Mordred

Providing make and model of the SD card would be helpful. It may be possible to find a driver that works from older software support sites or technical details such as from datasheets, etc with regards to the SD cards requirements.

That's good to hear. Though there are occasions. Lol a personal example was my Masters dissertation which used quintessence inflation. The number of E-folds my equations of state produced was in the acceptable bounds for COBE dataset but the WMAP dataset (along with other later data) proved it didn't have sufficient e-folds. The other research being the constancy of the cosmological constant. Quintessence requires a varying Lambda term. This is one case where a paradigm (Quintessence) can be completely overturned by findings. The requirement of varying Lambda term does not conform to the quintessence paradigm. However these cases are rather rare. However it always requires a large body of evidence.

Well that is where I will disagree. The reason being is a good robust theory is adaptive by nature. Good easy example being LCDM.. Most ppl believe the LCDM model is simply GR and the FLRW metric however that is false. It actually involves a very large collection of other physics theories such as those of thermodynamics, particles physics, QFT, QM etc. The LCDM model is constantly changing as new research presented it will continue to change as it has inherent flexibility to do so. For the past 35 years I lost count of the number of times I heard the LCDM model will die to to some new finding. Simply to see the LCDM model incorporate those findings.

Yes experiment will always supersede any theory. If an experiment doesn't conform to a theory its an automatic indication something is missing or incorrect in that theory. Good examples can readily be found studying how the SM particles were discovered. Example A scattering experiment is performed the examiner sees scattering events that show CPT violations/conservation law violations. So conducts further research to account for those violations. This has often led to new particle interactions or new particles discovered. A vast majority of our theories today resulted by unexpected experimental findings that upon further research leads to new theories and understood processes. Contrary to popular belief there isn't really any "Eureka " moments of someone randomly guessing at a new theory through sheer insight. The majority of our theories today arise from trying to fathom and explain experimental evidence and not force the experiment to conform to theory.

Outside of formal education studying the textbooks is the best way to separate science from pseudoscience (flimflams etc) If an article doesn't conform to textbook book methods or answers then it's questionable. Another good resource is dissertation papers. These papers will help advance your skills and knowledge beyond the textbooks which typically teach the basics. Welcome aboard

Come again ?

Unfortunately incorrect but also off topic for this thread which doesn't involve expansion. For starters expansion is due to thermodynamics described by the equations of state https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) These factors determine the expansion rate. GR though involved cannot account for all the factors in expansion as per above. As your new to the forum it is also a rules violation to post personal theories in reply to other posters threads. Any personal theories belong in our Speculation forum.

Agreed I should have included the hours

Correct you always need to filter out unwanted noise pollution generated by other sources such as stars and plasma

Terawatt hour yearly for LHC from what I gathered is 1.3 terawatt hours yearly. Operating 200 MW https://home.cern/science/engineering/powering-cern How accurate that link is ?

Here is detail on the H11 region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strömgren_sphere though the OP paper is examining H1 region. The link only mentions around a star but it also applies to galaxies in terms of its ionization regions example being the OP paper figure 2

The mass would be larger and the volume would also increase the photoionization process used by the paper is as follows \[H_I+\gamma\rightarrow p+e\] the cross section for the photoionization rate \[\Gamma_\gamma H=\int_{\nu_t}^\infty c\sigma_\pi (\nu)N_\gamma(\nu)d\nu\] where \(\nu_t\) is the threshold frequency of 13.6 ev. \(N_y(\nu)d\nu\) is the number density of photons with range \(\nu\rightarrow \nu+d\nu\) this is related to the energy flux \(J(\nu)\) by \[N_\gamma(\nu)=\frac{4\pi J(\nu)}{ch\nu}\] in essence the bound free transition probability thoug one can also apply the Milne relation (more specifically for recombination =ionization) https://casper.astro.berkeley.edu/astrobaki/index.php/Milne_Relation that is the essential process they are measuring to get the luminosity factors under spectrography edit forgot to add the reason why the paper posted by the OP highlights the uncertainty in the electron density directly relates to the the above relation. So research tightening the error margin will also be helpful in regards to the Hubble contention. Its further data to help with local group calibrations in regards to distance measures. Specifically the interference to standard candle Lumosity distance relations (simplified descriptive light pollution generated by galactic mediums such as plasma ) The above relations can be found in RADIATIVE PROCESSES IN ASTROPHYSICS GEORGE B. RYBICKI ALAN P. LIGHTMAN chapter 10. in terms of H1 vs H11 these describe plasma ionization regions with H1 being partially ionized whilst the H11 region is almost entirely ionized further details related being the Lyman break https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman-break_galaxy

