swansont

There are two somewhat different issues here: one is discussing racism in general, and another is discussing it on this site. As for the latter, as iNow and Phi (and possibly others) have pointed out, we want arguments to be in good faith. Disagreement must maintain a certain amount of civility. So if someone shows up dropping N-bombs, or disparaging religions, they will be shown the door. We are not obligated to make people suffer written abuse in an effort to change a bigot's mind. If that's the price of participation, for us it's too high.

! Moderator Note Posts on discussing racism have been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122395-discussing-racism-split-from-the-killing-of-george-floyd-the-last-straw/ Other trollish/hijack posts and replies have been moved to the trash

Not sure who from the US is going to knock on a door in Teheran. It should be easy enough to check the papers in question and see if they had collaborations with people who could use the software, or if there were acknowledgements at the end of the paper regarding it.

Or perhaps they didn't have the code at all. From "Assessment of different MCNP Monte Carlo codes in electron absorbed dose" https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82699541.pdf "We are grateful to Jon Cox, who ran the MCNP-5 simulations in Los Alamos National Laboratory" Meaning it's possible to collaborate with someone who has legitimate access to the code.

If it's not a spherical nucleus, no. Filled shells represent spherical nuclei. The radius of a nucleon is about 0.8 fm, so I don't see a problem with that. I would imagine you can get a better result, but I don't see a problem so far. Again, more complex models will likely give a more precise answer, but the naive model gives something fairly close to the correct value.

A zero electric quadrupole moment implies a spherical nuclear charge distribution. Why is that the naive expectation for deuterium? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/elequad.html That number is not large compared to some other values on the list

! Moderator Note Advertising/introducing speculations in mainstream threads is not permitted.

How is it "implied"? This is the derrick example. There is no book Really? You're going to claim this without explaining it? AFAIK I have been completely consistent I give up. This is what I said - that they can't be combined because they don't act on the same object, and you say it's nonsense for the very reason I explained. I assume you are capable of scrolling back through the first page of the thread. Yes, you somehow missed this. Your only post in this span was about how you were still confused about the answer in the OP. "I still have no clearer understanding why the example is not an an action-reaction pair of Newton's third law. " And despite this, somehow now you're an expert on Newton's laws...

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion site, not a science fiction discussion site.

! Moderator Note That’s out of place here. “Can X happen” is a very different question from “Can X happen under conditions A, B and C” If you don’t give specifics you’re wasting peoples’ time. Threads like this are arguably in violation of our “good faith” rule. If you have physics questions ask them in the correct forum. If you post in speculations you are expected to actually post your speculation and provide the rigor we require.

If confirmed, the question becomes where they fit with the standard model. How do they interact, are there more than one type, things like that. It may require a new model, that incorporates the current one. Some theory already exists. The next step will be to refine it and weed out the stuff that doesn’t work.

As they are independent* phenomena, sure. *in most cases

I said that no reaction forces are depicted in the diagram (no forces exerted by the derrick are shown), and you argued with me about it! The diagram shows two forces, and states that the normal force from the rock counters gravity. "Counters" is used to show the forces add to zero, and give a zero net force. It does not have any force arrows depicting forces exerted by the derrick. The normal force exerted by the derrick does not "counter" the normal force exerted by the rock - they are not acting on the same thing, so they cannot be combined to calculate a net force. But in presenting the example you said "If gravity acts on an object then there is a net external force on that object until equal but oppositely set of action/reaction offsets it:" That force that counters gravity is the normal force, and you identified them here as action/reaction forces. Not at all. I'm just saying that this force is not identified in the drawing. What you said was "What I've said is that the force of gravity on an object results in an external force. It's the external force that is countered by a nongravitational force." Since we're discussing action/reaction pairs, and you had been using "counters" to refer to these pairs, what is one to conclude? Ghideon stated that in the second post in the thread (the first response). In my second post, I stated that Ghideon was correct. A couple of posts later, studiot agreed. A few posts later, I said "The reaction force to the normal force exerted by the table on the book would be the normal force exerted by the book on the table." So aside from us three (and whoever else; I stopped looking at that point), sure, nobody else acknowledged it... Action/reaction is not dependent on equilibrium. I know this because you can have action/reaction forces when a system is not in equilibrium. I gave an example - the earth/moon system. They each exert a gravitational force on each other, equal in magnitude, opposite in direction. That's action/reaction. And yet, no equilibrium. Equilibrium, if it exists, is a matter of the second law. Not the third.

! Moderator Note 2.7 Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. (emphasis added) Following the rules is not optional

Charges are moving around, so of course it reacts to a magnetic field. That's a very different claim from saying it's paramagnetic.

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. Rules require you post material here so that people can discuss it without clicking on links. That includes downloads.

Where, exactly? Not the video; that wasn't a plasma. The tokamak link says plasma is diamagnetic.

GR doesn't fail to predict them, as they are a prediction of GR. That's not where the failure is.

! Moderator Note One of our rules (see rule 2.7 in "guidelines" under the "browse" tab) is that just posting a video is insufficient; you have to post enough material on your own to make the argument. "Did you watch the whole video" is not an acceptable response. ! Moderator Note Tread lightly here, lest you violate rule 2.1

The book is not wrong; you are. The book isn't presenting a 3rd-law problem. It's presenting a 2nd-law problem. IOW, in the problem you're trying to tabulate the net force, not identify action/reaction pairs. (The two concepts you swear that you aren't mixing up. But you're mixing them up) The normal force counters gravity means they add to zero, and make no net contribution to a net force. (Any time you discuss net force, that's 2nd law, not 3rd law) As I had stated earlier, there are no reaction forces labeled in that diagram. A reaction force is always exerted BY the object. (see #3 on the list of criteria) Since both the normal force and gravity are exerted ON the object, they are not an action/reaction pair. A gravitational and non-gravitational force can NEVER be an action/reaction pair. It would violate criterion #4 Because they aren't third law pairs. The normal forces (one acting on the book, one exerted by the book) are a third law pair. The gravitational forces (one exerted on the book, one exerted by the book) are a third law pair. Two forces acting on the same object are not a third law issue. It's not the concept to apply. Much like thermodynamics doesn't apply to the problem. It's not that thermodynamics is wrong in any way, it's that it's the wrong tool for the job.

As long as you can generate the power, you will have thrust. Reaction mass is not something extra that has to be loaded.

Light has momentum and would produce thrust. The reason it’s not viable is that the photon momentum is E/c, so the thrust produced is P/c (P is power) So you need 300 MW to produce 1 N of thrust. The only real advantage it has is that there is no reaction mass needed.

San Liu and HelloKitty Girl have been banned as sockpuppets of mcmiller

Time perception is not an effect of physics, as relativity is.

Citation?