Lorentz Jr

I think behavioral economics has gotten good results. I'm not in the field though. No idea. It sounds good to me though.

Your exaggeration of my theory is false. Babies aren't born believing in democracy or capitalism or communism or Christianity or Islam or Judaism or science or any other cultural belief system. Again, only your exaggeration is false. Got some mommy issues, princess? Those theories are politically motivated propaganda.

You mean do the social sciences exist? Yes, people try to do that all the time. My own personal theory is that (a) the human mind is more or less entirely plastic (i.e. impressionable) at birth, so almost nothing can be said about its initial state (except that there basically is none); (b) it gradually loses plasticity during its lifetime, becoming more and more locked into various beliefs, attitudes, and habits; (c) a lot of cultural history reflects the ways in which people's belief systems are affected by those of older generations; and (d) the older generations have lost most of their psychic plasticity and are responsible for the continuity of their cultures. There are also more specific theories about biologically influenced behavior in developmental psychology, and about unconscious human behavior in depth psychology and behavioral economics, but there's also a lot of less scientific theory in things like mainstream macroeconomics and the shallower theories of pop psychology.

Some cross-editing there. Using the same conventions in the two formulas shows their similarities and differences as clearly as possible.

You can't have it both ways economically. If workers are the limiting factor (scarcity), having more consumers is bad. If consumers are the limiting factor (unemployment), having more workers is bad. The real economic benefit of having more of both is specialization, which produces better products and services, as long as supply and demand are kept in balance. Politically, the benefit is external, i.e. being able to dominate other countries. There's plenty of understanding, and the trend has been pretty clear for at least a century or two. Conservative populism is how the business class reacts when unemployed workers realize technology and outsourcing are working against them. What comes next is warfare.

Yes. Yes, except light is an electromagnetic wave. Classical Doppler effect: [math]\displaystyle \frac{f_o}{f_s} = \frac{c-v_o}{c+v_s}[/math] where f is frequency, o is the observer, s is the source, c is the speed of the wave, and positive speeds vs and vo indicate motion of the source or observer (relative to the medium of the wave) away from the other object. Relativistic Doppler effect: [math]\displaystyle \frac{f_o}{f_s} = \sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}}[/math] where v is the relative speed between source and observer, and positive v means they're moving away from each other.

Earth is revolving about its own axis in the same sense as its orbit around the Sun (except for the tilt, of course), so objects on the Sun side are orbiting more slowly than ones on the dark side.

EDIT: Misread that...

Wow. I'll put him on my "don't bother" list. There may be a "big fish eating the little fish" effect that works against small countries, but that has almost nothing to do with technology (cf. the Roman Empire), and reducing the global population would bring supply and demand back into a more sustainable balance. 90 percent of the time, when there's a recession, it's because there are too many workers and not enough demand for their labor. The Covid pandemic and the 1970s oil crisis were rare exceptions. In the usual situation, unemployed workers destabilize society, they kill each other off in a war, and the survivors start the whole process all over again. With technology reducing the number of workers required to support any given lifestyle, population shrinkage is one of the best things that could happen to this planet, ecologically, economically, and politically.

Thank you. +1

It all depends on what quantum wave functions represent. Ordinary atomic matter is permeated through-and-through by the wave functions of bound electrons, so whether or not the spaces around atomic nuclei are "empty" depends on what electrons "really" are.

Atoms repel each other on contact because their electrons are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle (see stability of matter). Whether or not anything "touches" anything else depends on what the electron wave functions represent, and that's still a matter of speculation. One way or another, though, the repulsion is quantum-mechanical in nature (degeneracy pressure), and it occurs when the wave functions begin to overlap.

Or P(B|male) + P(B|adult), which would double count grown men.

The OP's usage was confusing. What do "(...|nothing)" and "(...|everything)" mean? "... given that there is no outcome" and "... given that all outcomes occur simultaneously"? Then "(...|anything)" would mean "... given that there is an outcome (which by definition there has to be, and which can be any of the possible outcomes)".* "anything" is often used in negative contexts in place of "something", i.e. "There's not anything you can do". So "P(B | not anything)" might technically be more accurate. It would mean "There isn't any condition in P(B)", i.e. "For any condition x that excludes any one or more possible outcomes, P(B) is not defined as P(B|x)." The way @joigus used the expression, it meant "any outcome is acceptable", so his denominator should have been "P(B)=P(B|O1)+P(B|O2)+P(B|O3)+...", because A is a condition but P is a sum over (groups of) outcomes. Writing it in terms of conditions Ai is okay as long as they're both comprehensive and mutually exclusive (i.e. every possible outcome is included exactly once). * ... or "samples" or whatever the right word is. What I have in mind by "outcome" is the set of characteristics of the sample.

In this context, "anything" means "any other outcome" , or "whatever truth value A and/or any other statement besides B might have". Sorry, let's just leave it at outcomes. "not B" would be excluded because it's self-referential (actually, because it's inconsistent with B), and "false" isn't an outcome.

