• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by swansont

  1. ! Moderator Note I didn’t see a model, nor did I see evidence.
  2. The very first reply to you contained this information. Further, at 20ºC and 100% RH, air contains 17g per cubic meter of water. The volume fraction, then, is 17 ml per 1000 liter, so that's 17 ppm of water by volume. That number goes down with temperature, so that's a ballpark maximum for the most water you would expect. 50 km of fully saturated 20º atmosphere above the earth will give you, at most, around 3 km of liquid water. And there is no way that you have 100% RH everywhere, and it's typically colder everywhere once you get up in the air a little bit. Absolute humidity at 0ºC is less than a third of what it is at 20ºC, and if the average RH is 50%, then you're at half a kilometer, max. One issue that crops up in this scenario is the large amount of energy that must be released when water vapor condenses into a liquid, and then the potential energy that gets converted to heat as the rain falls and strikes the ground. For any water coming from the ground, you need to identify the energy source for releasing it from whatever state it's in, and raising it up to the surface, and pushing the surface water up.
  3. swansont

    A disappointing tale.

    With written words, it can be hard to conclude the tone. It's often what you read into it. But we aren't going to stop closing threads, or correcting mistaken posts, just because some people might deem it to be dismissive, or aggressive, or because it offends sensibilities. To quote myself from a previous discussion "This is a place to discuss science, not a self-esteem support group. Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos."
  4. swansont

    A disappointing tale.

    What part of the response was lacking in courtesy? Was it the "best of luck" part?
  5. ! Moderator Note You will need to provide more detail for your assertions, in order for this to conform to the rules of speculations
  6. jibe to be in harmony or accord; agree: jive perform the jive or a similar dance to popular music creation science does neither one ! Moderator Note Having made that observation, a reminder that we are discussing science here, not religion.
  7. swansont

    How Laser Guided Bombs Works

    Without the lasers.
  8. swansont

    A disappointing tale.

    Thread closure is a pretty mild moderator action, in the scheme of things. There was no official warning, which is one option open to the staff. One might note that a modnote preceded the thread closure, allowing the OP to respond. I don't think requiring someone to sign NDA before they can be shown the project leaves a lot of wiggle room in the question of whether any science/technology is going to be discussed. And if we aren't discussing that, what's left to be discussed?
  9. swansont

    A disappointing tale.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but, as I have pointed out, you are reaching a conclusion without having access to all of the information. You can only see part of the picture. I am not at liberty to discuss private conversations. I agree with Phi, BTW.
  10. swansont

    A disappointing tale.

    Not completely different. We shut down threads made by people who are violating the rules. You have only listed some of the rules that lead to thread closure. We also do it when, for example, someone announces that they will not be following the rules. The thread in question is not the first time we have acted quickly based on such a declaration. It typically ends up being a waste of moderators' time to ignore such declarations. One thing that I don't think that's been mentioned is that thread closures aren't cast in stone. We can re-open threads. We have not done so. There was discussion amongst staff (another thing most of you were not privy to) about whether this would be warranted. You can see what we decided. This happens quite a bit. A lot of actions you see are the result of collaboration, especially whether to suspend or ban someone for rules violations. Sometime we do, and sometimes we decide they deserve a second chance. It depends on the circumstances. There are people still on this site who would not be had we adhered to strict interpretations of rules. Some people have actually improved their behavior when given the opportunity (though the majority have not)
  11. swansont

    How Laser Guided Bombs Works

    That's probably it. An algorithm that steers the fins to keep the target centered. If it drifts, the feedback steers it back to center. PID controllers do stuff like this all the time. (Proportional, Integral, Derivative feedback)
  12. swansont

    A disappointing tale.

    We sometimes close threads after just the original post. A lot of time you don't even see these posts, because they are hidden. It depends on the situation. It's unlikely we are going to adopt such a rule, which would prevent us from taking action if needed before that time. We assess each thread on its merits, because each situation is different.
  13. swansont

    The Graviton was found the holy grail of physics

    ! Moderator Note You were asked to review the rules for posting in speculations. It seems you have not done so, since you have not provided us with a model, testable predictions and/or evidence. In addition, we have a rule about not posting to advertise your blog, or YouTube channel
  14. swansont

    The perfect fusion reactor

    Nor sure who swanston is, but I have a PhD in atomic physics. I have trouble understanding you because your posts only have a tenuous connection to physics. I don’t know what it is you understand, and what misconceptions you have. For example, “Photons have a mass and the question is what happens to the light when it reaches a certain point?“ What is that certain point? You don’t describe it, at all. How can one answer such a question? “Could one talk about the whiteness of the 5th state of matter?” What does this even mean? Whiteness? What do you mean by the 5th state of matter? Your whole post is riddled with such issues.
  15. swansont

    A disappointing tale.

    You are not privy to discussion that occurred between the OP and staff, but even in the thread the OP confirmed that they would not be discussing any technical details. I don’t see that they were treated any differently than anyone who shows up and declares their intent to soapbox and advertise. And I can’t find it in the rules that your review/permission is required to close a thread. That’s not what we’re discussing, and “censorship” has been discussed many times before.
  16. swansont

    If Electricity...

    If the target was pointy, a few charges would transfer and owing to the concentration of charges, you would raise the potential quite a lot. This would inhibit further discharge until those charges could dissipate.
  17. swansont

    Found a message in Pi; Now what.

    ! Moderator Note Indeed. Stop posting nonsense like this, LittleBoPeep
  18. swansont

    Errors in Popular Science ?

    As noted in the article, it was written by a non-scientist who consulted a cosmologist. “The humanities-graduate writer of this piece would like to stress that this is his work, so any glaring factual errors he has included are his own as well.” Yeah, and it gets a lot wrong.
  19. ! Moderator Note If you want this to remain unlocked, you need to be forthcoming with your details: a model and evidence.
  20. swansont

    Split from Cause of Atmospheric Pressure

    Now show data that back this up. And explain why there is pressure above 30 km, and how planes can fly above this altitude.
  21. Moving fluid is flow. If you take Bernoulli’s equation and set v=0, you get Pascal’s law. You insist it’s static and yet it’s not. I think this is part of the problem. You insist on things rather than analyze them. You can have a dynamic system where fluid doesn’t escape. Your idea of static vs dynamic is just wrong. You don’t have to worry about flow in what you are calling a “pascal system” because you really only care about the initial and final state, when it is indeed static. But you’re talking about a dynamic system when you claim propulsion. Which is flow. It has energy, and needs to be accounted for. When fluids move, the pressure drops. If the fluid is moving it has momentum, so this is nonsense. You are hand-waving instead of applying physics.
  22. swansont

    If Electricity...

    That’s not the case, and why limit yourself to insulators? Charges like to spread out, to minimize the potential energy of the system. You can’t have as much charge on a sharp point, or put another way, it would take a higher potential to put more charge there. So all else being equal (as in, the amount of stored charge), pointy structures tend to discharge more easily. Maximizing surface area reduces the energy. Another factor is that points tends to stick up, and so are possibly closer to another point, at a different potential, to where they might discharge.
  23. swansont

    The inevitability of evolution?

    ! Moderator Note Which have to be based on evidence and/or models, and you went out of your way to point out yours was not evidence-based.
  24. swansont

    If Electricity...

    This is quite wrong. Electricity “liking” to “shoot out” of sharp points is not the same as claiming a point is required for a discharge.