Leaderboard

Page 169 in Volume 7: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1918-1921 (English translation supplement):

Grounding of electric charges (usually electrons) means they travel through a conductor. It's a lot harder for them to travel through air. Massive objects can travel through air or the vacuum by virtue of gravity or their momentum, so they don't need to be grounded by anything. The presence of positive and negative charges isn't really relevant.

L=1/γ=1−v2−−−−−√ dL/dt=−γva=vn+1−vn ∂v/∂n=(vn+1−vn)/1=−γva H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}} [math] H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}} [/math] av

Yes, it is. A neutral chlorine atom has zero charge. So does a neutral sodium atom. But they stick together because sodium "donates" its extra electron (the 3s1 electron), which is very loose, for quantum-mechanical reasons, while the incomplete 3p5 level of sodium is much more stable with an extra electron. Ionic bonds are electrostatic in nature, but not because the original atoms are charged. It's a matter of quantum stability vs electrostatic attration, so to speak. The chemical bond does not happen because of electrostatic unbalance, but because atoms create these stable "rooms" for the electrons to be in. Atoms with similar electronegativity create a common orbital, in which to share electrons. That's the essence of the covalent bond. While transition metals create gigantic orbitals to cut loose their extra electrons. Those are the conduction bands. A salt crystal is neutral overall though, same as metals, and covalent substances. Electric unbalance for macroscopic samples of matter is a tiny, tiny percent. Electron and proton are not kept apart because of the exclusion principle. The exclusion principle is valid for identical particles. Electron and proton are very far from identical. They're kept apart because of the HUP. One thing is attraction proton-electron in the hydrogen atom (electrostatic), and another thing is atom-atom attraction. I was addressing @JustJoe's request, (My emphasis.) Those are different phenomena.

As @Lorentz Jr told you, the CoM of e- and proton coincide. If e- is in an s-wave, the charge distribution has no polarity. Is that "nullified" enough for you? If the electron is excited to a state with angular momentum, a slight polarity appears. So at very short distances you would see the electron "sticking out." You see, there are details --many of them-- that you're missing. So your picture is probably very imprecise on many accounts... EDIT: No polarity, sorry. A displacement of charge density, but no polarity. I find it very difficult to understand what you mean, honestly.

I saw a video that suggested you could do it with a mass the size of the earth. I can't do the math. I think you could also potentially do it by replacing the sun's core with iron to shut down fusion. That would be a neat party trick.

In my opinion, the simplest explanation of fields is that they're all oscillatory modes or other properties of the vacuum/ether. Roger Penrose has modeled the vacuum as a "spin network". Physicists talk about fields as being "fundamental", or "liquids", but I would say they're too complicated to be fundamental "building blocks of nature", and real liquids don't overlap each other.

Small wonder your understanding of electrical phenomena is all over the shop. Without going into sub-nuclear particle physics which would add nothing to the clarity here are my answers. Charge is the basic property possessed by some, but not all matter to which we attribute electrical phenomena. At all levels of analysis we call matter which posseses this property a charge carrier. When charge carriers move from place to place we call the flow of such carriers a current. By itself no energy is involved in a single particle of matter possessing a charge. The energy arises as a result of interaction of two or more charges. When two or more charges interact, they set up a potential field which we measure as a voltage. Grounded is an adjective describing a ground or earth which is a circuit theory term not a physics term referring to a circuit node or point which does not change in voltage regardless of how much current flows into or out of it. Please note it is possible to have a current without a voltage or a voltage without a current. Please ask about any terms used above that you are unsure of or did not understand.

What do you mean by "Earth's medium". Electrons can travel through the vacuum, but they usually start out trapped inside a conductor, and it's hard for them to get out of it. We're not talking about a lack of forces, we're talking about the presence of forces. Because they have to overcome the resistance of air molecules. Massive objects can do that. Electrons can't. You could say gravity is an infinite number of "forces", because objects are attracted to an infinite number of other objects. But Albert Einstein calculated that gravity is about zero forces because it's really the curvature of space-time.

Looks good so far. use \frac { xxxx }{ yyyy } to get division.. e.g. [math]f(x)=\frac{1}{x^2}[/math] If you see that some other member has used LaTeX, RMB on his equation, pick up Show Math As > TeX commands, copy'n'paste and learn from it.

In addition, the gastrointestinal system for herbivores often is often complex and have sophisticated systems to extract nutrients efficiently (e.g. longer intestines, multiple stomachs), which require more space, too. Different belly size within a species are obviously caused by different reasons.

This is not so strange. These animals evolved big bellies in order to have room for a lot of low energy food. Rather than they have big bellies from eating this food.

By dish soap I presume you mean washing up detergent. I suspect the issue may be to do with what types of anionic surfactant are used in each. There are many different ones. Bear in mind washing up detergent (dish soap) is designed for lifting and emulsifying the oils and fats found on used dishes, while laundry detergent is designed to do some of that that but also to remove a wide range of organic materials produced by the body, many of which are not oil or fat-based, may contain proteins, etc. Hence the bleaching agents, enzymes, polycarboxylates, etc. Laundry detergent has a more complex job, requiring a more complicated formulation. So I think the reason will be to do with some of these other components. I'm not expert on detergent chemistry, though.

