swansont

The evidence disagrees with the hypothesis. Repeating the hypothesis doesn’t make it true. Backlash is why they have a public relations budget. This doesn’t support your hypothesis, though. If your idea was correct, they would not have dared to sell faulty products in the first place. As you proposed, “a private company would not take such a risk” As it stands, they lost business, which is an expected consequence of making a crappy product. They didn’t do sufficient testing to ensure the product was safe, likely because it wasn’t deemed to be worth the cost. A risk they were obviously willing to take.

This appears to be a local, not global, phenomenon. This article suggests EV insurance prices are trending lower in the US From the OP link: “for petrol and diesel car drivers, the increase is 29%” So part of the increase is a general trend, not because they are EVs. How much of this is because of BREXIT driving up the cost of parts? The point about the lack of data is important, too. Relatively few EVs means a low number of accidents from which to gather reliable statistics. Is any of this opportunistic price gouging?

LOL History is rife with examples of corporations causing environmental damage, and harming (even killing) people, without going out of business as a result. Union Carbide India Limited killed thousands in Bhopal in 1984, paid a settlement and renamed itself. Still in business. Exxon, Shell and ARCO are still around, despite serious incidents. TEPCO, owner of the Fukushima reactor, is still there.

Why would you use a language model for science or math?

And please compare these other cases with the scenario in the video, where they were unlabeled and poorly shielded. Same kind of radiation? Same activity?

The spectrum of the hydrogen atom is well-known, and agrees with mainstream theory. If they are changed and no longer agree with experiment, then the new treatment is wrong. The spectrum is an observed phenomenon, and does not change. The wavelength is used in e.g. diffraction. If you change the wavelength, then your predicted pattern disagrees with observation, and is therefore wrong. Models must agree with experiment.

You still haven’t posted a summary of the video, and no citations for your other claims,

Does it imply negative masses? You can have negative energy with positive mass.

! Moderator Note You need to post a summary

Because we’re a science discussion site, where people can ask questions?

Water can appear inside the cube if water vapor in it condenses into a liquid, such as from a temperature drop.

And ocean (salt water) density is 1.02 - 1.03

The current state of the GOP suggests that involvement in sexual offenses is considered a job requirement.

Which ones are the first-class?

How does expressing fuel efficiency as an area do this?

You could measure the effect of varying braking but simply subtracting or extrapolating that effect wouldn’t give you the answer, since there is air resistance as well, so you haven’t accounted for all of the dissipative losses.

Yes, but why would you do this? What insight does it provide? You don’t always simplify units. Torque and energy are both N-m in metric units, and N-m is a joule, but it’s not considered proper to express torque in joules, because it’s not energy.

27 Scaramuccis

Gravitons would be virtual particles, not limited by the same restrictions as real particles under classical rules of physics

When you have some physics to add, you can request this be unlocked.

Nothing suggests you have to subtract or add anything to the Bohr radius to form a torus. There’s nothing physical attached to this (you’ve acknowledged the classical radius has no physical significance), you’ve suggested no experimental repercussions of it, and have admitted you haven’t looked at ramifications that have been brought up which would confirm there’s nothing physical to this. It’s up to you to make an experimental connection to show that this isn’t more numerology.

You could pick another small increment to add and subtract, and you would have a different torus. So what? There’s no physics here. It’s still just playing around with numbers.

The Bohr radius and Compton radius and are related to each other by a factor of the fine structure constant, as you note, so beta and gamma are still terms you’ve defined; one is a little bigger than half of the Bohr radius, one is a little smaller.

Right. So instead of 1 kg payload, you have 9 kg you need to initially accelerate for each 1 kg of actual payload.

Laplace’s analysis assumed one would use the retarded position of the sun that dictates the direction of the attraction if there were a finite speed of propagation. AFAIK it does show that a planet would spiral outward. It requires a very large (though not infinite) speed of propagation for stable orbits.