P(B | A or not A). P(B|true). Take your pick.

I was going to say that! 🤬 +1 😋

Excuse me, I guess I was wrong about that term. You said "The law states: F = GMSm/r2 + GMEm/(r+d)2 and this must equal zero for a neutral gravity point." That's zero gravity, not neutral gravity. Neutral gravity is where an object's gravitational orbit appears to be stationary relative to another orbiting body, in that body's orbital reference frame, not where it's stationary in an inertial frame. Nothing literally orbits the L points. They all orbit the Sun, and their defining characteristic is that their orbital period is the same as Earth's.

The simple answer is that L3 is pretty much the same as the orbit of Earth itself. You can't really tell from the diagram, but L3 has to be infinitesimally farther from the Sun than Earth is, because Earth makes a tiny increase in the gravity at that point. They don't. They're the points where the orbital period is the same as Earth's. Farther away from L2, the period is longer. Closer to Earth, it's shorter. They're pseudopotentials. They include the effects of centrifugal force in Earth's orbital reference frame. If the gravitational field were literally zero, the objects could stay in place while Earth orbited away from them, and that's not what we want. 🙂

The belt gets energy from the cups on the sides, but it has to give all the energy back in order to move the end weights from one side to the other.

It's just Earth. Not enough gravity to worry about relativity. Newtonian gravity is close enough. There has to be some curvature though, because the point orbits the Sun. I believe that plot represents pseudopotentials in Earth's orbital reference frame (non-inertial in the Newtonian model), so they include the effect of a centrifugal force that would compensate for the Sun's attraction (the relativistic curvature as seen by a distant observer).

Yes, let's assume one cup and weight at each end goes around its nearest pulley at the same time. Let's turn the belt until the tops of the cups on either side of the belt are lined up, keeping the weights locked in place. Forget about the depths of the cups. There are N other cups on each side of the belt. Each cup on the right has a mass of water above it of volume hA, where h is the distance each weight can travel in its cup (assuming the weights are held in place by pistons instead of membranes), and A is the cross-sectional area of the cup. The corresponding volume above the weight on the left side is empty. Only air or a vacuum. Each of the 2N other cups moves a distance D/N, where D is the total depth of the belt. So the work done by the weight of the unbalanced water above each cup on the right is [math]mg(D/N) = \rho hAgD/N[/math], and the total work done by all the other cups is [math]\rho hAgD[/math]. But each weight on the ends has moved up a distance h. So the work done on the end cups is [math]2Mgh[/math], but we said [math]W=Mg[/math] has to be greater than [math]\rho g DA[/math] for the weights to stay down when they're on the left side, so the work done on the end cups is at least [math]2 \rho h DAg[/math], which is twice the work done by the other cups. So the belt had to do work on the end weights, i.e. it lost [math]\rho h DAg[/math] of whatever kinetic energy it had before the turn. Now we unlock the weights that just went around a pulley so they can fall into their new positions in their cups. Water pressure on the top/right weight will accelerate the weight, but some of the resulting kinetic energy will be lost when the weight stops moving (it's an inelastic collision with the cup), so it won't make up for the loss in raising the weight as it rounded the pulley.

Forget about everything except the weights. Imagine that the belt turns just enough for one weight to change direction on each side, plus there are more weights in between. What effect does each weight have on the belt? They have to push on it or add energy to it if it's going to keep moving.

With gratitude and apologies to my dear departed father (EE in the Cold War): If you ask a mathematician, "What is two times two?", the mathematician will tell you, "Two times two is exactly four." If you ask a physicist, "What is two times two?", the physicist will tell you, "Two times two is precisely four point zero." If you ask an engineer, "What is two times two?", the engineer will look at you for a moment and then say, "Aah, I dunno, lemme google it. Where's my phone? Somebody find my phone!" If you asked the engineer's grandfather seventy years ago, "What is two times two?", the engineer's grandfather would pull his slide rule out of his pocket, fiddle with it for a moment, and then say, "Aah, about three point nine six."

The Big Bang (BB) is a model of how the universe evolved about 13.8 billion years ago. I don't think it says anything about the current size or shape of the universe, or what the universe's future will be like, although researchers are always studying that. The point of dark energy is that it looks like the universe might keep expanding forever, but that's still very speculative. Big Bang theory also doesn't say anything about what happened more than 13.8 billion years ago, except to the extent that the BB is interpreted as the "beginning" of the universe, which would mean that nothing happened before that, or that "before that" has no meaning. Dark matter and dark energy are still mysteries to current theory, so the BB (plus general relativity and the Standard Model) can't be considered a "complete" theory in the sense of explaining them. It's also not complete in the sense that there's no theory of what happened in the first 10-43 seconds* after the theorized singularity (the Planck era), because we still don't have a theory that combines gravity and quantum mechanics, both of which were important then, according to the theory. * 10-43 seconds is 100 quadrillionths of a quadrillionth of a quadrillionth of a second.