swansont

From the link “it harnesses the principles of physics to generate continuous forward motion through a series of internal momentum transfers. This isn't science fiction; it's a groundbreaking application of well-established physical laws. The elegance of CLPP lies in its simplicity and the profound implications it holds for transportation, energy, and beyond.” The devil’s going to be in the details (one reason AI is not to be trusted). On its face this will not give you propulsion, because momentum will be conserved — if there’s no net external force, the momentum can’t change. One way you might get propulsion is if you can take advantage of an external force, such as friction, which is nonlinear. An object that transfers an internal mass can do it slowly, so that the force involved is small and not be greater than that of friction (e.g. walking slowly inside a box on a surface; the box won’t move because of friction) and then a large force which is larger than friction (running in the opposite direction) On a frictionless surface the center-of-mass doesn’t move, but with friction, it will.

AI is not a technical resource. It’s like asking Cliff Clavin. If he doesn’t know the answer, he’ll make one up.

Why would it? Don jr. isn’t on the ballot, and devotion does not necessarily transfer in this manner.

I think you’ll find this attitude is widespread in sportsball fandom. (There are also the pessimistic masochistic fans, who think the team’s star is horrible, and their devotion to the team compels them to point this out)

Depends on the search engine. Some will do substrings, others don’t. On some sites, I’ve noticed that a search for “atomic clock” does not find “atomic clocks” But if they’re looking specifically for you, they’ll find you.

Back in 2016 he chose Pence to shore up the religious vote (though it seems increasingly obvious that the evangelicals care little about religion compared to power) I don’t see that Vance appeals to anyone who didn’t already support Trump, his position on various rights for women will drive some people away, and it destroys the fiction that Project 2025 isn’t their game plan. P2025 is not popular, and raising awareness of it is just starting out. edit: and we’re also seeing what happens with increased scrutiny. e.g. some on the right are not happy that his wife is not a white Christian.

You’re asking for mutually exclusive results here. If someone does an exact term search (e.g. putting it in quotes in Google) they’re going to find your user name, as long as the search engine is of reasonable quality.

But we should have an answer already. It’s hotter and there’s about a third more CO2 than 50 years ago. If this was happening, there should be plenty of examples to point to. At least as many as the flood/drought issues we’ve seen, and can point to. It’s a mistake to frame global warming as something that will happen, because it’s happening already.

It ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations you could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it? Or so it was claimed, a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away)

Growing bigger runs into overlapping with other plants, so not only competing for water and nutrients, but I would imagine that sunlight is also a limiting resource, since you can only have a certain surface area getting direct sunlight.

And he wasn’t running for reelection. Teddy Roosevelt lost his attempt to get nominated after getting shot. Ford and Carter lost their reelection bids after assassination attempts. It’s just sheer speculation how this will play out, and we’re not doing it in this thread.

I don’t see an image.

Is there evidence that too much CO2 — in the ranges we could have on earth — is bad for plants? The levels we’re seeing are lower than what you’d typically have indoors unless you have incredible ventilation, so is there evidence indoor plants suffer? ”good for plants” is a reach, as if it balances out negative aspects, but it also needs to be quantified. Is CO2 a limiting factor in plant growth? Going from ~320 ppm to ~420 ppm in the last ~60 years should have already been quite a boon if “good for plants” had validity.

Has that ever worked before?

Why?

Here’s a link https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3gw58wv4e9o

! Moderator Note Speculation and no links. Exactly what I said not to do.

Perfect? Bernie's not a Democrat. You speak for everyone? Just more hyperbolic propaganda

Could be a “get tough” tactic, sending a message. I wonder if the house minority leader will be visiting with his colleagues, telling them they are causing damage, and now is the time for unity. And that if they don’t fall in line, they will be shunned when Biden wins.

! Moderator Note Normal disclaimer of not speculating about factual issues; wait for news that has been confirmed. Early reports are often quite wrong. And please link to your sources.

I think what you need to do is make a compelling case for whatever you think the answer is. An alleged failure of science does not mean a particular alternative is correct. (i.e. not knowing the identity of a creature does not mean it’s Bigfoot. You need positive evidence to support the latter)

Reminds me of the attitudes in the Washington, DC area regarding snow plowing. A lot of people complain that it takes so long to clear roads after a big storm, because there isn’t a huge team of plows and drivers waiting to do the work. But they don’t consider the cost of having such infrastructure, which would be underutilized — the big storms don’t happen every year. I wonder how many people complaining about snow removal or road repair also complain about their taxes being too high, and voting for the people who promise to lower taxes — and don’t see the connection. I saw it in Oregon ca 1990 when they passed property tax reform, and then people were mortified in subsequent years when government cut a whole bunch of services. Studying engineering would not solve these issues. It’s a political problem.

Really?

I expect you'd get similar defections from voters not ready for a woman president as you got with H. Clinton.

It was sarcasm, which you apparently missed. So when you said you weren't arguing science, you were...lying? That's a hand-wave, not a scientific proposal. A field is a mathematical construct and in the case of the Higgs describes interactions. You've presented no math and no description of an interaction, much less any reason to think that a field is responsible. Your words remain and you can continue to post. So "silenced" seems more like rhetoric and hyperbole. It's not a tactic that endears you to the moderators.