swansont

Genesis 3:7 (and subsequent passages) certainly hints at it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

! Moderator Note When you discussed this earlier you were told to not to bring it up again without a mathematical treatment. IOW, you need to quantify the effects under discussion, and that is still lacking. Furthermore, sneaking the discussion in under the guise of another question violates our rule on bad faith discussion.

Yes, and Joe has not answered the question of what they mean by grounding, because it's obviously not what the rest of us mean. This reminds me of the video where Richard Feynman is asked to explain how magnetic attraction works and he says that he can't, because the interviewer is not familiar with the concepts that Feynman must use to explain it. Which applies here: Joe asks a question that people can't parse because they are using terminology differently than everyone else understands it, and explaining the concepts is ineffective, because we are using physics that they don't understand.

I've not heard that phrasing. Grounding refers to a circuit connection

! Moderator Note No such thing. If you want to discuss logic, stick to logic. If you want to discuss something else, don’t try and sneak it in under the guise of something else. We expect discussions to be in good faith, not secretly advancing an agenda

From a thread: To clarify a few things- The main purpose of the rule is to prevent thread-starters from just posting a link to their site and having that be their contribution to the discussion. This would invite spammy behavior, which we want to discourage. We don’t like links to commercial sites, but that’s primarily sites that are selling things. We are also wary of people repeatedly linking to a particular site, i.e. they are driving traffic there. (i.e. don’t post just to link to Bob’s news aggregator or blog) It’s OK to post links to sites that have info helpful to a discussion. If there is a particularly relevant passage, we encourage you to quote it as well. If you are rebutting a claim, then this is necessary to focus the conversation; it’s not reasonable to force people to sift through a link to get the important information. In this case, the thread was in science news. Posting news links there is not only allowed, it’s expected.

You asked, and the answer was given, about an atom and an external charge. So all of this is irrelevant. You need to stick to the topic under discussion. “Electrical energy is grounded” makes no sense. You also need to learn the terminology and use it properly.

For facts, it shouldn’t matter who you ask. You can read the Shapiro delay papers yourself, and the references given for the photon mass issue, and confirm the answers. Asking someone else can’t possibly change this. It’s also why many of us tend to give citations in responses. Easy corroboration.

No. There are massive uncharged particles, such as neutrinos Dark matter, though we lack details of what it is, we also know what it isn’t: it is also uncharged, and not made up of neutrons and protons ! Moderator Note Yes, at this site it does. Please review: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

It’s been measured using Mercury and Venus, as I’ve already pointed out It doesn’t, for reasons already given to you.

Math has rules, and the application of math in science has rules. The math becomes impossible when you violate the rules.

Sounds like ELIZA, which I recall from the 80s

Nobody said anything like that. Qmax = xt/V isn’t a valid equation, because the LHS has units of charge (coulombs) while the RHS has units of charge * time/volume (assuming your “charge variable” has units of charge)

AFAIK that’s not how the NIF was designed, though, since it wasn’t build as research facility for energy generation. Higher efficiency lasers or ability to continue generation wouldn’t have been a design priority. Hitting milestones such as this probably make it easier to justify upgrades or a new facility.

The empirical evidence says no. We’ve had a number of people who have returned repeatedly after being banned. They are definitely time-wasters Unfortunately the individual doesn’t decide that. It is others who decide if their time is being wasted.

It’s Dr. Moderator. Now, by your reckoning, that’s a blow to my ego, and you are at fault for insulting me, and you should be punished. Yes, it’s a consistent policy that we ban only because of breaking forum rules. There’s nothing about time wasting in the rules. And that will get you in trouble here. You’ve been made aware of this, don’t expect more leeway to be given that is afforded to new members. You don’t get to set the rules here, or decide which ones apply to you. So yes, I am in charge, along with other staff. And you know what? We’d prefer to not have to waste time with nonsense like this. We’d rather just post as regular members in topics that interest us, instead of dealing with folks that act like the rules don’t apply to them.

The NIF is a weapons-research facility. AFAIK there is no stated goal to make something that generates net energy. https://wci.llnl.gov/facilities/nif WCI is using NIF to advance an understanding of fundamental nuclear processes and nuclear weapon performance. NIF is the only facility that can perform controlled, experimental studies of thermonuclear burn, the phenomenon that gives rise to the immense energy of modern nuclear weapons. So this is a landmark, but not for commercial energy (at least, not directly)

Perhaps you missed the part about protecting fragile egos being on the other side of the line. That’s not a civility issue. Discussions here are not private, one-on-one conversations. Posting more detail than you personally might require can happen because others might pop up with questions that can be headed off that way, and since people are not telepathic, knowing your level of understanding isn’t a given. Leave ego out of it. You’re not going to get any traction with it. Also, having this double standard certainly doesn’t help your case.

! Moderator Note From 2.7 in our guidelines 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 I’ll give you the chance to start over with a new thread.

! Moderator Note Since this is going nowhere and discussion keeps circling back over the same ground, I’m closing it. bangstrom, do not bring the subject up again. Speculation requires more than repeated insistence.

The report post function is for rules violations. I’m not sure what rule you think is being violated. Is this an example of being “polite and courteous”?

1. Being wrong about something is not against the forum rules. Nor is it evidence of trolling, and I should note that “troll” and “trolling” are not well-defined terms. Trolling is often in the eyes of the beholder, and ultimately it’s a judgement call that the staff makes. What you consider trolling may not be what I do. 2. Being wrong does not make one a liar. That’s a term I am hesitant to use, since it implies intent and the knowledge that one is wrong - that the liar knows the truth and is deliberately posting false information. 3. As such, discussion of a factual nature are left to the interested parties to arrive at a solution supported by mainstream science. Where moderators will get involved in such threads is when rules are violated: if discussions go off-topic, if posters are soapboxing, or if they are hijacking threads. We will also step in when civility is lacking - but note that correction or contradiction is not inherently uncivil, while name-calling is (and childish to boot) - and that includes when one attacks the person rather than the argument. But there is a limit here - sarcasm/snark is not outlawed, and we do not operate in the thin-skin limit. As I’ve said before, “Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos”

What rules were being broken? Was it reported? As far as knuckles being rapped, calling someone out as a sock or a troll is off-topic. We prefer not to have members go vigilante and deal with these situations on their own. And we’ve had instances where suspected sockpuppets we determined to not be the previous poster that was suggested. We have some threshold of proof needed before we pull the trigger on banning people. We’ve had cases where we’ve had IP address matches of a suspected sockpuppet with long-standing members (with a gap of several months) Such is the problem of dynamically-assigned IP addresses. It makes confirmation more difficult.

When people refer to air, I think they are generally referring to the gas mixture, under normal atmospheric conditions.

And? You are assuming that “lightning” does not refer to the bolt, but to the process. But that’s your interpretation (and circular reasoning)