swansont

No, I don't know. Can you have a mode that's got a wavelength longer than 2x of the event horizon? I don't know what boundary conditions apply.

What event horizon?

If the universe had a finite size, wouldn't the mode density of the vacuum energy levels change with the volume?

! Moderator Note You were asked to post the material here, rather than attaching documents. Why is this a problem?

GR has frame dragging, but this is typically a small effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging The Lense–Thirring effect is very small – about one part in a few trillion. To detect it, it is necessary to examine a very massive object, or build an instrument that is very sensitive.

Can you clarify this - it sounds like you are saying your disbelief in evolution is based on things not claimed by or covered by evolution. Like all science is based on assumptions and has gaps in knowledge? That's an underlying truth, not specific to evolution, so there is no reason to call it out. No, not really. Nothing proactive here. No "anticipation" of new body parts. No evidence is required of things not claimed.

Arikel88 has been banned for incessant preaching

! Moderator Note Whether Jesus was a real person and your personal take on accepting Christianity are separate discussions. Rule 2.5: stay on topic.

! Moderator Note All: please note that that this (i.e. validity of Christianity) and related discussions are off-topic to the thread. Further transgressions will be excommunicated to the trash

In 1D, it should be easy to see that there are discrete wavelengths, since you will get destructive interference if the path length is not a multiple of the half-wavelength. So other wavelengths will not persist. If you consider 3D, there are more paths available and you have more options that avoid destructive interference, but you will still have wavelengths that are excluded from possibility.

! Moderator Note Please establish the truthfulness of your premise(s) before proceeding with arguments that assume they are true

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/how-hardy-is-webb-a-qa-about-the-toughness-of-nasa-s-webb-telescope We know Webb will get struck by micrometeoroids during its lifetime, and we have taken that into account in its design and construction. We sized Webb’s main mirror so that even after years of little impacts it will still have the reflective surface area and quality necessary to do the science. We even did tests on the ground that emulated micrometeoroid impacts to demonstrate what will happen to the mirrors in space. Similarly, part of the reason the sunshield has five layers is so it can tolerate more than the number of expected small holes, and even some tears, and still work as it should. Also, almost all of Webb’s sensitive components (besides the mirrors and sunshield) are protected behind “micrometeoroid armor.” When micrometeoroids do strike, most are so small that they totally disintegrate upon impact, even when they hit something thin like thermal blankets or a sunshield membrane. Critical wires and electronics are shielded behind even more robust metal “armor” or inside metal boxes

What if it’s just lorem ipsum?

! Moderator Note You need to share what you’ve done to answer this. Moved to HW help

One trick I’ve heard about is to put a clear container filled with water, then frozen, and a coin placed in top. If the ice melts and refreezes (e.g. while you are away and you have a power outage) the coin will drop to the bottom. But if it’s still on top or only part way down, you know the ice didn’t fully melt. Filling up space with ice in the freezer is a good strategy because it has a higher heat capacity than air, so things will stay colder, longer.

! Moderator Note It’s not really an issue of common sense, or being dumb/smart, it’s one of knowledge vs ignorance. There was a point in time where you didn’t know the extent of the Mongolian empire, or when Marco Polo visited the east. You learned these things, and became better informed. You did not transition from being dumb to smart when this happened. So: 1. Don’t call people dumb 2. Proper referencing would include a link to a wikipedia article, rather than just mentioning that the information is available there 3. This is a discussion board, not your blog.

! Moderator Note The energy released in a chemical vs nuclear reaction has nothing to do with logic, and the ONLY reason you weren’t immediately banned for yet another sockpuppet account was that you actually asked a science question instead of your usual nonsense, but here we are.

They get halfway into the article, and all the way through the section on the US, before mentioning vaccination rates. And it ignores booster rates entirely. "Just over 63% of the US population is fully vaccinated, much lower than in the UK (71%) as well as Italy and France (both 75%). In Canada, almost 79% of the population is fully protected." The US lags these other countries in booster rates, too. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccine-booster-doses-per-capita?country=CHL~RUS~USA~URY~OWID_WRL~GBR~FRA~CAN~ITA We already know that vaccination, and boosting, lowers the chance of hospitalization. But yeah, this is is puzzle. </s>

One thing that gives me pause is the phrasing "acquire mass" If you have a charge, the field is already there. Nothing is "acquired" If you are creating a field by rearranging a charge configuration that has no field into one that does, you are doing work. In that sense mass is "acquired" because you are adding energy, and thus mass, which is stored in that new configuration.

The youngest astronaut in this year's class is 32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Astronaut_Corps Astronaut candidates have ranged between the ages of 26 and 46, with the average age being 34. So your observation becomes "we don't have any younger than average astronaut candidates" and it's all much ado about nothing. The reason is that people need time to gain the requisite experience and education, and you're focusing on people who haven't had time to do that yet, and conjuring up a conspiracy.

You also want the gradient to be acceptable as you move toward the rim, or you'd end up with a situation where you had 1g at your feet but significantly less at your head. (consider a 2m radius, for example)

Why would storage space be limitless on a space station?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Uranium density is not lower, or smaller. Logic sequence? That has nothing to do with the energy released in a reaction. Also, I didn't hide any article.

Chemical reaction are in general much lower in energy than nuclear (eV vs MeV scales, i.e. a factor of a million). I know of no batteries, or any electrochemical reactions, that convert grams of mass into energy. As you point out, 1 kg is almost 10^17 Joules, or 25 billion kWh. So a gram is 25 million kWh. A battery might give you a couple of amp-hours at 1.25V, or something of that order of magnitude, which is just a few Watt-hours of energy. That would be around a billionth of a gram. Uranium (U-235 in particular) is used because it readily undergoes fission and can be controlled under the right circumstances. It gives you this energy at the nuclear, rather than chemical, scale.

What is ideological about this?