swansont

One possibility is that there is a resonant frequency for the chassis to wobble, and at low speed you are near that resonance, so you more efficiently transfer energy into that mode.

The model has been criticized - even in the article - for not being very good.

I’m not sure that changing the subject is the best tactic.

You might observe that the moderator note does not say that you can’t post videos. You claim you were told that directly. You’ve claimed that repeatedly, but have yet to substantiate the claim. Perhaps you could retract it, and cease making it.

By whom?

Yes, it would speed up air replacement. The question is by how much, and that requires analysis. It could be that the Costco situation is for show, or it could have a measurable effect. Can’t tell

As JC said, it won’t be linear, and will have a limited range of usefulness as well. But it should work at some level. You can compare the theoretical displacement with some calibrated masses and see how accurate it is. And test the dependence on the ambient temperature and pressure

! Moderator Note You didn’t present evidence; the video just makes baseless claims (from what I saw; it starts with the fallacious argument from incredulity, so I stopped watching). Posting a link is insufficient - we’re not supposed to have to watch the whole video to see what it says. You should include the time stamp. Scientific claims should have scientific references. Parroting unsubstantiated, unscientific claims does not qualify

The rest mass is the only mass that matters. E/p doesn’t give you the mass. For massless particles, p = E/c (so E/p = c) in general E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 Coordinate systems are a tool to describe real effects. You need a coordinate system to know if e.g. a collision is expected. A collision is a real effect. Time dilation is a real effect, too.

What does opinion have to with this? You asked a factual question. you got factual answers. You can debate the trustworthiness of the source, but it’s not about opinion.

No, it means you’re not doing any analysis from the perspective of any moving objects. No transforms involved. Which is most of Newtonian physics, where relative time isn’t a thing, so there’s no point in bringing in another frame.

No, in general. There are problems that only require one frame. No need to use another frame. But in relativity you often need to incorporate multiple frames. I didn’t say anything about an isolated frame SR is.

There is no ether. There is no absolute frame Spacetime is not a substance. It’s space + time. It represents the four dimensions. In your own frame you are at rest, so you travel through time at the maximum rate, c. If measured from another frame, you are moving at some speed v, and your rate through time is dilated. The four-velocity is always c.

Weak decays are. e.g beta decay in nuclei. Not alpha, or gamma emission.

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged

Yes. This is often pointed out by moderators when the topic comes up. I don’t think we will ever eliminate knee-jerk posting. Caveat emptor. If you don’t read the rules before you agree to them, you’re kinda stuck. In principle it’s a serious issue. In practice, it’s not.

Section 5 of the rules you agreed to when you joined: Unless otherwise specified, all content is copyrighted by its respective author, including all private messages, posts, and comments. By posting content on ScienceForums.net, you agree to grant ScienceForums.net usage rights to that content within the confines of the site, and other members the right to quote and respond to that content. Reposting or disseminating content from ScienceForums.net to other websites or through other media is not permissible without permission of the author. ScienceForums.net staff may be required to edit, move, or delete certain content to comply with forum rules or applicable law, but will not delete posts or accounts on request except to comply with rules or law. Flying monkeys are the responsibilities of their respective owners. i.e. You agreed to let us use your content (even as you retain copyright) and you agreed to the condition of us not deleting the content. edit: I see you acknowledge reading this. Copyright means they can’t use the material for profit. The idea behind it isn’t protected. It’s not our responsibility to get in contact with anyone that left. Yes, the material is still accessible. As it would be if it had been published in print.

Easier for whom? You can just not come to this site. Or you can ask us to ban you. Those are your options. That seems pretty easy. The first one requires you to literally do nothing. What won’t happen is that we let people delete accounts, which would remove their posts, and wreak havoc with existing threads.

I didn’t call you a liar. Normally, I would not share details of a report, but since you have given permission, your report says ”This person is accusing me of alteration of forum rules..” Nobody has accused you if this. I don’t think any rational person would think a non-staff member could change the rules. Rather, you were challenged to show where you had been told that posting videos was against the rules. These are very different things. The common theme here is that you seem to have some reading comprehension issues. You are interpreting statements in a way that is quite different from a plain reading of what is written. It’s not an accusation that you are lying, rather, it’s that you didn’t read carefully, or didn’t understand something that you read. Those are assessments based on what you posted, and options that do not say that you were accused of being malicious. Being identified as mistaken, or ignorant, etc. is not a violation of our civility rules. People can be mistaken, or ignorant. It does not make them bad people. Mistakes can be corrected. Ignorance can be replaced by knowledge. IOW, these are ways for you to identify shortcomings in your posts. Professional criticism, not insults. It’s rather helpful to differentiate the two. One should note that in an exchange like this: A: No, that’s wrong B: Oh, I’m a liar? It is person B who is doing the insulting, because they are making an unfounded claim that A has accused them of lying (which means there was intent to deceive). Person B would be in trouble here. It’s a bad-faith response.

It needs to actually be a violation for staff to take action. In your most recent report, you accuse someone of something they absolutely did not do. Naturally, nothing is going to come of the report.

! Moderator Note Nobody here is in a position to diagnose problems or dispense medical advice. “See a doctor” is all we have

That’s happened, too Sarcasm is going to happen if you interact with people, and is not inherently a violation of the rules. As far as insults go, I can’t comment without specific examples. I’ve seen such accusations that were just because someone’s mistake was corrected. Attacking what you post is not only not a violation, it’s expected

You can’t deactivate it. You can choose not to visit. Participation here is voluntary. We’ve had people request bans and suspensions.

If you think rules are being broken, you should use the “report post” function to bring this to the attention of the moderators. (thread has been split and moved to a more appropriate area)

! Moderator Note Rule 12: (emphasis added) We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling. A scattershot thread Asking how we can trust numbers does not qualify