Leaderboard

Dim - While your fortune cookie posts and novel views on questions are often fun, this might be a time where it's better to let a person familiar with the literature and process of vaccine-based immunity respond to the actual question asked in the OP Fairly sure a reference to "War of the Worlds" is not going to be helpful here, despite being interesting in its own right

Those who say deplatforming doesn't work and it instead only amplifies the public sentiment who are in favor of said persons being deplatformed, I would just like to point you to Alex Jones. A perfect example of how deplatforming someone does infact work. Since being deplatformed Jones has had a considerable drop in influence and money. Which I think is a good thing. Now the monopolistic practices that lead to the vast majority of public internet communications to be content controlled by a few companies is problematic. Also the undemocratic means in which this content is regulated and monetized is also problematic, but these I feel in order to prevent companies like twitter and facebook to be the arbiters of truth in social media, breaking them up by using existing anti-trust and anti-monopolistic laws is a better way to do that. I find many of the people who get upset that conservatives get banned from youtube and twitter are also the very same people who support politicians who allowed those companies to have so much power in the first place, and they don't care about the power dynamic instead they care about the fact those companies are attacking their politics. Typical "i dont' care about an issue until it personally affects me" conservatives and free marketeers. It is a weird dynamic seeing so many conservatives attack these companies disingenuously from the left, calling for them to be broken up. Especially Tucker Carlson types, Some don't remember his old days on crossfire, back then he was a 100 percent Greenspan marketeer, now hes some populist. Its also not in the pursuit of better working conditions for workers or fairer and equal pay, its about "I wanna be able to say what I wanna say to make money off people". BTW first post here in like better part of a decade so hello all lol.

This makes no sense, because gravity in General Relativity is not a force, and does not obey any kind of simple inverse square law. General Relativity is a model of gravity, it has nothing to say about the dynamics of electrons within atoms. Again, gravity is not a force - even though its description can be approximated by Newtonian mechanics in the weak-field, low velocity regime.

It’s an amplifier, not a root cause. Lies and disinformation and absurdities spread in nazi Germany, too... well before social media. Schwarzenegger put out a good video today speaking along these lines and how the siege on the capitol was like Kristallnacht. This is a much bigger conversation. The question is not if the law should change, but how. Here’s what protects them today: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

The tech industry is flexing its muscle. Facebook suspended Trumps account indefinitely. Twitter suspended him forever. Many of his cronies including Steve Bannon have had their YouTube accounts blocked. It’s similar to what they did to Alex Jones for spouting his conspiracy nonsense a few years ago. Along the same theme, Parler (the safe space to which all those living in Trumpistan and QAnon territory fled when they got tired of being challenged on their BS on other platforms) was removed by Google from the play store yesterday. Apple then also removed it from the App Store today. However, removing Parler from the stores just means new users can’t download it. Existing users who previously downloaded can keep using until the iOS is updated to a version beyond what the app is approved to support. So, it’s still out there circulating lies and disinformation and lathering up the lightly educated. That is, until tomorrow... Now Amazon who hosts Parler on AWS has given Parler 24-hour notice that it will be removed from their hosting servers tomorrow. It’s being taken out to the woodshed and shot. All of these things are happening because of the death threats and incitement to violence happening so consistently on Parler, due to the unsurprising predictable cesspool it’s become. The activities taking place there break the terms of service of all of the tech companies. What do you think about that? Is this an unacceptable obstacle to free speech? What happens when it’s less easy for those deepest in the Trump cult to no longer use widely available social media to align with the likeminded and to spread their nazi like messages? 8-Chan again? Back to AM radio, maybe? Does this just prompt them into the streets sooner with their loaded long guns aimed at their unsuspecting neighbors? Marching with torches screaming “Jews will not replace us?” Something else?

I'm not sure if D Trump was the useful idiot of the GOP, or if the GOP were D Trump's useful idiots. Those people in INow's photos are there for D Trump, not the GOP. If anything, he seems to have fractured the GOP into the group that wants to cut him loose ( including M McConnell now ), and those who cling to his coat tails in the faint hope of retaining power ( no matter how crazy, and illegal, he gets ). Maybe the Democrats should be thanking D Trump, he has exposed the craziness of the current GOP, and may well end up wrecking their current organization.

