John Cuthber

Do we agree that not feeding a child should be a criminal offence? If it should be then why should it be? Is it to do with avoiding suffering and harm? Is that different from vaccination?

It may be easier to buy an old library book.

It's not a matter of "claiming them"; that's silly. It's a matter of pointing out that politics in the US (and elsewhere) has been drifting to the Right since (at a guess) WWII. You may remember that the Right wing were calling Obama a communist, even though he was probably to the Right of plenty of former Republican presidents. The calling him a communist in either absolute or historically relative terms is one of the lies that the Right are famed for. IMHO you should have stopped there....

LOL The democratic party was founded in 1828, but there's plenty of evidence of racism in the USA before that- notably during the war of independence. So, it's very clearly not an historical fact. It's another example of you saying things that don't make sense. (It is of course, rather embarrassing, that the democratic party exploited existing racism to get votes. At least they "grew out of it" when do the Republicans plan to catch up?)

People seemed to have forgotten so I repeated it :-).

By today's standards, I'm not sure Nixon would be regarded as a Republican or as Right wing.

Sweet Jesus! Is someone really still citing "trickle down" as a real model, rather than an example of a political lie. And yet, yes, you are seriously putting it forward- even though it's been established to be a lie. Or maybe not. If Mexico sells beans and you add 20% to the cost when they cross the border and then they sell for 20% more in the USA where US citizens buy them; who pays for the wall? Why would you want to do that? In any event it's good to see that you realise Mexico's not going to pay for it. Presumably these people only get the healthcare problems they desire too- otherwise the system doesn't work (spoiler alert- we can see it not working today in a country that pays roughly twice as much for healthcare with generally equal or worse outcomes). You quoted me, and then posted this nonsense "Perhaps you are too young or have forgotten just how bad stagflation was under Jimmy Carter." Well, stagflation started well before Carter was in power so, even when you try to cover up the fact that you don't know what you are talking about, you just show that... you don't know what you are talking about. The "capability" he has was a rich dad and the benefits that come from that. It's not something he worked for.

I'm not sure that (at least under ordinary circumstances) you will get CO2 Imagine the CN groups weren't there.

So, if a thief, when caught, gives back the stuff he stole, that's OK then?

I admit I'm young enough that I had to check. I looked and found some stuff about it here. https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 And I found out that it happened in 1972 under Nixon: who was, so I understand it, in addition to being a liar, a Republican. Inflation was pretty bad under Carter; normal people blame it on the oil crisis. Incidentally, I don't know the details of the issue with that car but, in the circumstances the difference between defence and murder is simple, given that the protesters are in front. Was the car in reverse or forward gear? The driver has a clear choice- forward into a group of people or backwards away from them. Only one of those cations is defensive. So, the assertion "If the facts show that he believed his life was threatened by a mob, his actions were self defence. " is false unless you can show that eh vehicle didn't have a reverse gear. So, the behaviour is indefensible (literally so- there is no defence) and one side is trying to defend it. No prizes for guessing which side is trying to defend the indefensible. The irony of this in a thread about lying is truly remarkable.

You do realise that, Under Reagan, unemployment peaked to a level that wasn't seen again until the S*** hit the fan under Bush's administration (leaving Obama to sort it out), don't you? Or are you just illustrating the idea that the truth doesn't matter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States

Optimism is the reason why this site gets littered with people putting forward ideas that are known to be impossible- and to continue to do so- even after they are told it's hopeless. Optimism wastes your time chasing perpetual motion machines; pessimism is what gives you the laws of thermodynamics.

Let me know where you stop understanding this: We can measure the distance between the spots on the screen. From that we can calculate the angles through which they have been diffracted. And that angle tells you the relationship between the wavelength and the grating spacing. Since we know the grating spacing, we can calculate the wavelength.

You can.

It makes a change, I'm usually one of the first to stoop to name calling.

That's not a lot more helpful than Dalo's name calling earlier.

I don't understand how this is difficult. Can you imagine a line of people standing one behind the other? Can you imagine them all setting off walking? Can you imagine standing next to that line. They would walk past you. If there was a gap of 1 metre between them, and they were walking at 2 metres per second then, in each second, 2 of them would walk past you.

If a line of soldiers marches past you each moving at 2 meters per second and each one separated by 1 metre do you see why you are passed by 2 soldiers per second?

Here's a picture of some waves (slightly lumpy because I can't draw). The distance between the red marks is the wavelength. Since all light waves travel at the same speed, the time between each wave crest passing a given point is fixed for any given wavelength and the number of peaks passing a given point in a second is also fixed.

Well, if you understand how the pattern is formed and you can see how the angle of the outgoing beams is defined by the grating's spacing and the wavelength, then what's to explain? The grating spacing is known (because we make them with known spacings). The angles can be measured by finding out how far the beams spread when they reach a screen at a known distance. So we can calculate the wavelength.

To me, it sounds like you are not following it.

Hopefully Klaynos' explanation has helped. If there wasn't a series of peaks with the waves at fixed intervals there couldn't be a "wave length" OK, the waves travel on to the screen + form a dot of light there You might have realise that there are other lines (like the blue ones) that you can draw through the intersections of the circles.Here's a rough sketch. The purple lines represent the wave fronts of the beam of light that goes straight through the grating. The yellow lines represent those which are "bent" even more by the grating. And obviously, there are similar lines for light bent towards the top of the diagram. So the diffraction pattern is a series of spots centred on the "straight through" line. Does that make sense now?

The wavelength doesn't change when it goes through the grating. So the radii of the circles differ by exactly one wavelength. The light carries on following a line perpendicular to the blue lines i.e. in the direction of the red lines on the RHS of the diagram. After a while, they hit the screen.

It is relevant. You can see the blue lines on the right of the diagram which show where the green circles line up- they go through all the points where the peaks in the waves are (because they go through the points where the green circles overlap). The angle of those lines to the vertical depends on the size of the circles (the wavelength) and on the distance between their centres (the grating spacing). Do you see that?

Not nearly as often as those whose parents could afford better education. The idea of the "American dream" is just that- it's a dream. The real figures are more depressing. "One study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[18][16][25] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Popular_perception