MigL

O know you're quite familiar with Canadian multiculturalism, CharonY. Cultural diversity is encouraged, and even celebrated, here. ( we have Multicultural festivities for two weeks in May, in St. Catharines; great parties every night ) However, immigrants are reminded why they left their countries to come to Canada, and things like racial or regional hatred from their origin, or the maltreatment of women is discouraged, as is elevating religions above secular law. One has to remember that in some of the originating countries life is 'cheap', I don't have a problem reminding/teaching them that they came to Canada for a better way of life.

I'm going to have to assume you don't. If the speed of light is frame independent, as you have agreed, so what difference would be observed from a different inertial frame ? All frames are valid; there is no universal frame such as 'fixed space'.

Keep introducing interesting topics, and we will keep participating in the discussion ...

My understanding is that Michelson-Morley determined that the aether does not affect the motion of anything propagating through it ... as if it wasn't even there. So the aether was discarded. As for the frame independence of the speed of light, since the 1600s, one of the tenets of Galilean relativity is that no experiment performed in an inertial frame can determine uniform motion; you can only determine accelerated motion. Einstein's thought experiment pictured himself sitting on a beam of light and holding a mirror in front of his face. If the speed of light was frame dependent, his reflection would not be able to 'catch up' to the mirror and reflect back to his eyes; he would see a 'black' mirror and would be able to tell he was moving at the speed of light; a violation of Galilean invariance. To preserve Galilean relativity, he must be able to see his reflection, which means the speed of light must be the same for all observers, or frame independent. ( I have tried to keep this explanation at the 'beginner' level )

Ahhh. But then you need to define what accounts for the force ( and the various effects that add/subtract due to differences between idealized particles and real gases ). It's mathematical definitions all the way down ...

My opinion of 'Gods' is based on a short story that I read long, long ago in an anthology. There comes a time they are not needed anymore. EVENSONG by Lester Del Ray

But the equation presented was not the Van der Waals equation. It was for an ideal gas; and that is what I addressed. If I had addressed the Van der Waals gas equation, I would have included the volume correction ( since gas molecules occupy physical space ), and the pressure correction ( since gas molecules affect each other with residual electromagnetic forces ) in the definition.

Mmmm. I have a different opinion 🙂 . What we call pressure is defined as the number of particles, of a given kinetic energy, in a specified volume. Sure sounds like a definition, I suppose, given @studiot lack of a specific definition of 'simple', we are all free to voice ( and back up ) our disparate opinions. One more thought ... The equation P=NkT/V can be simplified, by substitution, to yield P=P, the identity equation. So which is 'simpler' ?

I had considered the principle of stationary action, but, other than the mathematical expression, nothing about it is 'simple', as it underlies most of modern Physics. And, at least in my mind, is still defining the trajectory where the time integral of the Lagrangian has a 1st order variation of zero ( stationary ). Its implications are far from 'simple', as are those of the identity. Perhaps @studiot might be so kind as to clarify what he means by 'simple'

Isn't every equation a mathematical definition ? One variable is defined in terms, or changes of, other variables. An identity simply defines itself, and so is the simplest type.

A variable can represent length, mass, time, etc., so ... yeah. If your criteria is simplicity, I don't see how you can get 'simpler' than an identity equation. I can offer plenty of reasons why the equations offered by other members are not 'simple'. I'm asking for your reasoning dismissing the identity equation.

The simplest identity equation would be something like x = x or maybe x + 0 = x which state that the variable is always equal to itself, no matter what number is plugged in for the variable. and you did ask for the simplest, although I assumed you meant class of equation, not a specific one. So, how about telling us your choice ...

All 'groups' of people require some controls to maintain an ordered society. In the past, this was achieved through religion, and the fear of the wrath of 'gods', and although a lot of the world has shifted towards secularism, governments still have to impose some manner of control to maintain an ordered society. Some are more brutal, some more beneficial. As a matter of fact, most governments are based on a 'belief' system, as to what is best for society ( or oneself ). Same difference ...

An identity equation that stays true for any value assigned to its variables.

You guys are overthinking it ... The fish and mushrooms at the supermarket are edible and taste just fine.

