swansont

! Moderator Note I have to admit that it's been a number of years since I took calculus class, but this is nonsense. Under most circumstances I would say I'm going to need a reference to show that summations aren't used in mainstream mathematics, but it's trivial to find that this isn't the case. And pushing a speculative view is not permitted in mainstream discussions. You asked a question. You can ask for clarification of the answers, but you don't get to argue an alternative (i.e. non-mainstream) viewpoint.

A person commits a crime, they are caught and tried, and given a sentence to serve. That's the rough outline of a justice system. One can debate whether that is punishment or revenge. I don't see how "previously punished" finds its way into a description of the options.

In a practical sense, there is none. If you measure the mass in e.g. a Penning trap, you can determine its speed and subtract the relativistic effects in determining the invariant mass. Effectively you have the rest mass, even though it was never at rest. https://phys.org/news/2017-07-precise-proton-mass.html

Relativity is a classical theory. If not accelerating, an object is at rest in its own frame.

A serious flaw here is that you are thinking that you can come up with a strategy that perhaps 50 other professional head coaches have not been able to devise, along with the reality that strategy (and its success) is impacted by talent. The best strategy, it seems, is to make the Patriots play in Miami against a Dolphins team that isn't historically bad (i.e. not this year's incarnation) Brady was 7-10 in Miami going into yesterday's game

Still not game theory.

! Moderator Note Strange started this thread elsewhere, and this appears to be an exact copy, unattributed. Plagiarism is not something we tolerate

Obvious BS, no evidence Fast is not quantified Since when are vegetables “prey”? You don’t hunt fruits and vegetables So walking upright gives an advantage that is not due to carrying a club for defense. Congratulations! You have rebutted your claim.

Already addressed. It’s about the same for chimpanzees. It’s not the same for humans. But nobody is here has claimed that this is the cause of bipedalism. It was presented to rebut your claim that carrying a club is the only advantage of bipedalism (which was based on your erroneous claim that the only problem was defense)

Doesn’t seem obvious to the person who started the thread.

I don’t recall anyone saying that this is the case. The only one proposing a scenario is the OP, and it involves walking upright so you can carry a club (and insisting this is the only advantage of bipedalism)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7597 Numerous mentions of historical measurements. Lots of references for follow-up Steiner’s paper on research gate (though on my iPad it renders without spaces. But the figures have info, too) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233948351_History_and_progress_on_accurate_measurements_of_the_Planck_constant

Again, we have a claim without evidence. You don’t actually know this. An interesting idea is not evidence, and science requires evidence. One can come up with multiple plausibility arguments for advantages that intelligence brings that do not involve making weapons. e.g. better decision-making on where to sleep (defense against predators) or to look for food (pattern recognition, understanding issues of depletion a region of resources). Strategies about hunting, as with the previously-mentioned herding animals over a cliff. Presenting intelligence as having a single advantage and that advantage as the lone driver of evolution is ridiculous.

No, standard would not be the right description. You try and choose the best test. Hydrogen is the best test for the experiments in this case. It’s a somewhat common testbed owing to its uncomplicated structure. (Also for any investigations into hydrogen)

It's more likely there is an unknown bias in at least one approach to making the measurement. These measurements were in Hydrogen, so there's no way to interpret this as "depending on what elements they constitute" which is a non-starter. Once you are in any element with multiple nucleons the mass of the nucleus decreases as compared to its constituents, so assigning a mass to any individual particle is nonsensical.

I don't see how you got your answer for I; both the number and the units are wrong ([0.05m]^2*200kg = 0.5 kg m^2), but the equation for I is M(r^2 +R^2)/2 for a cylinder of finite thickness. Where is 2.618 rad/s2 coming from? What does "25 RPM - 1 sec" mean? Rotating at a constant speed requires no net torque. The torque will tell you how quickly it will get up to speed

Then ask questions about game theory. That's really not what game theory does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory "Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction in between rational decision-makers.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic and computer science. Originally, it addressed zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of the other participants. Today, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers." IOW, it's not about strategy or tactics, per se. Football isn't a zero-sum game, and it can't really be boiled down to logical decision-making. That's also not game theory

That's not what you asserted, i.e. the statement "Chimpanzees still live in the jungle and they walk on all fours" is not the same as (or seemingly connected to) "Ancient apes had far less vision than predators" or "when they stood upright, they were only more likely to be found by predators" Further, your observation that chimps use branches as clubs seems to be in contradiction with your premise that you need to walk upright to be able to use a club.

Assertion without evidence. Again.

Another contribution is the tendency for societies to become less religious as there is a widespread gain in affluence https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/do-countries-lose-religion-as-they-gain-wealth-1.1310451 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201212/does-wealth-really-kill-religion

Yes, but the equation isn’t m=E/c^2 The equation, derived for an object at rest, is E=mc^2 If you rearrange it, you have already assumed KE=0

If it’s the only other force involved, then compare the force needed to lift vs the weight.

1 kg isn't a force. The weight would be 9.8 N (F = W = mg) Absent any friction, only an infinitesimal amount more initially, and after, 9.8 N. There doesn’t need to be a net force to move at constant velocity. So you need to exert a force equal to the weight while lifting. If there is friction, you need to exert the weight + frictional force

This would have to be entanglement of momentum states to matter, and even then, nothing precludes the momenta from having the same magnitude. Um, no. And if your point is that “Einstein was wrong about something” that’s irrelevant. You would need to show he (and thousands of other physicists) was wrong in this specific instance. Yes. But you can’t find a frame that has no thermal energy. You have a kinetic term in the energy equation. Because you are lumping terms together that don’t belong, when viewed in a larger context.

I assume you are defining efficiency for this in terms of force or work. So take the ratio of the weight and the force you need to exert