Jump to content


Resident Experts
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Janus last won the day on September 11 2020

Janus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1088 Glorious Leader


About Janus

  • Rank
  • Birthday August 28

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Josh Hawley ( The Senator who raised the objection to counting the Electoral votes even after the attack on the Capital), has also had a book deal with Simon and Schuster canceled. Of course, he went on FOX to cry about "First amendment rights". But this has nothing to do with that. This was purely a business decision. The publisher simply felt that doing the book deal with him would be worse for business than the loss of profit from not selling it. They are perfectly free to choose not to do business with someone if they feel it is in their best interest. This is capitalism; Something you would think that a Republican senator would be quite familiar with.
  2. All decisions made by private entities. Having free speech does not obligate others to provide you with a platform from which to express it.
  3. There are legal experts that say that the attack on the Capital building could be tried for sedition and that it is almost textbook case. It has to do with the U.S. code on seditious conspiracy which, among other things, lists "or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States,". Since the intent was to stop congress form counting electoral votes as required by law, their acts pretty much fall under this. If found guilty, they could face up to 20 yrs in prison.
  4. The 25th amendment would probably be a more likely scenario. It require just a majority of the cabinet and Pence to initiate. (And apparently Pence is furious with Trump, and it has been discussed by some cabinet members*.) Pence would then take over until the inauguration. While Trump could dispute it, the dispute would have to go to Congress where it would take a 2/3 majority to reject Trump's claim. However, Pence would remain in charge until Congress reaches a decision, and the Democratically controlled House could delay the vote until the end of Trump's term anyway. * And while this is mere speculation, I also wonder if they could just being using the mere threat as a "check" On Trump. He went from egging his supporters on just before the attack( "We will never concede!"), to a weak response right after, even rejecting repeated requests for him to call in the National Guard to regain control(somebody eventually did, but it's not clear who), to a condemnation of the attackers and an acceptance that Biden will be sworn in, all over a very short period. Could it be that someone went to him and basically said, "We have the 25th amendment ready and loaded. And while we'd rather not use it, If you continue to force our hand, we will."
  5. Oh, I don't know, maybe by just not delivering the reactor output to the propeller?
  6. It can, But the amendment to do so would first have either get a 2/3 majority support in both Houses (House of Rep and Senate) or be applied for by the state legislatures in 2/3(34) of the states. In which case Congress must call a convention. An amendment proposed by either of these means would then have to get ratification from the legislatures of 3/4(38) of the states.
  7. Yes, it is in the constitution. And remember when the Constitution was written. Vote results had to travel by land to a centralized point in each state, then counted. Then electors selected, gathered together, and cast their votes. These votes had to be delivered from each state to congress without any quick means to do so. Once Congress got and counted the elector votes, they could announce the winner, who, if he wasn't already in the capital, would have to travel there to be inaugurated. The whole process just took time, and the constitution was written to account for this. To change it would require amending the constitution.
  8. While Trump and some of his legal team have alleged this in public, they've stop short of this in the courtroom. In one case, a Judge asked " Are you claiming voter fraud?", and the answer was "No.". To which the judge responded "Then why are we here?" The court cases revolved around things like "County A allowed some voters to fix technical errors in their ballots, while County B did not. Thus we request that all the votes from County A be tossed out." Or they would raise some other technical issue on how a particular state or county ran their election. In the first type of case, the court generally ruled that the sought after remedy was too excessive compared to the alleged harm done. In the second, the ruling was " Even if you were correct, it's too late. If you had problems with how they were going to run the election, this should have been brought to the court before the election. The classic example is the first case that made it to the Supreme Court. In it they claimed that the 2019 law in PA that expanded mail-in voting ( and which passed with bi-partisan support) was unconstitutional, and thus all the mail-in vote should be invalidated. The lower rulings were "If you had problems with this law, you should have brought them to the court before the election and not waited until after." ( This is the American football equivalent of challenging the call of a turnover after the team that benefited from the turnover marched down the field and scored a touchdown. The time to make the challenge is before play is resumed, not several plays later.)
  9. The NERVA program was more or less based on this idea, though it used hydrogen rather than water. One of the advantages of hydrogen is the fact that efficiency of a rocket increases with exhaust velocity, and hydrogen molecules, with a lower mass than water molecules could be accelerated up to higher exhaust velocities for the same energy. The NERVA program can date it origins all the way back to the 1950's. NERVA rockets were tested throughout the '60s, And it was projected that if development had been continued, we could have had a system capable of getting astronauts to the Mars by 1981. However, do to political reasons funds for the NERVA program were cut in 1973. In 1983, new interest in thermonuclear rockets arose since if was felt that they would be need for the Space Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") program. Development for a new system was started in 1987, but funding was cut in 1994. 2013 brought new interest in NTRs( Nuclear thermo rockets). Again as a possible means to get astronauts to Mars. In 2019, funding was approved for development. So, basically, the reason we don't already have such rocket systems in place isn't due to any problems with the idea itself, but that the development of the systems take time and money, and the money part is subject to shifting political priorities.
  10. Janus

    Whats 2+6 ??

    In this example "pennies" is a dimensional unit. 2 pennies + 6 pennies = 8 pennies keeps the unit consistent. 6 pennies /2 = 3 pennies is also unit consistent 1/2 * 6 pennies = 3 pennies You can't have "smaller" pennies, because "penny" is a unit of a defined size, and it is the smallest unit of currency (in the US).
  11. No, it can't. At the zenith, it is zero, and near the horizon it is ~ 1/2 a degree. But all that means it that if you measure the visual angle between a star at the zenith and one near the horizon, you'll be off by 1/2 of a degree of the actual angle between them or about by 1/180 of the measured angle. At 45 degrees from the zenith, the refraction is about 1/60 of a degree or 1/2700 of that 45 degree angle. So if you were looking at a body that took up 45 degrees of the sky starting from the zenith, your "measured" size would only be off by 1/2700 of its "true" size. In this last example, it is the difference in refraction between zenith and 45 degrees from it that would cause the distortion. But we aren't measuring the size of celestial bodies that take up large angles of the sky, but ones that take up small ones, with angles over which the difference in atmospheric refraction is next to nil and has a negligible effect on our measurement. ( it would the greatest near the horizon, but we take care to make such measurements when the objects are high in the sky.) On top of that, we now have orbital telescopes that are beyond the effect of atmospheric refraction, and they have not shown any major discrepancies from Earth based ones.
  12. Janus


    1/0 ≠ infinity, It is undefined.
  13. Here is accurate representation of the Relative sizes and distance between the Earth and Moon. Given the apparent size of the Earth in the photo, the light from the Sun and the date (which would make it a new moon). I estimate that the Moon should be just about where the object labeled Mercury is in this image. In other words, "Mercury" is mislabeled, The picture shows the Earth, Venus and the Moon, while Mercury is out of frame. It is just the angle from which this photo was taken and telescopic foreshortening that makes Venus "look" closer to the Earth than the Moon is.
  14. Or, the more reason explanation for Mercury and Venus not having satellites and slow rotations is that they are both closer to the Sun and subject to greater tidal forces which has the effect of making it harder to capture and hold on to satellites and results in greater tidal braking which slows rotation. The Earth-Venus alignment is most likely a result of orbital resonance (Earth orbits 8 time for every 13 orbits of Venus). Such orbital resonances are not rare, and result from the fact that the orbits are not independent of each other, because each planet has a small gravitational effect on the other.
  15. I'll give you the values to work it out for yourself. e = 0.0167 a = 1.496e11 meters u = 1.3275e20 m^3/s^2 q ( at the Vernal equinox) = 102.93 degrees
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.