swansont

Trump (via Hegseth) fired the head of the joint chiefs, a black man, and the proposed white replacement is not qualified to take the job, and so will require a presidential waiver. The kind of situation DEI was designed to avoid. But that’s the point of getting rid of DEI; gotta have white guys in charge wherever you can.

I got it from “but the universe outside appears to get larger (redshift) in front of the spacecraft” I don’t care how it looks. We were discussing with time dilation and length contraction, which are actual effects. The distance the spacecraft travels, as it measures it, gets smaller. Yes, it’s a gravitational effect. We were discussing motion, though, not gravity. Yes. Separate causes. So there’s no point in bringing up gravity when we are discussing motion.

Motion does not cause gravitational lensing, and lensing is not caused by redshift. We do not measure a larger universe owing to redshift. You’re using these terms like you’re pulling them from a grab-bag Descriptions do not suffice when equations give us precise descriptions, rather than dreck like “energy fighting back against your acceleration”

You should ask doctors

! Moderator Note That’s not how this works. You need to provide evidence that you’re right. And forum rules require that the evidence and discussion be posted here, so “read the article” will not suffice.

That’s the exact example I had in mind.

Don’t forget the tax cuts

Not difficult - it would be impossible. There’s no “memory” of the shape. There are a limited set of circumstances where you could even “unmix” a substance to an earlier state (high viscosity was one criterion, IIRC)

Redshift is an effect of velocity, not size. It doesn’t make universe look bigger. There is a separate effect from expansion, but things don’t look far away because they’re red-shifted It’s not a paradox. Energy is not invariant. That’s true even in Newtonian physics (Galilean transformations)

That's not what Einstein’s relativity says Nope. Relativistic effects happen to other things (time for a moving observer, distances you measure), not you - your own ship stays the same (length and clock) No, it only contradicts your misunderstanding of relativity. The stationary observer and rocket observer will disagree on the rate of energy being used and the time, since these are relative quantities, and quite clearly labeled as such in the theory (seeing as the equations for them are speed-dependent) Any paradox here is of your own fabrication, by mis-applying the theory and then discovering a contradiction. SR is just some algebra, and that math is self-consistent. Contradictions must lie elsewhere.

Based on evidence? Or fallacious reasoning? A lot of elements are required for success, including luck and help from others, and some people discount these elements when assessing the various contributions (fallacy of the single cause). Thus the mistaken notion that the rich work hard and poor people are lazy. Plus you have the errors of assuming competence, based on wealth, and assigning the competence of the people working for Musk to him (the phenomenon where managers take too much credit for the work that their people did) There’s also the error of thinking that expertise is fungible - being smart about one thing does not mean you are smart in other areas. Again, based on evidence?

If it has more energy it has more energy. “Relativistic mass” is just a proxy for total energy. “Relative to the engine itself” is the same frame as the rocket. There’s no time dilation between them. “months on end” in the rest frame might be seconds in the rocket frame, but in the rocket frame, the trip isn’t as far, by the same proportion. There is conservation of energy, but that only applies within a frame. Quantities that are the same in all frames are invariant, and energy is not invariant - it’s relative.

From a marketing angle. What’s the evidence that he had much to do with the design? He funded it. Again, is there evidence he did any design or engineering? Whenever he speaks on matters that people understand, they point out he’s a buffoon. He invested in the business. His obvious “talent” is that he’s rich.

At least she thinks you’re normal

He’s Nazi. The salute, numerous anti-semitic remarks, promoting nazi apologists, appearing at an AfD campaignevent.

My back yard view is nice after snowfall, in the morning sun

Matter + antimatter has energy, both before and after annihilation (since energy is conserved), so saying there’s no energy left is incorrect.

He did his duty, then. Give him some credit for that. It puts him way ahead of some. If you warn people about an invasion and it doesn’t happen, you lose credibility while also causing panic and economic chaos, which Ukraine probably wanted to avoid*. Do it a few times and nobody pays attention anymore. It’s quite possible that if Zelenskyy had sounded an alarm, Putin would have delayed the invasion to undermine him. Zelenskyy didn’t believe an invasion was imminent. The US shared some intelligence, but the US didn’t have a lot of credibility owing to recent intelligence failures (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan) and they didn’t share all of it, because of Russian spies in Ukraine; it might reveal the sources of the information, and the US wasn’t willing to risk that until after the invasion happened. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2022/ukraine-road-to-war/ *which happened anyway, because of the US warnings. So some in Ukraine were paying attention, even if you weren’t https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-warnings-russia-invade-frustrate-ukrainians-rcna16358

A cyclone requires an energy input. It’s not something that just happens with a ”kick start”

You’re claiming no curvature despite the energy not being zero.

Cooling efficiency is not the same measurement. When you say that heating is (nearly) 100% efficient, that’s saying all of the energy is turned into heat. 100 J of electricity is turned into 100J of thermal. (temp goes up) Cooling efficiency is really the coefficient of performance; it’s about moving stuff with energy around. You can remove, say, 250J of heat from space with 100J of input, but you haven’t destroyed any energy - the rejected heat from the system is larger. 250J is removed from the space (temp goes down) but that and the 100J of electricity is deposited elsewhere (350J total) - wherever your thermal reservoir is. If you compare apples to apples, the COP of a heat pump is always bigger for heating than cooling, given the same input of heat and work https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance

A related experiment has been done. Antimatter is attracted, not repulsed, by gravity from normal matter. “antihydrogen atoms, released from magnetic confinement in the ALPHA-g apparatus, behave in a way consistent with gravitational attraction to the Earth. Repulsive ‘antigravity’ is ruled out in this case.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06527-1 You aren’t going to be able to measure gravitational effects between tiny amounts of matter and antimatter (i.e. particles or atoms)

It’s a matter of rate, not prevention. k = Ae^(-Ea/RT) Low temperatures inhibit overcoming the activation energy Also if the molecule tended to dissociate owing to a high temperature, it wouldn’t be around very long.

Yes, it does. The gravity (i.e. curvature) in some area depends on the mass nearby, but it doesn’t tell you the distribution of that mass. It could be a planet of some size, or a smaller planet with a higher density. Further, if that mass is rotating, that has an effect.