MigL

The 737 MAX is a third generation 737. The 1st generation used low bypass engines, but the new fuel efficient high bypass engines of the MAX require much more space under the wing than is available. Boeing solution necessitated a very short engine pylon, such that the engines are not underslung, but almost level with the wing surface. This generates the very dangerous situation of 'pitch up', which can cause wing stall, and the plane just drops out of the sky because of no lift. To remedy the situation Boeing came up with the MCAS system, which forces the nose of the aircraft down when it detects this pitch up moment through twin pitot tubes. This system overrides the control stick inputs from the pilot. What happened in the 737 MAX incidents is faulty data from the pitot tubes activated the system, and the pilots could not pull the nose up and avoid crashing into the ground. There is a switch to turn off the MCAS system but none of the pilots were trained in this. I'm not sure what Boeing has done to remedy the situation after the 737 MAX grounding and investigation. Either the system has been modified, orbetter pilot training has been introduced. More and more planes are being designed to be unstable in flight, to take advantage of the efficiencies of better aerodynamics, and only the flight computers make them controllable. I remember an interview with one of the designers of the flight control system of the Eurofighter Typhoon where he states that flying the plane manually would be like'holding a bike backwards, by the handlebars, while sitting on the hood of a car moving at 100 m/hr, and trying to keep it going straight'. That being said, I have flown in a 737 MAX, and would do so again; it is still safer than riding in a bus. But we train would be terrorists well enough to hit buildings.

I'm finding this thread, and the OP, more and more inane as it goes on, especially the comparison to perpetual motion. One is impossible, the other, we see a shining example of everyday, and billions ( depending on your eyesight ) at night. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which, Dim. If the whole purpose of spending is short term gains, why do we fund the arts ? Why do we fund/support families with children, and children's programs, when they won't be returning that investment for a good 20 years, till they're adults ? Have some foresight, Dim.

The 'when' was 4.5 billion years ago, when the Sun first lit up what would become our solar system. We know exactly HOW fusion works ( not like perpetual motion at all ); what remains is the engineering task, 'finding the right filament', of containment and temperature. No easy task, to be sure, but we are reminded that it is possible ( unlike perpetual motion ) with every sunrise.

I have to agree with Swansont, INow and Peterkin. This was a mistake 4 years in the making; any attempt to fix the problem by replacing the candidate in the next4-5 months will result in greater chance of a disaster than sticking with J Biden. He really has to push the fact that he is surrounded by a very competent team, and how well that has worked out during the last 4 years.

Let's face it. D Trump would have had a good 4 years also, if he had appointed capable people and not micro-managed all decisions. Instead he appointed yes-men who were expected to agree with every one of his stupid decisions. We know J Biden has people who can get the job done; he's proven it for 4 years, but a President has to inspire confidence; Joe did not do that the other night. Even though the American electorate is extremely polarized, there are still some swing votes that are needed to avert another 4 disastrous Trump years. They won't do the analysis of J Biden's last 4 years; they will go on perception from the debate, and other media. I realize it's too late for a Plan B, but there's a very big chance a liar and a cheat may win the Presidency because he's seen as more competent than a 'shuffling', 'stuttering' old man who has done 4 years of good work.

And more importantly ... no sense.

Simplest way to think of the Higgs mechanism is as a 'scalar' field. Unlike vector, or tensor, fields the value at each point in space has no direction assigned to it, so nothing will be 'forced' in any particular direction.

And introduce legislation already. No one over 65 can run for office. That means the oldest President will be a maximum of under 73 years of age. And don't give me any grief about age discrimination; we already discriminate against people younger than 18, because we don't consider them 'competent' adults. Did either of those two old farts seem 'competent' to anybody ??? The only thing J Biden has going for him, is that with his years of experience he will appoint/delegate the tough choices to capable people. The orange haired buffoon will appoint only ass-kissing sycophants, and get rid of them when they try to correct him.

It should have been K Harris, but they decided to keep her locked up in the basement, and out of sight. Or maybe, even Democrat Americans are afraid of a strong black woman in the highest office.

Even when Wednesday is considered divisible, as in "I'll meet you on Wednesday at three o' clock", it is improper to use 'in Wednesday'. Just a rule of applicability. ( which you learn by experience; English is not very intuitive )

Some question whether there is, or can be, a graviton. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

Who fixes the robots ? Who programs them ? Who handles the data and logistics to keep them all operating. Jobs change; they don't vanish. Yes, you'll have to work till you're 65.

On the last month of the year we celebrate Christmas. Both have their uses and proper applicability.

Most robots are not humanoid. It is only E Musk's delusions of grandeur that make him want to create humanoid robots. An intelligent, self loading/emptying dishwasher is a robot, and way more efficient than a humanoid robot would be at dishwashing. I can see the daily repair bills now; clothing and garments stuck or jamming the joints of the robot rendering it inoperable.

