swansont

Where did I specify any particular blurb as legitimate criticism? If you’re going to continue to misrepresent my posts, I’m out. No point in responding to bad-faith posting.

Surely if I had said that you could provide a quote of me saying it. The SOTU is not a campaign event. If Britt had wanted to do what she did and put it up on her website as part of a campaign, that would be one thing. But this was the GOP’s response (not Britt’s personal response) to the SOTU.

Doing it that way causes confusion. And “time” and “mass” aren’t just similar - they are the same terms, which means you have changed the definitions. Mass and time are scalars and have a single value. I was looking for a worked example. A simple one, like a collision or some kinematics problem.

how it causes it is a different issue than recognizing that it does happen.

I missed the part where Sen Britt cooked some food, but I didn’t watch the whole thing. What dish did she prepare? Was it before or after she misrepresented the human trafficking story? There are a number of people who do, including at least one republican senator (Tuberville - she was picked as a housewife)

! Moderator Note This is the very thing you were told to stop doing. There’s no scientific or engineering analysis here - no justification for the proposal that using gearboxes would accomplish things that electromagnetic braking doesn’t. Just an assertion, and that’s not enough.

Forces can oppose gravity - forces are vectors - but as they are not forms of gravity they can’t be antigravity. Gravity is an attractive force. Full stop.

Criticism exist outside of SFN threads. How much of this was her thought process? She was not alone in this - one does not simply walk into a SOTU response - and since this is the view of the MAGA crowd I don’t have reason to doubt this was part of the thought process. The question is, why do you? Because of all the respect and support they show for women who don’t toe their line?

Some systems used four horns, with one pair giving the direction and the other pair the elevation. This configuration might be a way of getting both components. edit: That device carries a note that “When tested at the Dutch military research station at Waalsdorp it was found it “contained fundamental deficiencies”.” https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/aircraft-detection-radar-1917-1940/

Yes everybody is. But it would be improper to appeal to bias in order to dismiss legitimate criticism.

iNow’s response is likely satire of the expected response. Does your point differ?

Exact same thing? I didn’t realize that Warren cooked a dish/baked a pie as part of a SOTU response at the behest of her party. And that Britt was giving cooking advice. Yes, they are both women in a kitchen. But calling it the EXACT same thing is to paint this with so broad of a brush so as to lose all meaning.

And your point is…?

! Moderator Note You don’t appear to be discussing how to do this. It would be like saying physics problems should be solved by applying the appropriate equations and doing the math. A generally true statement that does nothing to foster discussion. The devil’s in the details. You need to be providing those details.

The study said that morning use increased but was more than offset by savings in the evening, but that was limited to electricity. What’s more interesting to me is that it’s focused on the added hours in winter and fall. The widespread use of air conditioning makes the math of DST very different than when it was originally adopted. Typically not as much AC use in March and late October as during the rest of DST. “In 2006 Indiana instituted daylight saving statewide for the first time. (Before then, daylight time confusingly was in effect in just a handful of Indiana’s counties.) Examining electricity usage and billing since the statewide change, Kotchen and his colleague Laura Grant unexpectedly found that daylight time led to a 1 percent overall rise in residential electricity use” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-daylight-saving-times-save-energy/ The use of our better lighting options reduces AC use, too (each 100W light bulb replaced with an LED drawing ~15 watts), so maybe we offset some of the added use Indiana saw in 2006.

! Moderator Note Your proposals don’t seem to contain the level of detail one needs to have a discussion. It is not enough to speculate e.g. “Assume most antivirus programs have heuristical analysis and sandboxes” If you know these details and can discuss them, then do so. If not, there’s no discussion to be had. This isn’t a place to present vague, hand-wavy propositions.

Pick a subtopic, one of the basic tenets. A 10-page treatise is too much to respond to. mass is not a vector, and neither is time nor kinetic energy. Rather than just claiming this, you would need to formally define the vector and demonstrate how it is used, e.g. with a worked example. Every deviation from standard physics needs to be addressed in some detail. This would be a situation where a worked example would be appropriate. You could show how objects can have a time difference and how this ratio of masses makes sense.

Because it’s off-topic. We’re discussing dimensions, i.e. what is and isn’t a dimension, and why. Not perception.

Newtonian gravity depends on mass, and distance from that mass. There is no antigravity. “Artificial” gravity is some other force (i.e. it’s not mass attracting mass)

! Moderator Note In Science News we expect links to actual news

You’re asking for me to prove a negative. I didn’t say there was evidence it wasn’t an explosion, I said the evidence doesn’t support that hypothesis. You own the burden of proof here, if you want to claim that it was. What does an explosion look like, and what evidence exists? An explosion in a vacuum would have matter expanding from the point of the explosion. There’s no evidence of that. What’s the temperature profile of an explosion? Is it a predominantly uniform temperature everywhere you look? No.

As with all science, what we know is based on data and theory. The data are what we observe in nature and as the result of experiment, and the theory is the models we have that’s based on the data and has allowed us to make predictions. It’s provisional, since new data could require a modification of theory. But that’s what it means to know things in science. We know the big bang was not an explosion in space because the evidence does not support that hypothesis. If you want to consider other hypotheses, you’d need evidence for them before we can consider them as something we “know” Large numbers are beyond the average person, but not to scientists who deal with them in the course of their work

The issue is that we can’t investigate what’s happening at the level of detail you seem to be asking about. We have classical and quantum models about how radiation interacts, but it doesn’t tell us what’s happening at very small scales. We can’t probe what the photon is doing, because the photon is the probe. The temperature manifests itself both in terms of the CoM kinetic energy and the excitation of the electrons; for the latter the number of excited electrons varies as e^-(E/kT) where E is the excitation energy i.e. more electrons will be excited at higher temperature, or if the system has a smaller excitation energy

I think a classical model works better for a metal. The varying EM field causes the electrons in the conduction band to oscillate; the field transfers its energy and momentum to the metal (mostly to the electrons) The increased KE of the electrons manifests as an increase in temperature

Banned, as the spam continued