At first glance maybe, but it's clear that consumers simply need to put more dots on their phone to improve the protection. Also a couple on their hands, some on their ears, and perhaps dot a few other bits they'd like to keep from getting burnt or falling off. 🙄 I would pay for an app that tracked people around me who had these dots. Like Harry Potter's Maruader's Map, I could use it to avoid them (or seek them out if I have something to sell).

The moment may be past, but I rather liked the analogy that's doing the rounds. Imagine that Facebook is a Christen Bakery and Trump is a gay wedding cake.

Fundamentally being vaccinated only means that a person is exposed to an additional antigen (or set of antigens) compared to an unvaccinated persons. However, since everyone is exposed to many, many antigens every day day simply by eating or breathing, the overall immune system won't look fundamentally different. Likewise, an unvaccinated person can remain healthy, provided they never encounter the pathogen in question. But in return it means that a non-vaccinated person simply won't have antibodies to a disease and are susceptible to infection. There is no mechanism how a healthy lifestyle can prevent that. But the more people are around who are susceptible (e.g. not vaccinated) the less likely it is that you can keep away from folks might infect you. That is precisely what we see with measles and mumps and a few other diseases that were almost eradicated, but are now making a revival among unvaccinated communities. And no, drinking kelp won't save you. There have been a number of studies on vegans and if you look at some immune markers, either there is no difference to non-vegetarian diets in certain factors (e.g. natural killer cell ctyotoxic activity) or lower (e.g. lower leukocyte and lymphocyte counts) (Haddad et al. Am J Clin Nut 70:3 1999; . This is not necessarily a fundamental problem, but shows no indication of actually increasing the body's ability to deal with infections. They are likely better off than very unheathy folks (e.g. obese folks) but there is not benefit over non-vegetarian folks within healthy BMIs, for example. While it goes on a tangent, I should add that during pregnancies vegans have to monitor themselves more than usual with respect to micronutrient deficiency (see e.g. Sebastiani et al. Nutrients 2019 11:3 557 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11030557) However, I think there is fundamental flaw of that thinking, because a) vaccines are a targeted protection system but perhaps more importantly they are b) a means to maintain population health. You see, it is as at least much about as not infecting someone else and spreading the disease as it is to keep yourself healthy. Focusing exclusively on the health status of the (un)vaccinated is therefore missing at least half the picture. From the public health perspective, vaccinations do at least the following: - curb disease related effects (including mortality, death, loss of quality of life etc.) - maintain public health and reduce strain on the health care system (loss of work and hospitalization- the latter is one of the reason why COVID-19 mortality spikes in overstrained systems) - protect susceptible folks (e.g. folks with weak immune systems, undergoing chemo, elderly and kids, etc.) - reduce the risk of new strains (the more a disease circulates, the more likely it can acquire mutations against which vaccines might not work anymore, potentially happening right now with SARS-CoV-2). - have the potential to eradicate disease entirely. In other words, not vaccinating counters above effects.

This short video details the idea of a nuclear saltwater rocket. This rocket is pretty much a continuous nuclear explosion propelling the space craft. The vid is short and informative not to mention wild! Should development of such an engine be pursued?

Great vid. Thanks for sharing. Best bit- 12 mins in, talking about using reactor grade uranium to get to Alpha Centauri in 120 years. We could explore the whole solar system with an engine like that. Imagine waking up on a spaceship orbiting Jupiter, or Saturn, breathtaking. 🖖🏻

The thing that strikes me is that the right to vote is implied but not stated; the mention in Article I is the congressional powers, which is OK for the main part of the Constitution, since that's what it does (enumerated powers and limits on powers) but there is no mention in the Bill of Rights. It's only until we get to amendments that were added that we get the suggestion that voting is a right, and these only came about because the right was being denied to certain groups of people. Maybe what we need is a new amendment: The right of the people to vote shall not be infringed. Clear and to the point. Not that it wouldn't keep people from messing with it, but it would make it tougher

Einstein vacuum is a classical concept; a volume that is still permeated by fields, such as gravity ( or rather, its geometry ). Quantum 'foam' was a concept, or description if you will, of quantum fields at very small ( below Planck ) scales, by J A Wheeler, and, is attributable to the HUP, with 'stuff' chaotically popping in, and out, of existence. Not the same thing, or different hierarchy of description, but rather, different models.

