Bender

It is not a forced vibration, because there is no externally imposed frequency. It is free to vibrate at the natural frequency of the system (given that it is not harmonic, the frequency probably depends on the amplitude). It is not harmonic because the ball is not going to move sinusoidally, for the reasons given by John Cuthber.

Never refuted? You should read your own link. On the first page it says: "While some scholars question the authenticity".

At the second attempt, it was. You needed a nudge towards using the gradient. A fact which, to me, makes your current stance all the more surprising. Now I like to see your math about how a person in free fall, with his head and feat experiencing the same acceleration, will be pancaked.

The individual photons need sufficient energy to kick out an electron, so you need at least UV or shorter wavelengths.

Try a coordinate transformation so that [math]F=\frac{kqQ}{(x')^2}[/math] Not sure whether that will be easily solvable, but another substitution might do it. How familiar are you with solving differential equations? If you are new to this kind of thing, it is probably better to start with a simpler problem that doesn't involve an inverse quadratic dependency.

No, we really do know all stable elements that can exist. There were a few holes, such as the radioactive technetium that does not naturally exist on earth, but we managed to make those artificially. Not if we only contact them through radio telescopes.

What is EEP? I'm not a native English speaker and I'm unfamiliar with that acronym. If the spaceship can only produce 200g, the force pancaking you can never exceed your mass, multiplied with 200g. The acceleration of the BH simply has no effect, since it applies to both you as to the spaceship. (of course, 200g is enough to do a decent amount of pancaking, but I don't think that is the point here.)

There is also no pancaking in the presence of the BH.

The problem is that you might trust this government, but there might be a less trustworthy government in the future. Trump has proven that this is a real possibility.

If you can't, there is no pancaking.

It is not a matter of believing or not believing; it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of accepting scientific fact or rejecting it. So for starters: never say to a creationist that you "believe in evolution". You can find a long list with answers to all the claims made by creationists here.

Thanks for the interesting historical overview. In my experience, students are least confused when I simply avoid any convention and explain all the different terms are mixed. When I do not refer to a force, it is a "pure moment" (sometimes stressing the "pure" if the situation asks for it); when the moment is caused by a force at a distance, I specify.

The simulation hypothesis is not falsifiable, and pointless, as has been said above. Now that I'm on my laptop rather than my phone, I'll show why the statistics is all wrong (regardless of the actual values) [math]p(\theta|x) = \frac{p(x|\theta)p(\theta)}{p(x)}.[/math] with [math]p(\theta|x)[/math] the posterior probability of us living in a simulation, given that there is life, [math]p(x|\theta)[/math] the posterior probability of there being life, given that this is a simulation, [math]p(\theta)[/math] the probability of the simulation hypothesis, which is the factor that is forgotten in the video, and [math]p(x)[/math] the overall probability of life

Conventions can be messy, which is why I prefer not to use distinctions between moment/couple/torque. I don't even know which convention is European and which American. As an engineer, I mostly use the Dutch translation of "torque", which is "koppel", which literally translates to "couple", all of which are used for pure "moments", but in some books only refer to pure moments that are caused by exactly two equal and opposite forces. To be honest, I have only encountered problems with these conventions discussing with physicists, who tend to be more rigorous in the use of terminology . And that doesn't even touch the confusion with "moment of inertia", which in Dutch is often simply "moment", not to be confused with "impulsmoment" which is Dutch for angular momentum... EDIT: on second thought: under what definition would you say the water exerts a "moment" on the sprinkler? In that case, I would always specify the involvement of a force to avoid confusion.

Except that the water does not exert a moment on the spinner, but a force. This force results in a moment combined with a distance from the centre of rotation. An easy way to see this is when you draw a moment diagram of the spinner. You will notice how the moment in the crosssection of the spinner goes to zero at the nozzle. How can the internal moment be zero if the water supposedly exerts a moment at that point? If the water actually exerted a moment on the spinner, it would not matter at what distance from the centre, or in what direction, the water was going. A moment is independent of its point of exertion.

If the nozzle exert any moment on the water drop, that water drop will exert an equal and opposite moment on the nozzle. While this moment depends on the geometry of the nozzle, it is most likely negligible for the dynamics of the sprinkler.

as written

The video is applying the statistics wrong by not factoring in the probabilities of god/gods/simulations being real, which would be required when comparing a posteriori probabilities. Of course, much like the numbers in the video, they would all be pulled out off a dog's ear and be completely worthless.

He might have been called something else entirely. More likely, he is an assembly of the many messiases that roamed the region during that time period. One of them might have been called the contemporary equivalent of Jesus. The fact that his birthday is celebrated in winter is simple: they needed to replaced pagan celebrations. Neither is it a coincidence that Easter is so close to the pagan celebration of spring.

Are these assertions based on fact? If we just randomnly mix DNA, I think it is highly unlikely that the result would be viable or even develop before being rejected. Disabling the genes for the animal organ could have the same effect. I would not expect the animal to function with a human organ. I would expect a decent amount of controle is required to even get any results.

In case of the spaceship, the force compressing you depends entirely on the spaceship, and not on the bh. Any realistic spaceship would be freefalling with you, or perhaps resisting slightly. More on topic: I think zztop was very clear about calculating for which size of bh the spaghettification happens inside or outside the eh.

Only if you are on something to support you, which is not the case when falling into a black hole.

The Coulomb force should depend on the displacement x. I don't think you can assume it will be sinusoidal in time. I think you also used the equation for the force between two spherical charges, rather than between sphere and plate.

Thank you for working out the math. Why would a large acceleration turn you into a pancake? Wouldn't it accelerate each part of you equally, preserving your shape?

Why do you ask? Do you think mercury is a common construction material?