swansont

In what way are they “representative”?

Serleena could destroy the sun in their quest for The Light of Zartha.

! Moderator Note If you want to discuss a topic other than evolution, open a new thread.

mar_mar suspended for reintroduction of material from closed topic mistermack suspended for bad-faith posting

! Moderator Note You were told to not bring this up again

g is the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the earth. It depends on the mass and radius of the earth. Those are not orbital parameters, and are specific to the earth, not other celestial bodies. There’s no reason for it to show up in an orbital equation; objects generally do not orbit at the surface of the earth.

It's not that it disappears. The probability of one state goes to 1 - we observe it in that state - and the rest go to zero. Probability is conserved; it has to add to 1.

I didn't say anything about a feather and a brick. Don't flatter yourself. I was doing other things for the bulk of that time. It took a few minutes to research this. Which makes your refusal to put in the effort all the worse. I'm glad you pointed that out. Punishment. As the NIJ link repeatedly points out, it's the fear of getting caught, not the fear of punishment. You're saying it's obvious, and yet the experts disagree. And it's because lay opinion doesn't always reflect what's actually happening is precisely why we defer to the experts. ! Moderator Note The bottom line here is that you don't make the rules, and you don't get to decide, without consequence, that you're going not to follow them. The ironic thing here is that fear of punishment has had absolutely no effect on your behavior, despite your insistence that it should.

There is absolutely nothing in your conjecture tying quantum mechanics and general relativity. This is just another reach. You have been afforded many opportunities to provide us with a model that this might be tested. You have failed to do so. Yes, but everyone else here sees the problem. ! Moderator Note It’s quite obvious that you don’t have a sufficient grasp of the physics to make further discussion worthwhile. All we have is repetition of the same material Don’t bring this up again

Because this is a false statement. Mass is resistance to acceleration in Newtonian physics. Acceleration requires a force. If the object has more mass, a larger force is required to have a given acceleration. Relativity modifies this relationship, but to say there’s no resistance is wrong. If there was no resistance to acceleration, no energy would be required.

Why is this a problem? You need energy in Galilean relativity to maintain acceleration, too. Basically, this boils down to things not behaving the way you want them too, rather than some actual issue with relativity, which matches experiment quite well.

And it was obvious that heavier things fell faster than lighter things, up until it was actually tested. You claimed it was a fact, not that it was obvious (to you) Other things that seem obvious that prison time reduces the odds that someone would re-offend, or that the death penalty is a deterrent, and people claim these things are true. But those “obvious” things don’t hold up to scrutiny. “A large body of research finds that spending time in prison or jail doesn’t lower the risk that someone will offend again. In some instances, it actually raises the likelihood that they will commit future crimes.” https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/ The death penalty does not deter crime “there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws” https://www.aclu.org/documents/death-penalty-questions-and-answers#:~:text=A%3A No%2C there is no,than states without such laws. So yes, I expect that issues of deterrence have been studied. And they have been. “Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.” “Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime” https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence So apparently there are studies. If it’s a “great incentive” one might expect clear evidence of the deterrence. The bottom line is that if you claim something to be true, you have to be prepared to back it up. Others do this regularly, and it’s required by the rules. It’s exhausting having try and get you to do this when you’re posting an opinion that you’re asserting as fact. It takes time to debunk you and it’s not fair that you can just spout BS and move on. It’s a fundamentally dishonest debate tactic, and common enough that it has its own name - Brandolini’s law, aka the bullshit asymmetry principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

I don’t think anyone said the measurement is pointless. It’s science. We’re limited to what we can measure. If it can’t be measured or detected, it’s not in the realm of science.

How does being motionless on the scale of the universe “sound like” being at the center?

So what’s the point of this little exercise?

So it didn’t occur to you that it was “I write my own posts” that’s the admission Phi is referring to? And it was the conclusion you drew, absent any actual analysis - contradicted in the very wikipedia page where you got the graph. Thus, you posted an opinion. My characterization was spot-on. A graph that represents factual data. Commentary that has no basis in fact is not science. If you aren’t willing to engage is a scientific manner on a science forum, what’s the point?

! Moderator Note Fact? Where are the studies that support this fact?

The screen will fluoresce wherever a photon strikes it. You get one dot because there’s one photon. How do you propose to get more than one dot? Is the limitation the detector, or the collapse?

If you send a photon through a double slit, you get one dot on your detector screen. How is that a limitation of the screen?

So f is gamma You have a force equated to a mass, which can’t be correct. But a = F/m, so if this is the case, you have a significant acceleration. Basically your equation tells us that the acceleration is always 1 m/s^2 which is not consistent with observation. This has all the appearance of throwing stuff at us and hoping something sticks

1971. ~240 have flown in space https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall-effect_thruster (xpost with TheVat)

You said you needed the speed. Why won’t you just answer the question?

What do you multiply together with the speed to get the result?

Not moving ≠ at the center Your linked site does not contradict Bufofrog’s statement.

This is different from the claim “Animals don't distinguish colors” Babies don’t understand color as a concept, either. But they can distinguish them (at a few months of age) Can we raise this above the level of petty semantic arguments? There are videos of birds putting colored objects in bins matching the color. I suspect it would be pretty easy to find such examples, or even more rigorous studies.