swansont

You can’t use the Newtonian kinematics equations if the motion is relativistic. There is no terminal velocity - terminal velocity requires an opposing, speed-dependent force.

You can alter the linear motion, but it’s a very small effect, since the momentum of EM radiation is p=E/c. Negligible for bulk material. Small even for an atom. Plus, if this is an excitation, the photon gets re-emitted, reversing the effect. And if the radiation is isotropic the net momentum is zero. And above all, temperature is not affected by linear motion. Yes. So it’s not higher just because the temperature is higher. The power per unit area of the material is the relevant quantity, as given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But only for what you think is in the proposal. You don’t have those details (or haven’t shared them), so we don’t know - you’re just guessing. I’ve pointed out a few logical things that might have been in the proposal that you did not include. I’m not making any argument. I’m just pointing out the incompleteness of your assertion, and asking you fill in the gaps. Instead of doing so, or even engaging in exploration of it, you attack. It’s quite telling. It’s also quite obvious.

If the energy from the result approaches or exceeds a few percent of mc^2, that an indication that you need to use a relativistic treatment

Accelerating charges radiate. During a collision, atoms are deformed, temporarily giving them a dipole moment, while they are accelerated. What’s your evidence of this? The spectrum from blackbody sources I’ve seen look like a continuum. How can emitting EM radiation cause particles to acquire KE? That violates conservation of energy. Again, you need evidence of this. The evidence we have is that the emission spectrum depends on temperature. The radiated power depends on the surface area, but a hot source can radiate less power than a cooler source, e.g a 100L pot of boiling water will radiate more power than a 1 cm^3 chunk of solid at 150 C.

Because it’s not how temperature is defined. It’s insignificant in most situations anyway, because E/c^2 tends to be small. That’s backwards; the radiation is increased because the temperature is higher. The radiated energy from a blackbody is a continuum; it’s not directly related to electrons jumping between states. IOW any quantum jumps are typically an insignificant part of the spectrum in terms of radiated energy. (in fact it might have no net effect, since the excitations come from the collisional energy) Then I would suggest your understanding is incomplete.

I think kids have fewer options. They don’t get to vote and they can’t negotiate a flexible schedule; they just have to do what the grownups decide. Some jobs have flexible hours. Schools, especially for younger kids, not so much. Though I think this is mitigated somewhat by a trend toward parents dropping off/picking up kids from school, though my limited anecdotal data is for middle-class parents (and leaning toward upper m-c) which also triggers my feeling that these kids are spoiled rotten for not having to ride a school bus, or walk uphill both ways I hated DST with a passion because I used to get up at ~4 AM, which meant trying to get to sleep while it was light out and people out and about making noise, for a couple of month of the year. Even in retirement, it throws me for a loop. Just not quite as much as it used to, without as much of a structured schedule Who uses GMT anymore? It’s UTC, which is completely different (that is, almost exactly the same as far as the average person is concerned)

Engr.Daniel Grossman banned as a sockpuppet of Astrogeomanity

If there is no vibration, how is it compatible with the notion of lattice vibrations? The mass increases because there’s more energy. The two are equivalent statements; mass is a form of energy. But an energy increase does not necessarily mean a temperature increase - a spinning object has more energy than a non-spinning one, but the spinning has no effect on the temperature. In classical terms, temperature is dependent on the KE of the constituent atoms, but not the translational KE of the center-of-mass. QM recognizes that the atoms will undergo collisions, and that can cause excitations, so the distribution of states also indicates the temperature.

Kids waiting in the dark for a bus doesn’t present the same risk as an adult on their commute. How does that magnify it? The idea behind DST is that it better aligns daylight hours with when people are awake. Shouldn’t that tend to mitigate SAD?

No Which isn’t necessarily what’s going on here, with a solid metal, where we have a band structure for electron energy. You don’t have to promote an electron to a higher band. Since the OP specified IR, this means the energy of the photon is probably less than 1 eV

Yes, but that’s not related to the point I was making. I wasn’t advocating for the change. Another option is not changing the rules.

