swansont

Saber has been banned for an obscenity-laden series of posts

If you can calculate it, there must be an equation. What data is needed?

Why does it matter if they don’t know what the word means? Some animals can perceive color. It impacts their survival.

Do you understand that velocity is a vector, i.e. it has a direction? A vector can only have one direction. You've suggested before that this depends on the speed. Something in the LHC is traveling very close to c, and would have a bigger effect than one would experience on a space probe. Without an equation, though, one can't quantify this to test it, which why an equation is needed. ACES was originally supposed to fly in 2012; I remember a number of talks at conferences about PHARAO and a few other projects that got canceled But it's not currently on the ISS; it's been rescheduled a number of times and now it's supposed to launch in 2025 https://aces2022.sciencesconf.org You need to be explicit in your examples. In which case this will skew the orbit, and also slow the orbit down in places, which will make it more elliptical. Do we see this? This is one of the confusing bits, because you don't give us equations. If these things balance there's no effect, so what's the point? You need to clearly spell out what happens and under what conditions. It doesn't explain anything if it doesn't match up with what we observe. The pioneer accelerations are not in the direction you predict. That falsifies your premise. If it's an illusion we can ignore it. Science is interested in real phenomena. A phenomenon being unexplained does not mean your idea is right. To be right it needs to match with observation, meaning the numbers need to match up, and to see this we need valid equations.

Was “I do NOT mean 'the first bit of bs I found via google” something I imagined?

OK, if you think professionals in HVAC/home improvement, ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) or NIST are considered BS, I can’t do anything about that, I guess

OTOH it's a very stark difference when you have a decent setup. There's interference (multiple orders of it with a laser) or not.

Given the variability in results one can find, I don't think that's "standard." You can easily find sources that say 30-50%, or 30-40%, 25-60%, or 40-60%; each of these show up in the first couple of dozen results on Google. (and it's always a range, not a number) My own experience was a couple of clock facilities with fairly tight control on temperature and humidity, with a target of 21 ºC and RH of 40% ± 3% and it always felt a little swampy. (Much lower RH meant a risk of electronics arcing, and above 50% risked mold, according to the lab/clean room design specs we had. They specified 30-50%, and we chose the middle) Comfort comes down to personal preference and what you're used to.

Your summary is incorrect. We can see an interference pattern when the light can go through both slits. If there's a pattern, then it has been detected; I hope that's obvious. Whether it's recorded on an electronic detector like a CCD, or it's just photons scattering off the wall into our eyes, the pattern has been detected. That pattern is there whether or not the detector is on. The pattern goes away when, in principle, you could tell which slit the light went through. The interference pattern depends on each photon being able to go through both slits.

What is this alleged planet 9 phenomenon? You've done a poor job of explaining this, so you are the person best suited for explaining this, since presumably you understand it. A proton moves in a circle on earth, in the LHC. What are the RR and DFA forces on it?

I said this. I understand this. But the problem is that you are using "motion" in your description despite the fact that it's not a variable. That makes for a confusing explanation, since "motion" does not correspond to a variable. What does motion refer to? Is it velocity? Is it speed? Your descriptions need to be more precise. Why assume? We have other probes. There's New Horizons. Voyager 1 and 2 are on different paths. Pioneer 10 and 11 are traveling in opposite directions - is one speeding up while the other slows down? No! They both experience an acceleration toward the sun. (and not south) https://universemagazine.com/en/where-are-the-most-remote-spacecraft-located-now/ You haven't shown how to determine the frame of absolute rest. And I asked you what the experiment on the ISS is. It has a name, or some other designation. What is it? Can you provide a link? It doesn't drop out. You can cancel it if there is a factor of r^2 elsewhere in the equation that allows this. It can be ignored if r is very large, but then all of the equation approaches zero. What you describe is invalid math. You've asserted this, but not shown that your assertion is true. And it does not follow from a simple analysis. When a satellite is moving south, it will be moving faster, in an absolute sense, according to your conjecture. It should feel an acceleration to the north. When it's moving north, the opposite should happen. That will skew the orbit. The effects don't cancel, since they happen in different places along the orbit. In any event, just waving your hands and saying they cancel is not a scientific analysis.

