swansont

But in your original equation. v is the relative velocity. That’s the problem. The source and detector are stationary with respect to each other, so there is no difference in the time. Whatever.

An immediate problem I see is that you are using v to refer to the relative speed of the detector with respect to the emitter, and also the speed of the rocket ship. Since these are different things, you should use different variables, so you don’t use the wrong one. For instance, in 2D/ ( c - v ) used in your clock synchronization, v=0 because the emitter and detector are at rest with respect to each other. The rocket speed doesn’t show up in the equation.

E=mc^2 is a statement about energy, nothing more. The time it takes to decay is dependent on the kind of decay and often on how much energy is released. Different isotopes have different daughters; there’s no reason to assume the energy released will be the same. Further, there are details of the shell structure has an effect - decays depend on the availability of states in the daughter isotope. There are no “parts” of a neutrino, and particles are released at the same time if conservation laws require it (e.g. an electron and antineutrino would be, owing to conservation of angular momentum and lepton number, but a photon would not generally be released at the same time)

They’re just getting started looking for it, and I don’t think this is being proposed as a replacement for natural gas. This link suggests we produced 74 million tonnes a year https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/hydrogen Wikipedia cites a slightly larger number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production#:~:text=94 million tonnes of grey,source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Interesting. Usually hydrogen isn’t found by itself as a gas, so one needs to use energy to separate it. In such cases it’s a storage medium, not an energy source, and it’s only as “green” as the source of electricity But hydrogen gas deposits (aka white or gold hydrogen) have been found https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/29/climate/white-hydrogen-fossil-fuels-climate/index.html “[the probe] indicated the presence of a large reservoir of hydrogen beneath. They ran calculations and estimated the deposit could contain between 6 million and 250 million metric tons of hydrogen”

Is this a prediction of evolution? What, precisely, is absurd? What evidence do you have for this substance?

Incompleteness is not instability.

And if we don’t use English?

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)