Bufofrog

Of course... [Slaps forehead]

OK.

Still not a problem. I don't think there's an answer to that question. It is the same as asking how does a positive charge attract a negative charge. That type of question is more of a why than a how IMO.

There is no problem. Why charge creates a field is not a physics problem.

If you could use some actual numbers for the masses and velocity in your example that would help me to understand what you are doing. Thanks.

I'd say about a buck 3.80.

What?!?

It would be darker at night on average. What do you think the effects would be?

No. That being said a healthy diet is important for mental and physical health in general. Your best option is to work with health professionals. Good luck.

I know the poor persecuted white males in the US....

Don't hold back so much, tell us what you really think. 😁

There is no proof or even any evidence that there is a god.

Those readings do not seem particularly high. I doubt you are being purposely attacked because this level of exposure shouldn't cause any health concerns so it would be a pretty useless attack.

Oh no! It would be just awful if you had expend a little effort to look it up. Very good! We did not use to know the speed of light. I don't know what they (them) thought, what do you think?. (Descartes?)

The only mess is your laughable (humorous) anti-science (stupid) trolling attempts. Your -69 rep points are very much deserved.

I certainly may be misunderstanding the point of the graph. If the point was that there is a linear relationship between the greenhouse gases and warming then my comment about the timeline was off the mark.

Apparently you don't. The graph is only linear because the spacing of the years is not linear. Look at the 20 year spacing between 2000 and 2020 then look at the spacing between 1884 and 1902. The spacing is clearly not linear and this misleading graph gives the false impression that the temperature increase is linear. Based on this apparently purposely misleading graph I would assume that this is from a climate denial site.

Then you need some work to do don't you. Nope not saying that at all. Most anti-science trolls have some knowledge about science, I guess you are the outlier. Yes, that is because you have not spent any time to learn anything. Photons can have a wave length of a kilometer, so you must think those photons are 1 km in size? Maybe this will help the wavelength has nothing to do with the 'size' of a photon. Well if you can't understand it then we must immediately change all of our theories! I think I already said that a photon doesn't look like anything. It makes no sense to think a photon looks like something. Because that is nonsense.

As I said before, EM radiation and water waves are very different things. A water wave is a disturbance in a medium. Photons are not a disturbance in a medium, they are a disturbance in a field. It doesn't look like anything, the question doesn't even make sense. No Depends on what you mean by "really". It makes no sense to ask what it's diameter is. You don't.

What is that supposed to mean? Since you used e.g. which means 'for example', you are saying, "As far as I know water_waves travel [for example] at c." No water waves don't travel at c. EM radiation and water waves are very different things. A water wave is a disturbance in a medium. EM waves are not a disturbance in a medium, they are a disturbance in a field.

Radiation can kill you or give you cancer even though that radiation (depending on the type)will not make your body radioactive. So high doses of radiation are dangerous. Nuclear power produces radioactive sources. Those radioactive sources are dangerous. The neutron radiation from fission causes the metals in the reactor and the supporting components to become radioactive. The spent nuclear fuel is full of fission products that are also highly radioactive.

In general alpha, beta or gamma rays will not cause a material to become radioactive.

Yes, you said, "All material itself get radioactive, if exposed longer time to any of radiation." Moontanman said, "it takes particles like neutrons or protons to actually make another atom radioactive."

The protons are already fused, at least for an instant or so. I have a question for you, if 2 protons fuse together what is the resulting product? That's true, but it has nothing to do with what we are discussing in this thread as far as I can see.

Why do you think it would "throw a wrench into into F=GM1M2/R2 ?