swansont

Who paid for the development? Who were the customers? edit: It wasn’t the US doing this. from 1920 to 1935, the US produced no more than 35 tanks (p. 75) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2006/R1860.pdf

And to my point above, nobody was going to develop the tank on their own.

Devices ≠ technology IOW, we didn’t need those airplanes anymore, but we still used planes Competition might drive some progress, but business has to deem the research worthwhile. There needs to be a profit involved. They are happy to use research done by the government - basically free to them - after the fact. Or have the government pay them (direct or subsidy, partially or fully funded) to do it.

No, there isn’t. As I described above, anyone who might be branded a traitor is leaking information, not whistle-blowing.

We have a thread for introductions

They only obey these statistics if they are identical, so yes, they are exactly the same

! Moderator Note Split from https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124059-correction-hijack-sharia-in-the-us/ Owing to multi-part posts, this split may be omitting some discussion

"Getting ahead in life" seems to be an artificial distinction. Did you mean inert, rather than innate? The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that entropy will increase, so it's not going to help in this distinction. There might be some traction in the rate at which entropy increases for something of equal mass, in general (i.e. there will be exceptions) e.g. living matter tends to consume food and excrete waste, and in doing so there are chemical reactions. To any extent that inanimate matter does this (or an analogue of this), it probably tends to do so more slowly. That might be something to look into.

Not quite https://www.wired.com/2017/02/life-death-spring-disorder/ You can locally decrease entropy if you increase it somewhere else. Overall it increases, and work has to be done to decrease it. This is not a controversial issue. Evolution is natural. A salt crystal forming from a solution decreases the entropy of the salt. Last I checked, salt is not alive. Similarly, forming ice decreases entropy of the water. If you take H2 and O2 and add a spark, you will get mostly H20. You will not get a random assortment of H and O atoms strung together. The outcomes of chemistry are not random. You are using a watered-down description of entropy and trying to apply it well outside of its scope.

Infinite monkey theorem. (I should have said if you have an infinite number...) It's another related gambit to what I said earlier. Infinity is big, but we'll use a million, and a million is pretty big, right? Well, no. A million is small in this context. It's a bait-and-switch, going from the infinite monkey theorem (the wikipedia link addresses n going to infinity) to the million monkey theorem as if they were basically interchangeable.

But you have an infinite number of them, so it actually takes almost no time at all. The issue here is someone is trying to baffle/intimidate their audience with large numbers, while also ignoring the incredibly large numbers involved in chemistry. Avogadro's number, for example, is 6.02 x 10^23. That's just one gram of hydrogen atoms. 100 grams of something of atomic number 100. The mass of the earth, meanwhile, is 6 x 10^24 kg 283 trillion trillion is 2.83 x 10^20. In the scheme of things it's a small number. *Nobody with decent understanding.

You mean where you stated: "There is plenty of evidence of Democrats claiming the world will end in 12 (10 now?) years. Is the "whole of the Democrat Party" anti-science also?" So you claimed "plenty of democrats" (plural, and implying at least several). I see one. And, as we've seen there is a scientific basis for the claim. You also raised the question of whether the democratic party is anti-science based on this, with the inference being no. But the main differences here are whether statements are based on science or not, and whether the person represents a larger group than themselves. But Trump leads the republican party, whose platform for 2020 was basically "Whatever Trump says" (no actual policy list and a resolution to support Trump's agenda) so it's perfectly reasonable to take the position that has been espoused here, because the republicans themselves have taken it. We call that cherry-picking. Include the part that supports your position, and omit the part that doesn't. I didn't claim otherwise. The issue is whether you focus on the hyperbole or the science. If there's no science, though, all that's left is the hyperbole. It's also the case that this may be much more obvious to someone living in the US and paying attention than to folks on the outside, where some of the lower-level nonsense gets filtered as noise.

So you object to a sample size of one, and then provide a sample size of…one. As if AOC is representative of the democratic party. And you omitted the part where it said With her 12-year timeline, it’s possible that Ocasio-Cortez is referencing a major global report from last October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nation’s scientific authority on climate change. The year 2030 came up prominently in that report, marking the first year that the planet is likely to warm by 1.5 degrees Celsius “…warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,” according to Hans-Otto Pörtner, a Co-Chair of the IPCC. So AOC’s remark is based on science, i.e. factual, even as it is hyperbolic, as the world will not literally be ending. (but there’s a minor industry of manufactured outrage over such oratorical or literary devices)

It’s a misstatement. Strictly speaking, vapor is gas. But what’s being described has condensed somewhat into small droplets of liquid, much like water vapor condenses and forms a cloud. You can’t see it in its gaseous form. At the right temperature and pressure, both will exist.

Let’s have it. The least you can do is provide the evidence of this, given your complaint about others not doing this.

But it’s a different kind of system (they mention propellant) so it’s not applicable to the navy’s effort, which was a railgun The requirements for shipboard systems are usually very different than for land-based systems Then report on the relevant system. And provide a link https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40875/the-navys-railgun-looks-like-its-finally-facing-the-axe-in-new-budget-request

! Moderator Note Without the physics to describe this, such conjecture is useless, and also contains insufficient rigor for discussion.

It would be useful to link to your sources of information Strategic Long Range Cannon is an army project, not navy. Nothing to do with battleships https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/03/09/strategic-long-range-cannon-effort-in-holding-pattern-ahead-of-tech-feasibility-report/

This sounds like homework (moved to HW help) and we’re not going to do it for you. What have you done thus far?

This sounds like homework (moved to HW help) and we’re not going to do it for you. What have you done thus far?

Some did, but their guesses were wrong. A lot of thinking prior to independent scientific investigation was influenced by philosophy and religion, and the answers were sufficiently satisfactory until observation contradicted them. e.g. before telescopes allowed for discovery of so many new bodies, and elliptical orbits were confirmed, the crystal sphere of the heavens sufficed as an explanation.

Developing new models or refining existing models. Sometimes in response to new experiments, but sometimes these are long-standing problems. Also developing models based on some conjecture, i.e. “what if X were the case” that has no direct observation to suggest it. There are plenty of examples - Einstein with relativity, atomic transition models, and Bose-Einstein statistics. Feynman with the spinning and precessing plate applied to quantum systems. Szilard thinking up the fission chain reaction in response to observing traffic lights. Sometimes the new models can be compared to existing experiments, and sometimes they need experiments to be developed to test them.

Some people will break the rules.

that last one is probably illegal irrelevant Government workers take an oath, but some don’t take it seriously This can’t be a serious proposal Some positions require lie detector despite them being famously unreliable These can’t be taken seriously Clearly Less stressful and less boring seem to be contrary goals. Even stuff forbidden by the rules will happen.

Heat is energy transfer (or, colloquially used, it’s thermal energy), and the strong interaction is essentially a force, described above by MigL. Not the same category. Furthermore, when nucleons bind to each other, this represents a release of energy. Helium-4, for example, must give up about 28 MeV if formed from free protons and neutrons, and you would need to add that much energy to break it apart. So your conjecture has an energy creating an energy deficit. Doesn’t work.