swansont

We know the relationship between time and motion, and it is not t = c-v This can't be an equality, because the units of time and the units of speed are not the same.

One might ask what protocols were adopted when/after this branching occurred.

Which would have to surround the entire area, like Disneyland.

I'm not sure how you draw a conclusion using a number that has no physical meaning, and is basically used only for convenience.

How do you have a checkpoint without fencing?

Did Dirac use the classical electron radius, which we know to be incorrect? Once QM had been developed a bit, it was recognized that the electron (as with all fundamental particles) is a point particle.

E=mc2 for a particle at rest was derived years before GR was developed. The energy-momentum equation was derived by Dirac in 1928

As I had quoted: IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive. They would need to have expertise in that area, and come up with strategies that could be adopted by some very diverse cultures. And seeing as this is, in large part, a cultural, religious and a political issue all tied into one (views on birth control, for example) rather than a technical one, I'm not surprised at all that they would steer clear of it. And strategies are not policies. Yes, they could say "reduce your population" but is that a realistic outcome? A strategy would need to suggest a course of action. I can't even think of what realistic paths one could recommend that a (non-authoritarian) government would be inclined to enact.

! Moderator Note I will make iNow's suggestion official. Leave the theist/atheist approach out of this discussion of suicide prevention. If you wish to discuss this in religious terms, open a thread in religion, and post credible evidence to back any claims.

Referred to where? Context is important.

I think it's almost a tautology. You can probably draw a circle around a geographic representation of people's social network, with some people having their network predominantly inside and others not. The premise would be trivially true. I just think the question itself in incredibly vague, and I'd guess the answer is "probably" The real issue is the extent. If you have friends from diverse geographic areas it could depend on many factors that have nothing to do extraversion and openness. (Does your family move very often? Does your school have some sort of exchange program? Which are you in: an urban, residential or rural setting?)

Fair enough; my concern was that it could be interpreted that way by people less familiar. Yes. I think physics comes up because there are more physics-aware people involved, and also because of the "physics should incorporate more philosophy" conversation. Eise points out that there are areas in physics where you can argue they are doing philosophy, so if that's where the demarcation is fuzziest, that's where the conversation of what distinguishes the two is going to occur. If other disciplines have a similar dialogue, or similar fuzzy demarcation, by all means, bring it in to the discussion. But if it's e.g. biology, I'm not likely the one who's going to be familiar with it.

It's not a fact. You've previously been told that it's wrong

The IPCC does not recommend policy the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where further research is needed. The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive. https://www.ipcc.ch

I have two fundamental charges a micron apart. Please solve for the force between them using only length, mass and time.

This suggests physics as a monolithic effort, and it's not. Physics has its individual disciplines, some with no overlap, and there is the divide between theory and experiment. Some work is basic research, other work is applied research. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a significant chunk of physicists that don't speak at all on the matter, because their attitude is "meh" "So much resources" sort on string theory? What level is that, and what fraction of the budget for all physics does it represent? From what I can tell, the big conference on string theory draws about 500 attendees. That's not a big conference. Not all attend every year. So maybe there are 2000 string theorists. Out of how many physicists? A million? Theorists typically do not require big budgets, so the resources drawn by string theory would likely be quite small as a fraction of the overall research spending. If there's no heavy discussion, part of that would be because nobody's funding is in danger - if you're doing applied research, your source probably isn't competing with string theory sources, and not in a way that you can do much about it. (e.g. if your applied research money comes from DARPA, who cares about string theory funding coming from somewhere else?) String theory, and multiverse, and some other topics get an outsized amount of scrutiny in popular press, but it's not representative of the physics community.

! Moderator Note No, the discussion must take place here, per forum rules This applies to all links; outside papers are not to be substituted for discussion here

I agree. Learning the basics of forces, momentum and energy (mechanics), gravitation, thermodynamics and electromagnetism will be important. These are usually covered in introductory physics classes, but might be broken down by topic, depending on where you look. It’s also possible that an intro astrophysics book/course would cover these; you’d need to check. You’ll need a course that has you work problems. The books geared to popular audiences tell you about the concepts, but you need to be able to apply them to different situations.

When it comes to philosophy? I’d want the take of the philosophy crowd.

I would expect a lot of trial and error was involved, and some happy accidents along the way. I think the SM was developed over time and refined along the way. I don't think there would a be a sharp demarcation between non-science and science while that was happening.

I don't know. I didn't quote you.

I would argue that writing a textbook is. And is learning science the same as doing science? to wit Before they can do science they must learn science.

No, but perhaps not for the same reason that you are thinking

No, that's not where the period went. I also said "physics itself admits that it's making stuff up to make good models" I did not claim that this applies to all of physics. I clarified this several time. Rather than rebutting any of the examples I gave, you have built a straw man and attacked that.

Indeed. The desire to spend the money on a specific target colors the attitudes a great deal. Not so much the economic benefit, though the economic benefit narrative - often decoupled from the facts - can come into play. See e.g. trickle-down economics; even though direct benefits to the poor would have a much larger impact, these are the undeserving poor (from the narrative) so we must instead help the rich. But we could do that anyway. Instead, we get tax cuts for the rich.