swansont

Hydrogen is not a power source. It’s a storage medium. Hydrogen technology is akin to battery technology. Hydrogen can only be as green as the power that creates it.

Both We have ample evidence that trickle-down doesn’t work, because only a fraction of the money trickles down. And ramping up taxes on the rich isn’t going to stop them buying their shiny pebbles, etc.

It’s not the couple of million spent on the yacht. It’s the many more millions not spent on anything at all. In the hands of the lower echelons of the economy, that money gets spent. Tax from that money gets spent.

The other side of this coin is that people are telling them not to trust, and to not get the vaccine…but the people at the top of the pyramid are vaccinated. It’s interesting seeing the shock of the drones at finding out e.g. FOX news has a vaccine mandate. It’s related to having authoritarians and grifters in power, and the way to show loyalty is to believe what they tell you rather than what you see with your lying eyes. It’s the price of belonging to the tribe.

Only in a rough sense; fission and particle ejection are classified as different reactions. Particle ejection can be endothermic, so you need an energetic particle to cause the proton to be removed. Almost certainly required if you eject more than one. Fissionable materials are typically very heavy nuclei, and fissile materials are a small subset. Particle ejection candidates are found over almost the whole range of the periodic table.

Your terminology is off. You can’t “remove an atom” as you describe. An atom consists of neutrons and protons. The number of protons tells you what element the atom is. You can add or remove protons and you will end up with a new element.

https://www.facebook.com/MontyPython/videos/890758175061804/

Nobody was “put in a position” You keep framing this as if they couldn’t have said “no thanks” It was their choice. You can question their level of foolishness for going, but you can’t actually gauge that unless you know what situations exist where a fully-trained astronaut would make a difference As far as training goes, at least some of that is so they know what to expect while pulling g’s during launch and while weightless so they’re not experiencing that for the first time on the trip. Someone having a panic attack in close quarters can be a dangerous situation. Also things like the need to sleep near air vents because CO2 buildup can be dangerous because you aren’t moving. As beecee’s link makes clear, NASA is not involved and the flight is 100% privately funded

But nobody was “sent” Part of the issue here is the framing of the situation. Part of it is the claim that a professional would make a difference without any concrete evidence or relevant examples being presented. (Also: Everyone could simply drop the OT nonsense. Regardless of who started it, several people have perpetuated it. It takes two to tango, as it were. It’s not like the original throwaway comment was repeated until others responded, escalating the situation)

Only if there were actions they could take that would do something. Other than 50+ years of experience and advances in technology

But we’re dealing with the ones who would not. It’s not like these people are doing this against their will. Presumably they are properly informed of the risks. The question is what events on a flight like this requires expert human intervention, and what is the risk of those things happening? And what events would an astronaut be able to recover from? But you’re not on the flight.

! Moderator Note It still violates rule 2.7 ! Moderator Note This isn’t a treasure hunt site, it’s a discussion board.

! Moderator Note Please stop posting such questions. This is not a search engine.

I don't think that answers the question

They had already solved it, so it's all good

That was not your claim. You said "The square of speed is the gravitational potential." with no caveats.

Yeah, I don't think I asked any in this thread. Just some small comments.

If the speed of the car is variable then so is the square of the speed. I thought that would be self-evident. I did mention the gravitational potential; it is constant on the surface of the sphere of the earth. If the square of the speed is variable, then it cannot be equal to a constant. Sorry, G is taken already, and this is a new fudge factor you have added because your original claim is wrong. It's still not the force, because the gravitational potential does not include the mass of the object, and the force does. Squaring the potential will not make the mass of the object magically appear. Using unit analysis gives you proportionalities, at best. Not equalities. No, it's not. There's a pesky factor of 2 that need to be included. It has no units, so unit analysis and manipulation would not reveal it.

What? A car moving on the surface of the earth can have a wide range of speeds without changing its gravitational potential. If you square GM/r you get G2M2/r2 which is not the force (GmM/r2)

Davy_Jones has been banned as a sockpuppet of Reg Prescott

! Moderator Note These arguments seemed eerily familiar, and after some digging the staff has determined that Davy_Jones is Reg Prescott, a previously banned user. The feeling of deja vu was because we had, in fact, done this before. Right down to the citing of Frank Sinatra in a thread title. If you find merit in the discussion please continue, but Davy/Reg will not be participating

How do you know that charge isn't 1/L^4 and the force drops off as 1/r^4? IOW if it's ad-hoc, then there's no science in it. Using only dimensional analysis leads you to draw incorrect conclusions, such as "the square of speed is the gravitational potential. And the square of the gravitational potential is the force."

Don’t continue posting unit conversions.

Not the point the analogy is addressing, though. It’s showing the curvature away from the mass. Possibly, but more mass would cause more distortion, so this is avoidable They’d be asking what you mean by manifold, which is the kind of thing you’re trying to avoid if you use an analogy. Demos I’ve seen use a smaller ball to show an orbit. Showing curvature by itself doesn’t really demonstrate anything

If you're asking if the earth was to a large degree molten in its remote past, and the crust solidified as it cooled, the answer is yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth