swansont

If you do plan to check them out from the library, you can ask the librarian for recommendations. They can probably tell you what’s popular, and if they read SF will probably tell you what they like.

I see it as an awkward comparison, since gondolas don’t have to use counter-balancing. It’s different categorization. Railway vs gondola (track vs suspended from a cable) where funicular is a subset under railway.

I though funicular meant that it was counterbalanced by another car or cars.

The issue is veracity, and memory is a fluid thing. The story I recall is that he wanted it to match the notes in music

Energizer uses black on the + end

Book recommendations are subjective, because it depends on what you like. Also depends on whether you widen the net and include fantasy in the discussion. I never got into Dune back in the day while others loved it. I loved Roger Zelazny (especially the Amber series but also other stuff) Terry Pratchett is enjoyable; I like his sense of humor. John Scalzi’s, too (in Redshirts and The Android’s Dream, at least). I also recall liking Stephen R. Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant series. I think Jasper Fforde’s Thursday Next series and his Nursery Crimes Division books are wonderful, too

Or it just seemed like a long day because of the fighting (dying being the opposite of fun) and the story’s fantastical nature grew as it was repeated and people exaggerated. I know that’s a shocking concept, because nobody does that, right?

Antiparticle have opposite properties in regard to CPT symmetry. So you have opposite charge. Neutrinos and antineutrinos have opposite spin orientations. Antiparticles behave like particles (and vice-versa) under time reversal. Mass isn’t part of that symmetry. And time is the symmetry, not a particle subject to the symmetry.

It’s not energy under stress. The stress-energy tensor is part of determining gravity. It’s dependent on density and flux of energy and momentum.

Not sure what you hope to accomplish with this. Yeah, you brought this same nonsense up when we discussed the policy. https://scienceforums.net/topic/133849-aillm-policy-discussion/ It was bollocks then, and nothing has changed It may not be what you’re talking about, but it’s part of the discussion. The logical conclusion from this is that science is a massive conspiracy and we’re making it all up. Because that’s where repeatability/reproducibility enters into it. If the experiment is made up, then so must the next one that reproduces the result, or builds on it. A huge house of cards. But technology is built on it, too, and it works. The issue is not belief but trust - a matter of credibility - and the fact that the technology works, and the experiments you can do agree with other results, builds trust in the science you can’t personally check. e.g. GPS actually works. They aren’t faking it, and it’s not just some happy accident that it works. With an AI result, we don’t know where it’s coming from, or if it’s a hallucination. If we did know the source, then you can cite that instead. Then everybody can see/decide if it’s a credible source.

What’s happened in the last six months won’t be undone very soon, and it will take a long time to reverse the damage. Science isn’t something you can stop and then pick up where you left off. Damaged trust is not something that is rebuilt quickly. And countries are finding they don’t need the US as much as most thought.

I think the USA has abdicated that role in spirit and are on the way to losing it economically and scientifically. It will be tough to regain that position. We’re taking great strides in making sure it never happens again, or at least for a generation.

Just revisited this thread on another matter and yes, it’s obvious that I misread/misinterpreted something. My apologies.

That (plagiarism) is also against the rules. But 2.13 says “Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions.” so if breaking the rules is a problem, using AI content is a problem.

Moderator NoteRule 2.13 forbids using AI material to support arguments. IOW, don’t give us the AI summary from your search.

There’s a reason for that. (left as an exercise for the reader) But some signs in the Bible could not, such as Joshua 10:13 “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” Again, left as an exercise.

Time isn’t matter, or a particle. Is there an antilength, that cancels out length?

We have books. We’re aware of the Greek and Roman gods. Gods from Mesopotamia, even.

Testicles of the same spin can’t exist in the same scrotum, unless they are in different orbital angular momentum states (which is painful)

OTOH the AI crawlers will now have to incorporate it and provide it as a possible answer to some question.

What does this even mean? “Can’t” doesn’t enter into it for an omnipotent diety. (with God all things are possible/with God nothing shall be impossible/the Lord God omnipotent reigneth) “Science and humanity” isn’t part of the discussion. Stop trying to change the subject Population isn’t declining. Musk is a white supremacist complaining about white population. I will not use a Nazi as a model If there’s novbody around to do science, there’s nobody doing science. Of what relevance is this?

You asked a similar question some years ago https://scienceforums.net/topic/120883-somethings-wrong-with-the-way-we-calculate-mass/ The analysis and answer given there still applies

I want people to expend the tiniest effort to post things in the appropriate forum, but like Sisyphus I’m cursed to roll them into the right forum only to have new ones appear in inappropriate ones. Moved to physics. Why do you think they would melt? How can there be one at the center? The universe has no center. Why do they have to be balls? Is the ability to move around important to the problem?

In what way is this a “brain teaser” or puzzle?

It’s bookkeeping. Energy is conserved, so work being done means the energy has to come from some source, and go somewhere else. The sign is telling you whether energy was deposited in the system (+), or spent by the system (-)