Leaderboard

The fact that you linked that article shows the limited understanding on the subject and/or highly selective reading without making an effort to understand the concepts. First of all, the subject of the paper are highly deadly viruses. I.e. those that have a limited spread due to high lethality. Here, the risk is that vaccines can suppress symptoms but may still allow spread, which otherwise would not happened as the host would die beforehand. However, neither is true for SARS-CoV-2. This virus is highly capable of spreading and its lethality is not high enough to kill the host before they are able to infect more people. This is why we ultimately have so many more deaths compared to SARS or MERS outbreaks (and also while the 2009 swine flu pandemic also killed more than either of those more lethal diseases). In addition emerging data, especially in Israel has shown that a national vaccination plan not only reduces hospitalizations (i.e. severe symptoms) but apparently also reduces spread among the unvaccinated population. As MigL pointed out, this indicates that the titer is reduced sufficiently to also reduce the risk of spread. In other words, none of the requirements for the effects indicated in the articles are met SARS-CoV-2 and vaccination is the best way forward to keep folks alive (as apparently we are largely uncapable of restricting spread via behavioural measures). Your continuous spread of misinformation, on the other hand, could cost live. And as we have seen in broader context, such insistent spread of inane falsehoods regarding this pandemic actually has cost us at least hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Edit: cross-posted with iNow and Sensei.

Let me get the full import of that... OK, special requires special. OK. (I'm a little obtuse, you know.) I don't know, but it just so happens that whenever you don't quote a paper, you sound pretty dumb. No, I just expected you not to make such sweeping statements as, That, if taken seriously, can put people's lives at risk. You've just crossed the line between being just dumb and being dumb and dangerous. Some people may even think that you know what you're talking about.

I probably align with both those conditions, thankfully I don't align with your condition.

The most laughable part is that your citations don’t even support your claims. The second most laughable part is that your bad faith argumentation means we won’t have you here wasting our time much longer.

I'm sure you have some unevidenced position that lets you define "this" in a way that's only meaningful to you. Your statement has no reasoning behind it, it's vague and retaliatory, and just like conspiracy arguments, it has no evidence to lend it credibility. Or were you waving your hands goodbye?

Oh, so any realistic wormhole would curve spacetime around the entrances, and with the Earth being nearby there would be gravitational time dilation for the entirety of the rocket's trips through space. I can see how that could change the answers of who ages more. I'd assumed no gravitational effects since none were specified. I effectively described an unrealistic wormhole, but I think it still works on paper. I didn't do it that way. You're using SR to try to calculate the time dilation while traversing the wormhole, but the description of the wormhole gives you that information. I'd say that B's velocity is constant relative to A the entire time, but there is a discontinuity in its location. However since location doesn't show up in that formula, it makes no difference. I don't think that B is actually travelling faster than anything by using the wormhole, it is merely travelling a shorter distance. But I see what you mean, that was your answer! Yes, I agree it doesn't work to treat the travel through the wormhole as a really fast travel through the space between the mouths. It would have to be a path through a different part of spacetime.

Oh, OK, that's a pity. But surely someone must give you feedback, or how do you know what needs attention? But if you have no feedback then, if I were you, I would choose a couple of topics where I know I am not very strong, and maybe a couple of topics that really interest me, where I can go further, perhaps beyond the course syllabus, out of interest. It's important to find things that interest you in school work, rather than just being a slave to the exam machine. It's one way to help decide you what to study at university.

! Moderator Note This kind of waving-hands bullshit doesn't fly here. You've made multiple extraordinary claims with no intention of backing any of them up (not like you really could, since so many are incorrect) even after being told to do so or be in violation of our rules. We don't skimp on rigor in discussion here, and your style of making unevidenced claims as an argument against current mainstream explanations simply isn't worth the time it takes to respond to you. Nobody is learning anything from your posts except the bizarre things you believe. Evidence is the key here; if you post again on this forum, please use some to support your statements. Any more of this style will be fodder for the Trash Can. Thread closed.

Ask your teachers. They should know the topics on which you are strong and those on which you are weak. Also, with a mathematical subject like physics, it is worth getting some practice at solving problems. If you are like my son, you may understand the topics and know the equations but not be very good at answering problems involving unfamiliar scenarios, or requiring multiple steps. A bit of practice can give you more confidence. Avoid a scattergun approach. Decide on a small handful of things to work on and do those, until you feel you have made tangible progress. Good luck.

