swansont

What manner of failure? breaking, or deformation? Given that the latter is a plastic property, the former shouldn’t be expected. But if it were maximally able to undergo plastic deformation (the necessary force approaches zero), it would deform under its own weight, which is hardly useful. So that just means there is a threshold force that needs to be applied.

I’m pretty sure they were victims of the shooting. ”a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.” The question was whether the were victims of a crime.

No, they were at a protest in support of such people. And according to the judge, they were not victims.

If you’re learning things, and correcting misconceptions, yes.

But it’s so small compared to the other accelerations. And since we are orbiting, we accelerate toward the center without actually moving toward the center (assuming a circular orbit) IOW, something in a circular orbit is falling toward the center, but is moving sideways so it keeps missing, and gets no closer to the center.

Black, life arguably in danger, convicted of killing her abductor/trafficker edit: xpost; details above

That’s a generous interpretation, because black defendants aren’t treated the same way. Chrystul Kizer was convicted when she killed her abductor/sex trafficker. Same part of the country. I daresay if someone who is armed with an AR-15 can be in fear for their safety such that they can use deadly force, just about anybody can make the same argument, and it would likely be a better justification. Somebody, say, “wielding” a skateboard.

I think the early approach was because credit cards and their fees were new, and perhaps merchants didn’t want to be seen raising prices. Discounts let them keep some more of the profit. But two things happened in the 70s - wider adoption, and then rampant inflation. I imagine it’s easier to hide a price bump to cover your interchange (and other) fees when you’re doing it anyway, and once you assume most people will use credit vs cash, you’re going to price that in anyway. I pay rent through electronic transfer now, too, instead of writing a check. Been like that for at least 7 or 8 years for me. (their web portal isn’t great, but I know what the foibles are now)

I recall hearing about this being more widespread when credit cards were much less common, ~50 years ago. You could go into some small businessed and get a small discount for paying cash, if you asked.

Yes, and I phrased something poorly earlier that suggested otherwise. The shooter being white afforded much more leeway than if it were otherwise.

It's not present tense. The system is broken. It was designed that way. The default is that if you're white, it is legally plausible to fear for your life from anyone with darker skin or different views, regardless of circumstances. This is just another example. Civil court has a lower burden (preponderance of evidence vs reasonable doubt) so this may not be over (see OJ Simpson) and as I alluded to above, it's been suggested that federal charges might be in play because he crossed state lines (I'm not a lawyer, tho)

Disappointed, but not shocked. Such is the legal system of the US. added: To paraphrase from Mississippi Burning "These hayseeds will never prosecute. convict. We've got to get 'em in federal court! Violation of civil rights!" Along with the judge suspending the sentences after a conviction.

In the US I've seen lower prices on fuel if you pay cash vs using a credit card.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/?sh=1edacf3d7ec2 The Solar System moves through the galaxy with about a 60° angle between the galactic plane and the planetary orbital plane.

! Moderator Note You've been told before that you need to show what you've done to try and solve the problem. Posting the answer without showing work, as you have done before, is not an acceptable approach. "Is Ca19+ one electron atom?" is pretty straightforward. How would you figure this out?

Citation that these were the case, and and the connection of these items to the cold war is…what, exactly? It’s in the hands of one man? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies Plus all the government agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

Recent discovery: Now scientists have discovered the system is even weirder than they thought. Researchers measured the orbit of the innermost planet, HD 3167 b, for the first time — and it doesn’t match the other two. It instead orbits in the star’s flat plane, like planets in our solar system, and perpendicular to HD 3167 c and d. This star system is the first one known to act like this. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/science/perpendicular-planets-star-system.html

Yes. This was resolved almost three thousand years ago (if not before), when Eratosthenes measured the circumference. There are other lines of evidence to support the notion. No, it was not really in question at that point. Why can't we just use physics? Where the radiation is emitted from a blackbody, and the source of the energy is predominantly the fusion of hydrogen into helium. We would gain the advantage of being able to quantify things and discuss accepted principles, instead of hand-waving our way about the place. I think you'll find that coming to a science discussion side trying to peddle this nonsense is not going to be a winning strategy.

Do you have some examples of this happening? Something standing as a theory without experimental confirmation? Seriously? In the US an undergraduate degree typically takes 4 years. and it's very unusual to complete a graduate degree is 3 years. The typical length is 4-6 years, for a total of 8-10. The you get to do postdoctoral work before settling in to a university setting, for the small fraction that go along that path. Most people with physics degrees don't work in academia, To what end? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, or in this case, testing to see if the idea holds up to experimental scrutiny. Not some new layer of logic review. Do you have any examples of any ideas within physics that fail this "test" of logic?

I work better in electron-Volts, so 5.9e-17J = 368.25 eV (x-ray) 2.53e-18J = 15.8 eV (ultraviolet) 2.59e-20J = 0.161 eV (infrared) 2.67e-20J = 0.167eV Note that these are 3 quite different energy scales (spectroscopically speaking). What transitions would be involved in emitting a photon that has several hundred eV, around 15 eV, and around 0.1 eV? You're asked for what atoms could give you this spectrum, so you musty have access to spectroscopy data to do the comparisons

I assumed it was a typo. Politics.

Yes, you claimed this. Where is the evidence that supports this claim? Why would anyone discuss non-particle behavior when we’re trying to demonstrate particle behavior? (not that I know what you mean by Poincaré's dot or what W-F means. As far as light being absorbed by one atom, all you have done is deny that it’s relevant, but without any justification. Waves interact over an extended area. “Nuh-uh” isn’t a valid response. No Google hits for Poincaré's spot, which is a demonstration of wave behavior. Why would anyone use it as evidence of particle behavior? How is this a remotely reasonable expectation? Yes, Arago’s spot. Diffraction is wave behavior. Again: so what? You appear to be rebutting a straw man - nobody has claimed that light (or quantum particles in general) always exhibits particle behavior. (emphasis added) Yes, actually, it does. If particles and wave has identical behavior we wouldn’t make a distinction The claim being rebutted is that light never acts like a particle. If you observe particle behavior, then it behaves like a particle.

Since the particles need not be entangled for an excitation, I concur that this is indeed a fairy tale.

You can look at the Hohmann transfer equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit and see that they only depend on the mass of the planetary body, as long as the mass of the craft is small in comparison. One reason you might need to know the mass of a craft is if it is going to be providing thrust, but as long as the motion is passive, the mass drops out of the equations.

The cosmological constant energy density "units" are for when you set G = c = 1, so you can't really distinguish between the two uses of the cosmological constant (and is the answer to why it doesn't have units of energy) Is that also happening for your other equation? i.e. was it from an equation with normal units, or one where they were ignored? Since you're asking this without providing context, it's very difficult to see if this is the problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure). In this context, it is commonly moved onto the right-hand side of the equation, and defined with a proportionality factor of 8π: Λ = 8 π ρvac , where unit conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise factors of G and c would also appear, i.e., Λ = 8 π ρvac G / c4 = κ ρvac , where κ is Einstein's rescaled version of the gravitational constant G). It is common to quote values of energy density directly, though still using the name "cosmological constant", using Planck units so that 8πG = 1. The true dimension of Λ is length−2. IOW, Λ = κ ρvac and you call it an energy density by assuming κ is 1. But it's not actually 1 I meant "where in standard physics literature did this equation come from" You need to have started with mainstream physics at some point.