swansont

If they have discovered us, it’s a discovery of us in the past. And communicating with us requires the same amount of delay in getting a signal to us. Keeping their distance is not a problem, since one can’t travel fast enough.

The Sagnac effect is for rotational systems, which are not inertial frames. Any article that mentions absolute velocities isn’t a reliable source of relativity information ; it is not mentioned in the body of the wikipedia article (which you should link to if you’re going to reference it) What the article actually says is “the fringes of the interference pattern should shift when rotating it by 90° as the two beams have exchanged roles. To find the fringe shift, subtract the path difference in first orientation by the path difference in the second, then divide by the wavelength, λ, of light” and rather importantly this is an equation that assumes an aether, and was found to be wrong. It’s not derived from SR. So how does this show anything about SR?

I think the primary reason aliens don’t communicate with us is that they would be many light-years away from us and the speed of light is finite. That’s a show-stopper even before you consider other confounding effects.

And in practice, "Swanson" is not pronounced as "Swans + on" (i.e. it's not pronounced Swanzon) My username itself out loud would be "Swanson T" And I often spell my last name when conversing on the phone, since any garbling will sometimes have it register as Watson, and that causes all sorts of problems. Some people here have introduced typos and called me e.g. swansnot (Some doing so repeatedly, such that one begins to wonder if it was deliberate)

I joined when I was creating a number of online accounts (some personal, some for work), and wasn't going to try and get too clever. Last name, first initial. Reduced chance of registering a name already in use, so I wouldn't have to be Gandalf7 on one site and Gandalf44 on another and keep track of which one was associated with which site. My now-dormant blog's name (Swans on Tea) is a phonetic derivative of this.

! Moderator Note Discussion of religion in a science thread is a hijack; I've moved this to speculations in case people want to follow up on the nonsense posted in the OP Unsubstantiated claims carry no weight; if you don't follow scientific rigor this will end up in the trash Such as "May I also add that the beaks had differences of less than a centimeter, only about 18.92 millimeters." 18.92 mm is almost 2 cm, so this makes no sense. And that's a lot for a beak of a bird that are between 10 and 20 cm in length. If the beak itself were a cm or 2, even a couple of mm difference would be a large variation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches "Carbon dating can't tell how old the earth is, it's incredibly inaccurate, it once showed a 3 year old bone to be thousands of years old, and animals that have different carbon dating for different parts. There are some large animals that were carbon dated and they got different dates for different parts of the body." Nobody uses carbon dating to show the age of the earth; all this shows is how little you actually understand about it And if you're going to cite examples you will need to link to where you found the claim, because the source may have fabricated it (not uncommon) or it may be taken out of context so that the meaning is distorted (also not uncommon). Unfortunately a lot of people claiming evolution is wrong do not hesitate to lie about the evidence, so simply pulling material from somewhere is problematic.

When I look up the equations in wikipedia, there is an additional term that includes the cosmological constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations The version you present is referred to as the "matter only" form You note that the vacuum energy density is negative, which is the source of the negative pressure, and there is no kinetic energy associated with this. Vacuum energy and matter are two different things

I think mods can read them if one of the people involved reports it (i.e. as a rules violation) That's the only exception, AFAIK.

Makes sense if they were doing some kind of "response to being fed" experiment Since it's a book on rationality, I'm guessing explanations of probability and randomness have to do with how humans are generally bad at determining randomness and doing risk assessment

Because decay is probabilistic, it’s related to the chance of recording a decay in some time interval. http://www.ciphergoth.org/crypto/unbiasing/ place a Geiger counter close to a radioactive source, and the "clicks" are randomly distributed. If the source is large enough and has a long enough half life, we can ignore its slow decay, and treat each "click" as an independent event - the probability of a click in the next millisecond is the same no matter what the history is (there are many sites explaining how to build such a device using a Geiger counter)

I’m not sure what specific advantage LIDAR would give you. A laser beam with a small divergence means you only cover a tiny solid angle, so you’d likely only use it if you already knew where to look But the answer would depend on how much laser power you have. They use laser ranging with the retro-reflectors on the moon At the Moon's surface, the beam is about 6.5 kilometers (4.0 mi) wide[21] and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers (1.9 mi) away. The reflected light is too weak to see with the human eye. Out of 1021 photons aimed at the reflector, only one is received back on Earth, even under good conditions.[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment The intensity would drop off with distance squared (the beam gets bigger) and other objects would be less reflective than the mirror array, and the aiming problem gets worse, since you still want to hit it with the middle of the beam

! Moderator Note Posting a video alone violates rule 2.7 and we assume link-shorteners denote sma links. Do it again and you will be banned

“Weather balloons are approximately 5 feet in diameter and typically made of latex. There is a special powder that covers its surface, which helps the balloon resist premature popping.” https://www.wcnc.com/article/weather/weather-iq/what-is-weather-balloon-explain-teach-education-science/275-83827603-5098-41c0-b5fe-d79e1e19071f “You’d have a hard time flying a balloon up to 100,000 feet if it were made from pure natural rubber! Luckily balloon manufacturers add proprietary fillers (that white powder you may notice on the surface of your balloon) and slightly vulcanize the balloons” https://medium.com/loonar-technologies/care-and-keeping-of-your-latex-high-altitude-balloon-7e4a8d13a703

And in the quote you provided, it says P>0 So how do you get from that to saying it’s negative?

