swansont

! Moderator Note From rule 2.1 Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited A request like this presupposes you are not violating our rules, which you are.

The reasons for believing are also irrational. I think not believing is not the same as disbelieving. A lack of belief can be based on no evidence existing, but an active disbelief requires either positive evidence or is irrational.

Which societies are these, and when was this, in the course of human evolution?

True and completely beside the point. No, it would not beg the question. The premise was already presented with a question about science finding God, so finding science is already a given here. Anyone is free to be willfully ignorant about science, but for them this question would not arise.

The energy is the same, but it does take more energy to heat up water. An ocean impact can produce a tsunami. The atmosphere is pretty big, so that heating (as I’ve said) will be spread out in space and time.

Consider that a hurricane contains a lot more energy than a nuclear bomb and while hurricanes cause serious damage, they do not flatten cities. It’s dispersed in both area and time. Small bits of a broken-up asteroid will burn up in the atmosphere and never impact the earth.

You wouldn’t have all the energy deposited in the same place. Dispersing it would likely reduce the overall damage. Energy deposited in the both the atmosphere and ground over a wider area, less energy at the primary impact point.

This is a version of the argument that people who don’t believe in a supreme being have no reason to be good, which is absurd. Not everyone is motivated by the same things.

I think you need to more narrowly define this, since prosthetics and hip replacement surgery arguably fall into the category of transhumanism.

We wouldn’t have known it to be true without rigor, and that has consequences. Theories have predictive value; wrong theories make wrong predictions, and no theory means no predictions. Can’t land on the moon without Newton.

! Moderator Note Anything for discussion must be posted. Links and uploads are insufficient, per rule 2.7

So a candidate that had more “keys” steps aside for another who polls better and has raised a boatload of cash, and the new candidate has fewer “keys”?

! Moderator Note There’s nothing here that comes remotely close to what we expect in speculations

Of what use is analyzing an incorrect model?

It’s a factor of 2 smaller, so scanning at 150 dpi will translate directly to 300 dpi printing.

Pointing out that some of your post didn’t violate the rules isn’t going to make us overlook the part that did.

! Moderator Note If you have your own thoughts, they belong in their own thread. Posting them in someone else’s thread is hijacking.

An FYI to anyone reading this: it’s helpful to include a link to the post in question when asking for assistance like this.

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged

You do understand that this is a thought experiment, right? To work out the math? That there is no actual situation where the electron and proton are infinitely far apart? It’s just that if they could ever get infinitely far apart, there would be no KE. At any separation, KE + PE = 0, so KE = -PE In any physically realizable situation, there is an attractive force. That’s the source of the energy. In the bound state, KE = -PE/2, which is why a photon is required to ionize the atom, or why a photon (or photons) would be emitted when forming the atom.

It has no KE or PE when at infinite separation. But there’s an attractive electrostatic force, so KE increases and PE decreases as they move toward each other. In a bound state, energy must be released; the Bohr model predicts the KE is half of the magnitude of the PE The Hydrogen spectrum is easily found, confirming the correctness of the energy predictions of QM and the Bohr model. Don’t overestimate how much protection you will get from criticism. From section 2.7 of the rules you agreed to follow when you joined “members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted” It’s an anti-spam measure, so that clueless crackpots can’t just post a huge document and expect others to expend effort addressing it. We want them to have some skin in the game. A much better approach is to pick some area and post the details, but a cursory look at your Bohr model section shows that your ideas are flawed, and were you to make predictions based on them, there would be contradictions with experiment. You can stick around and learn some physics, but if you’re looking for a credulous audience, this is indeed not the forum for you.

If any substantive math were a prerequisite we’d see very few of them.

New customer.

As Mordred says, the Bohr model is superseded, but the negative energy in it is fully explained; it’s from the convention of saying the electrostatic potential energy of particles at infinite separation is zero. There aren’t different laws. The terms in any equation might be negligible at a particular scale but not at another.

This isn’t an app. It’s a website, owned by someone in the US, with hardware located in the UK. Staff are located in multiple countries.