swansont

You can’t separate the photons from the interaction with the mirrors. If you have a photon in a cavity, there is a 2p momentum exerted on reflection, which happens in some time t. As the cavity gets smaller, you reflect more often, so t gets smaller and the force goes up. You have to push harder to compress it.

Not sure where we’re going, but we can start with facts, so we’re not headed in the wrong direction. https://www.aad.org/public/diseases/hair-loss/types/alopecia So he was not joking about a haircut, even if that was his (mis)understanding. This is like TFG mocking the reporter - making fun of someone’s medical condition. Something they have no control over. It’s just mean. And I agree - you don’t have a right to not be offended. But by the same token, you have right to be offended. This isn’t about free speech, it’s about basic decency on one side, and overreaction on the other.

It's more like this scene from Animal House I mean, sure your mind is blown, and it's fine that you're blown away by an idea, but it's not based in much science. You have the opportunity to learn some really neat things, if you are so inclined.

I've heard that joke and might have even repeated it, but I wouldn't say it in front of Robert Wagner. Rock telling the joke and Smith's response are largely separate issues IMO. Rock shouldn't have told it, Smith shouldn't have slapped him.

Googling gives lots of possibilities Such as: https://www.target.com/p/vaultz-personal-storage-box-with-combination-lock-clear/-/A-80273423#lnk=sametab https://www.amazon.com/Lockable-Medicine-Medication-Childproof-Refrigerator/dp/B098X4XR89/ref=sr_1_3_sspa?keywords=clear+lock+box&qid=1648551041&sr=8-3-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyMlZGQ0JFMTQyMkdRJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwOTQ2NTA0MU1RR0NVOVNLT1U4QiZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwMTA1NDI2M0YxWTNVTDI3MEM2TyZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2F0ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=

It's not a haircut. It's a medical condition called Alopecia and making a joke about it was crass and IMO an example of "punching down" I wasn't aware that Judd Apatow had medical training that would make his pronouncement have any weight at all. Sure you can Google these statistics and find this information.

But the discussion in general is not so narrowly limited. Which points to the calculation of odds and what went in it, because if we don't know about other possible forms of life, there is no way we can accurately calculate the probability.

The goal is not to be scientifically accurate. Artists are going to employ artistic license, and are also limited by the medium. Rendering water as blue (or sulfuric acid as green), for example, is likely because it's far easier (and less expensive) to do that than be realistic about it. Some big-budget efforts do a better job of such things. The radioactive rod that sticks to Homer's back in the intro of the Simpsons isn't realistic. It glows green because that's a particular trope that they are leveraging, and in the vast majority of cases you can't tell by sight that something is radioactive. Or poison. Or has a high or low pH. The purpose of these cartoons is to entertain, not to educate, unless an accurate portrayal is entertaining. "We do teach it in school. You're too busy eating sugar snacks and horsing around!"

It's not this - it changes the address to where it doesn't include the original. e.g. tinyurl.com/ye29ahp7 will take you to this thread. But how would you know that without clicking on the link? (I've omitted the https:// so it's not a clickable link) There's no indication of the actual site's name. with www.scienceforums.net/topic/126922 you know where you are going, and can make an informed decision about whether to click. Such a service has its utility, but it's inappropriate to use here.

If you are getting the link from the site, and not using a URL shortener service (e.g. bitly or tinyurl, etc.) then you are fine. IOW, if you can read the site's name in the URL and that's where it's taking you, there is no problem.

We've been having some discussions and have concluded that URL shorteners aren't consistent with a good user experience; too often they mask a spammer's attempt to get you to visit a (possibly malicious) site that you wouldn't be inclined to visit if you could see the actual link. So: don't use them here. We have no post-length limits that might justify them. We will assume that new people using them are spammers and react accordingly. If you have a track record, we'll delete the link and give you a chance to modify your habits.

"Life appearing" does not require those things, though. That's more "life as we know it" and of course, the vast majority of species do not use tools, so that's a non-starter.

Are you under the impression that people didn't sleep before beds were invented? That people don't sleep on a floor or the ground?

It might be interesting to see how these odds were calculated. Or perhaps not, because there are a number of sources for these odds (from creationists) that use "analyses" that are mind-numbingly naive.

Is there a point for looking for realism in cartoons, which exist without having to conform to real-world limitations (other than financial), and looking for realism in parody?

You can cite all you want, but that does not change the fact that courts have made horrendous decisions over the years. Were any of these a case in which a local court ruled that a law violated the federal constitution? I had asked you for such an example. (a peace treaty is not the constitution)

No, it’s not. m/s^2 is “meters per second, per second” because acceleration is a rate of change of speed. s^2 is in the denominator, which is crucial. Seconds per second is s/s, which would cancel

Do you have a citation of any local judge ruling a law unconstitutional (not in reference to a state constitution)? And yet the 14th amendment was deemed necessary

No guarantee that life that might have existed there is the kind that would leave a corpse.

That’s working so well with abortion rights.

There's no salt water in the sun, much less being used as fuel.

I think perhaps that a RTS game won't incorporate the phenomenon of "poorly-maintained equipment because the system has been looted by corrupt higher-ups and widespread incompetence/apathy" along with scores of other impacts that can't be programmed in to a simulation. So even if logistics matters it's unlikely that it goes into the level of detail that real people encounter in real situations There are computer games where you just happen to find ammo and 'health' hidden behind odd-looking bricks in a wall, which is great for game play but not realistic at all, though the phenomenon of finding enemy equipment abandoned might be under-represented. Douglas Bader, WWII RAF pilot, gave a talk to a prestigious girls’ school, and was describing the German planes attacking him: "I had two f*ckers to the left of me, two f*ckers to the right" The horrified schoolmistress interrupted with, “Ladies, the Fokker was a type of German aircraft,” to which Bader replied: “That’s as may be, Madam, but these f*ckers were in Messerschmitts.” (Paraphrased. there are various versions of this all over the internet)

! Moderator Note This has gotten very old. Demonstrate it with actual data, rather than assertion and anecdote.

Which was what I was trying to point out when I said “There is no moral factor in blowing up images on a computer screen” In a simulation, if there are points for blowing up a school or hospital, you blow it up. That’s not reality, though. IOW, simulations don’t model things completely. It omits aspects of reality. You’re moving the goalposts here. You had made claims that a 15-17 year-old could make better decisions because they had more experience than a “true general” by playing RTS games. Do you think that actual military people don’t do simulations? aka war games? They do. In addition to training that you don’t get with computer games.

I've had difficulty explaining to some family members that e.g. a water molecule doesn't know if it was released in a "natural" or a synthetic process. It's just a water molecule.