swansont

In the US one can be licensed to carry a firearm and there are a number of places that have “open carry” laws, so from a legal standpoint, I don’t think you can say that carrying a weapon can be construed to imply intent to do harm. (not that the police follow this; see e.g. Philando Castile)

! Moderator Note We don’t do that here (rule 2.7) You may summarize the arguments and post them, if you desire feedback

Did you mean algorithms?

I’ve met a number of people who would disagree. g-2 measurements and electric dipole measurements, for instance.

Yes, there are people doing this, and experiments have been ongoing for many years. Positrons, too. Penning traps and Paul traps are commonly used to do precision experiments

! Moderator Note Possible but not practical. As I said, if you want to discuss philosophy, open a thread in philosophy

Gallup itself is telling us that these results may not be reliable. They tested just over 1000 people all across the country. Fine, that gives you the 4% margin of error, it's (largely) statistical. But that doesn't guarantee it's free from bias. They polled people spread out in different time zones, meaning that any given city, town or village may have only gotten one call, and many got none. There are ~300 medium-size cities (pop>100,000) and a few with a million or more. There are almost 15,000 smaller cities and towns. They only polled a small fraction of places. What you're hoping for is that these people they reached are representative of the country. Are they? At any given location, there are only one or two respondents to the poll - this may very well not be representative. Let me ask this: if you call in the evening, who is more likely to be at home: the person scared to go out, or the person not scared to go out? That's not going to bias land-line results? If the calls were random, who is more likely to get a call, a person in a small town, or a person in a big city? Is the safety factor the same? Central Park in NYC is famous for being unsafe after dark How many people live within 1 mile of the park? Half a million? Does that skew the results at all?

At what value of "violent crimes per 10,000 population" do you consider it safe? I notice that nowhere do they cite crime statistics. Also that a higher percentage of people in the last two decades feel safer than they did in the 70s and 80s (also, as to the survey methods...I have questions)

No, my statement is about what our clock reads. we are observers at some coordinates, and the time coordinate is not multivalued.

You cited violent crime statistics without showing any correlation to feeling safe, so that does not answer the question. You also didn't address my question of what value it becomes safe.

It's a legitimate question. How about answering it? Some fraction of these crimes happen in the home, and have nothing to do with being able to safely walk down the street. What is the threshold value of crime rate for being safe to walk down the street?

But our clock doesn't say the universe is 30 GY old, it says 13.8 GY (and their clock runs slow, not fast) but theirs will also say it's 13.8 GY. That's not what we would see their clock saying if this were a SR effect, which it isn't.

Stationary with respect to what? Why isn't the kinematic dilation symmetric?

The referenced paper didn't say it was UV only, they said it was sunlight. That's where the 2 min comes from. If you have a reference for UV and intensity, by all means, provide it. Like I said, I’d like to see a study, rather than someone just whipping this up out of thin air.

The magnetic dipole interacts with the field. That’s the energy that matters, not the energy of the field.

100* the intensity boosts you from ~1000W/m^2 solar insolation to 100 kW/m^2. I would worry that the cash will catch fire. That's 10 W /cm^2 A US bill is ~ 100 cm^2, so it's exposed to 1 kJ Specific heat capacity of paper is 1.4kJ/kgK (I know currency is not paper) which is 1.4 J/gK, and we have about a gram. Paper burns at ~230 ºC, so we need to raise the temp 210K. Add ~300J and it goes poof. In one second we add 1,000 J Also, we're exposing for 5 seconds (five half-lives), so it's 5x bigger than that.

As was mentioned in the other thread, people are curious what prompted this question, or what the relevance was to the discussion. Of course Christianity is a religion. Did someone suggest that it isn't? (rather, do you think someone suggested that it isn't? Can you provide a quote?)

! Moderator Note I think you could, in principle, discuss it in the context of what is known from the Bible by quoting or referring to relevant passages, or applying logic to things that are accepted as canon. That at least has a resemblance to being evidence-based, even if it isn't scientific evidence. But that's not what happened in the other thread. (It almost never happens in the religion discussions. But we hold out hope...)

! Moderator Note Yes, that is the definition. It is not allowed on this discussion board.

The better question is "where weren't you preaching?" This is not an exhaustive list: Remember the question before us was "Could God use a scientist to help save the world from a devastating destruction but the scientist was not a believer in God?" I don't see how any of the above was used in context of discussing answers to that question. Where did I say you were proselytizing? (hint: I didn't. I explained that preaching and proselytizing were against the rules, in a broad statement about the rules of this board, in a post that was not a direct response to you. Thou doth protest too much, methinks.) (also: Bearing false witness is a sin.) As far as "shutup" goes, that's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for you.

! Moderator Note It tells you that you are on the wrong playing board. If you aren't discussing physics in this thread, you are off-topic.

But if we had better social services, wouldn't the prevalence of such people be reduced? Obviating the need for some of the police?

You need to explain it here, so it can be discussed. I mean them in general (I'm not going to watch the video) They have safety problems and other shortcomings. Claims without support are not very convincing. Where does this 2% come from? What assumptions are involved? If it's just fuel cost, then how does anyone know this isn't a shell game? One could tout lower fuel costs and hide the fact that infrastructure and maintenance costs might be much higher. What matters is the total cost of the system. Then you need to go through how one would rework the entire roadway/traffic system. The problem is you rarely get to build these from scratch. You have to modify existing systems. This is not "the only things doing any work the whole entire time was the automation" since you have people working. You need to more clearly explain what's going on here (don't rely on people watching a bunch of videos - it's not going to happen) You didn't use the word, but it's what you are proposing. Perhaps, but that's not the case here. What you are proposing is basic communism. "a classless system in which the means of production are owned communally and private property is nonexistent or severely curtailed" https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/communism.asp Also known as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" "all goods and services are available" sounds like "to each according to his needs" and doing away with money to pay people, and instead having them do what they're best at sounds like "From each according to his ability"

I suspect that as well. But here's the thing: the thread was idiotic, and more to the point, it was dishonest, as a question was being leveraged to push an agenda and preach, which violates two of our rules. This happened with the second post by Ken123456. It wasn't even subtle. "We don't care about your beliefs" is policy. As far as the moderation is concerned, we don't care. This manifests itself in two ways. 1. It doesn't matter what religion you follow; we're not going to take that into account when applying the rules (IOW, no religion gets a pass, no religion is singled out, when applying the rules) and 2. You can't preach/proselytize. If someone doesn't like that, they can go elsewhere.

My question is about the data being provided. The device will have a lot more overhead if it's an implosion-style device, but then, it will likely have a much higher yield per mass of the fissile material. The mass of the rest of the bomb probably doesn't increase rapidly as the yield goes up with a larger core. Why doesn't that seem right? That's roughly 1.3 kT per kg 1 kg of U-235 is 1/235 of a mole, and each fission releases ~200 MeV, with ~180 MeV of this prompt (plutonium not much different), so (assuming it all fissions, which it won't) that's about about 72 gigajoules, or ~18 kT of TNT. If the bomb is 20% efficient, then that's 3.6kT per kg of core. Ultimately, the efficiency will depend on the design of the device. (e.g. Fat Man was 21 kT with 6.4 kg of Pu) Meaning you can have a couple of kg of support material per kg of core, and have that yield. (we don't have to settle for "that doesn't sound right" when there's trivial physics that can be applied) Her's a question for you: have you studied the project Orion information at all?