swansont

! Moderator Note A reminder that your (fredreload) responses that stray from the topic will remain hidden. This thread is not about some fanciful application that's loosely based on science. Such discussion is why you are in the moderation queue.

I provided three links that shows this to be in error. Have you provided any examples of it being "hidden"? Usually it's derived with few constraints to it, and no initial conditions. e.g. start with a = dv/dt, which is the definition of acceleration (always true) Add in the condition that acceleration is constant, and integrate the equation and you get v = v0 +at Apply the definition of velocity, v = dx/dt Integrate again and you get s = v0t + 1/2 at2 The initial velocity is there (as it is in so many textbooks, if you'd only bother to look), and the only restriction is that you must have a constant acceleration Only if you forget to include it, but that's on you

To a very limited extent, yes. It's more difficult to confine them because you don't have an overall neutral configuration as you have in a plasma, so the electrostatic repulsion will quickly get very large as you add electrons.

No, it's information

! Moderator Note If you present speculation, you MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR IT After 200+ posts, ignorance of the rules isn’t an excuse that buys you additional chances

No. Unless you can hand me a cup of information.

Hogan's Heroes is (mostly) 60s

We're not talking about Fibonacci. In any event, it shows the growth is related to φn which is indeed exponential. If you click on your link and then the "exponential rate" link and look at the graph, it shows a linear function, as well as 2n and x3 You can see that they are not the same growth.

"I know nothing" — Sgt Schultz

2±n is exponential x±2 is not

Black holes attract matter in violation of the inverse-square law (where Newtonian physics would apply)? Citations please.

Sure they are. And as such, fermions follow Fermi-Dirac statistics. Bosons follow Bose-Einstein statistics. Both of which require identical particles. This is the opposite of what was discussed, which was: same process, different outcomes. You are asking for identical outcomes. If I drop two masses off the tower of Pisa, they will both undergo the same gravitational acceleration, even as other forces may be present to give small differences in their velocities at any point. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that your original framing did not ask for identical results. You said nothing happens again or twice. Gold being formed in California and again in Queensland (or vice-versa) is something that happened. You are now moving the goalposts, something that has also happened many times, particularly in arguments like this.

No, it's not. Convergent evolution wouldn't result in identical species. But you didn't say anything about the same species emerging. The claim that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " is not the same as saying some species would emerge twice. The former is very vague* and demonstrably false, while the latter is true and unsurprising, given what we know of evolution. * "nothing" covers a pretty wide range of items and phenomena. All of them, in fact. So as exchemist notes, processes repeat all the time, even if the outcomes differ.

No, it's the galaxies not bound to each other that will continue to recede from each other. The stars in these galaxies will burn out and eventually new stars will not be able to form. Redshift is caused by motion away. If the motion is towards each other, there will be a blueshift. There's also a redfshift as light climbs out of a gravity well.

Octopus eyes and human eyes are "wired" differently (humans have a blind spot); they did not arise from a common ancestor. Eyesight is something that developed multiple times in the course of evolution. It's not the only trait to have done so.

"impenetrable" implies there is something there that might penetrate. Again, this is treating nothing as a substance, which it is not.

Gravitationally bound systems don't expand. From the article: "we’re measuring the inverse-square law below the dark-energy length scale to look for a possible new gravitational phenomenon" (emphasis added) They aren't looking at distances where expansion is observed. They're saying that dark energy doesn't perturb gravitationally-bound systems.

Yes, semantics is a big part of this. Are we? Is nothing an object? There are a number of cases where a certain class of nothing is defined by something: a hole in the dirt is defined by a lack of dirt, dark is the absence of light. It's not an object, it is a state or condition. It's dark inside the box. Is it the same dark if you move it? Kind of nonsensical. The same condition exists, but the phrasing is treating it as an object rather than as a condition. Which makes is a bit of a silly semantic game, as people have hinted at or suggested in the thread. Which is why this is silly.

Dark energy causes accelerating expansion, which is not a part of Newtonian gravity.

! Moderator Note Posting videos in this fashion violates rule 2.7

No thing can enter the box is not the same as saying nothing can enter the box. Are we sure that nothing can't pass through the box? What if nothing can enter the box, and nothing can leave the box. How do you you check to see if this happens?

Small number. Which is perfectly consistent with there being a spectrum of attitudes on the topic. I'm on the part that dislikes sport fishing and tends not to kill spiders (at least, the ones that can't kill me, were I to be confronted with that scenario)

Infinite monkeys would re-write Hamlet in the time it takes a typist going at the same rate to type out Hamlet, per the link in the OP

It’s from Lockheed, so it’s equally reliable, but the accompanying text is “An F-35B test aircraft completes its first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance.” IOW, little fuel and no combat payload. So in the context of the original claim that you could put these on a battleship as part of its battle capability, it’s not a VTO aircraft.

“Can land vertically like a helicopter and take-off in very short distances. ” STOVL, not VTOL Is Lockheed Martin a good enough source? https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-about.html#b_stovl