swansont

! Moderator Note Moved, because this doesn’t seem to be a puzzle, as such.

That’s a fallacious extrapolation. No group of scientists are monolithic in their views. And if you want to support an idea, it needs to be based on science, not bashing others.

I agree that teaching can motivate you to learn and can point out your knowledge deficiencies, it doesn’t inherently increase your knowledge. And you have to honestly assess whether you understand something - when a question is posed to you, can you answer it or are you BS-ing your way through it? We’ve seen a lot of examples here of people (at least one claimed to have been a teacher) who were very confused about some basic concepts while insisting they understood.

LOL I’m hoping that discussing science starts soon.

So every collision results in such a fire? So about 7 incidents per year. Some mention shipments of batteries (one mentions a shipment of 81,000 batteries), so this could be out of untold millions of batteries shipped. IOW the odds of an individual battery failure appear to be quite small. We have no data on whether these were due to manufacturing defects or improper handling, both of which can potentially be addressed.

Fixing everything would be an unreasonable expectation. Sadly, the tactic of deriding something for not being perfect is used as an excuse to not do anything to improve the situation, when you don't want to do anything (see COVID, gun control) The US is stuck with automobiles as the primary mode of transit, including medium-haul (a few hundred miles), so the push to move away from fossil fuels has to be thought of with that constraint in mind. -- As far as the 1.6 kg of fossil fuels per chip goes, that article is from 2002, and probably refers to a specific type of chip. Newer chips are not just silicon, and fabrication has produced smaller chips over time. They mention a 32 MB chip (!) while memory today is perhaps as much as 100-1000x larger. One metric one can use to assess this is that a chip can't use more fossil fuel than the cost of the chip (and probably only a small fraction of it) - these people turn a profit. So one might ask how much these chips cost, because that would put a limit on how much fossil fuel goes into making them. $2000* per car? Then maybe it's using $200 worth of fuel. Depending on how much you drive, that might be a month or two of gasoline in the US. And one of the functions of the chips is improving your fuel economy. These probably "pay for themselves" many times over, in terms of fossil fuel impact. *scale as appropriate

It's the physics ideal case. Completely static, no changes to anything. I would expect some sort of asymmetry if you got to a small enough resolution, for any real system.

We don't know what the inside of a BH actually looks like. The simplest solution predicts a singularity, and that's unphysical. Geometrically speaking, yes, it has a center. The simplest case should also have spherical symmetry.

I think the issue is where the chips are specifically in an EV, not which chips are going to be common to both an EV and ICE vehicle. Lights, door locks, etc. are common to all vehicles. To me the batteries, the power distribution and regenerative brakes are the obvious candidates when looking at differences between the two types of cars.

There are people that do, and more will do so as infrastructure is put into place. To view this another way, nobody will if the infrastructure isn't there, and then you will limit adoption of EVs. Only if you view minimizing gas consumption and safety as conveniences. That would be one way of forcing the US to expand rail and mass transit, I suppose, but our system is built on being able to drive from point A to point B, and much of that at speeds faster than 30 mph. And we have lots of vehicles that get much better than 25 mpg. Same here; especially living where it snowed in the winter - cars would rust because they had steel everywhere, and it got attacked by the salt.

And got what, 10 miles per gallon? Plus a top speed of 30 miles/hour and, as a bonus, were not very safe!

But you have a lot of battery cells/modules, probably each with a voltage, current and temperature sensor, which are chips. Plus the battery management system.

Yes. You can compare the phase (time) not frequency. If a clock is running slow, it accumulates phase more slowly. If it runs slow for a longer period, a larger phase difference accumulates.

I'm unsure as to what you mean by "route dependent" I know that if a clock moves, it runs slow relative to another clock, and that this is both (1) experimentally confirmed and (2) in accordance with the predictions of relativity I don't care what you believe to be true. I want to know what you can demonstrate to be true.

! Moderator Note <points at everything you've posted> You have presented no model and done no analysis. It's all hand-waving and calling people who disagree with you idiots. Which is not science, and not sufficient to sustain a thread. Last chance.

There are observations that support the existence of dark matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence That's hardly a valid criterion. The fact remains that the article that you linked to does not mention this as a dark matter issue. How about you comply with the rules and present a rigorous analysis, rather than vague assertion? ! Moderator Note We can do without such invective. There were severe problems with Zwicky's data and analysis regarding dark matter https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/08/24/who-really-discovered-dark-matter-fritz-zwicky-or-vera-rubin/?sh=4478bd0217a7

! Moderator Note Is there a question or topic of discussion here?

This is triggering my OCD. Can we agree that the proper terminology is to "bear" offspring? Anyone can bare offspring; you do this when you give them a bath.

We know it wasn’t your error.

! Moderator Note I'm not going to fault someone for not getting responses on a narrowly-focused topic. There is a clear invitation to discussion, there are calculations and copious references for interested parties, which is in stark contrast to most speculations threads. <referee motions for play to continue>

But nobody is saying this No, this is suggesting the vaccine is 100% effective and nobody is claiming that. That's a misconception that many have pointed out. Let's say you have 1000 people and 900 of them are vaccinated. The chance of getting infected is 5% in unvaccinated and 1% in vaccinated. You will have 100*5% = 5 unvaccinated people getting infected, and 900 * 1% = 9 vaccinated people getting infected So it should be unsurprising that you have more vaccinated people getting infected when vaccination rates are high.

They show what they show, so there's nothing "wrong" with that, but the question is whether they support the claim that the vaccine does nothing to prevent infection, while reducing mortality. It's clear that the latter happens. The question was about the former. If a graph doesn't indicate vaccination status, it's hard to tease such information out of it. edit: especially in light of the delta variant being more contagious

And I've provided two sources that specifically say the rate of infection is lower in vaccinated people in the groups in question. Meanwhile, the original claim goes unsupported.

I didn't quote (couldn't copy/paste). I relayed the information; 4997/1098 (the number presented as infection rates per 100k) is 4.6 For me, it's having to have been fully vaccinated by Nov 22, per directives stemming from an executive order for US federal employees

It has no inertial frame of reference. As beecee notes, it has no rest mass, so photons travel at c. You can't use the Lorentz transforms to go between an inertial frame an a photon frame; the equations diverge.