swansont

If the speed of the car is variable then so is the square of the speed. I thought that would be self-evident. I did mention the gravitational potential; it is constant on the surface of the sphere of the earth. If the square of the speed is variable, then it cannot be equal to a constant. Sorry, G is taken already, and this is a new fudge factor you have added because your original claim is wrong. It's still not the force, because the gravitational potential does not include the mass of the object, and the force does. Squaring the potential will not make the mass of the object magically appear. Using unit analysis gives you proportionalities, at best. Not equalities. No, it's not. There's a pesky factor of 2 that need to be included. It has no units, so unit analysis and manipulation would not reveal it.

What? A car moving on the surface of the earth can have a wide range of speeds without changing its gravitational potential. If you square GM/r you get G2M2/r2 which is not the force (GmM/r2)

Davy_Jones has been banned as a sockpuppet of Reg Prescott

! Moderator Note These arguments seemed eerily familiar, and after some digging the staff has determined that Davy_Jones is Reg Prescott, a previously banned user. The feeling of deja vu was because we had, in fact, done this before. Right down to the citing of Frank Sinatra in a thread title. If you find merit in the discussion please continue, but Davy/Reg will not be participating

How do you know that charge isn't 1/L^4 and the force drops off as 1/r^4? IOW if it's ad-hoc, then there's no science in it. Using only dimensional analysis leads you to draw incorrect conclusions, such as "the square of speed is the gravitational potential. And the square of the gravitational potential is the force."

Don’t continue posting unit conversions.

Not the point the analogy is addressing, though. It’s showing the curvature away from the mass. Possibly, but more mass would cause more distortion, so this is avoidable They’d be asking what you mean by manifold, which is the kind of thing you’re trying to avoid if you use an analogy. Demos I’ve seen use a smaller ball to show an orbit. Showing curvature by itself doesn’t really demonstrate anything

If you're asking if the earth was to a large degree molten in its remote past, and the crust solidified as it cooled, the answer is yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

Please, no. I think everybody understands that you can make a self-consistent substitution of independent units. It's precisely because you can't validly substitute length for charge because they describe different things (they are, in a sense, orthogonal) that you can make this swap without a contradiction in unit consistency. Everybody can be named Bruce. So what? Where's the science? Where is your model that can be used to predict behavior?

What do you mean by "keeps it going"?

Time does not have dimensions of L^4 You can't just make stuff up

! Moderator Note Your "rebuttal" to previous posts contained no science. Now we have trolling. Seeing as your original question was adequately answered, there is no reason to continue this - thread closed.

But you said: Dirac used the classic radius. But he did not pretend to be accurate. He only noticed that the ratio of the classical radius to the radius of the Universe gives a value of 10 ^ 40. The same value is given by the ratio of the roots of the masses of the electron and the Universe. r -radius must be gravitational. If you make the comparison, you are using the classical electron radius Also the radius of the observable universe is not constant, so any comparison to constants that one deems meaningful has to just be accidental, since that ratio changes in time.

Neither of these are true. And none of your post addresses the use of the classical electron radius.

I don’t see how that’s a valid conclusion. How can you determine that the levels wouldn’t be even higher if we were not attempting to reduce emissions by looking at the graph?

I think there are questions about whether there was interference from non-experts.

My plan is to let the experts do their thing. As usual.

Not necessarily commensurate with footprints of already-developed countries, since power generation available today can have a much smaller carbon footprint. For infrastructure put in place 30 years ago you didn’t have the “green” options you have today, so there is the option of installing solar and wind, and having it be a larger fraction of total power than is present in many developed nations, and the things that use electricity tend to be more efficient these days (e.g. LED vs incandescent lighting)

No, AFAICT that’s not what it said. They compared it to “their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk” which is not the risk of becoming ill with COVID. The were comparing (sort of) risks of being hospitalized. Unless you can say with certainty that COVID will go away soon, the 120-day risk is also not the total risk of hospitalization.

Why focus on efforts that will have minimal effect? The population explosion is happening where GHG emissions are smallest. The IPCC does not do research. Yes, population growth…in the past. We are paying price for having the resulting large population in developed countries. But attacking current population growth won’t change that, because those industrial country growth rates have already changed.

The upshot if all this is that this is a short-term, not long-term, side effect. And COVID can cause it https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocarditis-is-more-common-after-covid-19-infection-than-vaccination/ Indeed.

! Moderator Note People might downvote for a number of reasons; you need not have offended anyone. It could be that they think you’ve made a bad argument, but don’t wish to engage. Again, for a number of reasons. Their motivations are their own. Regardless, this is off-topic and does not advance any discussion (unless it’s in a thread on the reputation system).

These already exist. For about 20 years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol They add more when large crowds are expected

Well the good news is that the organic birth rate in the largest per-capita GHG offender (the US) the birth rate is low enough that it's less than 2 kids for each woman. Similarly for China, and a lot of developed nations. So maybe the IPCC recognized this and realized there's not a lot of leverage here

We know the relationship between time and motion, and it is not t = c-v This can't be an equality, because the units of time and the units of speed are not the same.