swansont

! Moderator Note We’re not doing this. AI-generated content can only be discussed in speculations, and you’d be expected to support the speculation. Asking if it’s wrong means you aren’t prepared to do that.

It’s not Trump’s common sense that matters. Trump being a racist isn’t even a close call. Half of Americans didn’t vote for him. He got around 77 million votes. The population of the US is around 335 million, so even accounting for some of the population not being citizens, it’s about a quarter of Americans.

As Genady has pointed out, the v in the equation is the velocity of the ejected mass relative to the parent mass, which is not frame dependent. The change in momentum will also not depend on the frame, since any velocity term from a frame change that’s included in the calculation cancels out — it’s added to both values. frame 1: the change in momentum is mv2- mv1 In frame 2, moving at u wrt frame 1, it’s m(v2+u) - m(v1+u) = mv2- mv1

Um, what? Holding someone accountable typically is in the context of illegal or improper acts. How does supplying weaponry to an ally, with whom we have treaties and agreements, and for which there is congressionally-approved support, qualify? Everyone? He didn’t get half of the votes cast, and about two-thirds of registered voters didn’t vote for him. All hat, no cattle, as they say.

So, it’s magic ! Moderator Note Or at all, since you have given us nothing but hand-waving. No model, no evidence. As such, this doesn’t fulfill the requirements for discussion

Yeah, this may be about kickbacks for exemptions from businesses that would be harmed, and kickbacks for tariffs that help businesses.

How does DM form a system? Now you need two particles, you have to have an interaction to form the bound system, and you have to be able to virtually absorb photons but not have resonant absorption or dissociation, and you need electromagnetic interactions. You could use a pendulum clock for that.

Thank you for confirming that this is utterly unscientific. It’s more of a cult, like when someone keeps predicting the aliens will show up, and then comes up with an excuse when the target date comes and goes with no aliens. But keep believing! All that’s missing is a plea for more money.

Not really. It’s prediction based on past behavior. You can believe, as iNow points out, a ghost-written book, or you can look at his numerous actual business failures. The latter carries more weight, IMO. It’s time we get past the myth that the very rich are geniuses. They keep showing us they’re not. Which was as bunch of people predicted. i.e. we knew we didn’t need a wall. Same economic “genius” on display as saying China will pay the tariffs.

From where does your insight come? He did tariffs in his first term, and had to bail out farmers when China stopped buying US soybeans. “A U.S. Department of Agriculture study found the retaliatory tariffs reduced U.S. agricultural exports by $27 billion from mid-2018 when the tariffs were imposed to the end of 2019. Soybeans accounted for the majority of the decline” https://taxfoundation.org/blog/tariffs-trade-war-agriculture-food-prices/

If I measure the speed of light with the spinning mirror method, there’s nothing in that apparatus that relies on the speed of light being what it is, or on the interactions happening at c. The mirror spins at some speed, whose value is not critical to the experiment. Everything else is static. If c changed, nothing about the apparatus is affected

No, but that might just be an issue of imprecise terminology Yes, and this is the crux of the problem

It’s also possible that this means he produces a report that will be released, which would not happen if he were fired.

There are absorptions to virtual states which accounts for light slowing down in a medium, but that presupposes a composite system like an atom, so there are real absorptions possible as well, and an electromagnetic interaction. With gas molecules you have the ability to shed energy in inelastic scattering. Where’s the evidence a similar distribution in DM? What’s the formula for the distribution?

It was exchemist, in a different thread.

Yes. We had a physics lab when I was a TA that detected the earth’s field this way; the students measured the voltage in different orientations. (An interesting anecdote is that students in one corner of the room got a different answer because there was an NMR lab in the building, and the field in that corner was measurably different.) edit: there are a few schools that list a similar lab online, such as https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/catalog/demonstrations/em/earthinductor.html

H-K does not show a preferred inertial frame Now it’s my turn to say you didn’t read/understand what I wrote. Air not being inside atoms only eliminates one possible effect, because atmospheric pressure does, in fact, affect some atomic clocks. But it does not correlate with gravitational time dilation. My point still stands: you need to be able to quantify the effect, rather than give a hand-wave. How does it slow light if there is no E-M interaction?

You can devise experiments that don’t rely on the value of c to determine c, so I’m not sure why this matters. Any clock able to discern gravitational time dilation has the atoms in a vacuum chamber, so this isn’t an issue. Further, you have multiple designs of clocks that would not have the same response to environmental perturbations, so they would not give a consistent shift if the result was from such a cause. And “maybe it’s air density” is not a rigorous objection without a model of how it should depend on air density.

Except there is, since evaporation would exert a force. The v is the velocity of the ejected mass relative to the bulk mass. It doesn’t change in the other frame If that was your point, it was not at all clear to me.

It’s my understanding the ones on continuous patrol had nukes aboard for retaliation efforts. Part of the deterrence triad, which would survive a first strike. They could have done this for Cuba with conventional payloads, but I’ve not seen anything that confirms this.

Yes. But there is a bucket. The molecules leaving in one direction (on average) is an important part of the scenario. Much like an explosion in freefall vs a rocket

Yes, there will be. A molecule of mass M that leaves at speed v has a momentum of Mv. The residual mass will have a momentum of Mv in the opposite direction, because momentum is conserved. Since m>>M the momentum will be small. Since force is the time rate of change of momentum, the force will be v dm/dt An extreme case of this would be water boiling and steam channeled through a nozzle.

If this had happened in 1962, probably zero. It would have been considered an attack by the Soviet Union. As toucana has pointed out, the missiles were under Soviet control. They would have been launched from Cuba, but not by Cuba. Slightly longer, unless Key West had an airbase that could handle the planes (plus time to get to the desired altitude). Orlando airport used to be McCoy AFB, which had B-52 bombers stationed there. It was also where many of the U-2 recon flights originated for the crisis.

But you can have a similar situation with free will. If you disbelieve it, you are rewarded with a clear conscience, even if it exists. One might make the same observation about not believing in free will.

They would have some explaining to do