swansont

I said this. I understand this. But the problem is that you are using "motion" in your description despite the fact that it's not a variable. That makes for a confusing explanation, since "motion" does not correspond to a variable. What does motion refer to? Is it velocity? Is it speed? Your descriptions need to be more precise. Why assume? We have other probes. There's New Horizons. Voyager 1 and 2 are on different paths. Pioneer 10 and 11 are traveling in opposite directions - is one speeding up while the other slows down? No! They both experience an acceleration toward the sun. (and not south) https://universemagazine.com/en/where-are-the-most-remote-spacecraft-located-now/ You haven't shown how to determine the frame of absolute rest. And I asked you what the experiment on the ISS is. It has a name, or some other designation. What is it? Can you provide a link? It doesn't drop out. You can cancel it if there is a factor of r^2 elsewhere in the equation that allows this. It can be ignored if r is very large, but then all of the equation approaches zero. What you describe is invalid math. You've asserted this, but not shown that your assertion is true. And it does not follow from a simple analysis. When a satellite is moving south, it will be moving faster, in an absolute sense, according to your conjecture. It should feel an acceleration to the north. When it's moving north, the opposite should happen. That will skew the orbit. The effects don't cancel, since they happen in different places along the orbit. In any event, just waving your hands and saying they cancel is not a scientific analysis.

The detector must reveal "which path" information for the pattern to disappear. Having a detector in place doesn't do this, quite obviously, because we can see an interference pattern when it doesn't reveal that information. Seeing a pattern indicates detection. If you block one slit you know light went through the other, even if you don't see the light hitting whatever is blocking the slit. There are more elaborate "which path" schemes used in some experiments (e.g. using polarizers and polarized beam splitters) but it's always a matter of whether there is one path or two.

IPCC reports are based on science. My point was that the science disagrees with your opinion. I thought that was obvious. Apologies for assuming that. Blatantly. I don’t see where Wikipedia backs your opinion. It says the sea level rise has accelerated, rather than being a continuation of the earlier trend. “Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year.[2] This rate accelerated to 4.62 mm/yr for the decade 2013–2022” (note that there’s an overlap, so the smaller trend up to 2018 includes the higher trend of the latest decade of data)

Or, instead of unsourced conjecture and opinion, we could go with what science says (bold added) "Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr–1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence). Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971" https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf See also table 1 of the following, showing thermal expansion and ice melt numbers starting with 1972 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758961/

Splitting up a proton also violates conservation of baryon number, unless “splitting” means forming a neutron. In which case you need a minimum of 0.782 MeV, and you’d also form a positron and neutrino. But none of these are inside the proton; you’re changing a down quark to an up quark.

Your graphs show we've already had ~120m of sea level rise for the ~ 9ºC rise in temperature from the glacial maximum. Why would we expect an additional 50m?

"Motion" isn't a variable in any equation. We have displacement, velocity and acceleration. Using imprecise terminology is a detriment here, not a bonus. And this is not reflected in your equation. I'm not interested in that. Just what happens to a celestial object that's moving in space. Sure it can. What experiment is this? GPS satellites have a non-equatorial orbit. You seem to be able to summarize it in a picture. You would need to do better. Can you explain the motion of these dwarf galaxies? You can't just have it drop out If this is Newton's gravitational constant, as it is in MG/r2 then it has units. If it's not, pick a new letter This is simply not true. G has units. Force has units. All the terms in the equation have units Simplifying does not mean mangling the math.

Are we in an ice age? I though we were in a warm interglacial period.

It’s not access to more news. Allowing one owner to control more outlets ensures that their bias can be more widespread. News used to be closer to just being news. Before Fox News, and when the Sinclair Group controlled fewer stations.

Meaning this belief of yours is just that - a belief, of the religious sort. If there’s no evidence, you can present, then this is patently unscientific

Do you get notifications from that person? That doesn’t seem right. Other members don’t have your email. I see options to get notifications from SFN when new content is posted in a thread you follow.

Probably referring to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which expanded the number of radio stations one could own and the reach of TV stations one could own.

Canceling two negatives here, it will have a positive acceleration in the direction of absolute motion? This isn’t shown by your equation; it shows no direction and is proportional to an unrevealed factor f. That’s not the equation for gravitational force. F = GMm/r^2 Why? Not because of any valid math you’ve done. G has units and it’s not equivalent to an acceleration Who is “we”? Claiming that mass “converts to acceleration” is not part of mainstream physics, and AFAICT has an advocacy of just you.

Combined with Henry Ford (automaker and Nazi sympathizer)

Perhaps we can dispense with the notion that he’s a genius, and stop paying attention to his nonsensical ramblings.

There can’t be a pattern without the data. If you destroy the data, you have no pattern. But that has nothing to do with the wave function. The wave function collapses as soon as you detect the photon or electron.

If this is the issue, doesn’t it assume you have a right to discriminate? Is that the case? I thought that this was covered in the Human Rights Act of 1998. I would assume you comply with the law. What rights are involved here? Surely violating the law isn’t a right. Simply having laws doesn’t deprive people of rights. If the government has the authority to compel action or punish, it can’t have involved a right. Wanting something to be a right isn’t an uncommon feeling, from what I’ve see and heard, but it’s not the same as what actual rights are.

From what I’ve read, desiccant dehumidifiers are less energy-efficient than refrigerator types.

! Moderator Note Luc is having difficulty posting replies; we hope that the expiration of the 24 hour limit on new members fixes the problem

Are any of these things actual rights? How does someone’s desire to be referred to in a certain way interfere with free speech? Is that enforced by some government agency, who will toss you in jail or fine you if you don’t comply?

Depends on what’s comfortable. 90% relative humidity at 10 C will be 50% at 20 C. There’s about 9g/m^3 water; it takes 4.18 J/g to heat the water. Still, 50% isn’t particularly comfortable. If you want to reduce the humidity, you will have to condense water out of it. That means cooling it a few degrees and having the water condense, the reheating the air. Condensation takes 2259 J per gram. Removing the water takes a lot of energy.

Laws are, or can be made to be, mathematical statements. We have to do more than see that B always happens after A. We have to know that B doesn’t happen unless A does, and there is not some hidden causal factor involved. You might find that shark attacks correlate with ice cream sales, but buying ice cream doesn’t cause shark attacks.

! Moderator Note Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and 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. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum

This was about LGBTQ rights, so I’m at a loss as to how this is infringing on/ interfering with anyone else’s rights, or “power” Or did you have some other example in mind?

That’s not how math works. The equation says if f has a nonzero value, there is a force. (as long as K and RM are nonzero) For your description to hold, f would have to depend on the change in some variable, e.g. it could be a derivative. So an object accelerates in the direction of absolute motion. What direction is that? “south” as you’ve implied before?