Rejoicing at or deriving pleasure from the misfortunes of others.

Calculation shortcuts and mnemonics.

It's true that there are differences in linguistic politics. German, ie., is also on the normative side. But I think the usage is the driving force. To use an analogy, I think it's something like the storm is leading you somewhere you can't predict, but there are different strategies as to how to steer against these forces.

Although it's not that useless...

I agree, although that's true of pretty much every language. I people keep speaking Klingon, it will likely evolve as every other language has. As to English phonetics, the most amazing thing to me is that "row" and "row" can be pronounced differently. Same symbols; different pronunciation depending on meaning.

Nice.

IMO You're giving a lot of thought to this question from a personal POV. You're missing important points about correlation attractiveness/potential mate profiling that have to do with women's cycle of ovulation and have been studied. Your study has carelessness and self-interest written all over it. The biological POV is absent.

Heaven forbid.

Great idea! Let's have it. And then Americans, Australians, etc. follow suit and make their own phonetic script. I don't think Jim will be thrilled about it, TBH.

Yeah, it's a tough one. Perhaps sarcasm can be more efficient than either indifference or disagreement... Disagreement seems to reinforce the wildly speculative mind.

The vacuum?

Maxwell's equations. They were historically the most powerful reason behind Einstein's faith in the special principle of relativity against all common intuitions. They express some kind of "duality" between the electric and magnetic fields that would be completely destroyed were the principle of special relativity not exact.

OK. Sorry on my part if I didn't understand or took some time to edit some of the answers. Besides Swansont's very helpful assistance with the concepts, IMO, very much overlapping with mine --you'd better pay attention to him--, I see these other questions: The situation you describe still has a lot of freedom. It does not determine the dynamics. To give you an idea of how many things it depends on: 1) The initial velocity of the electron 2) The geometry of the E(t) electric field 3) The way in which E(t) changes with time 4) The geometry and placement/orientation of the magnet 5) The fact whether magnet and sources of E(t) --example: charging or discharging capacitor plates-- can be considered as independent of each other And finally you must apply the Lorentz force law on the electron (is the initial velocity of e- parallel or perpendicular to field lines?, etc.) I would advice you to draw a picture of what you have in mind. ----- It must be understood that the effects of the electron on the rest of the setting are completely negligible.

I'm no expert, but I'd say confinement and other restrictive measures are playing a part in boosting the paranoia.

Well, maybe it's expected, but you don't seem to expect it: Don't you see the inconsistency? You've got two independent sources of magnetic field here, and nobody's talking about "own magnetic field." Well, only you are.

Will you just read what I wrote? What's this, an internet forum version of candid camera?

I'm not talking about the electron's magnetic field. I'm talking about your increasing electric field. You cannot have ANY increasing electric field without it generating a magnetic field wrapped around its field lines. Do you understand? If you don't, this conversation will become pointless very quickly. Of course an electron acts on itself when it radiates; that's called radiation reaction. But that's not what I'm talking about here. Even in the absence of a magnet, and in the absence of self-interactions, your increasing electric field will generate other magnetic field lines around the electron's velocity, and the electron will spiral out of its initial direction. When I have more time, maybe I can draw a picture for you. You must identify all the field sources to account for all the E and B fields. Then there is your external magnet. That will further complicate the motion. It's got nothing to do with electron's self-interaction. You would have to accelerate the electron considerably before you had any radiation reaction (self-interaction) on the electron.

You can keep sustain a constant magnetic field from an external magnet, but if you set up an increasing electric field, it will generate an additional increasing magnetic field of its own. The rate of change of the electric field's flux through a surface giving you the circulation of the magnetic field around the surface's contour. If you set up the electric field's flux to increase linearly with time, you can arrange for the additional magnetic circulation to be constant.

Who are 'they'? How many of 'them' are there? Where are 'they' and what do 'they' want? Can I be one of 'them'? Who chose 'them'? Who chose those who chose 'them'? Do 'they' speak to you? Do 'they' speak to each other? So many questions... Let's not. Let's be reasonable and understand how things happen.

A varying electric field will induce a varying magnetic field, so no, you can't have an increasing electric field with constant magnetic field.

Do you have a point? Do you have a question? What does this have to do with quantum theory? The only thing I have understood is plain wrong: The distribution of probability of an electron hitting a screen can be agreed upon confirmed by all observers.

Many, or even infinitely many, possibilities is not the same as "anything can happen". Physics has room for unpredictability and very stringent constraints at the same time. Nothing that we know can, ie., violate local conservation principles. Quantum laws do satisfy local conservation of probability, for example. Which translates in the fact that nothing macroscopic, nothing with global charge or mass, etc., can just "materialize" at a point, unless a flux of probability has been driven there, by a process which must, in turn, be physical, and satisfy the same constrictions. Nothing we know violates Lorentz invariance either. Quantum mechanics tells you, rather, that Lorentz invariance has to be taken with a grain of salt, and precisely how little salt that must be (HUP). Same for conservation laws. There are no violations of these principles, there is a very strict room for ambiguity in their application. The famous h bar constant is involved in how much "violation" is acceptable. Murray Gell-Mann summarized it very well with his phrase "anything that can happen will happen". But for something to happen, it must be possible to happen.

Cherry-picking, are we? You seem to have missed these other things I said: What time in life is the afterlife that you experience at death, you say? And how do you know anything about the perception of death? What evidence do you have that perception of time is discrete? It looks continuous to me. Or, as @md65536 points out: What is a "heavenly experience"? Actually, I firmly believe that at the moment of death there is no heavenly anything. There is only the universal experience of absolute jerkiness. It's neither hell nor heaven. It lasts somewhere between 24 and 48 hours. And after that, there is three thousand eons of doubt, ending in an eternity of definite moronity. How do you like that? Now, tell me that's not at least as plausible as what you're saying. You have an impressive ability to sidestep every major argument people give you and concentrate really hard on the most irrelevant accessories and adornments. No wonder you can prove anything to yourself. How do you define "heavenly"? My suggested picture of the afterlife I find every bit as compelling as yours.

An argument can be flawed; an analogy can't. An analogy can bee too far fetched, or maybe inadequate to illustrate the property it's meant to address. Analogies by definition incorporate only certain features. They are imprecise by construction. Otherwise they wouldn't be analogies; they would be descriptions, syllogisms, etc. Analogy: a comparison of one thing with another thing that has similar features; a feature that is similar. (Oxford) The discourse that you're quoting really is flawed. It doesn't take much to find inconsistencies or unexamined assumptions. For example: What time in life is the afterlife that you experience at death, you say? And how do you know anything about the perception of death? What evidence do you have that perception of time is discrete? It looks continuous to me. Or, as @md65536 points out: What is a "heavenly experience"? Actually, I firmly believe that at the moment of death there is no heavenly anything. There is only the universal experience of absolute jerkiness. It's neither hell nor heaven. It lasts somewhere between 24 and 48 hours. And after that, there is three thousand eons of doubt, ending in an eternity of definite moronity. How do you like that? Now, tell me that's not at least as plausible as what you're saying.