No, to orbit the earth at an height of let’s say 1000 km you would need a speed of around 7km/s. If you go faster, you don’t follow an circular orbit. Wirh around 11km/s you would be so fast to leave the gravity well of earth. The particles in those colliders are almost moving at the speed of light. To be exact, they move only 3.1m/s slower than the speed of light, so almost 300000km/s. They would fly almost straight and would be barely influenced by the gravity well.

In my opinion this is a bit of a narrow view. It definitely holds true for many Christians. But I think some religions like Buddhism may actually help you find a way without guard rails.

I think your post is exactly what is criticized by OP. In the first part of the post it is explicitly stated men should not talk over the fear of women. A message like yours seems to blame people just because they criticize the way of discussion in some places. I think it is obvious that men are influenced in a possible negative way, when they are always seen as danger. At least for me it probably contributed to my low self esteem, especially in all sex/gender related topics. I think, we as men do so much harm, I don’t want to take part in this. But i took it to the extreme, so I was ashamed of everything sexual about me. But as OP said, all of this doesn’t invalidate the feeling of any woman. But for example this situation here is not governed by fear, still it seems you can’t discuss the social effects of this sentiment “against” man, without discrediting the other side. Sure, violence done mainly to women is the most important topic. But if men always get portrayed as danger, I can understand some are open to other, more misogynist worldviews.

Yes. One place in space has different temperatures. I would assume even individual particles are not distributed by a Maxwell distribution, so the concept of temperature is hard to apply. The background radiation has one temperature. If you add the sun, however, you already have a problem as the sun radiation is not in thermal equilibrium. So depending on how you look at it, you get different temperatures. The particles have a high energy, so also a high temperature. But they are so rare, that radiation is the dominant mode of heat transfer and determines the temperature of a thermometer placed in space.

I think it is actually the other way around. You can consider the air inside the balloon to have internal energy from the heat. And additionally you have to make room for the balloon in the atmosphere, so you have removed the atmosphere from the volume the balloon takes, which also needs energy. If you consider both you arrive at the concept of enthalpy (H = U + pV), which is very useful for reactions in the atmosphere as pressure is constant. For this example it is not that useful as outside pressure changes when the balloon rises.

Another way to see it, the pressure has no “real” energy. In a ideal gas, the only energy comes from the kinetic or movement energy of the atoms. Each time a gas molecule is hits the balloon envelope it transfers some momentum. The cumulative effect of the constant collisions is the pressure of the gas. If the balloon is now expanding slowly, each collisions also tranfers some energy, in sum building the work the system has to do to the atmosphere. Leading to a decrease in internal, so “real” energy in the balloon. This corresponds to a decrease in temperature.

The stratosphere is heated not by the ground but directly from solar radiation leading to higher power input at the upper layers. So the top is hotter and now convection never starts and you get no cooling of the air when rising.

While I agree in general, one point is a bit to simplified in my opinion

In other words, there are fewer air molecules per cubic foot (volume of air). The molecules are farther apart and can hold less heat energy. Because “heat” is what we say when we mean molecules are moving around.

Less molecules mean less heat, it has nothing to do with the temperature, if you just decrease the density by removing half the molecules, you have the same temperature.

It cools down because it expands adiabatically. Consider a very thin balloon filled with air which is warmer than the surrounding. This now rises up, but as it does, the pressure decreases, causing the balloon to expand. During this expansion, the balloon transfers energy away from itself, because it has to push away air, to make room for expanding in the surrounding. This work cools the air inside the balloon. Assuming the air inside is dry, it would cool around 10 °C per km it rises. Now if you think about it, the balloon just stopped the inside from mixing with the outside. If you look at a large “piece” of air, it does not mix very fast, so you can remove the balloon and just consider what happens with warm air heated from the ground.

Now this does not mean, it has to be cooler when higher up. The same points hold, inside a house, but there it is often warmer when higher.

The best explaination is when looking where the heat comes from and goes too from the air. The atmosphere is mostly heated from the surface of earth, so the bottom and cooled from the upper layers. So naturally it gets hotter where it is heated. The question is now by how much? There are three modes of heat transfer in the atmosphere: radiation, conduction and convection. The first two are very slow. Connection is fast but has limits. Consider the piece of air, if it rises, it cools. So at some place it may be the same temperature as the surrounding air, so it stops rising. This means the convection works only when the air gets cooler by 10 °C/km going up (~6.5°C when the air is moist and precipation happens). So this temperature gradient is observable very often.

