swansont

For the same reason numbers between 1 and 2 can be fractions. Or rather, possibly can be expressed as fractions.

! Moderator Note These are political issues, and you’re not posting in the politics section, so I’ve moved it. Discussion should now be limited to politics

The temperature increase depends on the amount of CO2, not CO2 per capita. That’s the climate science impact (where this was posted) CO2 per capita is more of a political issue of who is taking action and who isn’t. As is shaming the US for insufficient effort.

SteveKlinko has been suspended for posting multiple threads based on or linked to the same speculation, despite being warned not to.

Particles are counted as a positive number , and antiparticles as a negative. So a particle/antiparticle pair has a particle number of zero. It's bookkeeping. Thus the statement that there are three quarks is true. The number of gluons is immaterial, as it was not part of the question, and the number of quark/antiquark pairs (mesons) is immaterial as well, as their quark number is zero. This bit: “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all. Is accurate, because physics is more than memorization of a few facts. Saying that a proton is comprised of two up quarks and one down quark is not meant to be a comprehensive description of a proton, or what happens at the LHC. The gluons and mesons are important in understanding the interactions that go on within a proton, so the quora blurb is addressing a different question than what was asked.

Why would you do that? Since c= 299792458 m/s, how you get this value? Please show your work. How can you satisfy causality if the delay depends on the trip duration, which can only be determined after the trip is complete? No, it’s not. You have no basis for it, and it violates physical law. Speculation is not supposed to be fiction.

So where does 38.75 come from? How does the electron “know” what the duration of motion is going to be, before it moves, in order to determine its delay?

That’s ~100 million times the speed of light (assuming m/s), so I assume it’s a typo. Can you show how you arrived at this? You should do this in general. Even though it’s clear what speed you chose for your example, you should have stated it. Also: units. Use them. How does one test your conjecture? How does the electron “know” what t is going to be, to determine its delay?

What movement? Why is there a delay? Under what circumstances? Is this a delay before it starts to move? Why is 38.75 the max possible speed? What does γm represent?

! Moderator Note So it’s both anecdotal and not addressing the question asked. That’s less than helpful.

! Moderator Note You need to back this up with some credible reference.

Be...sure...to...drink...your...Ovaltine

A reminder that we do not delete accounts. You may choose to leave, and you might be shown the door, but your posts remain. We generally only remove posts from sight when there are rules violations involved.

How is this an example of “science downplay IQ in government or businesses like in the past.” Colleges require certain tests (e.g the SAT in the US), which are allegedly tests to measure intelligence and learning. One could argue that getting a degree is an equivalent of such a test, if degrees were awarded on merit. So I don’t see how this is downplaying IQ. But “science” is not an entity, nor is “science” requiring (or not requiring) IQ tests.

Caused by? No. “wave each other”? I don’t know what that is.

What is your evidence that “science” does this?

POVphysics has been found to be a sockpuppet of Wulphstein. Both are banned.

Good thing I didn’t refer to XIII, then. I replied to what you said about XV, and your claim it mentioned blacks. Which it doesn’t.

It mentions race. It says “or” so race and servitude are not actually connected in the amendment.

.The variable of integration is volume in the equation. Not current. dV, not dJ. You are integrating the current over the volume. “What other components could there be?” doesn’t make any sense. There can’t be any “other components”. The equation clearly says dV. There’s no wiggle room.

I don’t see any equation that is an integral over current. The equation to which you refer is an integral over volume.

If you have circular polarization, this is associated with the photon having spin angular momentum of ±hbar. Changing this value is not associated with the wavelength.

Please don’t report posts to point out that someone is wrong. That’s not (by itself) a rules violation. Correction of errors or gaps in knowledge can and should be addressed in the course of a discussion

motlan has been suspended for ignoring the rules and moderators subsequently pointing out the rules.

Fluid behavior is probably an apt description; there would be little or no viscosity, or surface tension, for the same reasons.