swansont

My takes is that a certain group didn’t like her, and they sorted through the negative descriptions to come up with a justification why. This happens a lot, when one side decries the other for something, but are mum when their side engages in the same behavior. But 40% (or more) weren’t going to vote for her regardless, because they would never vote for a democrat, and all of this is moot in regard to those voters. Nothing was going to sway them.

Has this actually ever been quantified? The literal definition includes depriving someone of the right to vote. But it’s not like this wasn’t known about him before the election. Without actual data to show how many people this applies to, it sounds just like the rural voter/“real American” issue, and being used as a narrative tp cover up racist backlash and misogyny.

Not important. I doubt a lot of 2016 Trump voters engaged in BLM protests, and I think even more people were literally disenfranchised in the 2016 election. And the ones who were motivated by sincerely expecting the swamp to be drained weren’t the ones that were called deplorables.

People who voted the other way (or wanted to) were not disenfranchised? People have literally been disenfranchised, and it’s primarily not people who voted for Trump. Or dissatisfied with the status quo? I think the BLM protests dump a whole lot of cold water on the idea that it’s just Trump supporters who want long-standing practices to change. - - - Anyway, back on the topic of rural voters There’s a quasi-romantic notion that there are a whole host of them, and there quite literally aren’t. The rural population of the US is under 15%. Why should they be listened to with any greater weight than any other group of similar size (or larger)? https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/ (and since rural population is predominantly white, many politicians use this as a racist dog whistle)

I think the “I’m doing it on my own” denial is an ingredient. They get help but since it’s not that obvious, they assume it’s not there. Why are urban dwellers not considered “common folk”? “Common” means there are a lot of them.

Such maps can be used in a misleading fashion, as land does not vote in elections, people do. OTOH, the population centers probably pay more in taxes, because there are more people to pay them. We already know that the states that tend to pay significantly less in taxes to the federal government than they receive in government spending are mostly red (there are exceptions of course)

You keep asking, in multiple threads that all overlap Answered here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123871-did-issac-newton-know-about-numeral-systems/?tab=comments#comment-1162468

String length is a real concept, but it bears only a passing resemblance to what you said.

3/5 is a fraction - portrayed as a ratio of two whole numbers 3/5 = 0.6 0.6 is a decimal, which is the result from evaluating the division of that ratio, in base 10 When you state something as true, without support, it is an assertion. Math is math. Physics uses math, but is not math. They let you keep track of physical parameters. Usually. The choice often one of ease of use, or possibly convention. Base 10 is the default in many cases, as I said.

Are you still confused, or did your search answer the question? Questions are fine, if based on reasonable premises. The main issue I have is when you make assertions, without supporting them.

But we’re talking about math Um, no. Just 6.67, which is expressed as a decimal, not a feaction. You need glasses, then. Which are not numbers Sometimes. Sometimes it’s energy. Sometimes it’s neither. Depends on the context. Gee, imagine that...metric uses base 10 “closer to base 10” is meaningless. The number is expressed in base 10. Who are the others?

The issue will be how much buoyancy you can achieve, and whether this will exceed the weight of the balloon, so you get lift. The balloon mass depends on surface area, while buoyancy will depend on volume. So the ratio gets bigger with larger balloons. Helium allows you to lift ~1g per liter, IIRC. A hot air balloon’s lift derives from (approximately) PV = nRT, and depends on the temperature difference you can achieve. Aluminized mylar balloons might be able to withstand some heating. Inflate it partway (or put a few drops of water inside), seal it, and then warm it up.

For the same reason numbers between 1 and 2 can be fractions. Or rather, possibly can be expressed as fractions.

! Moderator Note These are political issues, and you’re not posting in the politics section, so I’ve moved it. Discussion should now be limited to politics

The temperature increase depends on the amount of CO2, not CO2 per capita. That’s the climate science impact (where this was posted) CO2 per capita is more of a political issue of who is taking action and who isn’t. As is shaming the US for insufficient effort.

SteveKlinko has been suspended for posting multiple threads based on or linked to the same speculation, despite being warned not to.

Particles are counted as a positive number , and antiparticles as a negative. So a particle/antiparticle pair has a particle number of zero. It's bookkeeping. Thus the statement that there are three quarks is true. The number of gluons is immaterial, as it was not part of the question, and the number of quark/antiquark pairs (mesons) is immaterial as well, as their quark number is zero. This bit: “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all. Is accurate, because physics is more than memorization of a few facts. Saying that a proton is comprised of two up quarks and one down quark is not meant to be a comprehensive description of a proton, or what happens at the LHC. The gluons and mesons are important in understanding the interactions that go on within a proton, so the quora blurb is addressing a different question than what was asked.

Why would you do that? Since c= 299792458 m/s, how you get this value? Please show your work. How can you satisfy causality if the delay depends on the trip duration, which can only be determined after the trip is complete? No, it’s not. You have no basis for it, and it violates physical law. Speculation is not supposed to be fiction.

So where does 38.75 come from? How does the electron “know” what the duration of motion is going to be, before it moves, in order to determine its delay?

That’s ~100 million times the speed of light (assuming m/s), so I assume it’s a typo. Can you show how you arrived at this? You should do this in general. Even though it’s clear what speed you chose for your example, you should have stated it. Also: units. Use them. How does one test your conjecture? How does the electron “know” what t is going to be, to determine its delay?

What movement? Why is there a delay? Under what circumstances? Is this a delay before it starts to move? Why is 38.75 the max possible speed? What does γm represent?

! Moderator Note So it’s both anecdotal and not addressing the question asked. That’s less than helpful.

! Moderator Note You need to back this up with some credible reference.

Be...sure...to...drink...your...Ovaltine

A reminder that we do not delete accounts. You may choose to leave, and you might be shown the door, but your posts remain. We generally only remove posts from sight when there are rules violations involved.