swansont

That’s not what your link says. The number would be under 28 million, based on that information.

Up top, leftmost tab is Browse. Choose “guidelines” and read, along with the links. Many subforums have pinned tweets and links near the top of the page, relevant to that section.

But you admit these are different moments. How is that an illusion?

How do you propose to do this?

! Moderator Note It’s a science forum. I’ve moved it to speculations, since what little science is here is not mainstream

Right; E=mc^2 applies to particles at rest. If you add energy (while remaining at rest) the mass increases.

! Moderator Note Above non-attributed quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

Mass is already a form of energy

Is that what sexists want to be called these days? How about: people should do jobs they want to do and/or are good at, rather than being limited by societal categories based on biological differences? i.e. no discrimination based on sex/gender. IOW “return to traditional gender roles." isn’t a solution at all, since labor pool dilution isn’t really a thing. limiting people to “traditional gender roles” would open the door to more discrimination, since you wouldn’t have men and women doing equal work, and thus no comparison for equal pay. You could return to the state where employers hide low wages behind the excuse that the job is valued less, not the people. IMO the whole scenario is thinly-veiled misogyny, and the argument should be rejected out of hand, instead of discussing alternatives as if this is a legitimate beef.

! Moderator Note You also need to share the information in the forum so that people don’t need to watch the video

Bring back the saner days of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Jeff Gillooly/Tonya Harding.

I can’t do anything about how you interpreted what I asked/said, or your choice to assign a hidden meaning to it. You made statements about two different (to my mind) kinds of actions, and then made some summary statements that seemed to apply to both. It seemed like you were equating them, but rather than responding with that assumption, I asked a question, to give you a chance to clarify. The problem with “If you don't like how we interpret what you write, maybe you shouldn't write it that way.” is it requires mind-reading, which is not really a good-faith position.

Of course. I forgot to divide by two.

Lightning rods provide a direct path to ground. They don’t prevent strikes; they make it far more likely that the strike will hit the rods rather than sensitive infrastructure. AFAIK they have a spatial limit; I doubt an adjacent house in a suburban neighborhood will be protected. I was involved with a 5000 sq ft building that has at least a half dozen “spikes” which suggests that one or two would not suffice.

Yes. There is a dark side, of course, but the same way the earth has a dark side: We call it night, and night on the moon lasts about a month. But “dark side” is not a geographical description like e.g. “western hemisphere”

There is no constantly dark or light side

I would like to know where I made that comment. I see where I asked a question, and where you replied, and where I mentioned that your meaning hadn't been clear.

Neutrinos take away ~10MeV from a typical fission of U-235

! Moderator Note Threads merged. Please stop opening new threads on this topjc.

The main problem is trying to explain quantum effects with classical analogies; such efforts always fall short, even when readers overstep and impart more meaning to the analogy than was intended. That may be, but one needs to understand QM to begin to make such an assessment

The improvement comes from spin squeezing; one partner of the entanglement has much less uncertainty in a particular state than the other, and this gets them below the standard quantum limit. They tout the improvement in the measurement but not the actual stability, which is more than an order of magnitude worse than the better optical frequency standards. That’s not to say that they won’t get there, though. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.07501.pdf I’d put my money on the latter being closer to the truth

Your meaning is far from clear when you speak of insurrection and protest in the same sentence. My “bias” is they aren’t the same thing.

Did you just “both sides” sedition and insurrection?

In general, the cross-section for absorption drops with energy. There are some resonances which go against this trend. See, for example fig 1here https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Neutron-absorption-cross-sections-for-several-isotopes-as-a-function-of-incident-neutron_fig5_235915631 (edit: x-post)

And? Since the article made no claim about dark matter, you need more than a hand-wave to say that it does. Dark matter seems to outweigh visible matter roughly six to one https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter So unless the research the article refers to is claiming a 6x discrepancy in how much normal matter is out there (it isn’t), you aren’t getting rid of dark matter. The article points out two data sets just outside our solar system. Your claim, vague as it is, is a massive and unfounded over-extrapolation of the report.