swansont

Who is they? My teachers? I have no idea if my teachers read the Bible. They certainly didn't write it, and I can read it myself. I cited some entries above. You can read it for yourself. WTF are you talking about?

What alleged bible did my teachers have? Could you explain what you're talking about and stop with the tap-dancing?

The amendment as written isn't about a civil society, it's about having a militia that can be called up for defense of the country, written in a time when militia members often had their own rifles. At least, up until the Heller decision, which made up a right to own guns for personal protection.

I don't need to read the Bible in order to do science or state a scientific position. What's your point? (the analogous position would be to make a scientific claim that's not based on science. Where is this happening?)

Could you have DNA-based life? Sure. Would you get species that are exactly as they are on earth? No. There are too many variables that would have to be reproduced exactly for this to happen. You're just making stuff up here, using buzzwords

Which religion, though? What little the Bible has to say indicates that abortion is not murder (Exodus 21:22; if you cause a miscarriage the penalty is fine, not death, which is the penalty for murder), and a couple of passages which indicate that life and breathing are coupled. In Numbers it describes how to cause a miscarriage (i.e. an abortion) in an unfaithful wife. The problem with the rabid anti-abortion Christians is that they don't read, or conveniently ignore, the Bible.

The first stars formed ~100 million years after the big bang https://www.physics.uu.se/research/astronomy-and-space-physics/research/galaxies/first-stars-galaxies/

Diabetic athletes are exempt from the ban

! Moderator Note When they tell you who they are, believe them. Banned.

How big would this be? And where does it go?

Show us the cost analysis. Show us anything that’s science and/or engineering and isn’t a WAG or plot from a bad sci-fi movie.

Right. Who wants to be the first airline to announce the new business model?

This is unclear, at best. Light reflecting from a smooth surface tends to become linearly polarized; at Brewster’s angle it is completely polarized, parallel to the surface. There’s no circular polarization involved (symmetry should tell you this - why would one handedness be preferred?) Linearly polarized light can be represented as a superposition of right- and left-handed circular polarizations, but when you say that light is circularly polarized you are implying one handedness is present. There are left- and right-handed polarization, but “to the left” or “to the right” has a different implication. And what is the 90 degree rotation referring to? Light reflected normal to a smooth surface will change handedness (but only at normal incidence) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization#Reflection

There is specular reflection and diffuse reflection; what you get depends on how smooth the surface is https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/reflection/specular/ https://scienceprimer.com/specular-diffuse-reflection If the surface isn’t smooth on the scale of the wavelength of the light, the reflected rays won’t be parallel and you won’t form an image

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 states, in part: Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum.

The incompatibility happens only when gravity is strong. In most cases you can simply ignore gravity, and in others you can just incorporate it as you would other interactions (such as a gravitational potential affecting matter waves that travel at different heights and then interfere)

C sees their own clock as ticking at a normal rate. They will measure A and B to be running slow. But since we are talking about light pulses, the pulses coming from A will be spaced out and those from B bunched up. This changes what is seen vs what is happening with the clocks Since the motion is at constant velocity, you can't say who is moving. Time is passing slower for observer C, as measured by A and B. You can't make a blanket statement about time passing slower - it has to be measured in some frame of reference, because time is relative to the frame of reference. Every observer measures moving clocks as running slow. To C, A and B are moving, so C will measure those clocks to be running slow. I'll add that time dilation happens to time in that frame, and that the clocks are measuring the passage of time in that frame. (Also that nothing is physically happening to the clocks is because this is not a mechanical effect)

If your equation has frequency in it, yes. What equation are you thinking of using?

You do not have an adequate understanding of relativity to contribute here.

How does assembly theory deal with/explain the Miller-Urey experiment?

Go ahead. But as I had said, this assumes there is no substance being presented, i.e. the label is all there is.

Not a fan of this style. It's lazy, for starters, to tag things with a label. Almost like you don't have an argument and have to rely on the flash of name-calling. It also implies that it's fashion, like someone is going along with the crowd, and not that the position is sincerely held. "Particularly and sadly on a science forum." Oh, the irony. How about substantive discussion instead of name-calling?

What equation(s) have you learned that would apply to simple harmonic motion, that depend on amplitude, position and period? (people aren't going to do the work for you)

Moving clocks actually run slow. Read what else Janus wrote. One effect in play is "Time dilation, which always has the moving source clock tick slow" Kinematic time dilation has been experimentally confirmed many times. To deny that it happens is ludicrous. If you synchronize two clocks and move one, and then bring it back to the source, it will indicate less time has elapsed. In such a demonstration the clocks would be co-located and at rest when the comparisons are made, so there is no doppler shift to cause confusion. Time dilation is a very real effect. It's important to define what you mean by perceive. One needs to distinguish between the raw data (what do my eyes see) and the underlying physics (what do I measure), as I mentioned earlier and the explanation I linked to. The doppler shift will make the two not be the same; the changing travel time of the light has an effect. A measurement requires that you remove this confounding effect. Once the effect of that travel time is factored out, during the trip C will conclude that A and B are running slow. A and B will see C's clock as running slow. When C reaches the destination and stops, next to B, C's clock will have run slow (C has undergone an acceleration, which allows one to distinguish between the effects; they are not symmetrical) Yes. If you are collecting pulses of light as your measurement, it's why the raw data disagree coming from A and B during the trip. But you can't make a conclusion about what the clocks are actually doing of you are excluding data that is in transit. You have to collect all the data to make a valid measurement. If you wait until all the pulses arrive, the time on A and B will agree, as they must.

CUD, SCUT, DUCT, BUST