MigL

That's the signal from the beacon set up to warn interstellar civilizations that they are getting close to Earth. Home to a belligerent, self-absorbed and uncaring civilization … of dolphins! ( always blame someone else )

The turtle joke is funny, Phi. Dictionary definitions are not, Joigus.

Refraction is when incident light bends towards the normal, on entry into a denser medium; this is caused by the 'slowing' of light by absorption and re-emission. What do you think is length contracted ?

Governments haven't favored vaccine developers, They have actually hurt them ( in a capitalistic way ). Can you imagine if only one company had developed a vaccine on their own? Can you imagine the price and bidding wars by Governments trying to secure vaccines for their people? They would become the biggest, most profitable company in the world, overnight. Exactly. And also like the example of 'extra' votes for under-representation in the past, which you are against. Did you misunderstand the point I was making with that post about unequitable voting rights to combat PAST inequitable voting rights ? Saying that something was wrong in the past, and using the same mechanism to 'fix' that past wrong, is still wrong in my opinion.

Exactly. When the cost of the technologies to clean fossil fuel emissions becomes too high, consumers will no longer be willing to use them. And they decide when to switch, and to which new technology. no need for the Government to be involved in picking winners and losers

I understand your point, and agree that is totally wrong. As is bailing out Big Banks and GM ( but not people ), because they are 'too big to fail'. But if there was a technology that would result in zero GHG emissions ( if that is the target set ), I would not have a problem using fossil fuels. Why should the Government have any further say in that ?

I think you're confusing 'funny' with 'sad'. edit A lot of criminals will be able to spend Christmas and New Year's at home celebrating. He still has a month's worth of Presidential Pardons to go.

J Biden has promised to rejoin the international community in the fight against increased GHG emissions. Whether that's done with renewable energy sources, or some other technologies ( one such being increased nuclear ) is to be decided. I personally don't like Governments 'picking' winners and losers in technology and industry, by financial incentives like rebates/grants or fines/taxes. That is not a Government's mandate. The Government should simply set rules/targets and it is up to technology/industry to meet them. I would not care if industry continued using fossil fuels, as long as they could meet reduced emission standards through scrubbing/containment ( or other ) technologies. If the cost of these containment technologies becomes increasingly high, and has to be passed on to consumers, THEY are the ones who will choose which industry thrives, and which goes extinct.

Yet Swansont has just finished explaining to you that it doesn't. Einstein did NOT think light had mass and gas 'particles' are not 'stuck' to each other. And I hope you aren't hard headed and, at least, learn something from this, so that 10 years isn't totally wasted. Good luck in your pursuit of knowledge.

The simple answer ? When they start acting like the current Republicans. Lying or hiding truth, manipulating people with fear, subverting voter's rights and democracy, putting military in the streets to quell protests or overturn legal elections, withholding help for people in a pandemic unless there is something in it for them and theirs, turning a blind eye to Presidential wrongdoings for fear of losing power, … How much time have you got ? Not claiming that the Democrats have done any of those things, like Republicans have, or have threatened to do, although they contributed to the impasse with the pandemic relief bill as much as they could, and they have manipulated the truth somewhat ( all politicians do, and call it 'spin' ), and voters with fear ( possibly justified ) of what D Trump might do. So overall, Republicans are 'mean', while Democrats are not perfect, but quite a bit 'nicer' to people/voters. A simplistic assessment, but far from untrue.

A sound wave is a pattern of compression/rarefaction pulses ( of particles or molecules of gas ) arriving at a frequency. How is that any different from what you describe ? You have simply inserted a 'medium' for EM waves where none is needed. As this is in Speculations, you require some basis for this assertion, as it is not accepted Physics. Since these bits have mass this constant speed cannot be the speed of light. Whoa! So these 'small bits of mass' cause gravity, charge and magnetism ? How exactly do 'small bits of mass' cause charge ? And again, forces propagating at the speed of light are made of these 'bits of mass' ? This last statement of yours is very far 'off the beaten path' of accepted Physics. Sticking to it requires the overturning of almost all Physics and our best theories, and a lot of patchwork. That's a pretty steep mountain to climb. ( wow, that's a lot of metaphors )

Ahh, but 8 million more people wanted a 'nicer' J Biden. ( or possibly a sane President )

Bullsh*t about being nice … lol ? Are you laughing at me ? Americans are fairly even split on immigration, with almost equal numbers through the last several years for increasing, maintaining, or decreasing. So that is not a policy supported by a majority of Americans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx Yet only a 'mean' party, like the Republicans, would lock up immigrant children in cages. Certainly not very nice.

