swansont

What does this have to do with your assertion about evolution?

Center of mass in the hips, according to the study reported here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6368865/T-Rex-turn-like-figure-skater-hell-far-agile-thought.html

A T. rex that was about 4 m tall, would be about 13 m long. The length of the tail factors into the torque, as well as the mass.

Inversion? Let’s say you have the equation 2x = 5 You can divide both sides by 2, and get x = 5/2 If you have F=-kx, you can divide both sides by x and get k = -F/x, or you can divide by k and get x = -F/k These are math rules that you seem to be having trouble with.

Which has already been shown to have been skewed toward the company and not the worker, during the last ~5 decades in the US

So the “big three” auto makers have settled, raising wages by 25% over the contract. “Ford, for example, said that the contract would make each vehicle the company produces around $900 more expensive.” https://www.thestreet.com/automotive/former-ford-ceo-has-a-blunt-warning-for-workers-following-the-conclusion-of-historic-auto-strikes But for an $18,000 car, that’s just a 5% bump over 4 years. Not really a big driver of inflation (Also, Toyota (non-unionized) is giving its workers raises, presumably to fight against unionization efforts and/or defections.)

F=-kx This is an equality What is on the left side is equal to what is on the right side. This applies (separately) to the magnitude, the direction, and the units If force is in Newtons (N) and x is in meters (m), the units for k will be N/m, because N/m * m gives you N. m, being in both the numerator and denominator, cancels, similar to what would happen if you were simplifying a fraction (e.g. 3/3 =1) This is not considered to be mysterious.

But when we do Sagnac experiments, the result is consistent with the earth rotation speed, not some absolute velocity, which doesn’t exist in relativity. We can look at interferometry results, and know that there is no effect from this alleged absolute velocity We can agree that the notion of an absolute frame was disproved. And the fact that we can and do synchronize clocks means there’s nothing wrong with the mainstream understanding.

You keep doing this - moving with respect to what? It’s a critical detail. Answer: with respect to the source. If the source and observer aren’t moving with respect to each other, it doesn’t take more time.

If we’re in an inertial system, since v=0 (the relative speed), the times will be the same.

Sagnac correction happens because the clocks are in an accelerated (rotating) coordinate system. SR applies to inertial systems.

What “experience” is this?

Kinetic energy depends on speed, not velocity. A force is applied but it does no work, hence the speed is constant.

But in your original equation. v is the relative velocity. That’s the problem. The source and detector are stationary with respect to each other, so there is no difference in the time. Whatever.

An immediate problem I see is that you are using v to refer to the relative speed of the detector with respect to the emitter, and also the speed of the rocket ship. Since these are different things, you should use different variables, so you don’t use the wrong one. For instance, in 2D/ ( c - v ) used in your clock synchronization, v=0 because the emitter and detector are at rest with respect to each other. The rocket speed doesn’t show up in the equation.

E=mc^2 is a statement about energy, nothing more. The time it takes to decay is dependent on the kind of decay and often on how much energy is released. Different isotopes have different daughters; there’s no reason to assume the energy released will be the same. Further, there are details of the shell structure has an effect - decays depend on the availability of states in the daughter isotope. There are no “parts” of a neutrino, and particles are released at the same time if conservation laws require it (e.g. an electron and antineutrino would be, owing to conservation of angular momentum and lepton number, but a photon would not generally be released at the same time)

They’re just getting started looking for it, and I don’t think this is being proposed as a replacement for natural gas. This link suggests we produced 74 million tonnes a year https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/hydrogen Wikipedia cites a slightly larger number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production#:~:text=94 million tonnes of grey,source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Interesting. Usually hydrogen isn’t found by itself as a gas, so one needs to use energy to separate it. In such cases it’s a storage medium, not an energy source, and it’s only as “green” as the source of electricity But hydrogen gas deposits (aka white or gold hydrogen) have been found https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/29/climate/white-hydrogen-fossil-fuels-climate/index.html “[the probe] indicated the presence of a large reservoir of hydrogen beneath. They ran calculations and estimated the deposit could contain between 6 million and 250 million metric tons of hydrogen”

Is this a prediction of evolution? What, precisely, is absurd? What evidence do you have for this substance?

Incompleteness is not instability.

And if we don’t use English?

Is there anyone who suggests the universe “came about by mathematical calculations”? Godel said math is unstable?

And you can see how deep the water would have to be. No chance to get in close to the shore to nab an animal taking a sip of water. More of the head protruding above the nostrils, too, so not really hiding like a croc.

That’s where the concept of work comes in. The salient variable is speed, not velocity. The force in circular motion is perpendicular to the motion, so no work is done. No change in kinetic energy; speed is constant.

That’s not really an analysis. It’s hand-waving. Bigger head and bigger body means they would need deeper water to do what you’re proposing, something you’ve glossed over. Even deeper than the proportion of size would indicate, because they are not quadrupeds, and their legs do not attach to the body in the same manner. You’ve made no detailed investigation of whether their feet are appropriate to the task, and nothing about where their fossils have been found and what that says about this hypothesis, or any other of the many details that would be involved.