swansont

The energy of a harmonic oscillator is (n+1/2) hbar*omega — energy is there even in the n=0 state. It's consistent with the HUP, of course, as it must, but the zero point energy drops directly out of the solution. It's not something that was added on because of the HUP (which is how "introduced" makes it sound, to me)

Yes, but we can measure the local effect, and, if need be, correct for it. In any event, it's small.

ag400002 has been banned for repeated, persistent thread hijacking

No. Not supported by recognized experts of the subject. Or etymology. “Since classical physics, it has been known that some materials, such as amber, attract lightweight particles after rubbing. The Greek word for amber, ήλεκτρον, or electron, was the source of the word 'electricity'” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics

A good point, and a good physics exercise to calculate how much weight you can tolerate for a given amount of charge. But even so, you'll still get a small deflection with heavy foil, because the force you have to overcome varies as sin(theta). (although getting a smaller deflection will inhibit the charge from building up as much). Then it becomes a matter of how small of a deflection you can easily detect.

The solar energy converted to electricity means there will be less heat absorbed by the earth, but since energy is conserved it's just going to show up somewhere else. Anything you do with the electricity will eventually involve waste heat. If you've changed the albedo (reflection vs absorption) that will have an effect. It's possible that you increase the absorption with the panels, though, since they are designed to absorb the light rather than reflect it — you'd have to compare it to the ground it's covering. The win, as iNow notes, is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which amplifies the effect of the solar heating.

Regular water is pretty difficult via straight absorption. You need two absorptions to get to tritium, and three to get from O-16 to O-19. Yes, there can be deuterium and O-18 already present, but they don't comprise much of the water. What happens in Oxygen is a proton ejection, producing radioactive Nitrogen. But that decays back into Oxygen with a half-life of about 7 seconds, so it's not really a contamination issue. Once the neutron source is gone, you'll have minimal radioactivity if you wait about a minute. The iron is a big problem. Also Cobalt.

I did. I used "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths as an undergrad. Funny how he thinks "electricity" covers static configurations as well, as he explains in the preface "This is a textbook on electricity and magnetism, designed for an undergraduate course at the junior or senior level" (from the 4th edition) He also cites several textbooks entitled "Electricity and Magnetism" "Electricity" covers the whole of the subject — statics and dynamics. Actually it's not. It's the rate of charge moving — it depends on the amount of charge, and the speed of the charge. And it's not always electrons. (if you just know that a million electrons are moving, you do not know the current) It's the potential energy per unit charge, and it's not the E field.

(Aside: I put being named person of the year in my list of yearly accomplishments)

Who is this somebody, with the authority to impose such a tax?

What does this have to do with anything under discussion?

This argument gets trotted out in a lot of situations, but it doesn't hold up. A company can only raise prices if there is no competition, and the idea would be that there would be greater competition from alternatives that did not produce as much CO2. The profits go to different companies, which is one reason why the industry opposes it. You can also look at the Manhattan project and the moon landings as other examples of tackling big, tough problems and succeeding.

Not sure how you conclude that. Especially since the phrase is "other high crimes and misdemeanors" meaning that bribery is one of them There are specific crimes that only the president could possibly commit, because there are things that only the president can do. There is also the oath of office. AFAIK "Not defending the constitution" isn't a crime, but it is a violation of the oath. But how many federal crimes were on the books before the constitution was written, i.e. the document that empowers the government to write laws? I'm saying that the testimony it's based on doesn't. I'm not sure how much "interpretation" there is in Sondland being asked if there was a quid pro quo, and him answering "yes"

The report is based on the testimony, which was not partisan.

How about listing their specific heat capacities. It might become a little clearer.

Point taken, but people can lobby even if they aren't part of industry. The US went through prohibition because of such lobbying, so it's not hard for me to imagine a similar reaction. Some of the same people probably lobbied against fluoridation of drinking water, too.

Based on what? "The report, a 169-page assessment of the case for Trump’s removal from office, contends that Trump committed “multiple federal crimes” — ones that Democrats addressed under the broad umbrella of “abuse of power,” the first article of impeachment against the president." This is not guesswork — they are quoting from the report. And it makes sense to me to do it this way. You can pick and choose which abuse of power you want from a list. All he has to be guilty of is abuse of power, and you vote for removal (assuming you haven't made up your mind already, as some senators seem to be saying). Whereas if you list specific specific charges, you could get less than 67 votes for each, even if more than 67 agree that Trump abused his power. I didn't say you were intellectually dishonest. I'm saying your argument is, if it hinges on the fact that it's an allegation, which, of course, it must be (by definition) at this point, as if that means something about whether or not they are convinced. They make the allegation. I don't see it that way, as I explain above. The house democrats may be very convinced, but they aren't the jury, the senate is, and IMO it's smart to not give wiggle room to a jury that's may be looking for any excuse to acquit.

In a lot of outlets, if it's metal, the screw that holds the faceplate on is grounded, because the box itself is grounded.

It "alleges" because it has not been proven in a trial. That's the phrasing you use. I mean, if that's your point, then this whole line of argument lacks intellectual honesty. Trump can't be said to be guilty because he hasn't been convicted of anything. But your claim was quite clear that this was about what he would be charged with in impeachment, and now you move the goalposts.

Even discharging to a large conductive reservoir would go a long way toward mitigating any static buildup.

Welp, so much for that "President Donald Trump committed criminal bribery and wire fraud, the House Judiciary Committee alleges in a report that will accompany articles of impeachment this week." https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/16/judiciary-committee-impeachment-report-trump-committed-multiple-federal-crimes-086096

What I've learned from history makes me think that this is not true, regarding the opposition. There is always somebody opposed. It was probably less vocal and perhaps less organized, but I have no doubt that there was opposition. But back then people tended to trust science more than they do today, and I'm not sure there was a large industry profiting from all of the people dying that was going to be lining up against vaccination. Probably because virtually everyone was affected in some way. Even if there was some "Big Death" consortium that loved the fact that business was booming, they weren't pushing opposition the way that the fossil fuel industry backs opposition to climate change. Perhaps because the people dying weren't customers that were feeding the profit. The tobacco industry was/is killing their customers, but they get a few decades of profit from them first. Same for fossil fuels. An eight-year-old dying from one of these diseases, not so much.

I don’t know which studies were cited, but they do exist. So? That doesn’t contradict the statement. As long as some aren’t swayed by the facts, it’s true.

Contamination is the radioactive atoms, not the radiation. Wind can affect particulates, droplets and vapor.

Pretty much everything, since he has done it as president. Presenting it as murder carries certain connotations I went with the description You don’t actually know this.