swansont

Some did, but their guesses were wrong. A lot of thinking prior to independent scientific investigation was influenced by philosophy and religion, and the answers were sufficiently satisfactory until observation contradicted them. e.g. before telescopes allowed for discovery of so many new bodies, and elliptical orbits were confirmed, the crystal sphere of the heavens sufficed as an explanation.

Developing new models or refining existing models. Sometimes in response to new experiments, but sometimes these are long-standing problems. Also developing models based on some conjecture, i.e. “what if X were the case” that has no direct observation to suggest it. There are plenty of examples - Einstein with relativity, atomic transition models, and Bose-Einstein statistics. Feynman with the spinning and precessing plate applied to quantum systems. Szilard thinking up the fission chain reaction in response to observing traffic lights. Sometimes the new models can be compared to existing experiments, and sometimes they need experiments to be developed to test them.

Some people will break the rules.

that last one is probably illegal irrelevant Government workers take an oath, but some don’t take it seriously This can’t be a serious proposal Some positions require lie detector despite them being famously unreliable These can’t be taken seriously Clearly Less stressful and less boring seem to be contrary goals. Even stuff forbidden by the rules will happen.

Heat is energy transfer (or, colloquially used, it’s thermal energy), and the strong interaction is essentially a force, described above by MigL. Not the same category. Furthermore, when nucleons bind to each other, this represents a release of energy. Helium-4, for example, must give up about 28 MeV if formed from free protons and neutrons, and you would need to add that much energy to break it apart. So your conjecture has an energy creating an energy deficit. Doesn’t work.

The volume is 1 liter. The issue is how you got there, because as all these posts point out, there are multiple valid interpretations. But assuming it’s a proper HW question, one can reasonably discard interpretations that are unsolvable.

Aren’t they mixed together? So you have 0.2 moles of K, 0.4 moles of Na and 0.6 moles of Cl?

Common typo for “of” which is how I read it. Clarification needed.

Bond777 banned as a sockpuppet of Moreno

Paper makes no mention of energy.

Saw this on twitter and it reminded me of all the folks who say the titular phrase. Just missing the technical details.

Lots. More time to do other things. Fewer files on your computer. Lower expenditures for tissue.

Cheaper than transparent aluminum

! Moderator Note You were warned

No, it can’t. The elapsed time depends on their relative speed. This is one reason why you are getting the wrong answer. Assuming the earth is at rest is a horrible approximation.

You didn’t provide evidence of this, and need to, and also show they are maximum under the same conditions. The moon in between the earth and sun moves in one direction, the moon on the far side of the earth is moving in the opposite direction. Because the earth is moving, one is in the same direction of the earth’s orbit, the other is in the opposite direction. This will affect the duration of the eclipses. It’s not simple geometry, as if the earth was stationary.

! Moderator Note You were told to not re-introduce this. As Ghideon notes, your result is wrong; this should lead you to first investigate to find errors in your model. for example, 7.5 minutes is the longest solar eclipse ever calculated. It’s not typical, nor is it a constant. It depends on multiple factors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse A total lunar eclipse can last up to nearly 2 hours, but it is similarly not a constant I’ll leave this open to allow discussion of errors in your model. But any further insistence that your calculation is correct will result in closure, and possibly suspension. One rather obvious issue is that the moon is moving in the opposite direction for each type of eclipse, so this simple geometry argument would seem to be lacking.

One problem is that it’s not universally true. You can see this in the limiting case of m1>>m2 When the orbital separation increases, m2 will get closer to m3 for part of its orbit, increasing the attraction.

I can’t tell if this is an attempt at agreement or an attempt at rebuttal.

! Moderator Note The rules require the information to be posted here If you don’t care enough to explain, don’t expect anyone to care enough to answer

To the titular question: probably not. These are mesons and the issue you raise is about baryons. If the paper doesn’t mention the baryon asymmetry, you shouldn’t assume that this is relevant to that problem. From an older Sean Carroll blog post about a different meson CP violation: The logic seems to be something like this: 1. CP violation has something to do with baryogenesis. 2. This experiment has something to do with CP violation. 3. Therefore, this experiment has something to do with baryogenesis. I’ll leave it to the trained philosophers in the audience to find the logical flaw in that argument. Try substituting “George Washington” and “cherry trees” for “CP violation” and “baryogenesis.” The point is that the conclusion doesn’t hold — not everything about CP violation is necessarily related to baryogenesis. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/06/04/marketing-cp-violation/

Did you miss where I said “a composite system can have p=0 and have kinetic energy” It’s a problem when you indiscriminately mix scalars and vectors It’s also limited to the other variable (mass, in this case) being held constant. So it’s contrived. It’s cherry-picking examples to fit a narrative. A silly narrative, IMO because these terms commute, so it doesn’t matter where the factor of 2 lives.

Write down the Newtonian gravity equations and do the algebra. You probably want to parameterize in terms of the distance between 1 and 2, if you can

That only applies on day 1 They’re contrived; several of those equations are not valid in general (e.g. a composite system can have p=0 and have kinetic energy)

And? Nothing here says KE is 2d. It says it’s quadratic.