MigL

Before asserting any similarity, analogy or correspondence between things like radius and velocity, or direction and Planck's Constant, why not do a simple dimensional analysis ? It will save you some embarrassment.

All J Biden needs now, is for the count to almost finish in Nevada, and he'll be able to claim victory. Even without waiting for Pennsylvania.

I'm afraid you're still not getting the concept of electron spin. The electron is fundamental, so it is not made up of any constituents, nor does it have a radius ( considered a point particle ). You cannot identify a certain constituent and see it move around the electron, nor can you mark a point on its surface and see it spin around, as it has no surface. You may ask, then, how do we know it has 'spin' and what, exactly is meant by the term ? Now for a macroscopic object, like a spinning top, its angular momentum imparts a certain stability to it, such that the spinning top will not fall over in a gravitational field, but will 'wobble' and right itself. IOW, it demonstrates certain properties in that gravitational field. Similarly, an electron, without what we would normally consider spin, but with angular momentum, if placed in a magnetic field, will act like the spinning top in a gravitational field. But since we can't actually decide how it is spinning, we say it has 'intrinsic' angular momentum. Spin directions are then assigned depending on the behaviour demonstrated in that magnetic field. But again, nothing is actually/physically spinning.

Don't count those chickens yet guys; there are still three eggs to hatch. J Biden is currently sitting at 238 electoral votes. he'll get 16 more from Nevada and Wisconsin, as expected. And Michigan has just switched to a Biden lead with 94% of votes tallied. If he takes Michigan's 16 votes, that would put him at 270 with a win. And he wouldn't have to wait a week, for the Pennsylvania votes to be counted. I am rather disappointed with the results so far. Most Americans don't even realize their democracy is at stake. Even if D Trump loses, and we are spared four more years of marching towards a dictatorship, this close result will only embolden more whack-jobs , and Republicans with more money than brains or heart, to run for the office, and possibly win.

And NO2 is not a nitrogen atmosphere. The Hydrogen is still burning with the Oxygen in the NO2. A lot of the transition metals will burn in a nitrogen atmosphere to form nitrides. I remember being very surprised to learn this about Titanium in 1976/7 , when I last took Chemistry ( Gr 13 ).

Not sure that's actually true, but haven't really investigated. Although the wings provide enough downforce for the cars to corner at >>1g. Every year new rules are introduced to keep F1 cars from going too fast, and control of bottom airflow is one way. ( I still remember when the wood plank bottoms were introduced for that reason ) The last race car which actually produced a vacuum underneath, courtesy of 2 rear fans and lexan skirts was the Chaparral 2J. It competed in the Can-Am series for one season, where its ability to produce 1.5 g downforce allowed it to totally dominate in 1970. For that reason it was outlawed in subsequent seasons. Edit Apparently true; looked it up. They can produce 1 g of downforce at speeds as low ass 150 km/hr. And much greater at higher speeds.

OK Moon. Election songs.

Speaking of rallies ... D Trump, J Biden and K Harris have been criss-crossing and stumping in all the swing states, in last minute attempts to lean them in their own favor. M Pence, meanwhile, has been conspicuously invisible in news coverage. There had been a Covid outbreak among his office staff. Has he maybe contracted the virus, and the Trump team is keeping it under wraps so as not to make public perception worse with regard to their handling of the pandemic ?

There is no axis as the electron is considered a 'point' particle. At 3600 it changes sign, so it must go a further 3600 ( 7200 total ) to get back to its original starting point.

We agree that it isn't scientific. Relativity allows for certain effects, but they seem to be un-physical. FTL motion, whether through wormholes, warp drives, or magic, allows for the superluminal transfer of information. ( in my example, reading Earth's history of the last 100 years, before seeing it unfold ) This causality break is un-physical. Pointing out the un-scientific and un-physical effects ( time travel ) of an un-physical initial cause ( FTL travel ) is kind of redundant. If I said that a massive object travelling at the speed of light has infinite energy, would you say that it's impossible for anything to have infinite energy ? Or would you realize that an impossible cause leads to an impossible effect, and it is the travel at c that is impossible ?

What would be the point of discussing national Coronavirus successes and failures, without identifying causes and responsibilities, Dim ? x-posted with Area54

and I could have worded that better, JC, but very well, I'll describe a situation, and then you and md can try and rationalize it. You guys are both aliens on a planet P, 100 LY away, looking at the Earth through a powerful telescope. You see the Earth of 1920 through that telescope. You step through a 'wormhole, where time is local at both ends, and instantly come to Earth. On Earth, you read a History book that outlines the rise of A Hitler, WW2, the rise of Communism, the Korean and Vietnam wars and the election of a game show host to the US Presidency; then you step back through the wormhole and instantaneously go back to planet P. You look through your telescope at the Earth again, and, for the next hundred years, you see the rise of A Hitler, WW2, the rise of Communism, the Korean and Vietnam wars and the election of a game show host to the US Presidency. What are you seeing ?

