swansont

The paper says that the symmetry manifests itself in structures as small as nucleons, but I don’t see where there’s any true justification for picking that radius. Nothing presented to show it could not be much smaller. Not randomly chosen, but arbitrarily chosen — because it gives the desired answer?

! Moderator Note I think this is rife with unsupported premises; none of your assertions are backed up with evidence. I also think this sounds like propaganda. What I know is this is a discussion forum, not your blog, and opinions do not overrule facts. I also know this is locked.

! Moderator Note Congratulations. This is a discussion forum. What is the proposed topic of discussion here?

“radioactivity” is not some independent form of radiation. It’s simply the property of a nucleus being unstable and emitting energetic particles when it decays to a lower energy state. Those can be alphas, betas, gammas, neutrinos, protons, neutrons - they are the radiation. Of those, only gammas are massless, electromagnetic, and moving at c. For any other particle, differing speed would mean they would arrive at a target at different times if emitted from the same source simultaneously (though neutrinos would take a while) There is no “carrier of radioactivity” since that’s nonsensical.

You started this thread, so it’s assumed you could carry on a discussion at some level. The discussion thus far doesn’t really involve any advanced economic concepts. I’m not sure how broader horizons enters into it, especially when you won’t go into detail. You also probably have no idea what my professional interests are. Maybe it’s better you don’t assume you do.

Is it, though? I get the impression that even though there’s a fair amount of installed capacity, wind is under-utilized in the midwest. Though the Biden administration’s infrastructure legislation may be helping with that. According to this, no state got more than 40% of their electricity from wind this past July https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-state/ South Dakota, Kansas, Iowa and Oklahoma are the states that got over 30% Agree. It’s a version of shooting the messenger. Since physics and chemistry in particular deal with systems converting/liberating energy, just about any discovery of systems that do so quickly and/or efficiently is prone to be co-opted by the military. And similarly with enabling technology; you can’t effectively limit how people will use knowledge.

Did stupid Americans do that, or was it their elected representatives, influenced by the people who would profit off of it? Also to think that capitalism is the default system in the country and be afraid of other systems; socialism has become a bogeyman label (even though the Constitution describes a whole bunch of socialism)

So far as I know, it is not. In fact, I think it might be argued that failure to do it when circumstances dictate would be, since at such times people are not buying government bonds. If the government raised the bond rates attract buyers, the taxpayers would be on the hook for even more money

Meme? You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. What does this have to do with whether inflation is caused by “printing dollars”? Computer/semiconductor technology, including smartphones, is deflationary, BTW. Which is perhaps one reason contributing to why inflation didn’t spike from ”printing dollars”

This “my teacher hates me” take is a dime-a-dozen, so I’m not surprised to see it. But the truth is you broke the rules - the specifics were pointed out to you - and that’s why it was locked. You didn’t post “hard facts,” you spammed us with videos, and you escalated the rhetoric. And I don’t know what-all this has to do with academia; did you think you had wandered onto a college campus? We’re willing to host reasoned discussion, and the rules are set up to facilitate that. Follow the rules, and you can present your argument. If you don’t follow the rules, threads get locked.

! Moderator Note That’s enough of that. Please review our rules, especially 2.1 on civility and 2.7 on how you can’t just post videos to make your point Don’t bring this topic up again

Gravity doesn’t work that way, so I don’t see how that aids in conceptual understanding. Your drawing says a gap is no gravitational attraction. You also say gravitation toward the center but that’s not what the lines say.. Gravitational field lines are supposed to tell you the direction of the field at that point. The actual field was solved and is figure 2 in this paper https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1206.3857

Gravity points radially, not parallel to the x and y axes. There are no gaps

New NYT/Siena poll has the race tied, but there’s this (posted on bluesky) Not only ignoring recent history but also the post-Dobbs voter registration surge

! Moderator Note Post it in speculations, in line with the forum rules. Which means posting the material for discussion. Not just attaching a file

I learned how to say “I don’t speak <language>” in both French and Italian, in preparation for conference trips back in the day. Someone on the street in Torino said something to me as I walked to the conference site, so I got to use it. Used the French version when speaking to someone from the French embassy who lived in my apartment building What I really needed to learn is how to apologize for speaking the few phrases I knew so poorly.

1g acceleration gets you to 0.99c in a little less than a year (earth frame) https://rechneronline.de/g-acceleration/

Which is what was claimed when Obama was president, and the predicted disaster never happened.

Not with a population of ~8.1 billion, or anywhere close to it.

I think the ethics only enter into it if you’re wealthy enough to have options, and having a significant fraction of people above the threshold is a relatively recent occurrence.

Yes. More than once. It’s trivial to check. In the very first post you complained about how you get pushback whenever you mention them. The discussion was split off of a discussion on possible evolutionary advantage of religion because you went off-topic and brought up bias. It’s guarding the borders; making sure that science remains science, and things like astrology don’t get to pass themselves off as having scientific legitimacy without presenting empirical evidence. Which is why we keep asking for evidence.

NOTC got 63.3%, Haley 30.6%, Pence 3.9% and Tim Scott 1.3%. Had Trump been on the ballot, he would have had to get only half of the NOTC votes to win. That doesn’t sound implausible. He got at least half of the overall in almost all of the places he was on the ballot Further, some of the voters that chose a candidate might have voted for Trump if he was an option. None of the other candidates would have gotten more votes, because why would they? I don’t think your conjecture has much merit, and you’ve presented nothing to support it.

No. If you study further you'll find that work is done when there is a force aligned (or anti-aligned) with displacement. With a central force such as gravity, not net work is done; an object will trade kinetic energy and potential energy, but the sum of the two will not change. In a circular orbit, the kinetic and potential energy does not change because the force is perpendicular to the displacement. No work is done. If energy is extracted from an orbital body the orbit will decay. This happens e.g. with atmospheric drag.

And I think this is part of the problem. You are only repeating things other people say, but you aren't prepared to actually discuss and defend it. When you are prepared to discuss the details, I think people will be prepared to engage. But not if you're going to pass the buck like this. You were accused of cherry-picking by one person, and you kinda gave away the game by saying "This one is more in line with my expectations" in reference to the cited study. But this is emblematic of a larger pattern - extrapolating based on a small sample, much like your earlier claims of bias were focused on cognitive science but you were accusing all of science of having these problems. And nobody has argued that there isn't bias. But what we haven't really discussed much is what the biases are and how science fights against it. This whole thread started off discussing religion as the focus of alleged bias, and that's simply excluding non-science from the discussion. Science gets to decide what it investigates and what it doesn't. Trying to wedge religion/spiritualism into the conversation is viewed as an attempt to commandeer the legitimacy of science in a pursuit that is not science, and no, we're not having any part of it. Is it bias? Perhaps. We're biased against such piracy. You are free to go off and contemplate the mind using whatever tools you wish, and if you actually come up with answers I'm sure you'll shout it from the rooftop, but on this side of the border you do science.

We’ve had supporters of the right here, but some of them had difficulty posting in good faith or otherwise violated the rules i.e. they repeated lies, didn’t cite sources, asserted opinion as fact. That tends to shorten the time folks stick around.