The detector must reveal "which path" information for the pattern to disappear. Having a detector in place doesn't do this, quite obviously, because we can see an interference pattern when it doesn't reveal that information. Seeing a pattern indicates detection. If you block one slit you know light went through the other, even if you don't see the light hitting whatever is blocking the slit. There are more elaborate "which path" schemes used in some experiments (e.g. using polarizers and polarized beam splitters) but it's always a matter of whether there is one path or two.

IPCC reports are based on science. My point was that the science disagrees with your opinion. I thought that was obvious. Apologies for assuming that. Blatantly. I don’t see where Wikipedia backs your opinion. It says the sea level rise has accelerated, rather than being a continuation of the earlier trend. “Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or an average of 1–2 mm per year.[2] This rate accelerated to 4.62 mm/yr for the decade 2013–2022” (note that there’s an overlap, so the smaller trend up to 2018 includes the higher trend of the latest decade of data)

Or, instead of unsourced conjecture and opinion, we could go with what science says (bold added) "Global mean sea level increased by 0.20 [0.15 to 0.25] m between 1901 and 2018. The average rate of sea level rise was 1.3 [0.6 to 2.1] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 1971, increasing to 1.9 [0.8 to 2.9] mm yr–1 between 1971 and 2006, and further increasing to 3.7 [3.2 to 4.2] mm yr–1 between 2006 and 2018 (high confidence). Human influence was very likely the main driver of these increases since at least 1971" https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf See also table 1 of the following, showing thermal expansion and ice melt numbers starting with 1972 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758961/

Splitting up a proton also violates conservation of baryon number, unless “splitting” means forming a neutron. In which case you need a minimum of 0.782 MeV, and you’d also form a positron and neutrino. But none of these are inside the proton; you’re changing a down quark to an up quark.

Your graphs show we've already had ~120m of sea level rise for the ~ 9ºC rise in temperature from the glacial maximum. Why would we expect an additional 50m?

"Motion" isn't a variable in any equation. We have displacement, velocity and acceleration. Using imprecise terminology is a detriment here, not a bonus. And this is not reflected in your equation. I'm not interested in that. Just what happens to a celestial object that's moving in space. Sure it can. What experiment is this? GPS satellites have a non-equatorial orbit. You seem to be able to summarize it in a picture. You would need to do better. Can you explain the motion of these dwarf galaxies? You can't just have it drop out If this is Newton's gravitational constant, as it is in MG/r2 then it has units. If it's not, pick a new letter This is simply not true. G has units. Force has units. All the terms in the equation have units Simplifying does not mean mangling the math.

Are we in an ice age? I though we were in a warm interglacial period.

It’s not access to more news. Allowing one owner to control more outlets ensures that their bias can be more widespread. News used to be closer to just being news. Before Fox News, and when the Sinclair Group controlled fewer stations.

Meaning this belief of yours is just that - a belief, of the religious sort. If there’s no evidence, you can present, then this is patently unscientific

Do you get notifications from that person? That doesn’t seem right. Other members don’t have your email. I see options to get notifications from SFN when new content is posted in a thread you follow.

Probably referring to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which expanded the number of radio stations one could own and the reach of TV stations one could own.

Canceling two negatives here, it will have a positive acceleration in the direction of absolute motion? This isn’t shown by your equation; it shows no direction and is proportional to an unrevealed factor f. That’s not the equation for gravitational force. F = GMm/r^2 Why? Not because of any valid math you’ve done. G has units and it’s not equivalent to an acceleration Who is “we”? Claiming that mass “converts to acceleration” is not part of mainstream physics, and AFAICT has an advocacy of just you.

Combined with Henry Ford (automaker and Nazi sympathizer)

Perhaps we can dispense with the notion that he’s a genius, and stop paying attention to his nonsensical ramblings.