swansont

Many times. It’s why we don’t let people use it as support for an argument. Not long ago there was a story about putting nonsense phrases into Google and getting the AI summary of the meaning and possible etymology, and it will make one up. I tried “you can’t do handstands on a cupcake” and while the summary gave a somewhat plausible interpretation, told me “it’s often used in a lighthearted way” but yet when I Googled the exact phrase I got ‘No results found for “you can't do handstands on a cupcake”’ so it’s a nonexistent phrase and yet it’s often used There was also a story about a student doing some physics and the summary of the text didn’t understand using 1/2 in exponents, so it made up some (wrong) garbage about the math, and how there is no such thing as an inverse-square law

Despite your fixation on things happening in one second, for no discernible reason, you have not shown this to be the case in reality. And even if it is, so what? that does not make the interactions the same.

Pulling the system apart, or assembling it, is not the same situation as the steady state you were describing earlier. Energy is required or released if you change the configuration, but not to maintain it.

No. Work add or subtracts energy from a system. Once the bond is formed, the energy of the system is constant - no work is being done.

YOU said it was “hexal” (I also see that your coloring is obscuring some double bonds, so my comment on that is moot)

Bound systems like galaxies and nuclei release energy when forming. Thus, no energy is required to hold them together. Energy is required to break them apart. A nucleon infalling into a galaxy will acquire a speed of less than 1000 km/s as it gets to any place outside the core. So v/c is 1e3/3e5, making (v/c)^2 ~ 10^-5 For a nucleon, that’s a KE of around 5 keV. If there are 100 protons per neutron, and even if they were all in deuterium, that still only 500 keV vs 2.2 MeV

Details: https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-was-doomed-from-the-beginning

I don’t know what “energy needed to create a force” means. Energy and force are not the same thing. The characterization makes no physics sense. When things move under the influence of Newtonian gravity, the total energy stays the same - any reduction in potential energy increases the kinetic energy by the same amount. You can calculate the nuclear and gravitational binding energies of nucleons. They are not anywhere close to being equal. But the energies are not the same. You are discussing a fictional universe, not the universe we live in.

I have no interest in sorting through what I’m guessing is nonsense. If you think it’s valid, it’s your job to find the examples But let’s be clear: it can’t be revisionist; that’s not a prediction. It can’t be vague - if it’s not precise, it’s no good. You’re just picking the interpretation that works after the fact, and ignoring the ones that don’t

I have no idea. Do you think this rebuts my point? I don’t see how. Again, I don’t see how this is contrary to my point. Insisting that the Bible is inerrant would seem to confirm that the conflict is caused by “religious people insisting that the religious text makes pronouncements about the physical world”

Three atoms do not comprise a hexagon (your nitrogen structure) Can you form a bond with a vertex? With three nitrogens, plus other atoms?

I don’t see how that disagrees with me. The conflict arises from religious people insisting that the religious text makes pronouncements about the physical world (instead of e.g. being allegories)

Science is formally oblivious to religion, insofar as religion deals with spiritual/supernatural things and science deals with the material/physical world. They are only at odds where religious folk try to insist that their religious texts makes pronouncements about the physical world. Not so much. You can only say this if scripture made specific predictions that did not have more than one interpretation, and scripture tends to be vague. To say science verifies it is retconning. If there was no science from which to crib answers, you don’t get those answers. (e.g. age of the earth in Christianity) I predict these will be the vague passages that do not lend themselves to one definitive answer. Revisionism, though. They ceded that ground when the sheer weight of evidence forced it. Gods of the gaps. God is an ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance (as Tyson puts it)

All quantum particles have characteristics of both. You can’t ignore one aspect at your convenience. One way to think of the way the particle nature might manifest itself is that the quark will spend some fraction of its time in close proximity to the other. Something like (10^-15/10^-35)^3 of the time (as a very non-refined first-order analysis) What you can’t do is assume that they're just stuck together at the planck length

Moderator NoteChatGPT is not a technical resource and cannot be trusted. So its use is not permitted here (see rule 2.13)

Something I recall reading about tolerating intolerance or not is that tolerance is not a moral standard. Tolerating others is part of the social contract. If you don’t, then you exist outside of the social contract structure and aren’t covered by it.

But what you describe is a meson, which has a size of around 10^-15m, so looking at the planck length is misguided. You can’t ignore the wave nature of the quarks, either. Any notion that these are acting like a tiny binary star system is also misguided This is not observed, though if one were an antiquark it would be a pi meson. Being massless does not mean it is not subject to gravity. Again, this claim isn’t consistent with the wave behavior that will be present

No. For multiple reasons. Quarks interactions are mediated by gluons, which are spin 1. Gravitons, if they exist, would be spin 2. And they just don’t behave the same way - range, quark confinement, the fact that non-quarks feel the gravitational interaction.

What is “high-frequency” about electrons? (also, photons can be low-frequency)

From what I’ve read, SpaceX is using an approach that doesn’t scale up to what’s needed to get beyond LEO, and Musk is long on promises but short on execution (he’s been promising self-driving in his cars is just a year away for the last ~9 years) Trump is gutting NASA, so I don’t think any plans made before this year are going to hold up.

You already have a thread open on this, and even if it were new, you shouldn’t post identical threads

You already have a thread open on this, and even if it were new, you shouldn’t post identical threads

Moderator NoteOur rules require that material for discussion be posted. Is there some reason you can’t just do this?

Nobody claims the SM is a complete success. We know it’s incomplete You could replace “dark matter” in your statement with “neutrino” and you would be citing history. Was the prediction of the neutrino wrong? Pluto was hypothesized because of otherwise unexplained perturbations on orbits. The neutron was inferred from the discovery of masses of various isotopes. Some elements were hypothesized from gaps in the periodic table

Moderator NoteIt needs to be noted that, no, you did not quote it, in the context of online discussion. You may have copied it, but did not use the quote function or place it quotation marks, or italicize it - anything that would indicate (especially as a short, unremarkable sentence) that it was not something coming from you. Then you compounded your error by lashing out.