I was vacationing in Europe since the 5th and missed this ... Ignorant people, like all MAGA and Lynkey, should be reminded that, with the current birthrate in the UK ( as well as the rest of Europe, North America, and Oriental nations like S Korea, Japan, Singapore, etc. ) there will not be ANY Britons left in less than 200 years. What is preferable, an empty island, or one populated by different cultures ( and young people who work and pay taxes to support the pensions of the aged Britons ) ? I would think, not only should they be bringing in immigrants, but also providing their children with free education to help them assimilate into the British way of life, and rid them of some negative cultural 'baggage' that they may bring with them. But of course, MAGA and Linkey view this as immigrants getting 'freebees' even though it helps alleviate the problems they often cite.

Sometimes musical 'icons' get raves for mediocre acting performances simply because they are 'icons'. Does anyone think Taylor Swift wouldn't be huge as an actress if she decided to try it ? I would agree with Swansont about Sinatra, Crosby and Streisand, but would add Dean Martin who was also a master comedian. And also agreeing with Swansont on comics, like R Williams, who was fantastic in Good Will Hunting.

The 1st episode of the 4th ( and final ) season of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has an interesting premise. The ship is sent back in time to find a thriving Martian civilization 65 Million years ago. They are at war with the arachnid inhabitants of the 5th planet ( not Jupiter ) and Earth is populated by Saurian species. The Martian commander steals some of their anti-matter, and uses it to destroy the 5th planet leaving only asteroids. One of the asteroids lands on Earth ( Yucatan peninsula ) and kills off the Dinosaurs, making way for mammals and humans. The gravitational turbulence from the 5th planet's destruction shifts orbits, and Mars eventually becomes lifeless. ( wonder where the Martians went ? ) The point is that 65 Million years is a long time, never mind double or triple that. And we have only made lasting 'markers' during the last few thousand years.

Posts that claim to disprove energy conservation usually last as long as it takes other members to falsify the premise; usually less than 1 day. I don't know about posts that disprove energy conservation; we've never had any.

He's just kicking the can down the road ... to November.

Nice. It's a shame cranks think YouTube is a reputable scientific journal. ( although there are a few gems )

Not all renewables, but certainly solar panels, are typically made from semi-conducting materials, so they fall into the category that Swansont has mentioned in the OP.

your 'ramblings' in this thread don't inspire confidence in your critical thinking/reasoning. All we've gotten is unrelated anecdotal stories about sea-glass, things 'appearing' without you asking for them, and nameless people ( from NBI and Princeton no less ) and AI ( ? ) who praise your work. Either provide evidence for your scientific claims, or stick to the subject of sea-glass.

A basic US$2000 computer in 1995, just before Win95 was released, would have used an Intel i486, or Pentium1, with 8-16 MB memory, a 2-4 GB spinning magnetic hard drive, and MS-DOS 6.22 or Win3.1. If you built it yourself, you could get the same specs for US$500-600 ( I built three for my nephews and niece ), That US$2000 is worth just about US$4400 today. In terms of basic productivity software, a Pentium1 will serve just fine, but memory and storage will limit multi-tasking, open windows, and be very frustrating with slow load/store tasks, Of course, any tasks involving image/video manipulation, 3D modelling, etc. would be almost impossible ( they used dedicated RISC workstations for that at the time ). As for printing, I remember buying a Panasonic ink-jet for almost $400, when now-days, you can pick up a cheap laser printer for less than $100 with much better quality. However, they seem to have adopted the cell-phone business model, the hardware is practically free, but the service/consumables is where they make their money. Quite a journey in 35 years. But if you go back 50 years, I used a Burrows mainframe to solve for the energy levels of a Helium atom, using numerical methods, Hollerith punch cards, and fan-fold paper for the 'display'. A Wang minicomputer and an Apple II+ was for everyday use in the Physics Department, and I used a TRS-80 Model 1, with 4 KB of memory ( tape recorder storage ) for my undergrad Thesis ( Raman Spectroscopy of solid Ammonia ). An even bigger journey, so it seems the 'steps' in this journey are getting smaller with time.

You see ? This means absolutely nothing; just hand-waving. Unless you mention the type and molarity of the acid, you could be washing your hands in lemon juice or vinegar. Then again even a 'weak' acid which doesn't fume or burn you, like Hydrofluoric, will kill you if you soak your hands in it. In this Forum we don't discuss generalities and anecdotal evidence. We like some precision. Still waiting for you to provide some.