swansont

I think that this can lead to rapid drops in stock price; as some lose faith and sell it compels others (more rational people) to get out and take their profit, but that erodes the faith, and the whole thing can cascade. There’s a saying that in the short term, stocks are a voting machine but in the long term it’s a weighing machine. Actual monetary value eventually wins out over emotion snd irrationality, but bubbles can take a while to pop.

Time existed before humans did, and we can observe time-dependent effects from the past. We did not “invent” it any more than we invented length. And yet you’ve made absolutely no connection between the two.

This might have been a coup “According to the sources, Qatari mediators presented to the U.S. two formal proposals this year, one in April and another in September. Both outlined potential governing mechanisms without Maduro in power. In those scenarios, Delcy Rodríguez would serve as the institutional continuity figure, while retired Gen. Miguel Rodríguez Torres, who is currently in exile and is not related to the Rodriguez siblings, would head a transitional government.” https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article312516272.html#storylink=cpy IOW, Trump and Co. got played

Apparently the oil companies are less than thrilled with this. Heavy crude (and with contaminants like sulphur, so it’s “sour”) is more expensive to refine. It’s used for diesel, not gasoline, but having more on the market just drives prices down. Plus there’s an investment in both time and money in the infrastructure that’s needed. I think big oil sees future demand dropping owing to EVs, so there would be a question of how profitable this might be, even before you worry about political instability rendering the investments moot.

Some, but far from a majority They’re already lining up financial folks for investment opportunities, but there’s a huge gap in getting there that I don’t think they appreciate. They’re seeing “Step 4: Profit!” but steps 2 and 3 are blank. The tepid response is disheartening. Too many people joining the “the ends justify the means” caucus in the US. Not a lot of strong condemnation outside the US, but I think they are rightly less concerned with whether proper internal protocol was followed. (From before the attack)

Under that condition, because you are assuming the same r. But not in general.

un-ionize, i.e. become neutrally charged

1/2^xP doesn’t look to be a valid formula. xP needs to be dimensionless, which matters even if there was some physical basis for it making any sense.

Tesla makes a bundle selling carbon credits, but as their sales fall and other manufacturers grow, that profit stream will shrink. Bubbles eventually burst.

That 10% is for milk chocolate. In the US, we have abominations labeled “chocolatey” (and a few other possibilities) to try and trick the customer when they fall short of the already-low 10% https://www.bethschocolate.com/chocolate-vs-chocolatey/?srsltid=AfmBOoqVX_pg4A7a_ltKGczzCyJQlhQAfgvXoT7fCZlU8yXOsC-jHKo9 The article also notes that EU rules mandate a 25% minimum

If it’s from mass, there’s nothing artificial about it, but you need a tremendous amount of it. The only impact from increased density is making the mass occupy a smaller volume, but there a limit to how much we can do this; the densest metal (osmium) is less than 10x the density of aluminum.

To what end? Why is this necessary?

Gravity is also the reason for orbits of celestial bodies, and closed orbits require it follow the 1/r^2 pattern of Newtonian gravity, and depend on mass, not density. There’s not all that much room leftover for any other effect, after what Newton or GR cover. The objects feeling gravity are generally outside of each other. You can’t distinguish densities from just the gravitation.

We usually just say density increase

What is density condensation? That’s not helping me understand it. We already have an equation for gravity. Why not just use that?

Jacek banned for being an insufferable dick, and probably a sockpuppet

Moderator NoteOK, that’s enough. Because I only just read all this (Phi tried but had technical difficulties)

It’s your proposal, so it’s up to you to work out those details. You’ve been told that you won’t get more energy out than you put in. The 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents it. You’re free to ask about the physics involved in the various steps. But if all you have is insisting that it works without any legitimate argument, then this doesn’t fulfill the requirements for discussion in speculations

How can you claim this without accurate calculations? If your first numbers aren’t correct, why should I have any reason to think subsequent calculations are?

I think it’s rather more than that. You described going for two weeks; that’s a vacation. It suggests you have the means and opportunity to go and do that. A lot of people in the world don’t, so this is a view from privilege. People who lack the money for travel, or can’t afford to step away from the way the put food on the table because they’re barely eking out an existence. Some depend on others and some have others who depend on them; you can’t go off for two weeks and leave your kids alone, or your frail mother, etc. People have obligations, that aren’t always by choice. Lots of people have to live where they live. Whenever there are discussions relating to “why didn’t they just leave?” for whatever event is causing an exodus there’s often disregard for how difficult that actually is, depending on your circumstances, and insisting that it’s not difficult shows a lack of awareness or empathy.

Yes, this was in September, so I imagine it was right before classes started in the fall. It’s not like you spend much time in your room besides sleeping and getting ready to go in the morning. The rest of the time is usually talks/posters, meals and some evening activities.

No, the concept is part of the problem because it’s a personal preference being presented as an objective truth.

2800 watt for 1 sec is 2800 joules PE = mgh = 63 kg x 6.3m x 9.81 m/s^2 is 3890 joules Further if this is at constant speed of 6.3 m/s, the KE is an additional 1250 joules, but the exact number depennds on how it’s done (and some of this could be recovered) So right from the start your math is wrong. There is no doubt that properly done, it will show that output does not exceed input, and there will be losses.

A taxi cab. (badoom tshhh) It was an international symposium on frequency standards and metrology, which are held every ~7 years. Come to think of it, there was a whisky tasting event as part of it, though I was very jet-lagged so I didn’t attend. I did sample some at the bar in the dormitory a few nights later.

The thread is not in the trash. Members cannot make posts there - those threads lock automatically. I explained why this was moved to speculations. IDGAF about any “cancel culture” nonsense - you’re complaining about having the forum rules applying to you, for which I have zero sympathy.