swansont

! Moderator Note Material for discussion is supposed to be posted here But uranium fission does produce variable daughter nuclei

“Centripetal force is towards Earth on the sunny side (and if I'm correct cancels the force from the Sun exactly), while centripetal force is away from Earth on the dark side” (emphasis added) Seemed obvious to me. YMMV

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted, per forum rules

I was using the reference frame that Willem described. Which seems reasonable in answering a question they posed (and which doesn’t raise an issue of shielding gravity)

! Moderator Note This is a discussion board for science, not semantics. This would be a discussion of whether “non-mathematical” means absence of math, or having elements that are not mathematical. Surely one can introduce a topic that is less trivial.

A scale that compared gravitational attraction, e.g. balance scales, yes. But e.g. a spring scale measures the normal force, which would vary with the acceleration. Not that we necessarily have devices sensitive enough. In the earth reference frame it does. Toward the center vs away from the center.

China has been pushing against a rising population for almost 50 years with its one child policy. Russia I’d believe, wanting a bigger army, because of a long tradition of using their soldiers as cannon fodder. But you need a decent economy to outfit a modern army, and a bigger population doesn’t automatically mean a better economy. Look at India (to some extent) and its neighbors.

What about countries where there is no right to vote? That’s one possible cause, but another is increased lifespan from medical advances.

Why is it irreversible? What level is “not enough”?

You misunderstand the analogy. The heat flow is analogous to the energy being converted from potential energy and extracting work. Your focus on water being a fluid is misplaced. It’s the energy of the fluid, not the fluid itself. The potential energy is reduced. Nothing has to happen to the water.

How so? The sentence does not really make sense; how can an engine be falsified? The efficiency claim could be falsified, though. Build an engine that exceeds the efficiency limit, and it would be falsified. That’s how you falsify scientific claims - with an experiment.

And you can post video as long as the discussion can proceed without having to view it. IOW, as long as the lengthy explanation is there.

So you’re coming up with a new definition of stuck? “For example, I say my engine got "stuck", apparently frozen.” But it wasn’t a mechanical part? How does a non-mechanical part get stuck? To be stuck, doesn’t it need to be something that normally moves? You definitely need to post pictures, with circles and arrows on them, because your descriptions are lacking sufficient detail.

Mechanical devices getting stuck violate NO principles of known science.

What thermodynamic principle does an engine getting stuck demonstrate? No, it was for re-introducing material from a locked thread.

It reminds me of the UFO=aliens crowd. Improper extrapolation from the data, cherry-picking, and of course the “it must be aliens” conclusion when the phenomena are unidentified.

That would make you one of his sockpuppets.

If you had an irrational fear that it’s somehow a contagious condition, or that its mere presence is harmful, amped up by certain societal pressures, you might. There are men that blame attraction to (and sometimes the resulting assault on) women on the women. This seems to be under a similar umbrella

An obvious candidate is cultural pressure to conform to some “normal” behavior that is defined by the majority. (Which cuts down on challenges to authority, so it’s often perpetuated by that authority, even if they behave “abnormally” in private)

Since you apparently need this spelled out (and I really shouldn’t have to): you have shared a link saying that seafood is necessary for proper evolutionary brain development ca. 2mya. If we provisionally accept this (others have challenged it), it’s separate from the claim that we’ve lost 100cc of brain volume 40k years ago. Your assertion is that this loss is because “we” no longer have the same diet Where is the evidence that all humans stopped eating seafood? Your position requires this. If this loss of volume is an evolutionary disadvantage and is diet-related, why did the humans who lived on the coast and ate seafood suffer this loss? Shouldn’t people who eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains? You presented evidence that surfer’s ear is present in ~half of 23 Neandertal fossils and an indeterminate number of others (only one is uniquely identified in your link) You didn’t show that it “disappears” from the fossil record.

What’s the evidence that the diet has changed? Did all humans stop eating seafood? Is there evidence that populations that eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains? The abundant presence of fish bones and shellfish remains in many African hominid fossil sites dating to 2 million years ago implies human ancestors commonly inhabited the shores, Is this any different in the last 40k years?

Ever notice how people who had previous incarnations were always someone of note?

They aren’t http://research.atmos.ucla.edu/weather/C110/Documents/tmp/basic_wxradar/navmenu.php_tab_1_page_3_4_2_type_text.htm Consider a situation in which an intense thunderstorm is close to the radar. Attenuation occurring in the heavy precipitation core of the closest storm can cause precipitating areas downrange to appear less intense. In severe cases of attenuation, some precipitation occurring downrange may not be displayed in the image at all.

But you’ve presented no evidence of this. You presented other evidence that has no bearing on this claim.

Perhaps if you actually employed the scientific method… It’s not enough to show that some features could have arisen from an aquatic existence. You need to show that they must have, and it has to cover all features. The math says that bipedalism arose before that. “the discovery of “Lucy” (Johanson et al. 1982), a 3.2-million-year-old (Ma) Australopithecus afarensis skeleton that was very ape-like above the neck but possessed a suite of characters related to bipedalism throughout the rest of the skeleton. Then came the 3.7-Ma Laetoli footprint trail—an exquisitely preserved moment in time when two or more hominins walked bipedally across an ash-covered landscape” https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0257-6