swansont

It's not enough to explain. We already have that, and more. We have an actual theory, which makes quantitative predictions, and allows for ideas to be falsified. If you want to supplant that, you need to explain and predict even more phenomena, and/or do it to a higher precision, along with what we can already do, without contradicting existing experimental evidence. But negative ions have been observed, so you absolutely must consider them. Any theory on the subject has to be able to account for them.

The thing is, Tapper is correct. We're just lucky that Trump and gang fall under the same umbrella as the Watergate crowd, as Hal Holbrook said as Deep Throat in All the President's Men, "Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand." If they had been marginally more competent, they might very well have succeeded. Also: Bolton should probably be in jail for his efforts - to use his words - "not here, but, you know, other places"

To this I will add that you could make a conjecture that atoms that are susceptible to forming negative ions have a vacancy in the same orbital. e.g. Hydrogen would accept a second electron with the opposite spin, and this might be true of all of the halogens, since they are one electron short of a filled shell. And Br, Cl, I and F are all listed in my earlier link as being elements that are known to form negative ions.

! Moderator Note Split because this has nothing to do with the original thread (and I can't help but think iNow's assessment is correct. This smacks of a desperate attempt at distraction). Please stop doing that.

This is patently untrue. If you had said all atoms, then it would be true. Atoms at some temperature will have an excited state distribution that depends on the temperature (there's an e^-(E-E0)/kT term in the equation for the distribution of states). But at room temperature, the vast majority of atoms will be in the ground state. Some will have exited state electrons, and a few will temporarily be ionized. And it can add an electron and become negatively charged,. We have experimental proof - the TRIUMF cyclotron depending on this being the case is one example The spectrum matches the theory, which is based on a proton and electron being bound, via the electrostatic interaction (and also subject to other details which have small impacts) Where? I see no theoretical model and no experimental corroboration. Assertion is not science. And electrons can become attached to a material, which started out neutral.That material would then be negatively charged. Addressed above, and I will reiterate the PEE is a photon effect, while the distribution of excited states that depends on temperature is due to the collisions between them - not because of photons causing an excitation. They are distinct phenomena. Which is irrelevant to the claim of the OP. Substances can gain electrons and become negatively charged. Your personal mental model of how this all works is flawed.

So there’s no science behind all this. That’s one method, but rubbing a balloon on your head does not involve the photoelectric effect Which means the air has a negative charge. OK, then the balloon has a negative charge H (or whatever atom) is neutral. Do you dispute this? More negative, then, is a negative charge A neutral hydrogen has more protons than electrons? It’s actually just a proton? Explain how it has a spectrum explained by the physics of it being an electron bound to a proton.

If it’s “more negatively charged” then it has a negative charge. It starts out neutral.

But you asserted this did not happen.

How much energy would it take to “repel each other out of the material”? Where do theses electrons go? Charge is conserved. When you rub a balloon on your hair, how does your hair accumulate a positive charge without the balloon having a negative charge? The TRIUMF cyclotron uses H- ions. Are you claiming these actually don’t exist, and yet the device works anyway? There are actually a number of negative ions possible https://examples.yourdictionary.com/ion-examples.html

In other news, sun rises in east. Is “force is a last resort” in any way meaningful in diplomacy?

I have to wonder, what was the score on the three omitted tests? Assuming the other 29 are the same. They claim “ no major problems were identified for Mond“ but that’s not what the other articles say. How might one reconcile all this?

! Moderator Note Seriously? The father, the son, the spirit - not tied to a religion? Also - no video. People have to be able to participate without watching videos or clicking on links. Rule 2.7 …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…

The body does move up. And down. edit to add: the velocity vector changes, so there is an acceleration.

! Moderator Note Advertising your own personal theory in someone else’s thread is a violation of rule 2.5. If you want to discuss this, post a new thread in speculations. Be prepared to defend it, though. “No material can have a net negative charge” is trivially false.

Ethan Siegel has written a number of blog posts on the topic. There are more than just these two https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-death-of-dark-matters-1-competitor-98edff3a066f https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/could-dark-matter-not-exist-at-all-b0e69fd41848

Been there many times. It's always so interesting to dive into these scenarios. Even when the basic description covers most of what's going on, the rabbit hole always goes deeper.

But it doesn't blow the rest of the gas away. For example, our sun has much more mass in it than just the core, which has only about 10% of the sun's mass in it. Radiation pressure is relatively weak; you need a large photon scattering rate to cause appreciable acceleration. So you will blow gas away, but it depends on the luminosity of the star and what the gravitational acceleration is. At some luminosity you blow gas away at some distance from the star because gravity drops off, but gas inside that point still feels a net attraction. "The Eddington limit is the point beyond which a star ought to push itself apart, or at least shed enough mass to reduce its internal energy generation to a lower, maintainable rate. The actual limit-point mass depends on how opaque the gas in the star is, and metal-rich Population I stars have lower mass limits than metal-poor Population II stars." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars#Eddington_mass_limit

I'm guessing the thieves would be blamed. As they are not a government entity, why is this relevant to a discussion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (i.e. action of a sovereign state)?

! Moderator Note You already have a thread to discuss "Retrodynamic Dextrogiro => vs <= Levogiro Phenomenon Effect" As this appears to be a new engineering/physics concept, it needs to be established as valid before you can discuss phenomena based on it. Focus on the other thread and provide clarification and support.

! Moderator Note Moved out of science news because this is not news Put another way: you can't just look at galaxy rotation curves, i.e. MOND fails when you look at a wider range of phenomena. It can only be part of an answer if you get rid of dark matter. This is discussed in the link MigL provided

Yeah, I doubt that's a valid quote. The only places I find it with a search are posts like this. No, it's not. Linear motion and rotational motion are distinct. Newtonian action reaction pairs act on different objects. It is not the sum of forces in any meaningful application of Newton's laws. For example "And in this case of 2Two Forces: 1Action + 2Reaction" Adding an action/reaction force pair makes no sense, as they act on different objects. They are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, so as vectors they would sum to zero anyway. Are these actual phenomena, or is this just renaming something in Spanish/Portuguese/Italian? If it's the former, please provide links.

! Moderator Note You’ve been told not to do this; supporting speculation with other speculation isn’t permitted, and neither is advertising your speculation threads links have been removed

! Moderator Note It’s a controlled substance in Australia & US, and prescription-only in Russia. A such discussion violates rule 2.3

Upgraded to permanent ban, since the trolling and thread hijacking have continued

In some instances, circuits are connected to objects (stakes or pipes) that literally go into the ground. This dates back to telegraphs circuits, ~200 years ago. The terminology isn’t going to change; that it doesn’t make sense to one (or a few) people doesn’t carry much weight against something that’s been used for so long. ”Mass” is a term from mechanics, and I’d wager that a lot of people would be confused by its use in electrical descriptions. Especially in some scenarios where both were present and you wouldn’t know which mass was meant.