swansont

! Moderator Note The OP is not asking anyone to defend evolution, or even asserting ID. "could intelligent design be legitimate if it actually did some science" is asking a question about whether, in principle, a certain approach could be legitimate science. I don't see how that's contrary to normal practice. Hijack on irreducible complexity has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120588-irreducible-complexity-split-from-could-intelligent-design-be-legitimate/

F = qv x B There will be a force perpendicular the velocity and the magnetic field, which gives rise to a centripetal acceleration as long as v and B are not collinear. i.e. a charge moving in a uniform field will move in a spiral (or a circle if v and B are perpendicular)

I thought you were referring to GOP congresscrittters. Well, no. They are predisposed to do so, but they could theoretically choose not to. Which is in violation of laws and regulations. As is classifying material motivated by covering up such violations. No one has brought it up? You aren't paying attention. It's yet another hypocrisy that shows once again that the GOP's actual motivations have nothing to do with their claimed motivations. We haven't gotten there yet. That would be the impeachment trial, held in the senate. What does this have to do with anything under discussion? It's self-evident that no laws have been broken? Seriously? No campaign finance laws were broken? Trump's organization didn't misuse money intended for veterans? But that moot, since impeachment is not necessarily about lawbreaking. They can claim that about due process, but it doesn't make it true. The claims I have seen about due process are based on misinformation (possibly deliberate) about the process. What due process has not been afforded anyone? This is impeachment. The due process is found in the Constitution.

No, they do not. You can focus on Trump's motivations without addressing Biden at all. You have the conversations, the inappropriateness of the people involved (Giuliani) and the information that Biden had already been checked out.

A quantification of why the equation is legit would include any experiment that confirms isotopic masses and decay Q-values. There are hundreds of examples.

I see two of them. One of which was a history if the CIA's involvement in studying reports. The other was the Coyne link, and I wasn't sure how that was relevant to anything being discussed. How much does it cost to provide the citation for it? How did you learn of it if you don't have the book?

People have done calculations of e.g. the self-energy of charged particles, i.e. assuming you are assembling the particle out of some nebulous stuff that has an average charge density, but these are incorrect. You get, for example, the classical electron radius from equating the self-energy to the mass energy, but experiment shows that the electron doesn't have such a radius and is in fact consistent with being a point particle. I'm not sure what other energy types you might be talking about, where E=mc^2 isn't already being applied.

! Moderator Note Sorry, JEB, but simply posting a link to a video is in violation of rule 2.7. Thread hijacking violates rule 2.5 and 2.10 (You need to read the rules) https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ If you think there's something to this objection, you will have to post your discussion points here (at the site, and in this thread only if they are relevant to the current conversation)

! Moderator Note But not here in this thread, unless the post relevant to the OP

! Moderator Note Bald assertion falls well short of a convincing argument, and also of the level of rigor required here.

Such predictions as the one in the quote were dismissed as alarmist. Blaming the scientists is misguided, at best. Political inaction happened despite the predictions, not because of them. The article also points to the problem of using "wrong" as attached to scientific results or predictions, as if this is a binary condition. Most of the time it isn't. Science tends to quantify things, so that one can see how close results are to predictions.

Of course his dad’s position had something to do with it. I asked how it was suspicious. Putting people with a “name” on corporate boards happens all the time.

Sorry, what? Please explain what was suspicious, before proceeding as if this was a given.

The image on the upper left - not sure how it represents an entangled photon. It looks like a higher-order gaussian mode of a beam of light. See the 2 2 mode here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_beam#/media/File:Hermite-gaussian.png How is it fractal? These images can be represented mathematically, and you seem to have found that representation, or something similar.

! Moderator Note Also, the link has been removed. Discussion should take place here, and not require anyone to go elsewhere.

My favorite is that when one drinks, one is drinking some atoms that were in T. Rex pee.

Newton’s first law is the law of inertia

Light travels through a vacuum. We are a vacuum? And how would we drag these singularities around if they are non-reactive? ! Moderator Note This hand-waving isn't going to get you where you need to be. We need a model. We need to have at least one foot in the science realm, and you've squandered your opportunities to do that. Closed. Don't bring this up again

To reduce implies a change from one value to another. But that's not what's happening. Mass doesn't change the acceleration. It tells you what the acceleration will be. F = ma. Nothing has changed. Nothing has been reduced. Changing the mass changes the acceleration. Again, this is an issue of semantics that (largely) goes away when you look at the equation.

To me "If inertia resists acceleration, and therefore reduces it when a force is applied to something" implies the acceleration is somehow even smaller than a = F/m because the mass is resisting acceleration, or that it would be bigger than that if mass didn't resist acceleration. But a= F/m is what is meant by mass being resistance to acceleration. For a given force, the acceleration scales inversely with the mass. No, that seems right. But I think here is an example of why we use math to express what's going on, because it has far less ambiguity than the language we use for prose and poetry.

I agree with Ghideon. Post questions, rather than conjecture.

Inertia is a concept: the tendency for an object to be at rest, or motion to be uniform, in the absence of a force. This can also be thought if as resistance to acceleration in a lot of situations. Thus it can be mass or it can be momentum (since F = dp/dt) To say inertia reduces the acceleration of an object isn't right. Inertia isn't a force. The acceleration is what it is, according to F = ma (for a system with constant mass). There's no second term; we don't have a variable for inertia in our equations. To say that this reduces the acceleration is sort of double-counting.

Not so much, no.

"Change of state" implies the particles were in a particular state to begin with, and that's incorrect. They are in superposition, and the state is unknown. The determination of which state they end up in is simultaneous, since measuring one particle instantly tells you the state of the other.

Some interpretations/explanations sound weird because they are couched in classical physics language, which doesn't translate into quantum physics. Particularly with entanglement, where the explanation is put in terms of an interaction, which is not something that is part of the QM.