MigL

Or, if you're a tyrant who doesn't want to leave Office, after being soundly defeated in a fair election, you may think you're justified to stage a treasonous violent coup on the Capital.

Naming conventions like technical/applied/engineering Physics are essentially engineering. As I like to tell the ring wearing engineers I work with ... "All those fancy equations you work with, for heat transfer, flows, stress/strain, etc., I once used to derive from first principles."

No. My original post stated it was an estimate.

Some didn’t vote. Some voted for 3rd parties. Some voted Trump. Some of Joe Biden’s voters weren’t democrats in the first place. Doesn’t matter. Just found your premise misguided. Really ? Voter Turnout in 2024: Democrats’ Low Enthusiasm Fueled Trump’s Win - WSJ Maybe in 2028 they will be outraged enough to be bothered to vote. This time a lot of them simply didn't care.

In 2020 Republicans got 73 Million votes and Democrats got 81 Million. In 2024 ( votes are still being counted so just estimates ) Republicans got 74 Million, or almost the same as 2020, but Democrats got 69 Million. Why did 14 Million Democrats fail to vote in this election ??? D Trump has been election campaigning for the last 4 years. K Harris started in the middle of August, a couple of months ago. And America would rather be run by an idiot than a competent woman. What other reasons for the loss do you need ...

I hope the 'checks and balances' are robust enough to last the 4 years.

Lies, about the economy, inflation, and other things like xenophobia and border issues. No. The lies are the same as 2016 and 2020. The difference is his opponent; he lost to a befuddled old man in 2020, but managed to beat two competent women in 2016 and 2024. When is the American population going to lose their fear of a female President ?

HEY ! WHAT ARE YOU AMERICAN MEMBERS DOING AT YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN ? GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR AND GO VOTE ! ( sorry for the yelling )

It seems the problem is easily recognizable, and has been known about. We have even discussed it on this forum. Up until a century ago, Physics was done by taking experimental evidence, and 'fitting' a theory to it. Sometimes things progressed smoothly, such as Faraday's work leading to Maxwell's, which ultimately led Einstein to SR and GR. And sometimes WAGs had to be resorted to when unsurmountable blocks were encountered, such as Plank's resolution of the UV catastrophe or deBroglie's wave nature of matter that allowed progress from the Bohr atom to the wave formulation of QM. But these were still easily verifiable with experiment. Since those times, theoretical Physics has vastly outpaced experimental Physics, maybe it's just more 'glamorous'. or , maybe the cost of the experimental work has sky-rocketed, I don't know, but the costs involved with LHCs, Space telescopes, LIGO, etc. that are needed to verify our theories will only grow, and the result is theory and experiment diverging even more. We have no way of testing theories involving String theory, or LQG for that matter, dark 'stuff', nor the interior of Black Holes or the universe before the recombination era, but we might someday, and it will necessitate a possible large 're-structuring' of the Physics we take for granted, as by then, theoretical work will have gone even further. So, while we all recognize the problem, no solution is forthcoming. Should we stop theoretical work until experiment catches up ? I don't think so. Who knows, some of these 'outlandish' theories, and their beautiful math, might be 're-purposed for more 'mundane' Physics.

There had been reports as far as 2-3 weeks ago that significant numbers ( up to 10% ) of life-long Republicans were abandoning the party. Not because the Harris campaign swayed them, but because of Trump's ineptitude, mean disparaging disposition, constant lies, and 'open mouth/insert foot' syndrome. This last week especially may have handed Kamala Harris the keys to the White House.

Who should have children? Anyone who wants that responsibility; children tend to make people better versions of themselves. Who should not have children? Mothers whose sons post inane topics on SFn, and whose name has 'FM' in it.

But the argument was specific to the proton, and its associated stability. Are ubstable neutrons not held together by those same gluons that 'represent the unbreakable SU(3) symmetry' ???

For several pages you've been making the argument that the proton is the fundamental SU(3) 'particle, because it doesn't decay, and associated 3rd law considerations. Then you make the jump to using the volume of the proton as the fundamental unit in the calculations. What thermodynamic considerations allow for a volume to be a fundamental unit ? Certainly not the same ones that allow fir a proton to be a fundamental unit. After all, other particles share a similar volume, and they are not fundamental as they decay. If you don't quit going round in circles attempting to explain yourself, you're going to get dizzy.

There are racist and sexist Democrats also; they are, after all, politicians and human. But the Republican leader, D Trump, has normalized such behavior, and so most Republicans express such behavior, and are not ashamed of openly doing so.

OK. Multiply the number of protons in the universe by 20 ( 5 % x20 = 100 % ) which gives 20 x 1080 , nowhere near 10123 though, is it ? You are actually using the VOLUME of the proton in your calculation. And still haven't justified its use.