swansont

And how did we know that they were wrong? Because they did the experiment and reported the results. If you are trying to insinuate that because a result differed from theory that all results are suspect, the answer is no, that’s arguing in bad faith. You have to have evidence.

OTOH cheap things tend to wear out pretty rapidly, and quality often lasts longer and not in a linear fashion. (i.e. 4x more expensive lasting longer than 4x the time) Consider the Boots economic theory by Terry Pratchett Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

QM = quantum mechanics Which has little to do with trajectories, but does study the quantities that classical mechanics studies, e.g. energy and momentum Don’t project your confusion onto others. Welcome to science. When experiment and theory disagree, you modify the theory. We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years. And what is this substance you call electromagnetism? What are its properties? Density, elasticity, compressibility, etc.? How would you measure them? And how do you tell if you are moving through it, or stationary with respect to it?

Because we’ve done experiments. A medium has to have properties, and have a measurable effect on light. Stellar aberration tells us that if there is a medium responsible for the deflection of the light, the medium is stationary and we must be moving through it. But when Michelson and Morley trued tried to confirm that with an interferometer, they could not measure any effect on light - IOW we are not moving through any medium. These results are in conflict, if there is a medium. The experiments were of sufficient accuracy and precision. We can measure the stellar aberration. That was done ca. 1725. The Michelson interferometer was capable of sufficient accuracy to measure the effect if aberration was due to a medium.

E=mc^2 is not directly predicated on the existence of the electromagnetic interaction; c is the speed of any massless particle. However, physics is inter-related. You can’t just arbitrarily change part of it and think that change would be isolated.

Where’s your evidence of what he ‘s actually proposing? Not the news summaries. The actual proposal details. IOW, how do you know he’s not proposing 500 fabs, and power plants and other infrastructure to run them? You haven’t shown fraud. Incredulity isn’t evidence, no matter how much you want it to be.

Sure. He lied about his wealth, and if he takes this money to pay his bills, that’s just more confirmation that he lied. Hammer home the message about him being a liar. Attack ads on Trump will be a rich medium this summer. I would mock his new sneaker line. “Does it give you enough agility to dodge indictments?”

I was just pointing it out. The context of the thread is sea level rise in time, so knowing the variation in time is relevant. And the OP has yet to engaged with other participants, so who knows what their intent was?

TFG raiding his political coffers, and that of the RNC (now that Lara Trump is in charge) means less money spent on actual campaigns.

Linear in concentration. As Bufofrog notes, this is not linear in time.

My reading of the OP is not about the content, it's the fact that they are full-page rather than banner. I don't know if that's affected by which browser you use.

I used numbers for borosilicate glass (like the old pyrex) which is smaller.

What he owes is even more, because they charge interest. It comes to more than $450 million https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/16/donald-trump-real-estate-fraud/72267145007/

When did he say this? As MigL said, context matters. Also, are these exact quotes, or are you changing the message by paraphrasing?

Depends on whether you've chosen to use a dynamic or static IP address. I know on my mac you can do both. If you have a dynamic IP address, you can't change it manually, but there is an option to renew the DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) lease. In Windows you go to the command prompt and type ipconfig /renew

I suspect your issue is due to the thermal expansion; various kinds of steel will expand probably 10-20 times as much as the glass used in stovetops. If it's constrained in any way, it will tend to buckle. Being thin probably doesn't help.

Not so much. Fundamental particles are point-like. Physical size has little meaning in QM; it’s the interactions that matter. EM radiation requires no medium; electric and magnetic fields can and do exist in a vacuum.

Yes. He-4 is doubly magic and so is O-16 (filled shells at n=2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, and 126)

Back to the original issue- The most likely mode of making a material radioactive is neutron absorption (called neutron activation) and most materials are susceptible to this. The exceptions tend not to be metals. The ones with the smallest absorption cross-section would likely be those with a “magic number” of neutrons, i.e. they have a filled shell of neutrons already. Hafnium has several stable isotopes, so neutron absorption will usually result in a stable isotope. (it’s used in some nuclear reactor control rods partly for this reason)

It’s far easier to get x-rays this way.

Gammas could heat a material and you could harness thermal energy from thermocouples. Or photoionization could cause a current. How will you extract the energy from fusion?

What do you mean by steady? Not affected by outside influences?

Reviewers make recommendations, AFAIK, but sure. A reviewer can point out missing references.

I don’t think this would remove the neutrons*, but why use this for the fusion scheme? Why not just use the energy directly? *28 MeV total, but the first neutron would take more than half of that. Not that many >14 MeV gamma sources out there.

The mass cancels from algebra. The forces are equal, and I was solving for the acceleration