EdEarl

I'd think it might create a short duration mini tornado along the shot path, with effects that would vary depending on the length of time the weapon is fired. A well placed quick shot might create a toroid shaped blast that could upend people; whereas, a longer duration might damage ground transport. To minimize "kickback" it might project twin tornadoes spinning in opposite directions.

Yes, I have been.

Two homeopathic remedies that work well are peppermint oil (a great decongestant), and oil of clove (a good analgesic for tooth ache). Some others exist, for example heroin. A predecessor of aspirin is powdered willow bark and leaves, and I believe some other modern medicines have their roots in homeopathy. A recent study found ground cumin helped people loose weight; perhaps another study will confirm that result. However, sometimes subsequent studies do not confirm. One must be careful, because unscrupulous venders abound.

Sorry, poor choice of words, should be, "their discovery or the fruits of their labor."

curiousone, why does the word philosophy disturb you? Rather than try to define science, my comment about it is, "The result of science is a library written by an army of curious, competitive, contentious people trying to understand the universe and its phenomena, i.e., nature. They all seek to convince everyone else their view of the nature is best, but only a few get the glory."

Read about the Buddha and Buddhism to learn how teachings of a man who does not claim to be a deity can become the foundation for religion; its long history of evolution is documented. Study the life of John Smith and the Mormon church; although, its history is short in comparison. You might look at Scientology, which has a very short. One might compare Hinduism, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and related groups to see the results of religious evolution; IDK how much of its history has been recorded. Of course, Christian history and its evolution have been recorded. Seems to me there are case histories for evolution of religion that are relevant to the discussion.

Reflection about Nazis should include an understanding that such events repeat because people tend to go along, rather than make waves, especially with an authority figure in the lead. There are more recent examples, including Jonestown and Jim Jones; fortunately, Jonestown didn't involve millions.

Opening some threads here remind me of being a child stepping through our church door, some remind me of reading One Flew over the Cockatoo's Nest, some are like school or university, some are like a bar fight, and a few are like a party of drunks arguing politics or other trivia.

Are you using visible to mean detectible, or visible as being able to see visible light that is red shifted, because red shift can make any wave length EMF, even gamma rays shift below visible light (i.e., C-10-googleplex); thus, making it impossible to see (i.e., not visible).

As speed approaches C, redshift of visible light becomes infra-red, then microwaves, then long waves, and at epsilon from C the wavelength approaches infinity and requires a ridiculously large antenna to receive. However, none of these waves are visible light.

Agree. Except, observers would see nothing as speed approaches SOL because red shift would make them invisible, and at extra SOL light waves could never reach an observer. This exercise in logic of the absurd suggests logic and time are not "connected."

IDK mathematical rigor, but logic is reasoning about things and processes in space time. I wouldn't say logic and time are identical.

I think the strongest evidence against time running backward is that time slows down as ones speed gets closer and closer to the speed of light, which implies that time stands still for things going the speed of light. Hence, if something could go faster than the speed of light, time might run backward. However, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Entropy increases, with local temporary exceptions, which requires time to increase. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time) Since we live in a four dimensional world, x,y,z and time, we are constrained to therein, which is why our thought processes and logic are ordered by time, IMO.

Snow! It hasn't snowed here since IIRC 1985. It's a nice spring day here, except its January. I'll let you work with direct.dude; I'm impatient.

OK, it is literally defined as a "Direct current (DC) is the unidirectional flow of electric charge." (Wikipedia) To achieve such a flow one needs an EMF source, such as a battery, with a + and - end, which one can connect with a single wire to each end and cause a short circuit. Otherwise, you must have two wires to connect to a load, such as a light bulb or motor. That different sources, e.g., +15, -15, +6, etc., can share a common ground doesn't change the fact that each source has a + and -; the flow of each one requires two wires to connect to a load. Direct.Dude's diagram showed a square wave, unlabeled, with words that said one phase changes from negative to positive (AC because current direction changes as EMF changes from negative to positive), and second square wave changing from positive to negative (also AC). If the square waves did not change polarity, the Fourier analysis of the wave form would be a DC EMF plus various AC harmonics added to the DC. Thus, while the definition of DC allows varying DC, such signals are a combination of AC harmonics and a constant DC EMF. This analysis is necessary to understand how transformers affect 60Hz square waves, according to the OP, quoted below. IIRC transformers work best for one frequency of sine wave, and less well for other frequencies. Since a square wave contains many frequencies, it is distorted by a transformer, which means energy is lost heating the transformer.

DC is defined as a two wire system with one plus and one minus. Your diagram shows the voltage changing from plus to minus and minus to plus, which means it is an AC system, except a square wave instead of a sine wave. Square waves are very inefficient when put through a transformer, with output no longer being a true square wave and the transformer heat up as a result.

I should have mentioned that a copyright does not protect an idea, which is the purpose of a patent. On the other hand, patents are expensive, and copyrights are not. If one does not advertise their copyright, the probability of it being read is small and that secrecy gives protection. On the other hand, if the idea has commercial value, one should get a patent.

For a small fee you can register a copyright with the Library of Congress. Whatever you write becomes public because anyone can request a document or copy of a document, including yours, but the probability of it being read is low. However, it establishes a date for your idea and assures you get credit.

People are survivors, including children. Protecting children is part or our DNA, a good thing, which sometimes mean we overprotect. It's not a reason to beat ourselves up. Sooner or later our children tell us when to stop. I think parenting is similar in all cultures, especially when children have internet access. Even abused children can become good adults; learning a culture should not be as traumatic or difficult.

My mistake there are no anti-breast-feeding laws on the books.

People funny. Before formula was mass marketed and sold as "better than mom's milk, mother or nursemaid fed babies, sometimes in public, which might be why there are existing anti-brest-feeding laws on the books. It should be moms choice, and those opposed need to get their minds out of the gutter. A mom feeding her baby is not going to destroy our culture.

To me it is a complex issue, and I don't think I am alone. At the moment, I believe politicians who deny climate change are either delusional or liars. People they influence to believe climate change is not occurring are also delusional, but they would think I am delusional. Who is right, and who decides? Trying to live a good life requires complex decisions, with appealing sound bytes trying to win sway people to some position. Trying to understand which sound byte is reasonable is not always clear. I think rational behavior is the antitheses of delusional behavior. I don't know how to answer your question.

I think many, perhaps most people, live with some delusions or mistaken ideas, and at the same time have some realistic ideas. To diagnose someone as delusional, doctors should consider whether the person might be harmful to themselves or others. It is, however, a subjective assessment and mistakes will occur. The law waits until someone commits a crime, perhaps diagnosing someone as delusional should await their doing something illegal or clearly irrational and at least potentially dangerous.

We can only hope that we have done well rearing our children, and when they see something illegal or immoral they will be alright. Sometimes we have no control.

I imagined driving with my family by a city park in which exhibitionists are coupling, and my kids seeing it. What would I do to assure my kids were not distressed. I'm not in any way promoting any exhibitionism. But, one never knows what they or their family may see, and one must deal with it.