swansont

The thing about the US situation is that Trump is alienating almost everybody to some degree. The ones not directly affected by the fascism are or will be affected by the repercussions of it (farming labor shortfalls, and possibly construction) which will drive up costs. His tariffs and gutting food-based aid programs are angering the farmers who supported him but now can’t sell their crops. The tax cuts for the rich are at the expense of healthcare, which are poised to skyrocket. The attorney general even managed to piss off the gun rights people. And the Epstein files loom large. Plus, everybody can see that Portland and Chicago aren’t war zones. The frogs and chickens, et. al, are making sure of that.

It’s a matter of how many photons it emits. With a dark-adapted eye, you can discern 5-7 photons hitting the retina, but because there are losses in getting there, around 50 or so photons need to hit the eye. How many have to be emitted is an issue of the geometry of the situation. https://research.physics.illinois.edu/QI/Photonics/pdf/PWDec16Holmes.pdf A 1 mW source pulsing for 1 microsecond is emitting something like 10 billion photons Color sensitivity is a factor; you are much more sensitive to green than red or blue, but within the so-called visible range (400nm - 700nm) this is around a factor of 10.

Why they work is the underlying science, which you have to understand to decipher all this. Isn’t it faster to just learn science to understand how the universe behaves? To what biases are you referring?

Moderator NoteOur rules require that material for discussion be posted. Not offered via uploads or links.

WTF does that even mean? I don’t agree because it’s demonstrably wrong. There aren’t two sides here. There is a standard we expect in science discussions; either you meet it or you don’t. Much like I said about televangelists earlier: they might have started out as true believers, but at some point they get corrupted by the money to be made.

The fact that you’re calling it anecdotal evidence points to one issue. Also, you’re hardly the first person to be challenged to provide a better accounting than “I heard/saw it in a show” One reason people get called out for this is that it’s really easy to misremember the details or the context. There’s a decent chance the show was talking about people in the middle ages, because there’s a misconception that flat earth persisted as the prevailing thought persisted far longer than it did. I made a statement and your response was that there was no evidence of it being true. I don’t see how that’s supposed to count as “basically agreeing” Asking for better/proper support for your claim is supposed to be a message for you to improve the quality of your response. But you apparently decided that the real problem is that I pointed out the deficiency.

linking to bio pages with no information on the topic is not actually helpful. One might count it as just more trolling. IOW, who TF cares what you claim they think? OTOH, the wikipedia page disagrees, with examples and lots of actual citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Looking for actual evidence is better than guessing.

Moderator NoteWe use English, the international language of science

I was talking about how followers might believe even if the leader doesn’t, regardless of the leader’s motivation. (Though it’s possible some religious leaders start as believers and only get corrupted later)

Moderator Note1. Congratulations. Your mother must be very proud. 2. Posting to advertise your site is against the rules, as is preaching.

And while some might not truly believe and are in it for the lulz or the grift, they can convince others, who do. (see e.g. televangelists)

Trump was apparently threatening tariffs and other actions against Norway if he didn’t win. Copying the strategy of Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama seemed like such a good idea, too!

Ancient civilizations did. Lady Elizabeth Blount led an organization that did, ca 1900. Some of it might be simply contrarianism. People who have arrived at a position emotionally tend to dig in and double down when confronted with facts that challenge them.

True for hardcore bigots as well. The whole worldview is built on certain things being true, and they will fight with all their being against accepting objective facts that contradict it, because if they did their whole world comes tumbling down. Facts and reason won’t sway them because that’s not how they got to where they are. It was indoctrination and emotion.

Moderator NotePosting to advertise your youtube channel violates our rules

It has to start there, anyway. If you can’t do it in physics, you can’t do it with physics plus anything else.

In TNG there was a crystalline life form that called the humans/humanoids “ugly bags of mostly water” (Home Soil)

You need to have your answers be outside of the quote box https://scienceforums.net/topic/135919-using-the-quote-function-2025-edition/ “To break up the quoted material, to respond to a specific section, put the cursor in the text box and hit return/enter a few times, and it will split the quote box in two, with a place for you to respond in between them.”

Moderator NoteThis violates rule 2.7, which says that material for discussion must be posted, not linked, and rule 2.13 which prohibits the content from being AI We are happy to discuss human-created content

One thread per topic, please

I’m not even sure about organic chemistry, and I don’t think that it’s a fundamental biological requirement that life be based on the building blocks we observe on earth. Organisms have to have some way to utilize energy, with an intake and expulsion of waste. Those trace back to thermodynamics anyway. I also think that some aspects of biology would get rewritten if it’s realized that they are, in fact, earth-centric. The earth case would be a subset. Nothing new there, really, since refinement has already happened in other disciplines when we learned new things (e.g. phlogiston, atomic models) But I also think that there’s a chunk of biology that’s “applied biology” and it’s already understood that it’s specific to earth. I think physics and chemistry have an advantage in that there are no big holes in them stemming from us only being on earth. We can observe physics and chemistry happening elsewhere, to some extent, because photons get to us. There aren’t any gaps in the periodic table, and the standard model’s deficiencies don’t seem to include missing particles that readily interact. What we learn that’s new in them happens as we dive deeper into them and push boundaries But biology can only look at what’s happening in a certain slice of conditions, so it might very well be far less complete. There might be low-hanging fruit out there on some alien tree that’s just not available to us (yet)

On the contrary, the rules of biology should be the same everywhere, it’s the results that can differ. It would be like arguing that two rivers aren’t the same because the rules of fluid flow vary. And we don’t assert that - we realize that it’s the variables and boundary conditions that differ. Biology has lots of variables and boundary conditions.

Citations need to be complete (issue and page numbers) and links to the should be included Same thing - proper citation and links needed

Thus far, the only rule broken has been one case of opening a second account. I did a spot check of a citation and it was legit. Reporting things that aren’t rules violations adds an extra burden on the mods.

Which aren’t the issues I raised. Again, I didn’t raise “exponential energy” concerns, though energy concerns exist If you have a target in mind, i.e. the star you mentioned, it will take a certain amount of energy to achieve whatever speed you desire relative to it, in order to make it “(almost) no time” And you have to accelerate the rocket payload, casing, engine and all the fuel. If you want to go faster, that’s even more fuel you have to accelerate. But it will also take time to accelerate to that speed and to reduce it at the end of the trip, which could be quite restrictive if you have a fragile biological payload like a human. I can’t be right about a point I didn’t make The calculation you need to do is how long it takes to get to .99c (or whatever; you don’t actually specify it) accelerating at 1g (or whatever, since you didn’t specify this in the OP, either) You’re “rebutting” a straw man One issue I raised is like this: At v = 0.995c, gamma is ~10. A 10 LY trip takes 1 year at this speed But it takes about a year to get to that speed at 1g, and another year to get to rest. So your 1 year trip is actually closer to 3 years. And arguably that’s not “almost no time” and those issues are present even if you can increase gamma to 100, or 1000. The trip won’t be shorter than ~2 years.