swansont

That's experimental confirmation, rather than a derivation. The OP's previous post suggests that a derivation is being sought.

The problem is that the velocity of the particle in this scenario is unrelated to c. It's not a Newtonian issue, so a Newtonian derivation is probably not going to get you there.

The W and Z are significantly shorter, so that’s not it. I’m guessing it’s that the interaction strength is small, making it hard to notice. It’s a tiny deflection of electrons, which have a small mass.

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-claim-a-they-ve-found-even-more-evidence-of-a-new-force-of-nature “the researchers found pairs of electrons and positrons separating at an angle that didn't match currently accepted models. This time, the number was closer to 115 degrees. Working backwards, the team calculated the helium's nucleus could also have produced a short-lived boson with a mass just under 17 megaelectronvolts.”

There are two ways to get a "no change" model. One is that nothing has an effect, and the other is that at least one effect has the opposite sign of other effects. The former is the baseline — nothing has an effect. You have to show that there is a basis for having one. But we're well past that point in making the models.

The very low angle is a problem, since the solar panels would have to be near-vertical, and would block another panel placed behind it. It limits the usable area

But that's it — you have to have EVERYTHING so that it can be self-sustaining. Let's say you set up on the moon. Water might be available, but is it local? You can't pipe it anywhere, since it's not liquid. You have to transport it as a solid. If it's near the poles, do you want to set up shop there? Probably not. Your solar panels will be pretty inefficient. It's a bit similar to setting up a city in the middle of the desert, not near any oasis.

The existing elements are oxygen and hydrogen. Oxygen and water might end up being fairly valuable, even if you aren't lugging them up from the earth. It's not like you have a convenience store just down the block where you can quickly and easily get them.

Probably, but you would have to solve the equation to be sure. Note that you can't arbitrarily change the frequency of the oscillation. That typically comes from the solution to the problem. If you specify it, then some other quantity has to be unknown and free to change. You would not be comparing identical systems. Using a simple example, a pendulum's frequency depends on its length, and g. If you dictate that it must have a certain frequency, you have to change the length and/or find a place where g has the proper value to get this result. If it naturally swings at 1 Hz, it's not going to magically swing at 1 MHz

You don't need a law for acceleration because you have laws for force, and for a system of constant mass, force and acceleration are directly related via the mass. F = ma. They behave the same way.

We're discussing impeachment in this thread. Pointing out that we're not discussing the next election is consistent with following the path laid down by the OP, which is how these discussions work.

The minimum voltage for electrolysis of water is ~1.25 volts (it will not happen with less), but in practical terms you need more to overcome resistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

Yes. The due process of the impeachment process is laid out in the constitution, but pretty much all it says is that everything about impeachment (up to the point of the trial) is up to the House. So they get to define due process. IOW, there is nothing anyone has pointed to that would actually be a violation of due process. There has been a lot of complaining about e.g. the closed-door depositions, and how that's not how a trial proceeds — but we're not in the trial phase. There's the recent event where Nunes tried to yield his time to Stefanik, which was in violation of the rules that had been set up (IIRC, set up by the GOP majority a few years back): it's all posturing for the cameras, so that viewers who don't know any better will think that something shady is going on with the process. But none of it stands up to scrutiny. It's a charade.

In the US the federal budget for climate change has increased, but not necessarily for research "Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014" (inflation making that 2.4 seeming like 3.8, so it basically tripled in spending power) But some of that money (and money from the stimulus spending bill in 2009) went toward mitigation efforts, because climate change is real. One would assume less money would be spent if the findings were otherwise (but maybe not zero, because "pork" is a thing in the budget process) https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

That's not the issue I was addressing. I already gave an example of separate incidents that would be treated separately. (Unless a federal crime resulted from crossing state lines. Then they might have to be "bundled")

But if they happened at the same time it's not fair to the accused to try the cases separately.

I agree wholeheartedly. And yet, there are those who persist in making it.

Consider the scenario where someone is accused of mugging another person at gunpoint, and during the crime, they shot and killed the person being mugged. You have a murder trial — not guilty. That should preclude going back and trying them for manslaughter, or attempted murder, or any of the other lesser charges. Because then they could keep going back and having trial after trial and potentially keeping the person locked up because of how bail is handled. They could also do this if they brought charges for robbery, and for illegal gun possession, as separate cases. An innocent person could be under the thumb of government prosecution for a really, really long time, and that's inherently unfair and abusive. AFAIK the limit of this is for crimes taking place in different jurisdictions. A serial killer who is e.g. accused of 10 murders in 10 different states can face 10 trials.

Yes. And that is a rebuttal of the silly notion (seen in some discussions) that climate scientists are making it up to secure funding, since they would still be charged with studying climate anyway Which again underscores that we need to be studying the phenomenon

True. The people who show up to argue the contrary-to-science viewpoint typically aren't here to learn, but rather to instigate and pontificate, and it invariably ends up that they don't have much of an understanding of what they are critiquing (both the details of the science and often, generally how science is done). It's not just climate change where this occurs. IOW, can't be addressed as an information gap problem, because they don't think they have an information gap. (See also: Dunning-Kruger syndrome)

justqwer has been banned for trolling us with ID nonsense.

Why is the title and author of this book a secret?

! Moderator Note This would be an example of what I explained to you in our PM exchange: the inevitable evidence that you don't understand evolution. This is a massive straw man (if it were real, you should have no trouble finding legitimate examples of people making this argument) and relying on logical fallacies is not evidence. ! Moderator Note And this just indicates you are trolling, and your primary intent at this point is to stir things up.

That's a pretty spectacular failure of logic. I defy you to find any science where this isn't the case: "informed guesswork" (i.e. predictions coming from mathematical models) and the science still happening and we continue to learn, because it's not "done".

! Moderator Note Well, that's a straw man. Also, this thread was a hijack, which you were told not to do both in a thread and in a PM. Ignoring the rules isn't going to get you what you want. (and please be aware that responding to this note in the thread would be off-topic, and thus also a rules violation)