Most phonograph needles scratch the vinyl as they play. This microscopic vinyl dust is detected by your gas meter, which has a particulate detector, so it should be easy to check. The freshly scratched, sub-surface vinyl might off-gas more than older ,surface vinyl. If you are worried about it, you could always switch to CDs, and use a pre-amp/amp with more aggressive hi/low filtering, giving a more 'rounded' frequency response, for that 'warmer' vinyl sound. Also, as technology improves, we can detect contaminants, not in PpM, but in PpB, or even better. However, just because we can measure it, doesn't necessarily mean it can affect us.

It has nothing to do with 'spinning' the death toll, JC. His policies, such as pressuring State Governors to re-open, and lack of policies, such as not making medical supplies available to certain States, have led to the situation in the US. Canadians and Americans are generally very similar, and our own response has been far from perfect. Yet Canada, with 1/10 of the American population, has 42x less infections. And 23x less deaths

And a 'wormhole, or any other means of FTL motion ( however improbable, just for discussion sake ) allows you to break causality. IOW 'see' things before they 'happen'. You are trying to apply physical rules to an un-physical ( FTL travel ) situation. I'm only telling you what that un-physical situation seems to imply.

Stop it, Joigus. You're making me blush .

The two ends of the wormhole would be local. Looking through a telescope 'sees' 4.3 years in the past. Looking ( and travelling ) through the wormhole 'sees' local ( don't want to say 'now' ) time.

This relates also to our other discussion regarding wormholes. All spatial points are separated by time also; the person next to you ( assuming social distancing ) is about 6.6 ns in the past. If you travel 'faster than light' through those two meters, you travel faster than causality, and are in effect travelling into the 'future'. ( to be clear, the 'future' of the person standing 2 m away from you, not your own 'future' ) The effect is more clear if you draw light cones.

Also competed in the Mr Universe bodybuilding contest in 1953 He was no competition for the much bulkier Americans.

Yet, still my favorite. My profile says 'Glorious Leader', but it used to say 'Scientist'. Can I still call myself a scientist ???

It is not the atomic element, but the intermolecular bonds that resonate ( stretch/vibrate/bend ) at radio and microwave frequencies.

Science is by definition, repeatable. Emotional responses don't allow for that. But I agree that the term 'scientist' is nebulous at best. Another example … Is someone who tries to expand our knowledge, either through experiment or theory, using the scientific method, but doesn't actually accomplish anything a 'scientist ' ? ( see A Einstein in his later years, working on a unified field theory; would anyone say he wasn't a scientist ? )

Mostly because they have to deal with people's 'emotions', to which the scientific method cannot be applied. Besides, if I use my definition, I can call myself a 'scientist'.

Well ...yes. Assuming such things as wormholes exist, while their associated problems do not … You travelled 4.3 LY in a short period of time, so you obviously went superluminal. But that planet ( in orbit around Alpha Centauri ) is not the same one you were looking at from Earth. On Earth you were seeing the light that left it 4.3 years ago; so you essentially travelled 4.3 Years into the 'future. Remember that the speed of light determines causality. It might be better explained from the opposing PoV. Say you are on a planet 100LY away. You look at the Earth through a powerful telescope, and see people dying from a pandemic called the Spanish Flu. You step through your wormhole, and get here instantly. But it is now 100 years later on Earth, and people are dying from a pandemic called Covid 19. You have effectively travelled 100 years into the future. And stepping through the wormhole again to go home, you will be back on that 100 LY distant planet, and 'see' Earth again ( through the telescope ) in the year 1919; you have effectively travelled back into the 'past'. You will see WW2 unfold, the Korean and Vietnam war, and eventually, in 100 years, you'll see Covid 19 arrive.

I prefer to think a scientist is anyone who thinks like a scientist. And since that's circular, I'll re-phrase to someone who uses the scientific method to solve problems. Is someone who gets his MSc, but decides to just teach ( without doing original research ) accepted and well-understood science to kids, not a scientist because he/she doesn't contribute to increasing our understanding ? Is an engineer who applies known science, and doesn't contribute to increasing our understanding, not a scientist ?