You’re still viewing it from today’s perspective. We distinguish natural philosophy from chemistry, physics, etc. - they did not.

They did however call natural philosophy “Physics”. From their perspective all our fields fit under physics, except for applied science which fits under crafting (as natural philosophy devalued empiricism).

The Greek very much had a concept of Physics.

The word physics comes from the Latin physica (‘study of nature’), which itself is a borrowing of the Greek φυσική (phusikḗ ‘natural science’), a term derived from φύσις (phúsis ‘origin, nature, property’) (Wikipedia)

Also note that Aristotelian physics was the dominant paradigm in Europe almost until Newton.

There’s an argument to be had that engineering didn’t exist as a science until recently. Several of the more famous engineering treatises name it as crafting.

That’s very revisionist of you.

What we call physics today wouldn’t qualify as physics in Ancient Greece, where they described how the world actually works, and not bothering with this empiricism nonsense.

There are plenty of textbooks of physics before then, even predating Greece. Waterworks, astronomy, ship building, architecture, war machines, not to mention metaphysics, alchemy, atomic theory, etc.

We didn’t have a rigorous scientific method until thereabouts though.

You can say stupid on Lemmy

Yes, let’s go back to the company who’d sack me and loads of my colleagues on the whim that an untested notion of a tool might work.

I’m sure they’ll value me this time

What’s brown and sticky?

A stick

deleted by creator

“You are what you eat” the Blue Fairy’s wisdom echoed, as Pinocchios gaze turned towards the elementary school.

Haha, I like your funny words magic man

deleted by creator

What is pcmusic? Chiptunes?

deleted by creator

Sexuality is often treated as more complex a topic than emotions, but I found a similar meta-study The role of conditioning, learning and dopamine in sexual behavior: A narrative review of animal and human studies, 2014 concluding that conditioning and associative learning does occur around sexuality and can be used as basis for treatment.

From other sources I’ve read, there’s so many influences going into sexuality that it’s impossible to see how it develops, but from a layman’s perspective I’d agree that not reinforcing child abuse probably makes it more rare.

My remaining issue is that with such a simplistic view, any non-normative sexuality can/should be conditioned away. We already have the abusive gay conversion camps, should we go back to do the same with polygamy, bdsm, porn? How much should fashion dictate what sexuality is allowed?

(Roman style orgies seem to have faded in popularity, but tantra and swinging seems to have risen lately, which should we be conditioning away? Who decides?)

Nuanced take coming, take a breath:

I agree that Child Sexual Abuse is a horrible practice along with all other violence and oppression, sexual or not. But the attraction de facto exists and has done for thousands of years, even through intense taboos. It seems our current strategy of shaming and ignoring it has been ineffective. The definition of insanity being repeating the same thing expecting different results and all that.

Short of eugenics (and from previous trials maybe not even then) we might not be able to get rid of it.

So when do we try other ways of dealing with it?

I’m not saying generative AI is the solution, but I’m pretty sure denying harder isn’t it.

This worked, thank you.

Article only says doubly efficient, and H2 to He3 reaction.

To get to .9c we still need a couple million kg of fuel.

Even .1c needs about 40 000 kg of fuel, which is doable, but probably unfeasible.

Still blocked, but thank you

Article is capped at 18 views/day so can’t see numbers.

But theoretical cap of energy would be something like E_kin = (\gamma -1)mc². Without knowing anything about the mission or engine, a 50 kg probe at a velocity of .9 c means an energy requirement of about 1,0e19 J.

Fusion of H2 to H3 yields about 340e9 J/g meaning we need about 3 million kg of fuel at 100% conversion rate, or a third if we manage He3 reaction.

Realistically heating, engine efficiency, deceleration, vibrational damping and such would probably lower efficiency to at most 40% and we end up at 8 million kg of fuel to propel a 50 kg payload (not counting the fuel mass).

Seems unfeasible.

Edit as @[email protected] kindly provided an alternative link.

Article only says doubly efficient, and H2 to He3 reaction.

To get to .9c we still need a couple million kg of fuel.

Even .1c needs about 40 000 kg of fuel, which is doable, but probably unfeasible.

0,05c should be in kgs range, and is probably plenty (100 km/s).

This is actually hilarious. It’s an absurdist parody on a parody of absurdism.

Which makes it meta-absurd 🤣

Died and often killed, don’t forget that demonstrations are the compromise for a civil discourse. When not being treated civilly, it quickly becomes a mob and the lynching begins.