swansont

! Moderator Note You don't get to hide false statements behind the banner of "speculation." To the extent that present theories have evidence to support them, we should, and do, expect that speculation will agree with observation. We also expect that when instances where your hypothesis disagrees with observation, that you will address those objections It has been observed that nuclei in excited states have more mass than ground state nuclei. It should be trivial to calculate the amount of gravitational potential energy of the sun, and compare that to the amount that it radiates over a period of time. How long would the sun shine under these conditions?

Surviving to reproduce. There are traits which increase the probability this will occur. I guess I was misled by "We are also occasionally told that life forms are blind machines." How should I have interpreted that statement?

The aqueducts were raised. The water was stored in a tank (cistern), and the height provided the pressure.

! Moderator Note Closed because of duplication. Please use one of the existing linked threads

I'd say that no simple equation exists. One can search for photoelectron emission experiments, and see that spectra are published, but the theoretical form (if given) depends on whether the system is atomic or molecular, and what orbital is involved.

! Moderator Note You need to address criticisms of your thesis, too, rather than merely restating it.

Was that comma properly used? (I'm thinking it should be a colon). And shouldn't the period go inside the quotation marks? True. We often have a hard enough time understanding the nuances in grammatically well-written speech. Adding a thick layer of imprecision to an already imprecise language is not useful.

Generally the left. While it's not universally true, the conventional thought is that the right is pro-management, while the left is pro-worker.

That's exactly what calculus does more accurately, because the layers become infinitely thin and there are an infinite number of them.

These "interpretations" are manufactured. Regarding premise #1: Evolution does not say '"copying" is the key to survival.' A much more accurate summary is that those with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and pass along their genes, and as a result, those traits will tend to persist in a population. The argument about survival is a strawman. Regarding premise #2: This is equivocation. Animals are not machines. This sounds like a skewed interpretation of saying that evolution does not have a goal, in the sense that it is not directed by anything but the current selection pressure. With maybe a bit of acknowledging that evolution is a feedback process sprinkled in.

Perhaps, as a scientist, you could investigate evolution a little more thoroughly. The two claims you state are inaccurate.

Why couldn't the trajectory include all points?

There are practical considerations: you can't collect all the light, you can't focus the light down to an arbitrarily small size, and as the target heats up, it will radiate more strongly. Every ray that comes in must have an identical path leading away, and in the best-case scenario, where the target "sees" the sun everywhere, due to the massive mirror coverage, these will equilibrate when the temperatures are the same. In the less-than-ideal case, the target "sees" a colder reservoir somewhere, and radiates more energy wherever that happens, and keeps the target temperature below the source temperature. The overall principle at play here is the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us that you cannot spontaneously transfer heat from a colder object to a warmer object.

You can view the sphere as having an area, and the length is the distance the current travels. In this case, the area is not constant, which is why this is a more difficult question.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Paraboloid.html

Tell that to the ants.

Why not all points, though? What's the difference?

Yes. You would be limited to ~6000 K.

If you can exist at any two points along a trajectory because of infinite speed, I'm not seeing why it's restricted to two (or even more), rather than all points along all trajectories, which was rejected. That's a bit of a loaded question. You can have a quantum superposition of locations, but to say whether that counts depends on what "exist" means.

How does resistivity relate to resistance?

V=IR in a resistive circuit; you can replace R with the impedance and it will hold in each winding of the transformer with the transformer itself being an inductive load. But across the two, you use conservation of energy: P=IV

Since that was a boundary set in place by the OP, I think not.

Lots of non-medicines have side effects, too.

That seems to be the limit of the discussion, since we're talking about abortion. If there is no intervention, how can God have authority over who lives or dies?

A transformer increases voltage by decreasing the current. IV is constant (in an ideal system)