swansont

Bring back the saner days of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Jeff Gillooly/Tonya Harding.

I can’t do anything about how you interpreted what I asked/said, or your choice to assign a hidden meaning to it. You made statements about two different (to my mind) kinds of actions, and then made some summary statements that seemed to apply to both. It seemed like you were equating them, but rather than responding with that assumption, I asked a question, to give you a chance to clarify. The problem with “If you don't like how we interpret what you write, maybe you shouldn't write it that way.” is it requires mind-reading, which is not really a good-faith position.

Of course. I forgot to divide by two.

Lightning rods provide a direct path to ground. They don’t prevent strikes; they make it far more likely that the strike will hit the rods rather than sensitive infrastructure. AFAIK they have a spatial limit; I doubt an adjacent house in a suburban neighborhood will be protected. I was involved with a 5000 sq ft building that has at least a half dozen “spikes” which suggests that one or two would not suffice.

Yes. There is a dark side, of course, but the same way the earth has a dark side: We call it night, and night on the moon lasts about a month. But “dark side” is not a geographical description like e.g. “western hemisphere”

There is no constantly dark or light side

I would like to know where I made that comment. I see where I asked a question, and where you replied, and where I mentioned that your meaning hadn't been clear.

Neutrinos take away ~10MeV from a typical fission of U-235

! Moderator Note Threads merged. Please stop opening new threads on this topjc.

The main problem is trying to explain quantum effects with classical analogies; such efforts always fall short, even when readers overstep and impart more meaning to the analogy than was intended. That may be, but one needs to understand QM to begin to make such an assessment

The improvement comes from spin squeezing; one partner of the entanglement has much less uncertainty in a particular state than the other, and this gets them below the standard quantum limit. They tout the improvement in the measurement but not the actual stability, which is more than an order of magnitude worse than the better optical frequency standards. That’s not to say that they won’t get there, though. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.07501.pdf I’d put my money on the latter being closer to the truth

Your meaning is far from clear when you speak of insurrection and protest in the same sentence. My “bias” is they aren’t the same thing.

Did you just “both sides” sedition and insurrection?

In general, the cross-section for absorption drops with energy. There are some resonances which go against this trend. See, for example fig 1here https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Neutron-absorption-cross-sections-for-several-isotopes-as-a-function-of-incident-neutron_fig5_235915631 (edit: x-post)

And? Since the article made no claim about dark matter, you need more than a hand-wave to say that it does. Dark matter seems to outweigh visible matter roughly six to one https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter So unless the research the article refers to is claiming a 6x discrepancy in how much normal matter is out there (it isn’t), you aren’t getting rid of dark matter. The article points out two data sets just outside our solar system. Your claim, vague as it is, is a massive and unfounded over-extrapolation of the report.