I cannot recommend mindfulness enough, as already suggested by many others in this thread.

I think, you said you are already in therapy? In this case, I would definitely talk with your therapist about this and things you want to adopt beforehand. If you want a simple concrete tip, you could try the “mindfulness coach” by the US department of veteran affairs. I liked it a lot and the apps from there get good privacy recommendations from mozilla.

I am a bit suprised by the many people recommending to just stop giving fucks. Is this what you really want? Or do you just want avoid the emotions of taking control?

You do not need to be that hard to yourself when your feeling “wrong”. Yes it is probably better for yourself if you don’t overreact. However you cannot really cotntrol your feelings. So it is still better to accept your anger. First, as you said, it drives up the frustration, because now you are also worried about your feelings. And second your original emotion wants to be “noticed”. I read and experienced a few times myself, the “wrong” emotion disappears often quickly when you accept it. It is an essential concept of mindfulness, to accept your emotions.

Edit: As far as i understand it and experienced it, saying to yourself “no i shouldn’t be angry about this” won’t change your thinking

I think I understand you. I also think there are needs for extreme emotional response. However, I would be interested how often they helped you in, and how often the only effect of these was making you feeling worse?

I did some therapy in this direction. And I am generally more content. I can enjoy way more time of my life than a year ago, even in similar situations.
But if we talk about the status of the world, I am at least as angry and sad as before. And I also do at least as much to change it as before. Which, to be honest, is not as much as I would like.

Edit: I think I can actually experience emotions more intense now, while not being overwhelmed by them.

I want to thank you for your messages here. I agree with promethil that you need to consoder yourself, i think texts like yours can do quite something good. Sure you won’t heal someone with a few messages. However, I was brought to a mindfulness training* mostly by a reddit chain of comments and this helped me, along other things, a lot, getting out of difficult times.

*An app called “Mindfulness Coach” by the US Department of Veterans Affairs

I understand your point, and I also think a bit in this direction. But i think there may be two counterpoints.

First you beeing depressed over the status and worrying at home and online about it, is not really helping your or doing anything against your boss.

Second, as i understand it, the goal is not to get really content, but to get more control over your feelings. It is perfectly fine if zou feel sad or angry over the situation. It shows you what you want or do not want. But this doesn’t need to control your life. If you have the possibility you should definitely use your anger to give you energy for the fight for better working conditions. But if you can not, you should your feelings taking complete control over you

As far is i understand it, yes this is the point of therapy. I mean which problem could your therapist really solve? The can’t tell you what to do to get for example a better job.
They can help you to find the root cause of your problems and may help you find a way to solve them. However, as you said, many of the problems can’t be solved by oneself. But is it useful to be in depression over this? I don’t think so. Is it useful to be sad or angry about this? Yes, i do think so. In principle this feeling shows you, that there is a problem. This anger may help you in some situations to get what you want. I do not think therapists want you to do away with the feelings. But where they want and can help you, is that these feelings do not take full control over your thinking. For example, when you a lie in bed, these feelings do nothing good.

A calorie is not a metric unit but the joule is, 1 calorie is approximately 4.2 joule. A gram of hydrogen does not exactly have 1 mole of particles. The historical definition for the mole was the count of atoms in 12 grams of the ¹²C carbon isotope, which is slightly different.

I don’t know your exact experiences, but I had a similar feeling in the past. However, recently I noticed it was a lot of how i behaved to them. I started speaking more openly with my male friends and noticed, they also value my emotions. The main difference was, that my friendships with women started on an emotional level making it a lot easier to open up for me. With my male friends, I needed to just say how i feel, which i have not dared for a long time. My own stereotypes probably played a larger role than the gender of the people involved.

However as others have said, if they do not take you seriously when you open up, they are bad friends. (Edit: Bad friends is a bit harsh, more like friends for having fun together, not to rely on. This is also nice even if it can be hard to accept)

Don’t be so pessimistic about it, i thought as you do. However, if you meet a person fitting to you, it is of no importance that you have no experience. I had my first date recently, probably ten years later than most. While i was embarrassed, it was no problem for her and she was very considerate to me.