swansont

And it’s proportional to the level of offense?

Can you derive the two-slit interference equation from this idea?

Time travel isn’t possible. You couldn’t opt out of 40 year-old nuclear technology for presently available solar. You would have to have used 40 year-old solar. Less efficient and more expensive than today’s. Solar recently achieved grid parity, but until the push to develop it in the last decade or so, there wasn’t much in the way of economy of scale driving the price down

To see if this is a widespread notion.

What is the evidence such small particles exist, and the required absorption can happen? What are the properties of these small particles? Why would these small particles be absorbed at the same rate everywhere? A C-12 atom has 6 each of protons, neutrons and electrons, and a deuteron has one of each. How does nature “know” to have 6x the small particles near a carbon atom vs a deuteron, so they can absorb them at the same rate? What about particles that have no structure? (e.g. electrons)

No, that’s not argument from authority.

That’s basically the opposite of a sail.

They aren’t as bad, though, IMO. Their leaders aren’t calling places sh*thole countries, putting kids in cages, allowing hundreds of thousands of people to die of a preventable disease, sitting on legislation for months that would help people, or trying to deny them healthcare. But heaven help us if someone uses a four-letter-word and calls them out on it. False equivalence. I said nothing of acting like Republicans. That would saying “be meaner, greedier and more callous” Why isn’t the party of the religious right ever called to act more with the Christian ideals they claim to possess? Is there any evidence that this will happen? Who out in pundit-land is calling for this?

Soap does, in fact, kill COVID https://healthmatters.nyp.org/how-does-handwashing-with-soap-kill-the-coronavirus/ and helps remove it from your skin https://www.uchealth.org/today/why-soap-and-water-work-better-than-hand-sanitizer-to-remove-the-coronavirus/ “Soap disrupts the sticky bond between pathogens and your skin, allowing the pathogens to slide right off. Not only are you neutralizing the virus with the soap, but you’re also physically knocking it off your hands,” Pastula said. “Hand sanitizer doesn’t do all of that.”

Why does the left have to nicer? Why is the right being given a pass, especially considering the level of vitriol?

If they will vote against their interests, that suggests to me that these are single-issue voters, so they aren’t going to vote for a democrat. The vitriol is a convenient excuse to point to, but I seriously doubt this is the reason behind their vote. They get mad over a variety of issues, but if you show them that their anger is misplaced (because e.g. the issue has been misrepresented) they aren’t mad at being lied to, and don’t change their vote. >40% of the voters are not going to vote for a democrat. The untapped potential is in people who don’t usually vote. Or can’t, owing to voter suppression. Or whose votes are diluted (as iNow points out) owing to gerrymandering

Where does the solar sail attach? Mass ejection just compounds the problem you are trying to solve. I figure that if you could move the sun, moving the planets would be trivial in comparison. But I don’t see how you move the sun in any way consistent with the problem at hand.

! Moderator Note My comment: rule 2.7 says “Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.” So just asking us to watch the video does not comply with the rules.

Then, as I said previously break it down into individual steps, because you are introducing multiple hypotheses, each of which needs to be examined. There’s way too much to discuss in a single thread. People are giving you their time and attention. Perhaps you could act like they don’t owe you this, because they don’t. Your proposal is a mish-mash of ideas that can’t be easily analyzed as a whole. It too easily invites distraction. It seems to me, that a failure at any point sinks the whole thing. So discussion of individual steps would be a far better approach.

The problem isn’t getting from one made-up equation to another, it’s tying the equation to something that’s not. Speculations rules require that you back up your conjecture. Citing one speculation to backstop another doesn’t do that.

That’s bad form in physics. F is already Force, such a constant is unnecessary, and you don’t name things after yourself What equation for a photon radius depends on G?

What is F=G/c^2, and where did your equations come from? How would you test them to see if they work?

How would you move a star several LY to get to another star?

! Moderator Note This last bit is question raised, but the bulk of this post has nothing to do with it. Staying on-topic and focused is another issue that should improve everybody’s experience ! Moderator Note This is not the topic of discussion. Whatever you mean by “sharing a constant” this belongs in a different thread. Whatever your lack of understanding is, it’s more fundamental than the topic of the OP.

! Moderator Note “mathematics is a discipline” One could also say mathematics is a language, with its own version of syntax, vocabulary and rules for spelling, etc. In order to have useful discussion you can’t make up your own words and definitions. You have to learn and use the ones everybody else is. You can’t jump into a conversation without knowing these basics. This concept also applies to math. Perhaps it would be better to discuss more fundamental concepts first. Plenty of people have stepped up to try and help but it’s frustrating when there is such a barrier to communication

Bartholomew Jones has been suspended for preaching, repeatedly going off-topic, and making bad-faith arguments.

Even if this were the solution, the answer would be “no” the sun’s mass is 2 x 10^30 kg, and largely hydrogen. The earth’s mass is 6 x 10^24 kg, and only a tiny fraction of that mass is hydrogen. So where would you get enough hydrogen to make any noticeable difference?

Then break it down into individual steps, because you are introducing multiple hypotheses, each of which needs to be examined. There’s way too much to discuss in a single thread. Example 1: muonic hydrogen fusion is difficult to show even under laboratory conditions, where you are forming muonium with a minimum number of parasitic reactions and can exert maximum control over the conditions. You need to show this can happen out in nature, either by a detailed assessment of the factors that affect it, or by showing it actually happens (as with Oklo for fission) More detail everywhere. Saying some physical process releases power does not in any way guarantee enough energy will be available for some specific nuclear reaction. A Terawatt sounds big, but Avogadro’s number is also big. Very big.

You can provide the evidence requested.

You’re speaking of this as if it’s been observed. Provide experimental evidence of it.