Practically incomprehensible, counterintuitive, absurd, and not understandable are a poor choice of words to substitute for probabilistic. In the 20s and 30s, probabilistic Quantum Mechanics was a huge paradigm shift from the determinism of Classical Mechanics ( even for A Einstein ); seems some are still having problems with this change in world view 100 years later. On the contrary, they are precise enough to put close to 100 billion transistors on the die of the thumbnail sized CPU in your computer. Pretty amazing for a science that is incomprehensible. Two probable states. The energy liberated in nuclear reactions is not contained in the particles, rather it 'contains' the particles, as potential energy can simply be stated as the configuration of a system. IOW, arranging, or binding, the particles a specific way results in a change of the energy of the system of particles.

A deeper journey down the rabbit hole than even string theory. With no possibility of testing, making no new predictions other than the nature of Dark matter ( which is also presently not testable ), it doesn't solve any problems with current theory but simply introduces deeper, untestable levels of abstraction. Other than as a mathematical abstraction, what is the purpose of this exercise ?

You don't seem to understand what Swansont and Mordred are trying to tell you. That much mass at that separation would gravitationally collapse. That means a very very small Black Hole; not what you envisage. At Planck scales the three major forces, gravity, electroweak and color force are postulated to be equivalent in strength, but as we can't even get close to those scales, it is only theory of a single grand unified force. ( and I have no clue what ImplicitDemands is yammering about )

A few more squats never hurt anybody. I could use some myself. Unfortunately, bad knees ( one with pins and wires in it ) make leg presses, where you can alter foot position without falling over, are more suitable.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that holds science back. People ( like Dim ) want immediate returns on investment and don't consider the long term returns. This is common in fusion research, and has already affected other research like NASA's space program. We know fission is unsustainable because of long term waste residue and raw materials ( both which can even be weaponized ), but fusion has an abundance of raw reactant material, potentially much lower waste residue, and is as common as the Sun in the sky. Realizing almost unlimited power is an engineering problem, not a theoretical one. Unfortunately theory comes cheap while engineering costs money. The 'bean counters' always ruin it for everybody.

My opinion ... ImplicitDemands seems to have mixed feelings of superiority, and inferiority, at the same time along with other mental issues, and he should consult a professional about his confusion. Orgitude seems to be under the impression that sex and romance are a human right. They are NOT; they are a privilege. Only rapists think they are a right. And Eise Shame on you 🙂 ; must be a European thing. I was a shy teenager, but developed a 'personality' in University and was a single 'womanizer' well into my 40s ( by 'womanizer' I mean women had as good a time with me, as I did with them ). I'm still single, and sometimes party with women in their 30s, or late 20s even, but at 65, its difficult to be a womanizer without being accused of being a 'dirty old man'. All women ( or potential partners ) have different likes and interests. If you remember that it's not always about you, and listen to them a little, you'll find out what they like. Some like romance. Some like a little 'rougher' treatment. And some are happy that you just listened to them. But all are happy when treated with a little respect and appreciated for being thinking persons, and not just a 'bag of meat' for your sexual satisfaction. It's as simple as 'you give them what they want and they'll give you what you want'. Are you listening, ImplicitDemands ?

How about masturbation ??? You and the OP sure seem to do a lot of verbal jerking off in this thread. Can we please ignore these two, so that they hopefully go away, and we can go back to discussing the sciences this forum is designed for ?

I suspect Musk's 'ease' was for reasons different than Eisenhower's.

Are you sure ? Infrastructure will already need upgrading to accommodate 1 or 2 EVs per household. Even if it's a two step process that begins with cities, where 'rural use' vehicles switch to distributed power when entering city limits. And if those lower traffic remote roads and regions have homes or lights along them, they already have a distributed power grid; instead of using suspended wiring, the power would be carried to them by the 'road' equivalent. You just need technology to 'extract' power from the road as your vehicle travels along it without also 'frying' people or local wildlife.

I'm probably one of the people on your ignore list, Orgo-dude, but the definition of 'incel' is a specific state of mind of the person who identifies as such. It has nothing to do with the rest of society, or with me, but is a self-inflicted delusion that tends to harm those surrounding him ( or her ). And all your buzz-words, like 'anglosphere gender whatchyoumaycallits' may make me pity the sap, but I will not feel guilty about it.

Batteries have to be carried around and are a built in inefficiency; Lithium is scarce and highly reactive. A better system would involve distributed power, where the 'road' ( or its equivalent ) would supply power to the much smaller, lightweight vehicle. Why waste half of your available power accelerating batteries and motors ?