swansont

a) does it? (is this another joke?) b) the cost has nothing to do with DEI

So, the answer would be a “no, I won’t” (to “Can you put some effort into your “analysis”?”) “global elites are controlling the educational system” is just cheap, lazy, conspiracy theory Again, no analysis, no data. Just assertion. Inflation can be measured and compared with other countries that did not do quantitative easing. Why is it that they had even worse inflation? So-called cryptocurrencies are a scam, so it’s no wonder Trump supports them (he launched his own to cash in) and pardoned am associated scam artist, but surprising given his stance on drug dealers.

The wire is not length-contracted, because it is not moving. The electrons enter and leave at the end of the wire. So the number of electrons in that section is the same, regardless of this length contraction. This might be related to the rotating disk paradox; the radius is not changed but the circumference is not 2*pi*r. The solution is because there’s an acceleration involved (when the electrons turn the corner, in our case) which means you can’t naively apply Euclidean geometry to the description. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigidly_rotating_disk_paradox

Just to note, Th-90 is the wrong notation. The number in that format should be the atomic mass number, e.g. Th-233, U-235, O-16

They’re both men. See? Exactly the same. Can you put some effort into your “analysis”? This is pathetic. And arguably in bad faith (i.e. trolling) In any event, “Trump and Biden are two sides of the same coin, that the middle class is disappearing in the Western society, and that the inflation is a hidden taxation (for the poor, but not for the wealthy” are three separate topics, only loosely related to each other. Biden expanded the staffing and budget of the IRS, to go after wealth tax cheats. Trump is firing a bunch of them, to enable cheating. Biden tried to expand the reach of the CFPB, protecting consumers against predation by the wealthy, while Trump is gutting it. Very different actions, and one is a threat to money and power.

Thorium has 90 protons, so it’s not Th-60 “experts estimate it contains up to 500 times more energy potential than conventional uranium-232” Conventional fission uses U-235. U-232 has a half-life of 69 years, and I’m not sure it’s fissile. I don’t think anyone uses it. It’s curious they mention 233 sites, when Th-233 is one of the isotopes you would find. Could be right, or they misunderstood what finding 233Th sites means, especially if the text is displayed as “233 Th sites”

I think you’re right. With their last post it’s clearer to me what their misconception is. The wire’s length is only contracted in the electron’s frame, not the lab frame, so there’s no reason to expect the result they claim.

If you post off-topic stuff, one possible outcome is that it goes into the trash. Especially if there’s little chance of fruitful discussion on the new subject.

In the lab frame, what is length-contracted? Not the wire, because it’s in the lab frame. The length contraction giving the charge imbalance is the electron frame (the one giving rise to the current)

You’re still misunderstanding the scenario. The number of balls (N) is invariant but L decreases, so I don’t see how N/L can do anything but increase. Same with charge density. The answer to the OP’s question is that we do notice the situation, as I hinted at with my first response. Two current-carrying wires will attract or repel. We call it magnetism, but that’s just the name we give it, since we know magnetism is just electrodynamics that includes relativity. https://physicsworld.com/a/the-invisibility-of-length contraction/#:~:text=Length contraction has never been,in the other wire's frame. “Length contraction has never been directly measured. But its effects show up in the magnetic force that acts between parallel, current-carrying wires. Bizarrely, this force, which is purely magnetostatic, appears in one wire due to length contraction as experienced by the charge carriers in the other wire’s frame. (It’s complicated)” (references are given, for anyone interested)

! Moderator Note Rules require that material for discussion be posted, not presented in links or in attachments. Also, we’re a science site, and English is the standard language of science (at the moment, at least)

How would you assess whether or not it’s quality work? You might have to explain what you mean by this. If a woman was chosen because of DEI (the actual meaning, not the GOP caricature) it means the woman is more qualified. DEI ensured she got considered. What constitutes a passing score, and the divisions between grade levels is subjective. Partial credit exists for “wrong” answers.

What happens to the number of balls per unit length (the ball density)?

I would imagine aerosols falling to the surface (which would include the ocean) and then accumulating in the ocean would be measured in years, which is negligible in this scenario. So there should be a layer that has a spike in Be-10 from any short-duration event. If it’s forming a layer on land and later eroded, that’s going to be spread out in time with much lower Be contributions. And the rate need not be continuous if you’re measuring the Be-10/B-10 ratio to get the date.

A perturbation in the electromagnetic field, moving at c, is one way to look at them. Being quantum particles, classical descriptions don’t always cover all of the behavior. (angular momentum being one thing that might not be a property that is obvious from the above description)

The photon takes certain path (null geodesic) because it is massless and travels at c. Massive particles follow different geodesics. But it’s all because of the curvature.

No but they didn’t say it wasn’t. It also suggests maybe it didn’t work for shorter time periods. It’s a bit ambiguous and imprecise, like the mass comment. They could have stated what the actual limit is (like how radiocarbon is limited to 50k-60k years)

“Something extraordinary happened on Earth around 10 million years ago, and whatever it was, it left behind a “signature” of radioactive beryllium-10. This finding, which is based on studies of rocks located deep beneath the ocean, could be evidence for a previously-unknown cosmic event or major changes in ocean circulation. With further study, the newly-discovered beryllium anomaly could also become an independent time marker for the geological record.” https://physicsworld.com/a/radioactive-anomaly-appears-in-the-deep-ocean/ A couple of nits, though “Because beryllium-10 has a half-life of 1.4 million years, it is possible to use its abundance to pin down the dates of geological samples that are more than 10 million years old.” 10 million would be ~7 half-lives. Much longer than that would be increasingly tough to pin down since you are decreasing signal/noise. So while you could get results a bit beyond 10 mya, it’s not good for arbitrarily long ages. It also says B-10and Be-10 have the same mass, but they differ slightly which is my their mass spectrometer could distinguish them.

That’s not what this thread is about. Why do you expect to? MW is an interpretation; it’s not testable. Start a thread on the topic. This one is about the alleged consciousness of quantum fields I’m not sure that’s the case

No, each world has one universal wave function. If multiple worlds had the same wave function they would be in identical states. That’s contrary to the notion of the many-worlds premise. They don’t interact. That’s not really how wave functions work. A link is not the same as saying QM fields are conscious

By not quoting someone, you are addressing everyone, and it’s OT. We’re discussing what governments want, not individuals

Or he just wants to be a dictator, and prefers the company of them

Yes. I don’t see how this supports the notion that diplomacy will work if war is eliminated as an option. If war spreads it’s likely because of Putin attacking someone else. Europe (et al.) seems content to send support but not troops. He might be emboldened by Trump cutting off aid, and not supporting NATO but does he think he’s strong enough to take on everyone else in NATO if he attacks member state?

! Moderator Note There is no “we” here One person started this thread, and they provided a definition. Don’t hijack that discussion.

Possibly? Either you have evidence to rebut a claim, or you don’t. And Trump’s idea of fake news is facts he doesn’t like, so that’s really not something to point to.