swansont

A mass can't exist without its gravitational field already existing. AFAIK, you can't separate the two as if they are separate effects. Gravity obeys superposition. Fields add, and they are vectors. There is a point in the earth-sun system where the gravitational force is zero on a point mass, because the forces are equal and opposite. Same for the earth and moon. (It's not the halfway point, though, as incorrectly claimed in the movie Space Cowboys)

Impeachment is outlined in the Constitution, and bribery is listed as an example of something that would lead to it. These "groups" are thus ignorant, or pretending to be. And such characterizations conform with the above description. You should pay attention, then. That's exactly what's happening in the primaries.

We have several features like that, such as putting a signature in your posts, and limiting you to 5 posts the first day. (these are anti-spam efforts) Rule 1 is civility, so we expect people to not get personal.

You may be overthinking this. In Newtonian terms, gravitational mass is what you find in F=GMm/r^2 Inertial mass is what you find in F=ma We find that they are the same thing. If you put the gravitational force equation into an inertial equation, you can cancel the masses. The gravitational field you get from this will be the same as from GR, in most cases. (e..g. for the earth and the solar system, the relativistic effects are very small). There is no "dissipation" of the mass — energy is conserved. It sounds like you might be presenting a scenario where mass suddenly appears, but that's unphysical. Mass doesn't do that.

! Moderator Note You have a thread on this already. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120690-recursion-what-would-be-the-complement-of-it/ One to a customer, please.

Shouldn’t this be what a science project concludes, based on data from testing? (Some of the best insulators are made of metal, if you can have it enclose a vacuum)

3 elements: Principles, authority, incontrovertibly true Principles, authority See what’s missing?

It's OK to do that. Sometimes someone else says things more succinctly than you can do yourself. The argument was not presented as "Dr. Mack said it so it's true." Is the comment wrong? If so, how? Do scientists not critique theories? Do they not modify them as a result? Doesn't that trivially show that science is not dogma?

! Moderator Note Discussion on science as dogma has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120711-science-is-dogma-split-from-what-is-the-purpose-of-life/ Further discussion here on the subject will be removed as off-topic

You didn’t ask about the pressure while it’s liquid, you asked about the pressure at room temp. 0 C comes from STP. Better than the one you’ve offered, though.

I can't count the number of times people have used a line like this here. The problem is that they never have any actual science to discuss. Buzzwords and hand-waves. Nothing that could be scrutinized, plus it's doubtful the ideas could stand up to scrutiny. Most people who tread this path don't really know what a scientific argument would look like. If your ideas had merit you'd be prepared to present rigorous support for them. It's quite telling that the conversation shifts to "defend my honor" and "you're afraid of my idea".

Try phrasing things as a question rather than assertion. If you assert, you are expected to back it up. Which you did not do.

You need to provide the specifics of the container. I picked an easy value, but all it is is P1V1 = P2V2 and we know what P2 and V2 are: 1 atmosphere and 22.4 L at 0 ºC and then correct for the temperature (going from 273K to 293K is only ~ 7.3% change)

Weather isn't random, so I don't see how you got here from where we were, and: no, it's not.

If the polarization is undetermined, then your choice of detector has little bearing on whether or not you detect it. In general (i.e. for a single photon) you will detect it half the time. It has to actually have a polarization for you to get a different result, but then the probability has to do with the detector — it's not part of the wave function. AFAICT you are the only person who has brought this up Photons are spin 1, so it's not like you have to independently identify the spin. If a photon is linearly polarized in the vertical direction, how is this affected by the detector that is used?

It's a volume integral. What is the volume when R=0?

Because "when" isn't one of the rules.

If we knew when, it would not be random. Not liking the rules is not the same as them not existing.

At STP, an ideal gas occupies 22.4 liters per mole. If we start with a volume of 0.224 liters (you'd need to do the calculation to get the exact number), you could apply PV= nRT. At room temperature, the gas will exert 100 atmospheres in that volume. That should approximate what would happen for a non-ideal gas.

If the wave function is as narrow as the slit, how does two-slit interference occur? If a barrier redefined a wave function as you describe, how does quantum tunneling happen?

I'm sorry, was this in response to me? I ask because the comments seem to bear little correlation to what I said.

mistermack has been suspended for some inappropriate commentary, in violation of rule 2.1

Have you met this thing we call science? Have you ever watched a sporting event, even without knowing the rules? Could you tell that there were rules, despite this? And that you could even figure out a few of them from repeated observation? The thing is, even randomness follows rules. That's one reason why I can't accept the notion that the universe doesn't follow rules.

I also disagree with this. I'm not sure who is making that claim.

The derivative of any constant is zero. That's such a basic understanding I'm not surprised it's not explicitly written down. dC/dx = 0 for C = a constant