swansont

“Fall” is a colloquial term, but yes. Do you have a point?

Not really an earth-shattering observation here. It might seem so when you first learn or realize it, but it’s not like this is cutting-edge science. It’s great that you’ve arrived at this, but it’s rather mundane knowledge.

Well, it’s the Bible. It’s not like this isn’t on-brand. Millionaire and billionaire are modern concepts relative to Christianity, so that’s not too surprising

! Moderator Note For starters this is a discussion site and not your blog. Soapboxing is against the rules.

The Bible is comprised of an old and a new testament, which have different tones. Perhaps it would be useful to differentiate between them.

Seems to me that this thread is based on some very shaky ground. Believing in a supreme being or being religious does not make one a Christian, and there have been statements that strongly imply that this is being asserted. Christianity is one subset of religion, with one very specific requirement, and no evidence that Einstein fulfilled it. So go and find evidence of this What’s important to you is not necessarily important to others. Projection is not evidence

WTAF? Stop trolling.

But wanting to be rich is. Avarice.

“Trump is the antichrist” isn’t really news. News stations probably don’t want to alienate a bunch of their viewers, and you’re not going to see much criticism of him on Fox or any Sinclair stations Religious programming might do this, if they were actually promoting religion instead of grabbing money and power

Dictated by a historian? Please. (and: providence? a contiguous story? Is this the malaprop channel?) The value isn’t dictated by the artist, per se. It’s not like artists can force their art to be valued. (see e.g. Van Gogh) It’s the people interested in the art that set the value. But if the value is intrinsic then there shouldn’t be a large disparity in who values it.

Where’s the value? Original art can be valuable. Copies much less so. What does that have to do with anything? Van Gogh isn’t considered great because of celebrity endorsements. I said nothing about closing one’s mind to all forms of musical expression. That’s not even close to what I expressed. That speaks to the role that uniqueness has, though. A dead artist won’t be making more of their art.

It doesn’t need to be that involved. The Beatles had/have a lot of fans, but others thought rock was just noise. There are people who are ambivalent about classical music from the masters. Not everyone loves opera. There’s no right or wrong involved.

How can personal preference be right or wrong?

Which god?

It’s likely that some fraction of the people will think your art sucks. That it has no value. Not worth looking at. Revolting, possiblt\y.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

! Moderator Note Such conjecture does not comply with the rules of speculations. Nope.

I’m not sure it has an intrinsic worth. The value is what people place on it. I’m sure there are people who wouldn’t pay $5 for the Mona Lisa to hang in their house, if they somehow were unable to give or sell it to anyone.

A lot of art is unique, or nearly so. And if it’s good, some people want it. Supply and demand.

Yes, you often get a gamma. There are exceptions; tritium is a notable one. (C-14 also, I think) That’s why tritium is used as a source for radioluminescent emergency exit signs

Simple. There isn’t, I stated that, and I never claimed there was. I said there is shift in mass, which there is - the slugs move and the platform will also. You can only do this once, since your slugs do not return to their original position. (It’s not a cycle, or ”loop”) If they did, the position would revert to the original.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion board, not your blog

F = dp/dt There is no external force, therefore there can be no change in momentum of the center of mass No blessing necessary, just understanding first-semester physics. Your setup does not specify that this happens, nor does it say which direction the balls rotate (if they are counter-rotating the platform will not rotate) but the rotation of the platform is irrelevant. You need to analyze this from a non-rotating frame of reference. Where the balls go relative to that frame’s coordinate system. You said the slugs are redirected 180 degrees. Now you are saying something different. You need to be more specific and consistent in your framing of the problem.

Nanotechnology would imply an electron microscope. An optical one lacks the necessary resolution

Zero. The platform will have moved up slightly, owing to the shift in the mass.