swansont

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.

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.