swansont

Nothing like answering both yes and no to a question. Covers all the bases! Reminds me of the joke about the physicist who was handed a graph ”I can tell you why there’s a dip at that value. You see…” ”Professor, you’re holding it upside-down” ”Ah. I can tell you why there’s a peak at that value. You see…”

Similar purposes, though, is not the contention of the OP. “yield a stronger gravitational attraction.” is not going to happen in any meaningful way. “Yield an attraction” is possible, but that’s not the question that was asked.

Legal/civil rights are between a person and the government. A person who is not an agent of the government can’t violate my rights. Some of what we call rights are freedoms or privileges, and those are what we agree on, and are supposed to be symmetric. I can’t do it to them if they can’t do it to me. We have legal protections, both criminal and civil, to ensure this. If you transgress, you are supposed to be punished for it.

You did not. Not in this thread, at least.

Why? Don’t other people own property? If other people can’t go into your yard without your permission, it means you can’t go into theirs. It’s symmetric. But we have zoning laws that address the very problem described. You don’t have the right to do whatever you want, and if someone wants to start up a factory, they can’t do it in a residential area, so you don’t invite this sort of problem. And if you buy property near an industrial zone, presumably you would have the ability to know what you’re in for.

No, that won’t work. There’s no extra energy there; any electrical energy in the system was there, or was converted from another form of energy that was there. And c^2 is a big number, so the mass increase from adding energy from an external source is quite small. A 1 GW device (a good-sized commercial nuclear reactor) for 1 year outputs 3.15 x 10^16 joules. That’s a about a third of a kg

“We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary” in response to your comment about English adopting a French word. Why wouldn't it? It adopts from pretty much anyone and everyone.

You focused on the wrong part of the quote.

I moved it here. It’s not a lounge topic.

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.” ― James D. Nicoll Yes, that’s mentioned in the etymology link and in the etymology of romantic, but has nothing to do with the comment you quoted

Since -ism is a standard suffix, I would doubt any explanation offering a conspiratory etymology “1803, "a romantic idea," from romantic + -ism. In literature, 1823, in a French context, in reference to a movement toward medieval forms (especially in reaction to classical ones), an association now more often confined to Romanesque. The movement began in German and spread to England and France. Generalized sense of "a tendency toward romantic ideas" is recorded by 1840.” https://www.etymonline.com/word/romanticism Romantic does have a meaning of “in the style of Rome” as in “written in a romance language” i.e. derived from Latin Now, that would not preclude a movement from adopting the word, but why would Italians adopt an English word?

The situations are symmetric, so I don’t understand the alleged conundrum.

We aren’t discussing the Weimar republic. The US did quantitative easing after the GW Bush recession, and inflation never topped 3.2% over the next decade. So what you are saying is not “absolutely obvious” https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ We didn’t get significant inflation until after the COVID disruption, and half of the inflation was due to prices rising faster than input costs, i.e. profit margins expanded. Corporate greed. https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/ https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/us-inflation-caused-by-corporate-profits One driver was housing costs - rent increases jumped in 2021 and after. https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year

Based on what? Wishful thinking? The fact the it wasn’t until 1978 that they had a woman astronaut (Sally Ride)? Once again, no effort to find out, when it’s not difficult to find analyses https://www.nextgov.com/people/2023/04/nasa-struggles-improve-workforce-diversity/385608/ “NASA struggles to improve workforce diversity” “In fiscal year 2021, women made up around 35% of the NASA workforce, compared to the federal workforce overall, where women are 45% of the workforce. Women make up only 25% of the science and tech workforce at NASA, which makes up about 67% of NASA's 18,000 strong workforce, compared to the 31% representation in the federal government's science and tech workforce overall.” Bullshitting isn’t so effective on a science site. You need e v i d e n c e

! Moderator Note I don’t see how this addresses the topic of the OP. Raising issues to make the discussion about what you want to discuss is hijacking

Surely you understand what a prototype is, meaning the “Ruskies” aren’t using this technology yet. They’re trying to develop it, and there are no guarantees of success.

! Moderator Note Not sure if you’re being obtuse or a smart-aleck or are clueless about relativity. If you seriously don’t know how electronic circuits can work in a fast-moving rocket, start a thread to ask. Don’t hijack someone else’s discussion.

Which is not what we were talking about, but Russia’s overall inflation rate far exceeds the US’s over the last several years. https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/inflation-cpi Is the reason that you won’t address my point that you can’t back it up with facts?

Prove it. Given how you make stuff up, I will not assume that any assertion of yours is true without proof. The FED “collects” inflation? Do explain, please. US inflation is a problem for US exports, but we import far mor than we export, and there’s not a lot of exports I can think of that couldn’t be replaced from other sources. And the US is doing pretty well, inflation-wise https://gfmag.com/data/economic-data/worlds-highest-lowest-inflation-rates/ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FP.CPI.TOTL.ZG?locations=OE&most_recent_value_desc=false

Lots of it start-up costs, I imagine. Paying for the R&D paths that didn’t pan out, and a whole lot of testing. It’s hard, in part, because it’s dangerous. Mitigating risk can be difficult and expensive. And has nothing to do with DEI. Nothing to do with DEI.

It’s hard to tell if this is a serious question. Partly because of your “jokes” and partly because you don’t seem to have done a lick of research on the question. Incessant whining, based on ignorance, is hard to take seriously. The Apollo missions cost more than $300 billion in today’s dollars. (2023) https://taxfoundation.org/blog/apollo-moon-space-race-industrial-policy-cost/ (original cost was ~$25 billion) This shows that each mission cost less than $500 million, so even if you shave off the last 6 missions, that’s less than 1/8 of the overall cost (3 billion out of 25) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1028322/total-cost-apollo-missions/ So the new program is a lot cheaper, because certain things don’t have to be re-discovered, even as the hardware is remade with modern technology. But it’s not simple and it’s not easy.

And now we have the crypto reserve, so the government can contribute to the ponzi scheme while others cash out.

Not that distance, but the spacing between the ships (much like the circumference of the rotating disk does not require a solid rim; it would be the same with just spokes). But this ignores the fact that the distance doesn’t change, and as one ship lands another is launched, and the new ship is not moving at v. So there are always N ships in the distance L. Neither N nor L changes. N because it’s invariant, and L because the path itself is not moving, and that’s what matters. Since there is motion, there’s no issue with applying it. As the citations in my link address, it gives the explanation for the repulsion/attraction of parallel wires. Or you can apply relativity to come up with magnetism. Different explanations for the result.

! Moderator Note First rule in speculations is that it must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. It can’t be untestable, and you must provide evidence or a prediction that is testable. That typically requires a model of some sort. Your next post on the topic must comply with this.

Not to defend the Bible as being literally true, but this is an argument from silence, i.e. a fallacy. (related: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) Does the Bible say how much food and water/wine Noah loaded on board? Or how many times they urinated/defecated? Do we assume the answer is zero because it’s not mentioned?