swansont

! Moderator Note “Go to this other site and read this” violates rule 2.7 in a variety of ways. Link deleted.

You know, we've had a number of visitors who made a similar claim about this site, and none of them were actually banned for daring to speak the truth. That's a narrative that feeds the ego of a small mind, though, so I can see why they latch on to it.

The one million number is apparently for the entire military, so that includes air and sea forces. But the professionals are also the ones that are the senior enlisted and the officers, not many of whom are going to be included in the ground assault.

The anecdotes from the conflict suggest there are plenty of conscripts.

Not everyone in the military is trained in the necessary combat roles, and not all combat soldiers are fit to deploy. Training, like upkeep and maintenance of equipment, matters. Russians conscript much of their military. Mercenaries are professional soldiers.

As you admit to being a neophyte in the matters of science, that's not surprising. But perhaps you should reconsider your approach here - there are some basic things you don't know, and yet you are stating things with with a confidence that is unwarranted. Further, you seem to have awarded a lot of credibility to whatever your source has been for previous statements, and yet when they've been called into question by knowledgeable people here, you push back. Asking questions is good. Unfounded assertions, not so much. Yes, and different numbers of electrons mean the binding will be different, Unfortunate. There are a lot of misconceptions that could be cleared up, were you motivated to make that happen.

So you're just expanding the definition of a cult to include this ludicrous example in order to support your position. Not worthy of the label is another way of saying no.

symptom378 is banned as a sockpuppet of Jalopy, who, as it turns out, is Adelbert_Einstein and Karen Brown and thequeenofhearts. Truth in advertising requires their next user name to be Dick

! Moderator Note More like swansont's gonna be mad because some jackhole is violating the rules

No

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion board. Please knock it off.

awaterpon has been banned a a sockpuppet of yahya515 and The_eagle

The object is always in motion, and the distance is always increasing, but to say "the distance increases without bound" is incorrect. The distance never exceeds 6. It is clearly bound. At best this is just sloppy use of terminology. edit: or, it's recycled crap.

You can't ignore the parts of physics that say this doesn't work.

For case 3 the mass travels less than 6 meters. Last I checked that was finite, and bounded.

Opinions aren’t necessarily supported by evidence. I think chocolate is better than vanilla. Am I a cult?

You aren’t making it obvious what you already know, given your mistaken and/or vague assertions. No, electrons are in orbitals that are mostly outside of the nucleus, and protons and neutrons are in the nucleus; they do not “make up an atom’s electrons”. Proton number dictates the number of electrons in a neutral atom, because the magnitude of charge on each is equal. Neutrons, being neutral, have no effect on the number of electrons, and have a limited impact on chemistry. (they e.g. affect reaction rates because more massive objects at a given energy move slower)

! Moderator Note Then post it in speculations, and beef up the rigor, because there’s not much here

! Moderator Note You posted this in mathematics. Where’s the math?

The problem is that it has to fit with all of physics, not just cosmology.

You are making claims about chemistry. Like it or not, the bulk effects of an atom interacting with another generally falls under the umbrella of chemistry. And the electron structure of an atom dictates the chemistry

Argon has more electrons than oxygen. Doesn’t mean you can substitute one for the other.

Yes. Nuclear reactors don't undergo nuclear explosions. AFAIK the reactor in question is not the same design as the Chernobyl reactor (which underwent a steam explosion and did not have a containment vessel), so comparisons to it are limited This is not to say that bad results won't happen from bombing a nuclear plant, but "the end of Europe" is hyperbole. Chernobyl didn't end Europe, just as Fukushima didn't end Japan.

! Moderator Note Technical aspects of the discussion on the reactor have been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126806-nuclear-reactor-technical-discussion-split-form-war-games-russia-takes-ukraine/

Money is probably a factor. You need to buy these items and maintain these systems, both of which cost money. In a pressurized water reactor a turbine is in a second loop. You have more opportunity for leaks with each new penetration. Plus the fun of either potentially having a thermal shock if the loop is cold and all of the sudden you fire it up, or if you keep it hot you are wasting some of the generated heat, making the plant less efficient. It's risk/reward, which is skewed by the nature of the beast: you want to make money, so a certain amount of value engineering goes on, cutting back on costs that are deemed unnecessary. Are four layers of redundancy required, or can you get away with three? And if you are having problems with the reactor, perhaps it's best not to rely on the reactor itself. Some reactors can use natural convection and not rely on pumps, but it might not work on a commercial scale plant. Decay heat can be something like 7% of full power, so if you have a 1 GW plant, that's 70 MW you need to remove - that's a lot of water that needs to be moved, and you aren't pulling the energy out by driving a steam turbine. I'm not sure how much "broken by an invading force" gets considered in the design of a plant.