I seem to recall mentioning MRI indirect evidence of measuring synaptic responses to stimuli. That's one method with which has a large body of studies available on the web. That would be an objective observation This link will assist I haven't gone through it entirely nor its linked papers https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00084/full

Well for starters there is a mass/luminosity relation this typically involves processes such as Compton scatterings etc. When I get a chance I will provide further detail on that. It's doubtful it will affect the Hubble contention as a large part of the contention is due to local calibration issues which involves supernova and different types of cepheids rather than the galaxy itself. We don't use luminosity of the galaxy for luminosity to distance relations as there is too many unknowns involved for determining the emitter luminosity frequencies.

As physical processes involve kinematic motion hence the SM model langrangian which applies path integrals via principle of Least action. You would have an incredibly difficult time equating anything relating of mind to those physical processes under physics. Yes I would consider that off topic

When it leads to measurable physical effects then yes example being DM. We have high confidence that DM exists but the only evidence is indirect. Often times indirect physical evidence later leads to discovery. For example measurable physical particle processes that we cannot account for often lead to discovery of a new particle or particle interaction as further research becomes available. DM if you think about it fits in this category.

Without calculations it's all hand waving start with calculating the energy requirements for 3 particle accelerators plus your energy requirements for containment which would likely require magnetic confinement. I provided a clue in the related formulas for self ignition. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/research/cfsa/people/pastmembers/peeters/teaching/lecture2.pdf There are reasons why fusion on Earth requires a far higher temperature than the core of our sun. In order for a particle accelerator to function requires a tremendous amount of electricity it does after all apply the EM field via Maxwell equations in particular Lorentz force. If I recall the yearly budget of the LHC is something on the order of Terra watts of electricity yearly but It's been awhile since I read that so my memory may be fuzzy on that number. It also isn't simply a matter of temperature but also pressure. The suns gravity aids in that. However on Earth we must supply that energy through magnetic confinement. However using accelerators and magnetic confinement isn't a bad idea (ignoring tachyons and DM). The Lawson criteria is one the preliminary steps and can be further applied with different particles such as muons. There is calculation for muons in regards the accelerators available on the web. (Specifically applying the Lawson criteria).The only way to test for practicality is to crunch numbers not simply hand wave ideas. That will help narrow out the more useful particle to use. In terms of potential net gain. Here is a more detailed article. You will note hopefully the Coulomb collisions with regards to the particles cross section plays a fundamental roll in determining which particle is more suitable for ignition temperature. https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/283626/files/VanOost_Jaspers_IN-2.pdf Edit assuming DM is a weakly interactive particle and we know doesn't interact with the EM field you wouldn't be able to use magnetic confinement or an accelarator to speed up a DM particle.

Also sounds like a work of fiction. Let's start with the energy requirements of all the equipment you proposed. How would you possibly meet the Lawson criteria for self sustaining ignition to get any net gain of energy ? Even assuming dark matter is some as of yet unknown particle or the mere existence of tachyons. Which the latter has zero evidence for its existence. PS welcome to the forum.

Sorry misread that earlier thanks for the catch +1

Quality can be measured via Grey tones as well as percentage of absorption, reflection/Refraction. Good example being the blackest black record holder paint.

Simple way to think of it is any measurable quantity is a physical quantity. Example color is measurable so it's a physical property. Here is a short list of physical properties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property

One detail to consider it's physicality is oft considered as being measurable. Particularly under QFT treatments and serves as a distinction between operator action and propogator action in terms of Feymann integrals. Ie internal wavy lines represent what is commonly called virtual particles which individually are not measurable. Might help with defining physicality.

Typically and assuming the old boundary condition still holds but the boundary used to be considered as 100 times the mean average density of the void regions which can be calculated via the critical density formula as our universe is extremely close to critical density. No this paper will not replace the need for DM though may reduce the local to galaxy quantity needed to match rotation curves.

! Moderator Note Op requested move via PM

Are you talking about Apopropanolol I'd so this should be moved to one of the medical forums and not the astronomy forum. Once you confirm I can move the thread for you