That's a lie AND a strawman. I'm not speaking for others, I'm trying to show you there are some universal individual needs, and they probably start with some form of "nobody is inherently better than anybody else". When you awake to that fact, you can more easily see how the system favors some over others by design, which seems to be antithetical to what YOU claimed we need. How can an individual's needs be up to the them if the system is biased against them? As for the rest of your post, it seems you're saying that people affected by the bias in the system deserve what they get, and often crave having their individual rights taken from them. It's a strange argument in a thread about things we should try to achieve.

My diet is mainly Italian cuisine, but I am thin. In my case, I think it's possibly metabolism regulation genes from mom's side. Also my version of Mediterranean diet is very heavy on vegetables - I almost never dump just red sauce on pasta. There's always zucchini, beans, chickpeas, carrots, green peas, spinach, sweet potatoes, etc. The only poundage multiplier I really have to watch is polenta. I can relate to @Genady cheese problems - I have to moderate the parmesan and mozzarella these days. Cheesemaking does not remove the lactose. Ricotta is the worst for that. Love cabbage, but it's a paint peeler in any confined space. And Brussel sprouts are lethal.

Good point. Once you speculate on self-replicating probes there are so many possible speculative paths from that. And VN machines seem more practical especially in terms of collecting data in some unthinkably vast galactic survey. Yep. And terraforming is really hard work and massive scale investment, even if arsenic, mercury, lead, toxic chemicals, dangerous microbes, allergens, are not a problem. Alien biomes would likely have different protein structures and amino acids, so a colonist couldn't just start with "40 acres and a mule." The reality of most planet based colonies would likely be sequestered spaces beneath sealed domes. We have all really stayed with the FBI topic, haven't we? Hehe.

I did decide to punt another reply into your thread to see what happens.

Systemic bias generates negative healthcare outcomes for racial minorities. Systemic bias in the justice system means that punishment is unequally applied to differentiated racial/ethnic groups. Systemic bias limits the ability of racial minorities to be approved for a mortgage. Systemic racism limits the ability of individuals from racial minorities to participate in higher education. etc and so on. As previously defined by Ron DeSantis' lawyer, wokeness is the recognition of the existence of systemic bias. If the laws/constitution/values of a nation predicate that all people are treated equally, then systemic biases (and therefore wokeness) are a collective problem, rather than individual problems - being systemic and all.

Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History - Stephen Jay Gould Origin of Species - Darwin Principles of Geology - Lyell Elements - Euclid Introduction to Arithmetic - Nicomachus The Geometry - Descartes Complete Archimedes Treatise on Light - Huygens Genetics and the Origin of Species - Dobzhansky Analytical Theory of Heat - Fourier Complete works of Freud Science and Hypotheses - Poincare An Introduction to Mathematics - Whitehead Relativity: The Special and the General Theory - Einstein Physics and Philosophy - Heisenberg

This is still too vague be meaningful. What specific attributes are you talking about? I personally mentioned calling for the demotion/firing of prominent, privileged academics over rather innocuous social media posts. Are you suggesting something else? What exactly is toxic? This is getting close to problematic. Currently, privileged voices speak louder than others, which means they need to be quieter in order for traditionally marginalized voices to share the (figurative and literal) space. I, myself am a white, 40 year old man. When I walk into my lecture theatre, people stop talking and wait for me to speak without me doing anything. Cashiers call me "sir" and trust I didn't shoplift. Highway patrol banter with me before giving me a fix it ticket after I get caught doing 25 over the limit. I get plenty of time to speak and I'm used to being listened to and respected. It was hard for me to learn that, especially in conversations about equity, diversity and inclusion it is not my turn to speak. I can easily dominate the room and make people pay attention to me, and I can suck it away from other people in the room - easily, without trying, which is why it's a hard thing to learn. But it is time for me to shut up and listen, pass the conch to someone else and try to see the world through a different lens. If you come from a position of privilege and you think that giving up that privilege for an equal playing field is one of the biggest problems facing mankind, you, my dude, are part of the reason we need wokeness.

Negative numbers.

I was just thinking tonight that We are made in God’s image according to the Bible. And He spoke the World into existence. He spoke. I does not say he thought the World into existence. So as we have a mind that thinks and decides what to say, it seems he functions the same way. My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?

No I didn't know sorry , thought I'd just missed out the time value . I was considering x in a general sense but yes I suppose it must have a unit . Is the math an impossibility because we can't determine how much electrical energy is being grounded ?

Yes science ignores the forces . An electron and proton are said to be attracted to each other because opposite charges attract each other . Ok, let us consider a proton and an electron that are joined together . Does the electron charge still have an attractive force to free protons ? Does the proton charge still have an attractive force to free electrons ? My answer is yes , why would the force be nullified just because they are now joined together ?

Bionic eye tech aims to help blind people see https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60316224 I usually do not trust anything reported by BBC. but this time is different.

You are assuming passing through air rather than using the Earths field as a ''medium'' . You say positive and negative isn't really relevant although we know that a positive and a negative both apply forces acting on each other . We measure 0 net charge when an electron and a proton is binded together but that doesn't necessary equate to no net force . Take ourselves for instant , we have an amount of conserved electrical energy that must be grounded by the earth . I calculate that gravity isn't one force , instead 2 forces at work . The negative of a ''loose'' object attracted to the positive of the ground and the positive of a ''loose'' object attracted to the negative of the ground and vice versus . Current is the flow , grounded has been discussed in another thread , voltage a magnitude , charge the polarity ? P.s Does this work ?