swansont

Which has been shown to be insufficient to account for the effects observed; most baryonic matter is thought to be non-baryonic. Thus, if you use the generic term “dark matter” in this context, you must be referring to non-baryonic dark matter or all of it, not just the small fraction that’s baryonic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonic_dark_matter

We don’t have enough staff to have the separation of function you are suggesting. And, as Phi noted, the steps taken take time, and more steps take more time. I would rather spend my time here in discussion rather than engaged in moderation, and I strongly suspect other mods feel similarly. No need for a revolution. Nothing in principle is stopping you from starting up your own site, and nothing keeping you at a site that’s not mostly aligned with your needs.

I did answer questions. And I stayed silent on areas I don’t feel comfortable answering. You have more, higher-quality information than you did before, which should hypothetically get you closer to whatever answers you’re seeking, and somehow you’re blaming me for that help?

No, I ignored it. I’ve only been addressing physics misconceptions.

Sorry, what? You asked “Would massless mean no energy?” and I gave my answer - no, along with an explanation of the energy of a massless particle, such as a photon. Done about what? Nuclear binding energy is a deficit of energy - energy that has already been released. It increases in exothermic reactions. Also, energy does not hold things together. It’s the strong nuclear interaction (force) that holds nucleons together.

Photons are not matter, as I stated previously. The energy can simply be added to the object absorbing the photon (also the linear and angular momentum) Matter is not a conserved entity. You can’t turn yourself into light. You asked if a photon can be turned into matter No, massless does not mean no energy. The full equation is E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 Photons have momentum, and energy. E = pc

There are a few insta-ban infractions (e.g. spam, pornography, sockpuppetry to evade a ban) which are pretty clear cut to apply. As Phi notes, in cases not in those categories, multiple staff members are involved in approving a ban.

It has? What was the situation?

No. When light is absorbed, the photon ceases to exust. Yes, under certain conditions.

To a majority of the voters, and there is usually more than one issue in play that voters care about. I'm sorry - your point is that customers don't like lower prices? Why do people shop at Wal-Mart? The ambiance? Except they probably won't since those aren't minimum-wage jobs, and it's an example of an industry where undocumented immigrants have larger-than-average representation. (also, do you think that undocumented immigrants won't be paid less, under the table?) But you specifically referred to them bellyaching about low wages. Where is the evidence to back this up, and how is it relevant? You're confusing voting results with support for specific issues. Again, where did this "wages suppressed" discussion come from, and what evidence do you have to support it? Please: use the quote function to respond to specific points made in the thread, so we know exactly what point you're responding to, and use links to material that supports your claims.

! Moderator Note To clarify things here, iNow is correct - the thread starter has a significant say in what is off-topic (absent an effort to just dodge uncomfortable questions, which is not the case here) and if someone shows up and insists on discussing a tangential topic, that is hijacking. It's also true that in most cases you can quote a post or link to a thread when you start a new thread to provide context and discuss that tangent (additional rules/limitations apply if that's in speculations)

Well, we can observe with our own eyes and ears that this is going on. I don't believe I presented anything to suggest that they were "bellyaching" about declining wages, or not doing anything to increase wages (I think construction workers are more unionized than other sectors). Do you have evidence to present that this is happening, and relevant to the discussion? It seems that whenever I say something about elected officials, you talk about voters, and when I say something about business owners, you talk about workers. That's...not optimal.

There was an FBI briefing that indicated that more arrests and charges are coming; even if they were misdemeanor arrests, this does not preclude additional charges being brought after further investigation. There's a lot of evidence to sort through. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-felony-sedition-charges-rioters-stormed-us-capitol/story?id=75203243 https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/12/956083079/justice-department-warns-its-coming-for-those-involved-in-capitol-violence And, of course lots of stuff on parler (and twitter, facebook) to go through, because lots of the planning and coordination took place there before accounts and platforms got shut down. Private industry not providing a platform is not a protected speech issue. The first amendment is about government shutting down or punishing free speech

Physics doesn't have a way to test any proposition along these lines. Mass and energy are properties of the particles/substances under description. Matter describes most but not all of what we find around us. Things that have mass and take up space are matter (fermions, which can't occupy the same space, are matter) Photons, being massless bosons, are not considered to be matter. Energy isn't s substance, so this is an incorrect assessment. Also, light can be heat. It depends on where it originated.

And their constituents are all for reducing immigration without making the connection (or depite the connection) to economic issues. People have been voting against their economic self-interest for years. Again, you have to go with the available data. We've had four years of massive lies coming from the administration, and people believed them, despite their obviousness, which is not rational behavior. The republicans have done a better job of appealing to emotion, and this irrational behavior. Case in point: watch how people react when a politician says "socialism." It's an emotional response, not a rational one. Who is "they"? Yes, but that's not the republican position. Again, yes, but that's not the republican position.

There's a point to this - that having them out in the open identifies them, but there's also the problem of organizing and coordinating their violence, and companies not wanting to associate themselves with a coup attempt.

Perhaps because sedition and insurrection is not merely "political opinion" And neither are threats of mayhem and/or death?

The president is not a private citizen, so the protections of the first amendment are not the same as they would be for private speech. That aside, inciting to riot is, AFAIK, not protected speech. Seditious consiracy, however, is. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. That, plus the notion that something need not be criminal in order to be worthy of impeachment.

How are either of those examples of species that "could've been saved from extinction by hunting" How does an unstable equilibrium become destabilized? It wasn't stable to begin with, by definition. Yes, and to my earlier comment, a lot of that is from human influence. I don't see the point of the OP singling out hunting when there are other influences

That's not what is meant by dark matter, though.

Indeed - from what I've read MOND works at certain scales but fails at others, depending on what analysis you do, like a blanket that can cover your feet or your head but not at the same time.

Light isn't in an inertial frame of reference, so we can't use our physics to describe what happens to light from its point of view. But in our frame, light experiences time - e.g. it takes ~ 8.33 minutes for light to get to us from the sun As I pointed out before, the equivalence is mass and energy. "matter equals energy" is an untrue statement, so your question is moot. Massless particles travel at c and we don't have physics that explains what happens from their point of view.

It doesn't It doesn't. The electrostatic force is F = kQq/r^2, which only tells you about the force between these two particles. It obeys superposition, and the force vectors add. You have to evaluate each force separately. Newtonian gravity is similar. You can have more than one moon in orbit around a planet. The planet is not limited to interacting with just one at a time. The complication with electrostatics is the possibility of both an attractive and a repulsive force. Yes, in keeping with my earlier comment about superposition and evaluating vectors.

No, actually, and this is a common error. The m in E = mc^2 (and related equations) is mass, meaning mass is a form of energy. Mass is a property of matter, but mass and matter are not the same thing. I agree with the "woo woo" assessment, though.

Is "delicate balance" a truth or a colorful myth? Can you offer up some examples of extinctions that have been (or could be) saved by hunting? (Preferably where other human action isn't a major factor; because hunting isn't the only human activity with huge impact)