If there was a law there was something and something to implement it, not nothing. I don't know why you state that "nothing" is an unstable condition. How could it be? This subject has strong implications for the theories of the beginnings of the Universe which is something of much interest in Physics' Science, don't you think so? I think is something with total compatibility between Philosophy's Logic and Physics' Science. It's not my aim to get away from anyone of them. Relativity and Quantum Physics are two main theories in Current Modern Physics which it is said are not totally compatible and efforts are being made to reconcile both. "Einstein vacuum" and "Quantum Foam" should be totally compatible ones but actually I don't know if there are uncompatible differences between them.

It only takes one unbounded dimension to have an infinite data set. Our universe appears to have at least four. The location of a single particle is not expressible as a finite size number. Try it. What is your absolute location (not relative to something that doesn't have its own known location)? True, but there is no evidence that space is either finite or discreet. Then it isn’t a Turing machine, which by definition cannot change itself. I’m just wondering why you’ve chosen a Turing machine. It’s only benefit is that it has no limit to its data set. No viable model of the universe expresses an initial state of a point. That’s kind of a pop-science naive view. You can double or square the size of a point all you want and it will remain a point. Likewise, you can double or square the size of a finite size thing all you want and it is going to remain finite in size. Yes, the initial state is expressed as a singularity, but a singularity is just a place where the normal laws of physics don’t apply. It doesn’t mean a point.

No science fascinates me more than Special and General Relativity and the mind that produced them. Thanks for the reference. On this score I have posed a question critical to my views: "OTOH, electric and magnetic fields are not the be-all-end-all of what can be in space. This summary of the preamble in the same post is the source of my contention with opinions on what is and what is not "Mainstream". Since no reply seems forthcoming, I will reply to the question posed: "Of interest is the relation between the permeability constant u0 (mu subscript 0) and the permittivity constant e0 (epsilon subscript 0): u0 = 1/e0.c^2.........................................................................................(i) e0 is the constant used in the force law relating to electric charges: F = 4.pi. e0.q1.q2/r^2 which bears a striking similarity to" F = G.m1.m2/r^2 and to which, in desperation Einstein applied a "cosmological constant" to account for the expanding universe (knowing nothing of antimatter yet except for the positron) only to recount his idea as so ad hoc as to call it his greatest blunder. We have done worse since to the nth degree. Maxwell recognised that the speed of light was a factor in much of his work. You will note that it is a part of equation (i) above. The mathematics for this relation is staggering. But to attempt to find a similar relation for G: G = f(c, e0)..................................................................................................(ii) would, by comparison, turn a "Theoretical Scientist" into a basket case, if it were only based in the General Relativistic effects of shell-electrons, much less the possibility of the nuclear relativistic electrons as well. If the derivation were achieved none the less, it would quantitatively resolve this issue with current Mainstream thought. I will submit an excerpt deriving and explaining relation (i) from my pre-matriculation textbook unedited for consideration here. We will thereby also evaluate the possibility that everything from the most miniscule meson to the bigest boson are entirely unnecessary to explain a great deal of phenomena. If so we can give the Nobel Prize to George Lucas and begin to wonder how One Force can create time, space and what will doubtless become perceived as a Universal status quo. I do not have the mathematical skill to do the derivations, nor the funding to test the implications for consistency with observed phenomena. But since the year 1969, when I read the attached text, I have been following evolving scientific thought and also evolving my own ideas on the Universe." The request has been ignored but is critical to the understanding of gravity as a force not dissimilar to magnetism but from General, not Special Relativity considerations. The explanation of Magnetic forces and the derivation of relation (i) above is in the PDF. Can anyone produce the analogous derivation for relation (ii) likewise. A hoard of physics postulates will receive an acid test with its implications. Refer to the attached PDF for relation (i). Magnetism.pdf