No link, and nothing about these statements point to him being the victim abuse. They more likely refer to the defamation from her de-facto accusation that he abused her, which is what the trial was about. Especially "the jury gave me my life back" which sounds like the vindication of libel being confirmed. IOW, it's equivalent to "she lied, I was impacted by that lie and the jury confirmed that" which is not in any way acknowledging or suggesting he was the victim of domestic abuse.

That Depp was the subject of abuse. I can't believe how obtuse you are being. I have no skin in this particular game (establishing that Depp was a victim of abuse, and no, being defamed is not automatically the same thing), so I will bow out. If Depp wants to pursue charges for being abused he is free to do so; unlike many victims he's not trapped by lacking resources to break free of his alleged abuser.

It's not a fact just because you say it is. That's not what a fact is, that's an assertion. Maybe it has merit, maybe not. One should investigate You were asked to provide evidence to back up your assertion. You have not done so. All you've done is repeat the assertion, which does not make it a fact.

She admitted to hitting him. "Heard has testified she struck Depp only in self-defense and to protect her sister, Whitney Henriquez." https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/key-allegations-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial-rcna30147 Both she and Depp have alleged the other one was the aggressor, but since the trial wan't about domestic abuse, this is literally a "he said, she said" situation. Either one, or both, could be fabricating events and/or circumstances. (If their testimonies are in conflict, at least one is doing so) So once again, do you have evidence of your claims, and if you do, please post it rather than just repeating the allegation.

For a torque to become energy (i.e. do work) it needs to happen through some rotation (analogous to a force exerted through a displacement). The angle is unitless, but again it's a dot product (the torque is a vector but typically the angle can only be with the same handedness or opposite, which tells you if you add or subtract energy)

I'm not sure what I have said that leads you to believe that I lack empathy towards any victim of abuse. I will note that others have asked you for evidence of JD being such a victim, but I don't see where you've provided any.

Most serious science that is published does not generate income for the author(s). On the contrary, it costs money to get published in scientific journals. Popular science writing can generate some modest income, however. But for good writing that lets non-scientific people understand scientific things. So if you just want to get your ideas out there, it's as Bufofrog says - publish it here. But keep in mind that you will have a critical audience. If you don't want that, start a blog somewhere and turn off comments.

The definition of pathetic is "arousing pity." Pity is "the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others:" You feel sorry/compassion for JD (at least, that's how your posts come across) - that his name was besmirched and he was blacklisted, i.e. he had misfortune. Thus, you feel pity for him. Seems pretty straightforward to me. The situation was pitiful.

Yes, but as you seem to be expressing pity for him, you seem to agree that this is pathetic. But the lawsuit was based on an Op-ed published in the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-seen-how-institutions-protect-men-accused-of-abuse-heres-what-we-can-do/2018/12/18/71fd876a-02ed-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html a jury found Heard liable on three counts for the following statements, which Depp claimed were false and defamatory: (1) “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” (2) “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” (3) “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.” I'm supposing it's the calling out of "domestic abuse" that defamed Depp I didn't follow the trial, so I'm not sure why she was held liable for three counts. I'm also confused as to what the connection is to her allegedly being an abuser and predator.

Sorry, what's your point? Stringing together buzzwords is not science. Then go ahead and present evidence to falsify it. What is this mechanism and how can this be tested? What do you mean by individuality? There's a definition that refers to uniqueness, and another that refers to the uniqueness specifically of people and how they express themselves. If you can quantify the uniqueness of something, it would depend on how many different properties, aspects or qualities that something has. Multicellular life has more properties that can be different than if you consider single cells, just from the number of ways you can configure the cells. But you can't use the other definition in this regard; that would be the fallacy of equivocation. How one chooses to express one's self requires a brain. If you think this is being applied to the first definition, you need to back this up with some citations/links.

Torque is a vector and energy is not. The units for energy and torque are equivalent, but the convention is that torque uses the units N-m rather than joules, because torque is not energy. This is correct, and is described by the work-energy theorem. W = integral of F.dx (dot product, i.e. due to the component of the force in the direction of displacement) F = ma = m dv/dt so we are integrating m dv/dt dx Let's drop the vector notation and look at the components (i.e. we've done a dot product) We rearrange this to be m dx/dt dv which is mv dv Integrate and you get W = 1/2 mv^2, evaluated at some initial and final v. Work is the change in kinetic energy (note that capiert has a tendency to use equations while ignoring any constraints and initial conditions, and try to apply those equations in general, which leads to problems. Also the use of non-standard terminology, labeling, and symbols) It's neither "tradition" nor "brainwashing" It has a very sound basis (time translation symmetry) and protocols on how to apply it. If you ignore those protocols, of course, you get the wrong answer. We don't kick things out because a few people fail to understand them. And mass-energy is famously not a conserved quantity. ∆KE = KEf-KEi i.e. KEf-KEi is the change in kinetic energy, not the kinetic energy. This is a very important distinction. Here is an example of using a specific equation and trying to apply it in general. Power applies to more than the situation of an object falling under gravity, so one cannot make a general claim that force is weight, since there are other forces. If you use weight, then the equation will only apply to a falling object, and also only if you can assume that this is a constant force.