swansont

Which would be spherical. It’s an oblate spheroid; the rotation means there is an equatorial bulge. Gravity, being spherically symmetric, dictates the shape, as long as the object is massive enough so that gravity can overpower any structural forces (hydrostatic equilibrium). That’s one of the criteria for calling something a planet. Not really feasible. Our atmosphere is breathable for of order 10 km, on top of a radius of ~6400 km. It’s a thin layer. Extending it - and not even by very far - would mean a thicker atmosphere at ground level.

More from the same author https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-dead-end “SpaceX still has a long way to go before Starship becomes a viable launch vehicle. It still has to successfully land the upper stage, reuse an upper stage, reach orbit, deliver a payload to orbit, reach a useable payload capacity, conduct a cryogenic fuel transfer between two starships in space (which has never been done before), perform a successful long-duration flight test, conduct a successful uncrewed lunar landing and conduct a crewed lunar landing. All of which, for context, was meant to be achieved by January 2025!”

There are multiple definitions of species. Groups that normally don’t interbreed (for a variety of reasons) can be considered two different species. But when they do, viable (and fertile) offspring can result.

Thank you

See how easy it is to follow the rules? Try doing that from now on.

The cited paper called this a minor contribution. Do you have a citation that suggests otherwise?

Speculation requires more than rough drawing and made-up numbers.

Can you clarify what the Hell’s Creek formation is?

Is it a waste of time to ask you if this is your diagram, and, if not, to ask you to tell us where it came from? (AS IS REQUIRED BY THE RULES)

Mainly because GR passes all of the tests we can run on it, and the alternative you’re offering does not come with much of anything beyond hand-waving. There’s no actual model, and without that one can’t say whether existing evidence supports it or not.

So it has not been suggested that this was the cause of their extinction. You’ve answered your question.

I really hope that this is a matter of a language/communication problem and not bigotry. Science’s function doesn’t include endorsing the latter

What would it mean to have a quantum password? Quantum computer operation is fundamentally different from a standard PC. They are not going to “take over” doing spreadsheets, writing documents and playing games.

Where was this suggested?

Yes, it’s a matter of physics. A planet has a fairly substantial moment of inertia. changing the rotation rate by any appreciable amount isn’t going to happen.

Why is that an issue of something being wrong with your immune system? Nobody is immortal. Thus, we all die, and all die of…something. We don’t die from some things as young as we used to, like heart disease. Or of childhood maladies, in many parts of the world. If we don’t die of those things, we must die of something else. It’s a zero-sum game. If you don’t die when you’re young, the chances of getting a disease of the aged goes up, simply because you’ve had the good fortune if getting old.

I’m older than you, and I have a PhD in physics, so don’t come at me with that attitude. I can understand a lot of things when they are adequately explained. I’ve known a lot of smart scientists who weren’t good teachers; they expected others to just “get it” and it doesn’t work that way. Thinking that you are the teacher, and can't be questioned or held to a standard, is part of the problem.

Moderator Note The thread you link to was closed for lack of any science. This looks to be more of the same. Referring to Kabbalah and ChatGPT screams that this is mysticism/mumbo-jumbo. We have a rule against using AI (we want to discuss with a person who understands what they’re posting, not something made up by a LLM) and speculations has rules about rigor.

And I’m saying this is not particularly helpful

Moderator Note When I asked you to explain your drawings, I was hoping for labeling, not a contradictory color-code legend. (hydrogen is yellow, but also red? Be consistent) Using copyrighted images in them doesn’t clear anything up, and is also a rules violation (which requires removal) Not providing a link to where you got the images that aren’t yours is another. Your drawings may be clear to you, but you are falling woefully short of explaining them to others. That might be one reason that nobody “takes it serious”

Just had another - I was double-checking my memory of big bang nucleosynthesis, and asked the number ratio of helium and hydrogen, and it gave me 3:1, which is the mass ratio. (making the number ratio 12:1)

Reference? Or are you just making this up?

So you posted them without attribution, or noting at the outset that it isn’t your work. You need to 1) provide a link to the source, 2) do a lot more to explain what your own drawings represent, and 3) not post DNA stuff here, since you have a thread for that

Many times. It’s why we don’t let people use it as support for an argument. Not long ago there was a story about putting nonsense phrases into Google and getting the AI summary of the meaning and possible etymology, and it will make one up. I tried “you can’t do handstands on a cupcake” and while the summary gave a somewhat plausible interpretation, told me “it’s often used in a lighthearted way” but yet when I Googled the exact phrase I got ‘No results found for “you can't do handstands on a cupcake”’ so it’s a nonexistent phrase and yet it’s often used There was also a story about a student doing some physics and the summary of the text didn’t understand using 1/2 in exponents, so it made up some (wrong) garbage about the math, and how there is no such thing as an inverse-square law

Despite your fixation on things happening in one second, for no discernible reason, you have not shown this to be the case in reality. And even if it is, so what? that does not make the interactions the same.