The definitive Einstein biography is 'Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein'. It is written by Abraham Pais, a Physicist, and friend of A Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtle_is_the_Lord As A Pais was a Physicist, before becoming a Science Historian, so the book does get quite mathematical at times. It is, however, very interesting, one of the best books I've ever read on the life and times of A Einstein, and it should convince you that E Hubble had no influence on the decision by Einstein to incorporate the Cosmological Constant into GR. ( maybe E Mach did; a little ). Beecee's account is more accurate. G Lemaitre proposed his Big Bang hypothesis after solving Einstein's non-static equations ( no CC ), after A Friedman solved them for an expanding universe. E Hubble had measured galactic ( actually nebulae, at the time ) recession speeds of 24 near galaxies in 1929, which turned out to be wrong by a factor of 7, because the zero-point calibration of the 'standard candle' used at the time.

I think it may be related to getting old, but what gets me is the lack of effort in many of these things. The lies (e.g. QAnon conspiracy) are so obviously absurd and made with no real effort. And conversely folks simply believe even the most absurd of claims without making the effort of double-checking. Trump rose to the top without really putting the works in and was even able to incite an attempted coup. And all without even trying or at least preparing a proper speech. Their whole effort of usurping the power was just lazy and cumulated in a press conference on the parking lot of a gardening centre. Yet folks that are so obviously inept and lazy obviously have no problem getting what they want and, even worse, get support from other folks. I really have trouble understanding that (and the world at large). To me, social media seems intrinsically connected to that, somehow. I am just not sure what is cause and what is effect.

Australia ???? All the original immigrants to Australia WERE criminals. It was a penal colony. Just kidding ! Good to talk to you again, Beecee.

How would we know? We'd all still be in Africa.

Where would countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA be without immigration?

"cruel and oppressive government or rule" Glad I could help...😁 I've heard the plan might be for the House to impeach Trump a second time, and that many in the GOP would be on board with that, as long as it is for inciting Wednesday's assault on the Capitol and not a baggage list of complaints. Also James Clyburn suggested that Pelosi might hang onto the impeachment for Biden's first 100 days in office, This seems like a good idea IMO. Let the new administration be about governing and enough about Trump, at least for now.

! Moderator Note I’m moving this to Speculations for now, as that is the correct forum section for personal theories. Why would accelerated expansion be an issue? It’s a natural geometric property of this type of spacetime, and thus fully consistent with the gravitational field equations. Gravity is a geometric property of spacetime; to be more exact, it is geodesic deviation, i.e. the failure of initially parallel geodesics to remain parallel. Using the mathematical tools of cosmology, it is possible to construct a universe that - starting from a Big Bang - first expands, then slows, stops, and re-contracts to end up in a Big Crunch again, only for the cycle to repeat over and over again. The problem is that this is not consistent with what we actually observe in the real world. We already have a very detailed model of (classical) gravity, being General Relativity, which works extremely well - what you seem to propose is not very consistent with what we already know about gravity.

Or one can ask the opposite question. Should we have a situation where much of not most of public discourse is owned and mediated by private companies?

All decisions made by private entities. Having free speech does not obligate others to provide you with a platform from which to express it.

One thing that has become apparent after watching the Capital be over run by insurgents seeking to tear down our government is that across this great land a great many towns and villages are missing their Idiots...

No one owes you a platform. HOWEVER. I do find it awfully suspicious that, over the years, the left has gradually shifted the goalposts from "not obligated to provide your ideas a platform" to "obligated NOT to." If the latter were their real opinions, why didn't they say so the first time?

This is morally unacceptable to society. The politicans that allowed a person to commit suicide must resign or, better, kill themself