swansont

Things that sounds like “that’s simply not done because we’ve never done it” i.e. a very conservative, non-empirical response. Consistent with the description John Cleese gives in “A Fish Called Wanda” Wanda, do you have any idea what it's like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing Not “don’t do that, it tastes awful” which would be empirical though subjective. Or “do it if it’s to your liking” No, it’s “that’s not the proper way to do it, personal enjoyment be damned”

What is the connection to conservation of momentum? The issue is tunneling. The contribution can average to zero; the value being slightly larger or smaller than the average.

It’s not supposed to be a visually faithful depiction, so that the picture doesn’t reveal the answer. You’re supposed to use math skills rather than measurement.

I fund it interesting that the pushback I’ve seen on this is that it goes against tradition rather than evaluating whether or not it makes for better tea.

If they are in the box when opened, they were placed there before.

! Moderator Note Yeah, no idea why. Moved, since this seems like a Schrödinger’s cat question. No, that’s not consistent with what we know. The contents of the box is likely a classical situation, not a quantum superposition, so the contents would be determined when the items were placed in the box.

“The chemist who told us to put salt in our tea explains why she did it” “While it might seem outlandish, the idea of adding a pinch of salt to tea in order to reduce the bitterness is rooted in science. Sodium ion is a key element of salt, and it interacts with the chemical mechanism that produces the perception of a bitter taste.” https://www.newscientist.com/article/2414348-the-chemist-who-told-us-to-put-salt-in-our-tea-explains-why-she-did-it/

You didn't present an hypothesis. You just ranted about some strange straw man concocted about the big bang. What you've presented here isn't an hypothesis, either. It's a hand-wave, a seed of an idea. What one discusses at 2AM after imbibing certain chemicals that temporarily alter the brain. In terms of science, 99% of it is missing - there's no math, there are no specific predictions that one could use to falsify the idea.

! Moderator Note So do we. Since your contribution here is science-free (and is a violation of rule 2.13), and we’re a science discussion site, this is closed.

Um, no. There’s nothing inherent in an electric motor that would make this true. Terrestrial EVs generally have more horsepower than ICE cars. More efficient, too. https://electricvehiclehub.com.au/information-centre/are-electric-cars-as-powerful-as-petrol-cars/

Come up with a mathematical model and show how it fits the data. As pzkpfw notes, you are criticizing a straw man of the big bang.

They used to, though. Figuring out what was in coal tar and figuring out uses for the compounds was big in the late 1800s. (there was a “Connections” episode on this, IIRC) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tar It’s still considered water. Your mention of it suggested that a different isotope was a different compound, which is the topic of discussion. That there is a difference in some interactions is interesting but not what the article is discussing.

Different isotopes of an element don’t create different molecules. H2O is water, regardless of whether you have O-16, O-17 or O-18

You could calculate how much oxygen you need by looking at the combustion reaction. Or just use an electric vehicle.

There are lots of ways to combine three or more atoms when you have 100+ to choose from. A lot will not last very long or only exist under specific conditions, and some are difficult to synthesize because some other compound is energetically preferred

Nevertheless, it exists.

There is an antiviral treatment for COVID. nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, marketed as Paxlovid.

It’s a distribution that’s supposed to have a median of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, so scores above 160 are possible but rare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

“Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick had a few choice words for the public on his way out the door of the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office” https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjydq/former-pentagon-ufo-investigator-is-pissed-because-congress-believes-in-conspiracy-theories “As of the time of my departure, none, let me repeat, none of the conspiracy-minded ‘whistleblowers’ in the public eye had elected to come to AARO to provide their ‘evidence’ and statement for the record despite numerous invitations,” he said

Yes. If there isn’t enough energy then you can’t create new particles. Yes. Yes. Particles scatter all the time.

I’m not sure why they would accelerate away. There could be an electrostatic force, but this typically has a small energy compared to the interaction energy. e- and e+ for example (creation or annihilation) - the mass energy is around 1 MeV but the electrostatic PE is of order 10 eV Owing to the uncertainty principle(s) you don’t get to “look” at the interaction in arbitrarily fine detail of whatever variable (e.g. position, momentum) You look at the start and end of the interaction and apply conservation laws - momentum, energy, charge, angular momentum You can treat the acceleration of a free electron classically.

What would be a comparable situation? Cases I can think of where acceleration matters are where you’d treat the particle classically. In quantum systems you’d look at the energy of an interaction.

WalidKhan suspended for spamming

All of physics is a technicality. If you’re going to use a scenario, you need to represent it properly, so that everyone is discussing the same thing.

The twins are the same age at the start of the scenario. One is younger at the conclusion of the experiment. They never “reach” the age of the other.