Study things that are interestig to you.. Alternatively, study your school textbooks in advance before teacher tells you chapters to read. You will get good grades, when class will go through materal that you know already, and will have more time to learn new chapters in advance, again. Study computers science and programming. The all modern quantum physicists have to know how to program computers to be able to analyse large amount of data from sensors and devices.

No It "breaks down" with a half life of 14,500,000,000 years. No, it doesn't. No, it couldn't, unless those experiments were in a nuclear reactor. A long half life means that it is LESS hazardous. But since they aren't actually produced, it doesn't matter much. That's not true. Mixtures have reduced melting points. However the solubility of thoria in tungsten is so low that the effect will be small. No. The point of adding it is to reduce the electron work function which makes it easier to sustain an arc. Finally, a valid observation. That strongly suggests that you got somewhere near 6000oF You could have saved a lot of trouble by saying that earlier. You still failed to answer the bit about gravity. We will all just assume you made it up. Now, speaking of arcs, why did you try to post the nonsense about Anode Rectified Cathode, when you know that it is wrong, and have known that since it was pointed out in 2012? No. There was, until you arrived, talking nonsense. You keep using this phrase (and cognates) what do you think it means?

Was your intent with that post to confirm my assertion that you’re evasive and that any reasonable mature dialog with you is impossible? Is so, congratulations, sir. You’ve succeeded.

That would be correct. If you watched the Apollo missions on TV, you might remember many times ground control was being filmed live by the networks perhaps not known to them. They would communicate and instantly get a reply from the moon, especially when something unexpected happened. That is why so many people thought it was a hoax. But if you establish a radio beam, you can instantly communicate over any distance. But you have to establish a beam first that will take a second and a half to the moon. It could be why they lost most of the tapes of the Apollo missions. My intent was to relay to people claiming to have science that the known flaws of science have skewed them and their "science." They must also have missed the government announcing that they would rape science of its dignity so countries that already had the bomb would not learn it from us. Some of the math and experiments of modern science are beautiful but done on a skewed foundation making it silly, a lesson not to repeat.

So you're criticizing my prose rather than it's meaning? Seems pretty immature to me. Correct ideas need not be eloquent. Yes, indeed, special cases often require special treatment. Vaccinating fatties and geezers will do the trick for the most part. Immunocompromised people are special cases who may or may not be best served by getting vaccinated right now. These are complicated matters. ... Is that supposed to be an argument? Your family was vaccinated, and therefore what I said is nonsense... what? The word you're looking for is transmission, not infection. You don't even understand the basics.

A man's mind cannot duplicate the distance across the universe; even if given some exact number of miles, whose digits would fill all the servers on earth, he would just be dealing with some vast but unknowable distance. A single human cannot deal with that amount of distance with any sanity. A stranded individual upon the ocean will explain how he suddenly knew very little about where he was, despite being highly confident seconds before. He will explain how large the ocean suddenly became. Nevertheless, the distance across the ocean, compared to the distance across the universe, would be laughable because no sane or known comparison is humanly possible. So a man can discuss, he can postulate, he can extrapolate through tools and equipment, he can scale down the universe, but he can never know that distance. However, upon finding that particles are moving through dark space at a velocity that is not affected by any distance we know, one can then assume they cross the universe in the blink of an eye. During the Apollo missions, an astronaut somewhat facetiously put his glove in front of the laser they were using to time laser light from the moon to earth. Ground control immediately mentioned they recorded a partial block of the laser beam, and the recorded time on synchronized timing instruments was the same. The particles that create a beam of light are moving at an exponentially higher velocity than the beam, very much like electricity flowing through a tungsten element or a plasma ARC. The electricity has been flowing long before the created light. That is how a beam of light works. The atoms of gas in the beam must be excited before the creation of the light beam. Once created, instant communication over the beam is possible. It would be similar to slightly lowering the voltage to a lit tungsten element in a bulb; the effect would be instantaneous to the human eye.

