swansont

Is there anyone who suggests the universe “came about by mathematical calculations”? Godel said math is unstable?

And you can see how deep the water would have to be. No chance to get in close to the shore to nab an animal taking a sip of water. More of the head protruding above the nostrils, too, so not really hiding like a croc.

That’s where the concept of work comes in. The salient variable is speed, not velocity. The force in circular motion is perpendicular to the motion, so no work is done. No change in kinetic energy; speed is constant.

That’s not really an analysis. It’s hand-waving. Bigger head and bigger body means they would need deeper water to do what you’re proposing, something you’ve glossed over. Even deeper than the proportion of size would indicate, because they are not quadrupeds, and their legs do not attach to the body in the same manner. You’ve made no detailed investigation of whether their feet are appropriate to the task, and nothing about where their fossils have been found and what that says about this hypothesis, or any other of the many details that would be involved.

! Moderator Note Some kind of evidence or analysis is required

“I read it in a calculus book” is not specific enough.

Can you give an example of where you encountered this?

As you had quoted, “A mathematical model usually describes a system by a set of variables and a set of equations that establish relationships between the variables” You don’t have a model. There are no variables. This doesn’t fulfill our requirements

I’m not going to fork over $36 to do so, and there was only one citation. The summary lists pathogens, but the issue at hand was “How long do harmful germs last on a keyboard anyway?”

Working DNA computers have been demonstrated. While not used in practical computing, they are no longer just theoretical. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing

So where’s the math?

That’s not how E=mc^2 works No. Neutrino emission only happens in certain decays, and must comply with known conservation laws, such as angular momentum and lepton number. I don’t think you want to sound like Bob Lazar.

The context was healthy eating. A large amount of butter is not particularly healthy.

Yes https://www.universetoday.com/148230/gravitational-wave-lensing-is-possible-but-its-going-to-be-incredibly-difficult-to-detect/#:~:text=Gravitational waves and light both,to travel a certain distance.

It’s usually covered the first couple of days of class. You can always multiply by 1, i.e. equal quantities, or multiply both sides of the equation by the same factor. Identical units in the numerator and denominator cancel, just like in simplifying fractions. These concepts are rooted in simple algebraic manipulation. It’s assumed you can do this if you are doing physics. Units and the quantity are indeed separate. You need not know the numerical amount in order to manipulate the units. Proportionality constants ensure both sides of an equality are indeed equal.

It’s called the Liedenfrost effect

The question at the fore is what the “side reaction” is. (you can find the basic instruction on how to make mercury fulminate without much effort. There’s a wikipedia article)

Resistance is futile

Was everybody braced?

! Moderator Note You already have a thread on this topic. One per topic, please.

A stationary or uniformly moving mass doesn’t generate gravitational waves. Certain accelerations do, but in the case of the sun they would be exceedingly small.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50868-what-are-the-post-count-ranks/ Posts in certain sections don’t count toward this, and I’m not entirely certain the latest forum iterations update the titles

Let’s not add the danger of running an electric fan in a closed room in South Korea to this.

! Moderator Note As I recall, I was rebutting your ludicrous assertion that kinetic energy is a conserved quantity. Momentum and energy are different concepts and are used in different circumstances. As studiot’s example shows, there are situations where conservation of momentum does not help you in arriving at an answer. There are kinematic example where using momentum is the wrong approach, too (probably ones involving circular motion, or a force acting through a distance) But the thing is, you’re not really offering an alternative; your insistence on new terminology and formatting make it hard to follow your tortured presentation, and I don’t recall you having actually solved any problems. Your dissatisfaction with energy is yours. That’s fine, as long as that’s as far as it goes. But it’s not shared by the vast majority of people doing physics, and not liking a concept doesn’t make it wrong. You’re just ranting, and have to misrepresent physics to make your point. This might not be deliberate, you give off strong indications of simply not understanding, but you show no indication that you want to learn anything. Rule 2.12 prohibits “advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic” because such arguments are not in good faith. Which is why this is being locked. Don’t start any new threads along these lines. Enough is enough.

Would they all end up at the same place means 100%, and if a civilization doesn’t have fire (or whatever technology you choose) after 50,000 years, they haven’t ended up at the same place as we are today. We know physics is not, so this is moot.