swansont

"Whistle-blower" has an official designation (in the US, at least) "On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing." (emphasis added) https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/ i.e. they report incidents and infractions to someone within the system. Leaking to the press and outside world is not whistleblowing. In the US, they are supposed to be afforded legal protection from retaliation from reporting on the organization for whom they work. Neither Snowden nor Assange are whistle-blowers. Assange wasn't even inside of the system, and only received information from leakers, so he's not even a whistle-blower by any relaxed, lay definition of the term. If you want to discuss leaking private/classified information, then call it what it is.

How would that help you remember which angle is which?

Bill McC has been suspended for soapboxing. So...much...soapboxing (the fact that many of the unsupported claims can’t be supported owing to being utterly wrong is not a loophole)

So you made an irrelevant comment based on a lack of understanding of relativity, and still thinking it casts doubt on the theory. Got it. (for the record, the m in E=mc^2 is not the mass of the explosive itself. Feel free to ask questions if you want to diminish your ignorance) In science we use science definitions, not lay definitions.

“There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees.” Still a different argument, as these are extra conditions, but no need to continue; the legal obligation is a more vague duty to work in the best interest of the company, rather than personal interest, and do due diligence to make informed decisions.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, yes?

maximize returns to shareholders ≠ maximize profits

Publicly-traded companies are legally obligated to do so, AFAIK.

Relativity says it does. The temperature is related to the thermal energy content, and more thermal energy means more mass. This will be E/c^2, and energy content varies as kT and k is around 10^-23 J/K ( or ~10^-10 MeV/K)so this means the variation is exceedingly small. Mass variation with nuclear excitation has been measured; the energy scale is MeV, and you'd need a very warm environment (billions of degrees) to see the equivalent effect That's because of brittleness and other material properties, not any inertial issues. Changing temperature can change the elasticity of the collision.

I stopped when I saw you use 1/2mv^2 in a relativistic problem. Beyond that, you claimed that constant g will not cause time dilation or bending of light, which is blatantly wrong, so what would be the point?

While our fetish for weapons is part of this, the other issue is that non-white people end up getting killed at a significantly higher rate than white folks.

She’s a “librul” and that’s enough. They make up the reasons after the fact to justify the hatred. It’s all part of the narrative.

Any new theory is going to be consistent with what we already know to be how nature behaves. Yes, we could have a new paradigm, but that will only manifest at the existing edge cases and at scales we are only just reaching now, much like how QM didn’t eliminate classical mechanics above the atomic scale or thereabouts, under mundane conditions.

! Moderator Note As this seems to have little to do with the original thread, it has been split

! Moderator Note New members popping in to this thread with external links to commercial sites will be banned as spammers

Not at all. It’s mathematically trivial (or at least easy), and physically impossible. But then, so is the Newton sphere you have invoked a couple of times. No, that’s not what I’m thinking. Time dilation in a gravitational field stems from not being in freefall, i.e. you are at some fixed r, like on the surface of a planet. Thus the gravitational potential at the bottom and top of a tower is different, and thus time runs at a different rate at those points (and all points in between) Velocity is not part of my argument. I never claimed potential was independent of g. I said potential still varies with r (or h) when g is constant, which is not the same thing. IOW in the Pound-Rebka experiment, the time dilation, which comes from the change in potential, is dominated by the change in height, and the change in g has a negligible effect, by many, many orders of magnitude. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to treat this problem as having constant g.

! Moderator Note Note that the OP has been banned as a sockpuppet of a previously banned member, but feel free to continue discussing. Just without their participation

OneWorldOneNumber banned as a sockpuppet of CuriosOne

“energy level” has a certain implication about quantized energy of a bound system. Casimir measures an effect from the lack of cavity states at certain wavelengths; i.e. the energy states are of the cavity, and the force (or pressure) is there because states are missing. Virtual particles are not constrained to behave the same was as real particles. A virtual photon can have any energy - a continuum. The price of having a large energy is a short existence, because of the uncertainty principle

Counterpoint: no, it isn’t. The rules of the site require you to provide evidence and/or a model for this. A bald assertion is insufficient

What energy levels? You haven’t shown that this an actual phenomenon.

Not a conspiracy. Just enforcement of the rules. If you post crap that e.g. hijacks a thread, or attacks someone, we may hide it.

But you have to be on Parler, which has 15 million subscribers vs 330 million for twitter. So that’s at least 315 million people not being reached.

Right, but that’s essentially changing the programming after the situation has come up, whether that upgrade is built-in, or an external input. The first time, you have an accident, and perhaps a few times after, until you have enough information to deal with the set of circumstances. It won’t properly deal with it the first time.

New physics doesn’t break physics. And if these oddballs are hypothetical, it sounds like some physicists are already working on the new physics. Otherwise nobody would be able to describe what they might be like.