In German, we have “Wenn Fliegen hinter Fliegen fliegen, fliegen Fliegen Fliegen nach”. Notice that all nouns are capitalized in German.

Just to add some formality to this, the original commenter might want to look up the shell theorem for classical mechanics and Birkhoff’s theorem for general relativity.

Yeah, quantum mechanics lingo: measurement = interaction

Actually a good point, tho. And also a good thought: If there is no special direction, what would be up? And that’s where quantum mechanics gets even weirder: It’s either up or down in the direction you measure.

The technical term you’re looking for is “almost all” prime numbers. Not joking btw.

I had to derive osmotic pressure for my statistical mechanics exam in my bachelor’s. So in what sense don’t we know?

At least cosmology does use some serious quantum physics, even quantum field theory. Source: took 1 year of theoretical cosmology lectures.

They weren’t talking about radioactive decay, electrons are stable. They were talking about electrically charged particles emitting electromagnetic radiation when accelerated. (Circular movement is accelerated, see centripetal force) Since they use energy for this, they would very quickly fall into the nucleus (if I remember correctly, in around 10^-14 s).

Bodies with mass also emit gravitational waves when accelerated, but much less.

No, their point is about people thinking all people of a group have a characteristic because some of them do.

I’m not trying to argue approximations. Physics is just approximations all the way down. But as a physicist, I also love arguing about technicalities, and that’s also kinda the point of science communities for me.

But the point of general relativity is that a free-floating observer is equivalent to an observer in free space. That means that falling due to gravity, which you call a force, is an unaccelerated movement, i.e. no force.

In our current understanding of physics, it’s an effect from the curvature of space and not a force. Quantizing gravity results in unphysical divergences. Whether there will be a way to model gravity as an exchange of particles, we can’t know for sure. So according to our current knowledge, it’s not a force.

Gravity isn’t a force tho…

The only thing I quickly found is this paper, which says that learning multiple things is not better nor worse than one thing at a time, but it also states in the abstract that cognitive psychologists believed up to that point that mixing multiple topics is beneficial.

That is actually not backed by science. Mixing material is a lot more effective than focusing on one thing.

Well, when you get to Lie groups, it gets a lot harder. But generally I agree, nonrelativistic quantum mechanics is mathematically not that hard.

So in Germany, only medical doctors are allowed to prescribe medicine, and therapists are not doctors, but psychologists. Medicine against psychological issues are prescribed by psychiatrists (Psychiater), who are doctors focused on psychology. As far as I know, you are usually referred to a psychiatrist by a therapist, but I’m not sure on that point.

Well, you can describe a circle with a single function if you look at a function R -> R^2. But a circle can’t be the graph of a single function.

There’s also WYGIWYW (“What You Get Is What You Want”) and is primarily used for latex, because you give up some manual control for a (allegedly) better looking result.

USB plugs are spinors: They need a 4π rotation until they reach their initial orientation.