swansont

I don't think the GOP considers the Russians to be persona non grata. Except for ~40% of the US, who appear to think that the GOP is doing a great job.

On the contrary, it's likely they understand very well, but since it favors them they won't lift a finger to stop it (at best) or are actively pursuing help from outside, and furthering the attempted coverup.

A conventional explosion or seismic event would not have triggered the gravitational-wave detectors since it would be outside the coincidence window — gravitational waves propagate at c, so there is (at most) a very short delay (~10 ms or less) between signal arrival of the Hanford and Livingston LIGO stations. (The time lag and order of arrival is how they can assess the approximate direction the signal came from) Conventional explosion would propagate at the speed of sound, and be ignored, since the signals would be too far apart in time.

The QM answer is that they don't. They are in orbitals, which is not the same thing. If they were actually orbiting they would be accelerating, and would need to continuously radiate, which they obviously do not do. This represents an energy loss, which cannot be happening to something in a stable orbit. How can it lose this energy but also not lose energy? (i.e. the electron continues to be in the same energy state)

! Moderator Note Posts which only serve to advertise your site are against the rules. You have admitted that you aren't posting "the good stuff" (regardless of how good that is) here. What's here is merely a promise of dubious quality that there's something to this — but no way to test that. If you don't want to be thought of as a quantum snake oil salesman, you can't behave as a quantum snake oil salesman does. You have given us nothing that suggests this won't be a waste of time. We're done.

One would need to analyze the energy investment necessary to do this. And it's not as simple as dropping it by parachute since you have to slow it down to get it to go out of orbit. And it's really expensive to get any payload (such as fuel) into even low-earth orbit, as Sensei points out.

You made no modifiers to your claim. Only after-the-fact, once the claim was rebutted. It's moot, anyway, since the claim I was responding to was "size is not a valid argument, technology could eventually conquer the entire local cluster of galaxies given a few hundred million years." followed by the claim that the only missing piece was fusion. "The only current flaw I am aware of is our lack of controlled fusion." The side-track into radio signals was just that — a side track, based on an unsupported implication that the interstellar medium is responsible for the decrease in signal strength. I brought that up because it ignored the (IMO) more obvious 1/r^2 decrease, and also fit in with a previous misconception that the interstellar medium is something other than a near-perfect physical vacuum, exceedingly sparsely populated with matter. Other arguments have morphed along the way, too. Every time a shortcoming is pointed out. No agreement that the claim is flawed. Just a rewording of the claim.

It's pretty clear the GOP's goal is not to inform the public of the truth in these matters.

Galilean relativity had the concept that the laws of physics were the same in all frames, but AFAIK time and space were absolute, which worked if c was infinite.

OTOH, party loyalty is probably not a huge thing for him.

I am not prepared to make a specific pronouncement. I know that atoms didn't even exist until about 380,000 years after the BB, and then you'd need for stars to form (that took another few hundred million years) and then go supernova, because at that point you only have H, He and Li in the universe. So you have to add in that life cycle of stars just so you have some Carbon. You probably need a second round of star formation/supernova, too, in order to form the heavier elements that one would need as an advanced civilization — probably not going to do anything advanced without metals. I don't know how many billions of years each stage would take. 1? 2? 3? Even after that, you need a solar system around the star that ignites. Planets have to form and cool, and any early-formed life would have to survive bombardment/collision from anything left over from planet formation, which is more frequent for a young planet. So you likely have a delay before life takes hold on the new planet We know life on earth is billions of years old, so I can't make sense of this. Where? It wasn't in the section on radio. Nothing about interstellar attenuation being the stumbling block, though, which was the claim I objected to. Pretty weak defense for moving the goalposts, IMO.

! Moderator Note It's not clear that this is flying, or that it "it gets it's (sic) energy" It's unidentified, and possibly an object. So what? This isn't a UFO discussion site.

! Moderator Note Well then, you were told that was unacceptable in the last thread, so we’re done. Don’t repeat this behavior.

“Loop” is a topological term here, not a geometric one ! Moderator Note After discussion with other mods, we have decided that we’ve reached the point where this is no longer fruitful. We probably hit that point long ago, but there were occasional hints that progress might be in the works. Alas, that’s not the case, as we keep hitting the same wall, and the OP refuses to learn any physics. Looking stuff up on wikipedia is not an acceptable substitute. Don’t bring this topic up again.

Brown's gas is a term used by the flim-flam artists bent on selling you the idea that water-powered devices work. It takes more energy to create the gas than you will get from the combustion of it. Electrolysis naturally forms the H2 separately from the O2. The key in separating them is to not mix them in the first place.

No, they aren't. That's data. It is not math.

And you continue to ignore my objection about wire B needing to be a closed loop. One segment will feel a force on one direction, but for the segment with the return path, the current is in the opposite direction, the force will likewise be in the opposite direction. (simplest case, but complicating it will not save you) It will feel a torque, but not a net force. All you'e done here is ignore a reality of the geometry that it's not valid to ignore. Current-carrying wire segments do not exist on their own.

I don't see any analysis. No math at all. Nothing is at 0 K (and it's not ºK)

No, that's not how it works. That gives you the force on a current given the presence of a magnetic field. The force is exerted on the wire. It is not something carried by the EMP, which is photons. The photons have energy and momentum. No current means no force from ILB, but the changing field will induce a current (or potential) from Lenz's law, which will induce a B that opposes the change in the external field. And, as I have pointed out multiple times, when doing an analysis of this sort you can't ignore the fact that currents require closed loops. If you're only analyzing one section of the wire, you aren't going to get a valid result. You aren't in a regime where you can ignore the rest of the wire. You'll come up with silly conclusions like momentum isn't conserved.

And yet, you have not provided any evidence that you have published in a peer-reviewed publication. So logically, if you have not published but reject the charge that you refuse to publish, logically one concludes that you have tried and been denied. As if your work has no merit when reviewed with a critical eye. But how would we know since you have not posted anything to critique?

You were asked to discuss science. You chose not to.

BraveDoNut banned for gross violations of our civility rules

! Moderator Note However, I was first.

A coverup was claimed in the media ("following a media report claiming the extent of lead contamination has been covered up") , but no evidence was presented in the (English) links. So it's a claim. You didn't present evidence, yet you portray it as a fact. Chernobyl was not mentioned. That's your own hyperbole.

This, combined with the short time the current is moving in the loops, will limit the length of wire you can have. Keep in mind that the return path of the current is in the opposite direction, meaning the force would be, as well.