joigus

You don't need matrices. Look at my numerical example and try to understand what I did there. In your OP case, it's v times the first equation plus the second equation, and vt -vt cancels and you're left with x in terms of t' and x'. For the other one, it's c²/v times the 1st eq. minus the second. Now you've got cancellation x-x.Then there is some algebra left. Gauss elimination with matrices is useful when you've got like 4x4 or even 3x3. But in a 2x2 system it's best to do it "by hand".

You seem to have lost your train of thought and initiated a recitation of electrical phenomena. Is everything ok? You sound like you're talking from a hijacked plane trying to pass a secret code.

It assumes that you have both liquid water and air with water vapor. And it means that equilibrium has been reached and as much water is evaporating from the liquid phase as water from the air is condensating. So the air has as much water as it can have at that pressure and temperature. Thereby the "saturated" word. So the key is: above that pressure, water from the air would condense. I hope that helps and I didn't make any mistake --it's been a while and I'm a bit busy with other matters so I'm making mistakes lately.

Yes, you're right. I should have noticed. ~10²¹ is the mass of the whole inner belt, that between Mars and Jupiter. The other 2/3 must be the Kuiper. I practically copied and pasted the data. Apologies. Thanks for the correction. +1 Itokawa, a quite small one, is 3.5x10^10 kg The argument persists, I think. Edit: Well, Itokawa is a relatively big one taking into account the enormous number of objects. I think it's more significant to take a relatively big one, in the spirit of what @drumbo was trying to argue.

Also, you are confusing genotype with phenotype. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

It seems one of the things he's overlooked.

Typical speed of an asteroid when it reaches the inner Solar System ~ 100,000 miles/hour Typical mass of an asteroid ~ 1021 Kg Now take the solar wind momentum flux at Earth's distance by using the inverse-square law for flux and multiply by the cross section of a typical asteroid and tell me what we're talking about. Solar wind is nothing in terms of momentum transfer against an asteroid or comet. It's in terms of ionization that does all its damage. I'm too lazy to do the calculation, sorry. And again:

You took the words right out of my mouth, sir. 🖖 And as Markus has pointed out, idiocy is observer-dependent.

Yes, you're right. Thank you. I was just drawing attention to (very likely) misread data. I was joking. I should have used instead of . Or maybe or 🤣. The point, if any, I was trying to make is that, if Lilly's car can go one hundred million + kilometers with 88 lt., and the same efficiency could be applied to every engineering process that produces CO2, we wouldn't be in as much of a problem as we are with carbon emissions. But never mind.

Really? Lily's car is THE solution to global warming.

Solar wind is mainly made up of protons, electrons and Helium nuclei from reactions in the Sun. How could that spray of particles essentially modify the orbit of an asteroid/meteorite/comet? And if it did, why would it favour a miss instead of a collision or any other range of impact parameters? Magnetospheres shield against ion rain because they drive them into localised aurorae, but ion rains carry no considerable momentum as compared to asteroids careening towards the centre of the Solar System from the Kuiper belt (mainly driven by Jupiter and Saturn perturbations and asteroid-asteroid impacts).

I'll give you a simpler numerical example. Suppose you've got, \[2x-t=5\] \[x-2t=3\] and you want to solve in x and t. You can do the 1st equation minus twice the second: \[-t+4t=5-6=-1\Rightarrow3t=-1\] (you get only an equation in t) And the second equation minus twice the first: \[x-4x=3-10=-7\Rightarrow-3x=-7\] So the solution is, \[t=-1/3\] \[x=7/3\] Now, you've got to do the same, but instead of 5 and 3 on the right-hand side; you've got t' and x' involved. But it's the same idea. You must eliminate t in one equation and x in the other. Does that help?

Hey, just to let you know I had the Russian Covid-19 vaccination yesterday and can tell you there are absolutely no negative sideffski efectovski secundariosvki Кто может это прочитать, это уродливый парень .Привет друг Антонио !!

