swansont

These are things you assume in order to develop the mathematical model. As long as these assumptions are reasonable, the model will work well. Models that try to incorporate fewer assumptions are more complicated. Attraction and repulsion, for example - if these have a small effect the model works. If the system is cold and the molecules don’t have much energy, these become important, so you expect the equations won’t give you the correct behavior. Similarly for high pressure, where the atoms spend a lot of time close to each other, so the short-range interactions become important.

What’s the experimental path to confirming this?

Saw an interesting comment on Bluesky - there are undoubtedly women respondents in every poll who will vote for Kamala but can’t say that to a pollster in front of their Trumpy husband.

Why is opposing a fascist astonishing to you? Why do we have to tolerate such views?

You apparently didn’t read my post carefully enough to notice I wrote L1

Betting gives you arbitragers when the odds shift. They are interested in making money, so the bets don’t have to represent support of a candidate There have apparently been a lot of right-wing-biased polls reported lately, which shifts the average toward Trump. Same thing happened two years ago.

To specifically point out an incorrect statement. I couldn’t resist the irony. You should limit yourself to what I actually said instead of trying to read more into it. I only objected to your use of incorrect terminology. Objecting to one point should not be taken to be an objection to any other points. As I said, I'm not all that familiar with his work, other than his tendency to be overly pedantic. Also not a fan of this form of stalking.

Probably because teaching Newton’s laws of motion is difficult enough, and there’s no immediate need to solve problems in a non-inertial frame No, it’s a force, but it’s a pseudoforce, which you need to introduce in order to use F=ma in an accelerating frame. Newton’s first law tells you the laws of motion don’t apply, but by pretending you are moving in uniform motion you can use them. Except that, from your quote, he doesn’t say they cancel, he says they balance. L1 is an orbit, so must be a force there. A centripetal force, if analyzing in an inertial frame. But you want the period to be the same as the earth’s. The earth’s gravity cancels out the excess gravity of the sun, so the net force (centripetal force) is correct for that orbit. That’s the balance you achieve. There’s more than one way to explain this, and more than one way to understand it. Your tone suggests that not doing it your preferred way is wrong, and that’s simply not the case. They could be, but everyone is from time to time. But Frasier Cain, Cox, NdGT, et al, are out there, engaging with the public, and not hiding behind pseudonyms to take potshots You want to discuss science? Great! You can do it without bashing people.

Why is it supposed to? Does collecting trash, or washing dishes, or emptying bedpans provide paths to living a meaningful life?

No, I want someone with training. When I was in the navy, I had a couple of occasions where I was a victim of a corpsman-in-training getting some practice, and not performing very well. Injections may look easy, but that doesn’t mean any schmo can do it.

And you’re entitled to your opinion. But you keep specifically engaging me on subtopics I have not commented on. That’s rude.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 (emphasis added) Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos Links have been removed. You are free to discuss the methodology here, sans spam/advertising.

You persist in asking me about issues I’m not addressing. Your obsessions are not my obsessions.

There’s no guarantee that the OP means what everyone else does, and as this link points out, you need a definition of evil

! Moderator Note This is too vague. Clarify what you mean by “the problem of evil”

The force the floor exerts on a person in a rotating space station is toward the center of the circle, i.e. it is a centripetal force. But it’s your prerogative to be wrong.

Quantum entanglement could possibly be simulated if the proper correlations are in place. -- My reading of this is that the description is a little deceptive. There is no exchange of information after the fact, but the basis for measurement is agreed upon beforehand, which is information of a sort. It's just not information about the state of the particles. That's something entanglement allows that would permit instantaneous decisions without communication - we measure our entangled particles and if Alice measures spin up, she takes course of action A and if it's down she does B. Similarly for Bob. The information was shared beforehand so there's no superluminal communication. The actual decision isn't made until measurement, is still random, and the actions are correlated.

Outward is what you exert, but Newton's laws are about what is exerted on you. The force on an object moving in a circle (such as a rotating space station) is toward the center of the circle.

You say nope but then correctly point out that it’s centripetal force in both cases.

In freshman physics they point out that it’s centripetal force.

! Moderator Note The phrasing of “tolerating” a religion and casting this in terms of immigrants, the implication that they are not part of the “developed world” and other parts, are contrary to rule 2.1. Wake up. Islamic people have already emigrated to western countries, and this alleged “barbaric” behavior is not seen. Replace the target with “Jews” and I’m guessing you can find similar discussion in past (and present) nazi literature.

50-50 chance, 9 out of 10 is just under 1% chance by random guessing, which is less than three sigma.

The scientists who gather the data get first crack at them. They are public domain; I think they are made available to everyone after a year. https://hubblesite.org/copyright “Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and material on this site may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract. However, it is requested that in any subsequent use of this work NASA and STScI be given appropriate acknowledgement.”

And the person who asked the question, and anyone else, is free to draw their own conclusion from that. Once again, this is not what I was addressing. You are assuming that a lack of commentary means something more; this is a phenomenon on social media where someone says, “I like dogs” and the response is “Why do you hate cats?” I don’t much care if it’s a failure of logic or active trolling. You addressed me by moving the goalposts, insinuating that I had somehow defended a proposition that had not been made. AFAICT the information I provided was factual and on-topic. And yet you keep trying to draw me into a confrontation. Truth be told, I haven’t watched much of NdGT, so I’m not in a position to critique or defend anything. I don’t watch much pop-sci physics (unless it’s in my wheelhouse and I’m commenting on it). That’s a choice. Being a dick is a choice, too.

I don’t mind when assumptions are clearly labeled as such. It’s presenting them as if they were fact that I have an issue with. “If A then B” vs “A, therefore B”