“Parents” is not some monolithic group. Ones pushing for an adjustment in starting time might be the ones who have the flexibility to change their own schedule

But now you have the issue of parents possibly not being home at the beginning of the day to see their kids off, unless they, too, adjust their schedules - if their employer affords that kind of flexibility. Younger kids not supervised makes a lot of people nervous - more than when I was young.

Posts that advertise other threads are routinely hidden.

This is one of those “why are things the way they are” that physics can't address, because we can only observe how things behave. Bare charges and their electric field come as a set.

No, that’s my response to the comment about bias. Had I wanted to characterize a response, I would have quoted the response. The thing is, JC merely said I think we can be biased - it’s not an accusation that either of the criticisms in the thread were based on bias. Yet my response is somehow is? I don’t get it. ”But it would be improper to appeal to bias in order to dismiss legitimate criticism.” Note the future tense. Not present or past. Because such appeals happen. There’s an attitude that criticism of republicans doesn’t have to be addressed because democrats are biased. I did. I wasn’t referring to either of them. I said that not all criticism appears here. Having said that, the suggestion here is that the comments in this thread aren’t legitimate criticism. Why not? What makes the criticism illegitimate? One isn’t permitted to not understand a thought process? That’s not legitimate? There aren’t folks in the GOP that treat women as lesser people? That the GOP hasn’t embraced taking rights away from them? They don’t argue against equal pay for women because men “need to make enough to support their families and allow the Mother to remain in the home to raise and nurture the children”? https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/02/141695/utah-republican-argues-against-equal-pay MTG didn’t say “We came from Adam’s rib. God created us with his hands. We may be the weaker sex, we are the weaker sex, but we are our partner’s, our husband’s wife“? Perhaps she was misquoted. The current speaker of the house once blamed mass shootings on “no-fault divorce, feminism, abortion, and other expansions of social rights that took place in the 20th century.” (quote from article, not directly from the speaker) https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-johnson-speaker-shootings-abortion-b2437378.html But sure, the right wing isn’t regressive. Claiming it’s not legitimate to say so is a rock-solid position to take. (It’s not like TheVat was alone in their view https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-03-08/cultural-commentary-bidens-2024-state-of-the-union And quite a few republicans hated Britt’s performance https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cvasDkMWdXg )

How would one test a hypothesis concerning this?

Why do you think that? Ants are evolved for a 1g environment. Species tend not to be over-engineered to a great extent; it’s a waste of resources for that to happen. Ants being able to lift 1000x their body weight happens because it’s advantageous to do so. But they don’t lift 10,000x their body weight, which is what would be necessary in a 10g environment. Plus all the other environmental difference one would have, for which they have not evolved to deal with.

Where did I specify any particular blurb as legitimate criticism? If you’re going to continue to misrepresent my posts, I’m out. No point in responding to bad-faith posting.

Surely if I had said that you could provide a quote of me saying it. The SOTU is not a campaign event. If Britt had wanted to do what she did and put it up on her website as part of a campaign, that would be one thing. But this was the GOP’s response (not Britt’s personal response) to the SOTU.

Doing it that way causes confusion. And “time” and “mass” aren’t just similar - they are the same terms, which means you have changed the definitions. Mass and time are scalars and have a single value. I was looking for a worked example. A simple one, like a collision or some kinematics problem.

how it causes it is a different issue than recognizing that it does happen.

I missed the part where Sen Britt cooked some food, but I didn’t watch the whole thing. What dish did she prepare? Was it before or after she misrepresented the human trafficking story? There are a number of people who do, including at least one republican senator (Tuberville - she was picked as a housewife)

! Moderator Note This is the very thing you were told to stop doing. There’s no scientific or engineering analysis here - no justification for the proposal that using gearboxes would accomplish things that electromagnetic braking doesn’t. Just an assertion, and that’s not enough.