Leaderboard

That is a perfectly valid Newtonian equation. Now substitute values in for the variables. For light, m=mo=0 IOW it has zero rest mass because it can never be at rest. So your perfectly valid equation, when mis-applied in the case of light or heat, gives you the non-sensical solution 0=0. Now you're doing Physics . ( being very sarcastic )

No it couldn't. You did ask for some more rigour and I gave it to you. I said Light is not a material body. So Newton's first law is not applicable to it.

It contributes to the mass terms but doesn't account for all the mass terms. Yes it is still a working progress but the Higgs field only gives the mass to certain particles such as quarks neutrinos and leptons. However that doesn't account for all the mass of every particle. For example the equation below has all 18 coupling constants involved however the relativity section is non renormalizable. [latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex] As you can see we have the Yukawa and Dirac couplings along with the Higgs couplings.

Notice how there is no explanation of the force or knife needed to separate the cake into 5 pieces .

There seems to be only one source, with no detail as to how it was collected and what biases might exist.

And, to confirm that the numbers from that long ago are consistent with a supposed correlation between intelligence and religiosity you would need to have data on the number of people in the general population claiming to be atheist. And do we even know that the clamed correlation existed in that period? For all we know, it could be a modern phenomenon. There doesn't seem to be enough data here to know: - If the correlation exists - How great the correlation is - How "religiosity" is defined and measured - How "atheism" is defined and measured - How "intelligence" is defined and measured - In which countries, cultures and time periods the correlation exists - How many people are atheist in different intelligence ranges in each country at each time period Therefore there is no way of knowing if the claimed 10% is expected, surprisingly high, unexpectedly low or even non-existent. Also important to note that religiosity and atheism are not opposites or even incompatible. How many of the Buddhists are also atheist (not believing in a god)? How many of those categorised as "Jewish" are just culturally Jewish but not at all religious (and the same could be said of other religious labels, to some extent). And so on and so on

Playing games with definitions now ? You are using 'divide' instead of 'separate'. Division is well defined in math ( and Physics/Chemistry ), and the definition of density satisfies dimensional analysis.

I can't find where the source data came from. I looked at the book the chart came from in the first link but I don't see his methods. How does one know the religion of someone who won the prize 100 years ago? My brother in law (a scientist) claims Christianity but that is for the sake of his mother. He is an atheist in reality. Did claiming atheism impact your ability to receive grants 100 or even 50 years ago? That may also have some impact. I also would have expected a higher percentage of atheists, but on the other hand, Jews are highly over represented. Go figure.

He didn't claim it "mattered". Some of us just find certain things interesting and are curious about them. You also didn't answer his question.

! Moderator Note OK. We are done here. Your "equations" are meaningless collections of symbols with no regard to dimensional analysis. How can "G=F=<E" even mean anything. Do not bring this up again. But, as Ghideon says, you seem to have a lot to learn so please feel free to use this forum as a resource by asking questions.

Violation of Bell’s inequalities does not imply such as thing as “action at a distance” - which is in itself a meaningless concept. Quantum entanglement is simply a statistical correlation between measurement outcomes; there is no causative “action” involved. I’m afraid this is completely meaningless.

We've also seen shadows cast by hydrogen that ends up gravitationally attracted to it. Like seeing the shadow of raindrops on a spider's web.

If I didn't know I would say she was of hispanic heritage.

! Moderator Note OK, then. We’re done. Don’t bring this up again.

The MIC/ZOI and other protocols mentioned above can generate data that may show "potential" efficacy but will be largely of questionable relevance. Many solvents in this regard have some antimicrobial effect -such protocols suffer from the inability to address additive, synergistic ot even absolute nature of combination. That is breaking out solvent + test compound vs test compound. A solvent-only control does not answer that question. DMSO is prob less of an issue in this than ethanol. More importantly, using a solvent to shoehorn an insoluble compound into a classic MIC/ZOI test is common but offers a result of questionable relevance. Dispersing the agent in agar is also problematic as it effectively establishes an emulsion in the water colloid. The target bug may not even "see" the compound. But you can still get numbers and report potential - if that's all you need at this point. Do you have application in mind - or is this an academic effort?

It's a tactic he uses successfully to destroy limitations. He lies so much it becomes difficult to gauge their degree of egregiousness, so he gets away with behavior over everyone else's limit. He screams that the press are the enemy of the people, and they don't hold him as accountable as they would anyone else (why aren't normal outlets reporting the true craziness he spouts at his rallies? Why aren't we getting a journalistic analysis of why someone rants for half an hour about imaginary toilets that require 10 flushes?). He screams so loudly about the corruption of others and it absolutely makes a lot of people ignore the fact that he's King of the Swamp, probably one of the most corrupt leaders the US has ever had. He gets away with it because we let him. We don't demand actual information from our leadership. We fall prey to tactics most of us find obvious. The taxpayers almost completely fund this 24/7/365 political circus in one way or another, helping to perpetuate a system designed to favor wealthy participants only. We willingly let it happen, willingly cut our own throats and act against our own best interest, just like we're willing to eat or drink or drug ourselves to death. The vast majority need publicly funded programs for education and health, yet we willingly let the elite condemn that as "socialism". Trump is purposefully increasing our tolerance for outrage, and it seems to be working. With Republicans, when it comes to asking a foreign power for favors against political opponents, when you're a POTUS they let you do it.

Manufactured nonsense. The media has been horny to find a way of putting Warren against Sanders and they’re using this. Bernie can support women for POTUS and still think gender may be a handicap with our less tolerant voters. I think the conversation did happen and that’s the basis of it, but none of us knows. We weren’t there, hence the energy across the Twittersphere. She made a smart strategic move and used it as an opportunity to differentiate herself from Bernie all while addressing the electability argument head on. Now the Sanders supporters have their panties in a bunch and are acting like a bunch of toddlers who need a nap and a Snickers and they keep reminding us of why so many millions of voters keep leaning Trump while they continue mandating consistent purity tests even for those who overlap with them on 99% of the issues.

As I’ve pointed out earlier, there is no such thing as a “magnetic charge”.

Maybe