The curriculum was mandated in that year 1973. Before that, teachers could teach what they learned and what they had done in life. My teachers, some of whom were Universal Scientists, like Benjamin Franklin and other German and foreign scientists, were scientists that adhered to the scientific method as I outlined. Even though the Universal Scientists won the debate over the neutron fair and square, the government still backed and funded the “neutron scientists,” as I call them, after the war. The neutron scientist quickly moved to hide much of the work of Universal Science. They used Enrico Fermi, a poor Universal Scientist who still wanted to bridge the gap between the two bodies of scientists, to kill Universal Science. His hypocrisy and flawed science gave Universal Science a bad name publically. Most Universal Scientists went around lecturing after that, and if you were lucky enough to catch a lecture, there was no doubt who the scientists were and who were con artists selling garbage. Once the government got involved, it was like selling drugs. The government rewarded teachers for pushing garbage on kids instead of creating a quality, demonstrable curriculum for kids. Even the American economic system could not be taught after 1973 in any school receiving federal funding or tax breaks even though it played a major part in our breaking away from England. We used to be taught how the Founding Fathers when sure war was imminent, all agreed that they needed to understand all the systems needed to run a country. When it came to tying money to gold, they did not know how England did it; they just accepted the fact it needed to be done and assumed they needed to do it too. They had just fought a war against the French and the Indians with no food, clothes, weapons, or shoes because England said they did not have enough gold to back money to give them. The tax at the time was a 50 percent stamp tax on money spent on goods. So the founding fathers sat down to demonstrate the existing system of money. Benjamin Franklin printed the first money, and George Washington brought gold from his rich wife. They made the exchange Ben acting as the government they began the demonstration. George Washington bought 100 dollars worth of farm equipment from Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin put out his hand and asked for fifty dollars tax. He looked down at the gold and the fifty dollars and declared, “we are rich” he instantly saw the sick game. He had already debunked slavery as nothing but a poison pill for the colonies. If you do not condone slavery, you cannot be made a slave, was his conclusion. That is why they condemned slavery at the start of the revolution. They realized that England had been keeping them poor, and some of the strange events reported were all true. Like the English buying up all the bacon in the colonies to a point colonists were going hungry, and dumping it at sea before reaching England to keep the price of bacon high in England and the craftsmen poor. As the founding fathers were now sure, they could lower the tax. They demonstrated their system, but with just a penny tax on the dollar spent, and to their amazement, a penny tax collected every dollar in circulation and returned it to the government. Immediately, many of the treasonous souls planing the revolution wanted to hang the lords and governors outside their homes. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin had a better idea; they wanted to build homes in Virginia and greet the British regulars on the beach with overwhelming numbers and offer them a home to live in or a sudden death. Unfortunately, when England canceled all taxes, one loyalist tea company decided they were going to collect a three pence on the pound tax because they wanted to, not because they had to. This infuriated the colonists, and the Boston Tea Party became a reason for British troops to arrive in numbers, immediately messing up the amazing plan they were working quickly to accomplish. The three pence on the pound tax would be equivalent to 1.27 cents tax on the dollar. The rest is history. Even if you are in an armchair in the clouds with no foundation, you can see how money is just a tool to trade goods. A penny tax alone would collect all the money in circulation and return it to the government, making tying it to gold scientifically impossible. George Washington left standing orders to take up arms against the government if they ever levied more than a penny tax on the dollar federal income tax. The government can print any amount of money for the infrastructure or people in need, which costs no one anything—inflation as taught in school slams Germany for printing money and building great cities quickly. The education system claims that is why bread in Germany rose to 200 marks a loaf. Yet scientifically, if you examine that claim, any currency in Germany, any commodity traded for bread would be equally devalued as there was no bread. Before you can be objective about science, you need to face the pressure on science created by your government.

stupid Special cases should be treated specially, did you expect me to enumerate all of them? Don't be obtuse. Being a fattie or a geezer are the most common risk factors.

This demonstrates a profound inability to understand the subject material. The problem is that leaky vaccines could allow more virulent versions of a virus to survive, not that nonsense you just spouted.

This is a prime example of being just smart enough to have an infantile grasp of a complex topic but not smart enough to truly understand it. Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens (plos.org) This chicken vaccine makes its virus more dangerous | PBS NewsHour

Completely unnecessary to get vaccinated if you aren't fat or an old geezer.