Good question. Recent hypothesis suggests part of it may have formed from minerals already here. Some mantle processes can release water apparently: https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-10/how-earth-made-its-own-water-out-rocks This came from a quick Google search, but I've heard about this idea in a documentary, and I think experts are considering it as a distinct possibility. I suppose, as any complex phenomenon, calls for a complex answer. We humans tend to search for unique cause, while many natural phenomena resist simple analysis because may have complex causation. But Studiot has hedged the bets when he's said,

Where you write y, it should be (in standard notation), \[\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}\] Then you would have, \[\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}t'=t-vx/c^{2}\] \[\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}x'=x-vt\] It's Gauss reduction of linear equations from here quite straightforwardly. If you need more clues, tell me. Edit: Maybe Gauss elimination is a more familiar name...

A good question is worth somewhere between 5 and 10 good answers. I think this is a good question. In my next-to-blank-slate mind, the Sun's magnetosphere could potentially protect us from supernova radiation, when the time comes. As the situation stands, the most potentially harmful radiation that we get comes precisely from the Sun. But it's not inconceivable to me that its magnetosphere could act as a screen for us.

I've been imprecise here and John especially, and others too, have been gentle enough not to correct me, because the point wasn't really essential. Hydrogen bonds are bonds between hydrogen an polar molecules, rather than ions. But anyway. No. Nothing which deserves the name "hydrogenesis" and nothing having to do with ferromagnetism, or hydrogen bonding to charges would be the panacea for anything that has been pointed to. The OP is far too vague and assumes too many inconsistent/unproven assertions to be worth considering an explanation or serious proposal of anything IMO. At the very least, many claims, all unsubstantiated.

There still is a need for the BB. Extrapolation backwards of receding galaxies makes inevitable some kind of bang. The cosmic background radiation, the remnant of the explosion, is the best evidence. It has exactly the frequency spectrum of light filling all of space and continually cooling off (at different rates following known phases of cooling) for 13.7 billion years give or take. So yes, there must have been a big bang.

Another Dali factoid: He doodled on the cheques so they would never be cashed: https://theuijunkie.com/salvador-dali-cheque-restaurants/

Hype is rampant.

Asserting that a nuclear bomb or any other human activity would change the Earth's magnetic field is ridiculous. The field depends on currents within the core. How would a bomb affect that? Bonding of hydrogen to ions does have a name; it's hydrogen bonds, and life relies heavily on it. Nobody would call it hydrogenesis because it's nothing to do with creation of anything, much less creation of hydrogen. Nothing to do with ferromagnets. And I concur with questions listed above.

Because the main arguments have been established more than satisfactorily enough by Hanke, Eise, Janus, and Swansont, IMO, I would like to concentrate on the fact that the world michel123456 is trying to picture would be awfully incongruous and we wouldn't have an invariant picture of phenomena. Relationships between events would be distorted depending on how fast you're moving with respect to particles/fields. For some collisions, we would see one particle bouncing off before the other colliding particle reached there. The underlying mathematical reason is that the Lorentz group with the choice c=infinity is perfectly reasonable and gives homogeneous transformations of intervals that make timings and placings of phenomena mutually consistent. Relationships between events would be congruences. c finite and invariant would be OK (Einstein's relativity) c infinite (thereby invariant) would be OK (Galilean relativity) But taking c finite and observer-dependent is not. It does not produce anything in the way of congruences of events.

Just to add to the geologist/geophysics POV, that's been suggested, explained/given references for by other members: Cross checks make for a very robust understanding. Formation of Pangaea is related to the biggest extinction event on record besides snow-ball Earth: The Permian extinction. Intuitively, it's not hard to understand that the formation of a supercontinent the size of Pangaea would have resulted in, at least: 1) Most of the inland extension being desert (little or no rain) 2) High-intensity long-term vulcanism (the so-called Siberian traps) 3) Water circulation in the oceans reduced to a very-little-local-variation, very-slow pattern Very, very dramatic change in global climate for sure. That could and would have done it. This becomes the more compelling as you realise how much present and recent-past biodiversity depends on water circulation patterns in the oceans. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/permian/ https://phys.org/news/2013-11-biggest-mass-extinction-pangea.html https://www.science20.com/news_articles/pangaea_formation_linked_permian_mass_extinction-123693

Anyone in mind? Though I think we need much more than that to deal with Qanon. Ideological/mythological detox is the hardest.