swansont

Which has never happened before. Never, ever, ever. <\sarcasm>

If there's no air to cause the path to deviate, what would be the gain?

electrons, protons, neutrons. Many subatomic particles have a magnetic moment.

None of that is "substituting a continuous supply of energy for material strength"

Nope.

Your model of how electric fields are made is incomplete. It’s one way, but not the only way.

That really doesn’t clarify anything.

! Moderator Note Oh, FFS, really? There was no life immediately after the BB, nor was it possible until after it was cool enough for atoms to form, and this should be pretty obvious to anyone. Which makes such a demand for a citation pretty obvious trolling. Knock it off.

1. c is reserved for the speed of light, so you should not use it in your analysis. 2. if you are going to use variables for speed, you should do for m as well, rather than assigning it a numerical value. 3. You need to use proper notation for squared values (x^2 or x2 or use LaTex) to avoid confusion, especially because you've used m=2, and now you have 2's floating around everywhere 4. writing this out as a paragraph makes it difficult to parse. We already know that KE is frame-dependent (it's not invariant), so you need to do analyses in a single frame in order to get valid results. It's not clear to me that you aren't mixing frames.

What does this even mean?

You can get an electric field from a configuration of charges, but that does not mean that all electric fields can be viewed that way. A changing magnetic field creates an electric field, in a way that is different from what you get in electrostatics. There are also particle that have intrinsic magnetic fields.

So bigger brains are inevitable, except when they aren't? That really doesn't sound like it's a falsifiable hypothesis. I'm sorry, exploiting resources does not have a survival benefit? But increasing metabolic costs with no immediate payoff does have a survival benefit? How does that feedback work?

Which means straps that are more than 36 km long, in order to wrap around the asteroid. Or you are firing rockets to give thrust toward the asteroid. Setting off a small explosive or shooting it with a sabot and catching the pieces doesn't sound as bad when you consider how hard these other methods will be. You have to account for changes in orbital velocity when figuring out how "easy" transport will be.

! Moderator Note I split this off to let people discuss the simulation hypothesis. But since it’s turned into Tyson-bashing, I’m closing it.

Lens? Biased lens? AYFKM? Discrimination based on gender is pretty objectively defined. There’s no biased here. Women were treated one way, men were treated another way. That’s not a subjective assessment.

That wasn’t the question. Just because you have a reason does not mean it’s not discrimination. And it is justifying it.

Third-trimester abortions for reasons other than medical necessity are largely a GOP-generated fiction. And medical necessity is...medical necessity

But it can only be a position if people are advocating it. Who is calling everyone with any thoughts that don't agree with their own "alt right" or racist? I do see that the border crossing was discussed. (I didn’t see the debate)

Who is advocating each of these?

Why does this matter? It’s discriminatory. Are there loopholes where it’s permitted if you can come up with a good reason?

There’s no “or” here. These aren’t mutually exclusive justifications. One can make a case for or against practically, and I don’t see the case in favor of it. But how is it not discrimination? Saying “practicality” is an attempt to justify the discrimination, not a denial of it.

The slits are not a medium. There is no situation where new photons are required in this experiment, with mainstream physics. New waves ≠ new photons. They are different explanations, with different implications. Mere explanation is insufficient. It needs to be falsifiable. ("it's magic" is an explanation, but not science)

These are not illusions, and the measurements are relative to the frame in which they are measured. There is no "appear to change." The sound or light frequency is higher for the recipient when the sources are moving toward each other. If you e.g. have an atom with a resonance at a certain frequency, and one atom emits a photon at that frequency toward an atom that is moving fast enough to Doppler shift the photon out of resonance, that identical atom will fail to absorb it. The light is at a different frequency, and that's all that matters. This is what was previously described. This is poorly worded. There is a change in sound. The car isn't making a different sound, but the sound is different for you. There is no "absolute" (or "real") sound frequency. It's a relative measurement.

6 km radius, so the volume is just under 10^12 m^3; let's assume it's 5 g/cm^3 density, (5 x 10^-3 kg/m^3) or 5 x 10^9 kg. That's around 10^-8 m/s^2 of acceleration. 1 nano-g. A 3 kW laser will exert a force of 10^-5 N. A 1000 kg object will weigh ~10^-5 N on that asteroid. If it's lighter, it will lift off (very, very slowly) (above should be 5 x 10^3 kg/m^3 and 10^15 kg, resulting in 10^-2 m/s^2, or a milli-g of acceleration)

You can simply not post, but if you do, you are expected to support your assertions (or concede that you can't), and to answer questions.