Leaderboard

Here is what looks like the same passage from English wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment Note that the above is a full section showing more context and interpretation. Looks like the results of that experiment showed a different outcome that you try to argue?

That is actually worrying given the current state of the US. In any other well-informed and functional democracy one might expect an incompetent leader who has personally fueled needless deaths of his voters to be ousted from office in a landslide. Then of course there is the damage done especially to low to middle income folks (perversely, the rich are doing even better during the pandemic). After all it is citizens dying not asylum seekers, or kids which no one cares about. That in my mind demonstrates the power of identity politics that is divorced from policy goals. You can have things fall apart all around you and still support the folks who are responsible for it. I actually want to mention that there are several things mixed in the arguments above. One is how Democrats should act to be morally superior, and the other in order to win votes. While the former argument is easier to state in terms of taking the high road, the latter is much more difficult. Studies have established that the US is massively polarized. The study I cited above indicated that a significant proportion of conservative voters would vote for Republicans even in conflict with their own interests. That means that the Republican party can implement unpopular policies without losing votes, whereas the Democrats will have a hard time implementing policies that will keep their voters happy. I think iNow and me have repeatedly shown that middle-of-the-road policies are not the way as what voters want are far more progressive than the political landscape indicates. Again, part of it is driven by the fact that the Republicans have mostly killed off their moderate wing, which can in fact kill policies that are actually preferred by their electorate (such as public health care options) without being severely punished.

Or, the more reason explanation for Mercury and Venus not having satellites and slow rotations is that they are both closer to the Sun and subject to greater tidal forces which has the effect of making it harder to capture and hold on to satellites and results in greater tidal braking which slows rotation. The Earth-Venus alignment is most likely a result of orbital resonance (Earth orbits 8 time for every 13 orbits of Venus). Such orbital resonances are not rare, and result from the fact that the orbits are not independent of each other, because each planet has a small gravitational effect on the other.

It doesn't really say anything. It's a video of some kind of analogical experiment. https://i.imgur.com/FfWg4GU.mp4 I hope a direct link to the video helps (it's very short.)

Yes, that means they will float. But the downflow of water exerts a force as it strikes the beads, so initially the buoyancy can’t overcome this. But the flow rate near the beads decreases after the top fills up, so this force decreases, and then the beads can float upwards.

Effective communication could well require practice closer to home. Our understanding of biological communications is not great, partly I believe, because we are intent on teaching language, rather than communication. As 'the intelligent' species, we put put the onus on the 'lesser' to learn from us. Understand our method of communication. Doesn't make much sense. Working with animals depends on understanding the signals being given behaviourally, and creating or giving back patterns that will be be recognisable. There are different kinds of intelligence that we can come to know, to a good extent. The basis of communication for what is in front of us relies on pattern recognition. It must help to recognise diverse forms of behavioural pattern/signals for their roles in language between an environment and its subject to understand the broad dimensions of language. Animal communication can teach a lot about the diversity of language.

Actually, it does. You just aren't understanding what you are seeing. The continuum isn't hidden from view on some tiny scale. We are looking at it all the time. Soooooo....after re-reading the original UCSB answer, I, too, think it was an error on the part of the person answering the question. Sooooo. Thanks to all anyway, but it looks like it is my bad. I was excited because 3.2 km/s would have made sense to what I am working on in one respect. My calculations based on the curve of the orbit gives me only 5.97042055×10−6 km/s, which seems way too small. So. Sorry and thanks.

Does such a map tell you the population density? If no, then the maps don’t actually tell you that the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost always vote Republican. The amount of red >> the amount of blue, which can be misleading. As I said. Now, tell me why the majority of people living in sparsely-populated counties almost always voting Republican matters, in terms of who gets more votes.

The point is that these two maps represent the exact same election yet tell vastly different stories about it. One of those stories is much more accurate than the other. An electoral map rendered in a traditional style shows county-by-county data from the 2016 presidential election. (Jetpack.AI) An electoral map by Karim Douieb shows voting by population rather than strictly by geography. In place of vast swaths of red or blue, the map reveals the mixed nature of voting patterns. (Jetpack.AI)

One of the very best in my estimation, Eva Cassidy: https://youtu.be/ADX8GRfRKHg

I also asked you previously What do you think 'base' means ? Give us your understanding/interpretation. You seem to think we are all telling you something different than what the rest of us all understand we are telling you. YOU is the common denominator to this misunderstanding. ( do you know what a denominator is ? )

Thanks. It is fantastic to have finally found somebody who appreciates my sense of humour. What a pity you spoilt your post by reverting to type at the end. Also a shame that you are not an etymologist, because then you could have ascertained the origin of the name Isaac Frogton, and reached the opposite conclusion. Have you found many errors? If you could share your solution that would be very interesting. “Dimensionally inconsistent” was not a good choice of words, as by definition it implies in-correctness. I should have confined myself to giving you your due for spotting the issue with so little to go on. There may be some dark corner of your mind panicking about the catastrophic possibility that the Frogton Universal Force Law might be correct, but the title of the thread is “Is E=MC² the optimal description of nature?” Thank you for rushing in where Swansont feared to tread, with that monstrous equation. But you are doing what I object to, by trying to impress with jargon. To demonstrate that you understand nature, and are not just repeating what you have read, derive that equation, explain how it relates to E=MC², and reveal the true meaning of 'petitio principii'. No. I do not know why I put a dot there, but to my untrained eye it looks neater. You need to consider just the first 3 paragraphs of my post together, and say what you disagree with. I do not have unlimited time to reply to everything.