swansont

Possibly silicon. Whatever they used for a substrate.

You're going to have to give more information than this

I think I googled “name of indentation between bicep and tricep” First hit. (incidentally, mentioning that you’ve at least tried a search is worthwhile)

It’s hard to envision that just compiling others’ words would make for a coherent paper. Of course. We see that here in the HW section with people who just want the answers.

There’s nothing wrong with using pictures, drawings or passages made by others (sometimes it’s unavoidable) But you need to give citations for them, and not present them as your own work. A big part of the problem, IMO, is that they are given a pass early on. It also seems to me that the younger crowd was more prone to sharing music and ignoring copyright back when napster, etc. were big. Maybe there’s a connection.

Ah, Google “The space between the biceps and triceps forms two grooves (medial and lateral bicipital grooves)” https://www.kenhub.com/en/library/anatomy/biceps-brachii-muscle

No? I can see where I said it. “A shield as described would be send the net radiation perpendicular to the surface. Basically half would head to the earth.” That was part of my explanation as to why it wouldn’t work. I said “the shield as described” so it should have been clear what I was talking about

Not at all. I said net radiation. Anything at some non-normal angle would be canceled out, when averaged over the surface. No preferred direction in the plane of the reflector. At 1000 km above the earth? Show me the calculation.

The teachers did it? My impression is that plagiarism is given lip service in school, so it’s not taken all that seriously, until it is an actual problem, and then people are shocked that they are being punished. Kinda like My Cousin Vinnie - “You were serious about that?” It might stem from certain “only the results matter” attitudes, and pressure to succeed. Plus an attitude that it’s only wrong if you get caught. Even places with honor codes that are supposed to be hallowed tradition have cheating scandals. We spam-ban essay writing services on a regular basis. They must have customers out there.

Symmetry. There’s no preferred direction for the radiation, so it should be isotropic, and it’s a 2-D system. Why? How small is negligible?

A shield as described would be send the net radiation perpendicular to the surface. Basically half would head to the earth. The shield would also reflect radiation from the earth back to the earth. The distance doesn’t really enter into it.

! Moderator Note Threads merged

That’s the scenario from Prometheus’s post

If you mean the point about passing through shadow, it may be an issue of temperature fluctuations from doing so, and that you’d want to avoid that, so you don’t have to deal with returning to equilibrium Perhaps the angular momentum of being in such an orbit is an advantage.

I imagine the point of launching is that it doesn’t get in the way of doing things on the ground.

Geostationary orbit is equatorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit The tilt is why it won’t block the sun except when the sun is lined up over the equator

It only works a very small fraction of the time (near noon near the equinoxes), because it’s only over the equator The sun’s rays are very nearly parallel, so it’s about a square km A shield that was perpetually blocking the sun would heat up and radiate, reducing the effectiveness of the shield.

Marius has been banned for repeated refusal to engage in discussion in good faith, and for not giving any indication that things would improve if they were permitted to stay

! Moderator Note You were told not to bring this up again, and we can also do without such a characterization of people

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. …. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone You were made aware of this last time you posted a video link.

Which was not presented as the example in the OP. You are substituting other arguments, to which I did not object.

That's not the same as saying "If God did it, then it's OK for me to do it"

One is the topic of discussion, the other is not

The behavior of the laws of physics, as per the OP Behavior being different is not the same as the behavior not following laws/being described by math

Does that mean the behavior is not following mathematical relationships?