How much is currently being invested in Nuclear ? As far as I know, while Nuclear power output has increased over the years through efficiency gains, new power plants were only constructed again starting in 2013. A 34 year break since the 1079 Three Mile Island incident.

Are we replacing the wave nature of light ( the photon ) with a 'pattern' of corpuscles then ? I read that as a 'wave' of corpuscles. Only question is then, "What are these corpuscles ?" And why are they even needed ?

I think almost everyone here has missed my point. My apologies for not explaining myself better. I'm pretty confident everyone involved in this discussion would have voted Democrat in this last election, even us non-Americans, if we could. Why is that ? Is it because one party cares about the economy more than people's lives ? Is it because that party gives tax breaks which predominantly benefit the rich ( and themselves ), and want the middle class to pay for it, and the poor to fend for themselves ? Is it because that party wants to deny ( under the guise of freedom of choice ) ordinary Americans Health coverage, so their donors ( private insurance companies ) can keep making huge profits on the backs of sick and disabled Americans ? Or because other donors to their party want them to spend almost as much on the yearly Defense budget as they did on Covid relief, one time; and nearly defeated after months of talks breaking down. Is it because that party is trying to subvert democracy, and actively considering martial law to overturn the will of the people in this last election ? Or is it because most Democrats actually care about the people they represent and want the best America for them ? IOW, would everybody have voted Democrat in the last election because they are the 'nicer' party ? See, being 'nice' does work !

Are we not trying to show them the 'better way' ? Trying to set an example of how a just society behaves ? If Republicans and Democrats use the same methods of lying/cheating/manipulating voters, does the name still distinguish them ? If Communists and Fascists both use gulags, mass murder and starvation to control people, are they really different ? If the US acted like N Korea or Iran, in their many conflicts, the US would have nuked them a long time ago, and then would have been no different than those terrorist/oppressive regimes. Even Jesus did not slap his tormentors back, but turned the other cheek and said "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" ( you think maybe I went too far with that last Religious part ?? )

I came across an article which ties in with our discussion about methods to end unequal access to Education, and the role Affirmative Action could play in that process. Given the fact that Black American slaves were once considered less than a person ( 3/5 th ), would it be ethical, or just, to now consider them more than 1 person, in an effort to right past wrongs, as the article proposes with voting rights ? "But there’s another way to undo the damage of the Electoral College and other structurally racist political institutions: We can implement vote reparations by double-counting ballots cast by all Black residents. The poisonous legacy of slavery applies to Black people regardless of when we or our ancestors arrived in this country. Vote reparations should also extend to Native Americans." https://www.thenation.com/article/society/black-votes-reparations-gerrymandering/ What are your thoughts ?

Because if they aren't, then they are as bad as Republicans ? What is that old saying about lying down with pigs ? Or the one about taking the high road ? Be careful what you wish for; if Democrats start acting like Republicans, we are really screwed. Just stickin' up for my buddy, JC .

No, but I do recognize an asshole when I see one. ( my apologies to the rest of the membership tor my infraction and behavior )

Pouty turkeys ??? Come on, I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion. And I'm not the one invoking advanced Physics theories to explain relatively simple geological processes. ( maybe you're trying to aggrandize your own importance by doing so ) What have you got planned next; SuperString Theory to explain the weather ?

Glad you got a laugh out of it .

I don't claim to know much Physics; just have a BSC. But my advice would be to use the KISS principle ( keep it simple, st*pid ). Why resort to esoteric and complex explanations ( like muon catalyzed fusion and quantum processes ) for something that can be explained with 'classical' geophysics? And don't claim that conventional explanations have all failed, as you didn't provide a single example of failed conventional explanations. Not only that, but your proposal doesn't offer any explanations either; it is simply a 'guess', and you expect others to work out the details to make it 'fly'.

I can see other problems also. The gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, are sizeable enough that inertial effects on acceleration ( of the Sun ), would cause disruptions to their orbits; which would, in turn, affect even the smaller 'rocky' planets. You might move the Sun, but it may arrive at its destination without planets.

I understand ( and appreciate ) your efforts.