swansont

! Moderator Note You haven’t made any connection between these impact events and mountain formation. We know what impact craters look like. Also, statements like “According to news from <news site>.com, Swiss astronomers have recently come forward to come up with a fresh theory.” are insufficient. You need to link to the actual material, not give a vague citation. Science sites/publications preferred, rather than news outlets. If the material were relevant, that is.

Counterpoint: no

GPS isn’t going to work while submerged. “Yes, especially if you don't have people inside.” is something I said, so, no, I’m not necessarily assuming that. The OP was not clear on this one way or the other It needs to be able to if you want to keep using it It can experience the failure at 1 m/s if it’s below crush depth, which is not as deep if you don’t have the traditional hull shape, and this has nothing to do with the pressure of a life support system.

I was thinking if structural failure. Crush depth won’t be all that deep, and that will ruin your whole day. Going down is good for landing a plane. Not so much for a sub, unless it’s single-use. This assumes the purpose of the sub is military, as a launch platform or weapon.

Hence my comment about the shock wave.

studiot asked for clarification of a physics statement. I think they would like to hear about the physics. I would, too. What you posted doesn’t read like you’re seeking a book recommendation It’s a crappy description and contradicted by the explanation that follows it.

Perhaps it’s because that’s not what the model proposes. You’ve even linked to pages that discuss the creation of particles Not what physics claims. Perhaps you could link to the statement (and its support) and not the author’s wikipedia page

So you think scholars who study religion are stupid? That the approach is to bring preconception and bias to their area of study? Or are you talking about scientists caring how the religious behave because it affects them? Any behavior that tries to force a belief system on others is probably not leading to utopia. That’s because we choose to fund science that way. We don’t have to. That’s because of political will, not science.

Why do you need magnets to make a pendulum swing back and forth?

Classically, yes. But not quantum particles Why?

Because electrons also have charge, having spin means they act like magnets, and that affects their behavior in a magnetic field. The Stern-Gerlach experiment joigus linked to is a famous early example, showing the discovery of the property. It shows up in a lot of atomic physics. It shows up in the formulas. But angular momentum is tied in with rotations, so one would expect that.

h has units of angular momentum, so no. Energy levels are quantized, but the frequency values are not integral, so energy is not quantized in steps of h. Angular momentum is actually quantized. Changes in angular momentum happens in steps related to h. No.

I think you should respond to the objections and requests for clarification raised earlier in the thread.

A scientist is someone who does science. You can make a distinction between professional and amateur, but those are modifiers/distinctions within the category — both are scientists. A scientist who becomes unemployed doesn't suddenly forget how to science. You can also make a distinction about the level of training. But someone without a degree who is doing science is a scientist. These days it's unusual, but go back a while, and training wasn't quite as formal. There have been largely self-taught scientists, and others who were informally taught, for at least part of their background. Einstein had defended his thesis, IIRC, when he was employed as a patent clerk and wrote his papers in 1905; he did this while looking for a professorship (much like actors and actresses wait tables between gigs if they haven't made the big time). He was a scientist.

! Moderator Note Persistent sockpuppet, banned. Thread locked

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/10/venus-might-not-have-much-phosphine-dampening-hopes-for-life/ “Promising sign of life on Venus might not exist after all” Repeatability can be a cruel mistress...

Add dove and dash to the list

That's confusing. "Could a similar philosophical stance arise in Christianity?" refers to future events. Whether something happened in the past is a question of history, and your post suggests that it did not. Do you mean to investigate an alternative history?

Part of this depends on the state of the copper. If it's polished and the surface is flat, it is very reflective. But a rough, oxidized surface can have an emissivity that's quite large, meaning it acts more like a blackbody. It also depends on the properties at different wavelengths https://www.flukeprocessinstruments.com/en-us/service-and-support/knowledge-center/infrared-technology/emissivity-metals Assuming it's shiny copper, if you paint it, it should be a matte finish, since a glossy one would reflect more light. That will probably heat up faster than just the copper. Maybe you do an experiment and see how it heats up before and after painting?

[T]he fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. — Carl Sagan Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right. — Robert Park ! Moderator Note Showing that you are right requires experimental confirmation. It also requires that one be able to try and falsify your idea. And I have provided an experimental result that falsifies your idea (it is completely unsurprising that you dismissed this without justification and have not pursued it further. Instead, you repeat your assertions). Plus descriptions of other experiments that confirm Faraday's law. Others have pointed out that motors and generators run in accordance with Faraday's law, and would not work if things were as you claimed. So what I mean here is that quoting Schopenhauer and invoking the fallacious "if you are resisting I must be right" stance implies you have no evidence to present. You were given the opportunity, and you chose not to. There's no point in wasting more of anyone's time. Don't bring this topic up again.

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Zinc-HealthProfessional/ "A wide variety of foods contain zinc (Table 2) [2]. Oysters contain more zinc per serving than any other food, but red meat and poultry provide the majority of zinc in the American diet. Other good food sources include beans, nuts, certain types of seafood (such as crab and lobster), whole grains, fortified breakfast cereals, and dairy products [2,11]. Phytates—which are present in whole-grain breads, cereals, legumes, and other foods—bind zinc and inhibit its absorption [2,12,13]. Thus, the bioavailability of zinc from grains and plant foods is lower than that from animal foods, although many grain- and plant-based foods are still good sources of zinc [2]."

Yes, especially if you don't have people inside. But they still need to end up near neutral buoyancy if you want more than one trip, so there is still a limit. You can fill them with e.g. oil of some sort, or some other fluid that's less dense than water.

I recall when I was a teaching assistant there was a lab on Faraday's law. You had a coil with some number of turns, and you flipped it and looked at the induced current in a circuit. Students used it to deduce the earth's magnetic field. And it worked reasonably well. One fun part of this was that students on one corner of the room got a different answer because there was an NMR lab one floor up, and when that magnet was on, it was strong enough to affect the field in that corner of the room. So they got a number noticeably larger than students at the other side of the room.

Random reddit comments do not constitute a scientific theory, no matter how they are woven. A theory has a mathematical model, makes testable predictions, and has evidence to support it.

What speed does this apply to? I don't recognize this as a valid equation.