swansont

If it’s the right parameter there should be some other physics showing that, not just getting the answer you want.

More like QM is everywhere, but a lot of the time it doesn’t matter. The issue I have with some of these QM in biology stories is that they’re built on multiply-stacked hypotheses, individually without experimental confirmation. And the top-level proposal, of course, also lacks such evidence. Show me the actual entanglement and what the effects are.

If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It’s not much of an achievement to be wrong.

Given that nervous systems are ultimately comprised of particles, which are subject to quantum mechanics, it’s impossible for this to be false. The relevant issue is if any quantum effects survive in any measurable way. People diffract when they walk through a doorway, owing to the wave nature we know exists, but I don’t think anyone is foolish enough to assert that it has any measurable effect.

The paper says that the symmetry manifests itself in structures as small as nucleons, but I don’t see where there’s any true justification for picking that radius. Nothing presented to show it could not be much smaller. Not randomly chosen, but arbitrarily chosen — because it gives the desired answer?

! Moderator Note I think this is rife with unsupported premises; none of your assertions are backed up with evidence. I also think this sounds like propaganda. What I know is this is a discussion forum, not your blog, and opinions do not overrule facts. I also know this is locked.

! Moderator Note Congratulations. This is a discussion forum. What is the proposed topic of discussion here?

“radioactivity” is not some independent form of radiation. It’s simply the property of a nucleus being unstable and emitting energetic particles when it decays to a lower energy state. Those can be alphas, betas, gammas, neutrinos, protons, neutrons - they are the radiation. Of those, only gammas are massless, electromagnetic, and moving at c. For any other particle, differing speed would mean they would arrive at a target at different times if emitted from the same source simultaneously (though neutrinos would take a while) There is no “carrier of radioactivity” since that’s nonsensical.

You started this thread, so it’s assumed you could carry on a discussion at some level. The discussion thus far doesn’t really involve any advanced economic concepts. I’m not sure how broader horizons enters into it, especially when you won’t go into detail. You also probably have no idea what my professional interests are. Maybe it’s better you don’t assume you do.

Is it, though? I get the impression that even though there’s a fair amount of installed capacity, wind is under-utilized in the midwest. Though the Biden administration’s infrastructure legislation may be helping with that. According to this, no state got more than 40% of their electricity from wind this past July https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-state/ South Dakota, Kansas, Iowa and Oklahoma are the states that got over 30% Agree. It’s a version of shooting the messenger. Since physics and chemistry in particular deal with systems converting/liberating energy, just about any discovery of systems that do so quickly and/or efficiently is prone to be co-opted by the military. And similarly with enabling technology; you can’t effectively limit how people will use knowledge.

Did stupid Americans do that, or was it their elected representatives, influenced by the people who would profit off of it? Also to think that capitalism is the default system in the country and be afraid of other systems; socialism has become a bogeyman label (even though the Constitution describes a whole bunch of socialism)

So far as I know, it is not. In fact, I think it might be argued that failure to do it when circumstances dictate would be, since at such times people are not buying government bonds. If the government raised the bond rates attract buyers, the taxpayers would be on the hook for even more money

Meme? You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. What does this have to do with whether inflation is caused by “printing dollars”? Computer/semiconductor technology, including smartphones, is deflationary, BTW. Which is perhaps one reason contributing to why inflation didn’t spike from ”printing dollars”

This “my teacher hates me” take is a dime-a-dozen, so I’m not surprised to see it. But the truth is you broke the rules - the specifics were pointed out to you - and that’s why it was locked. You didn’t post “hard facts,” you spammed us with videos, and you escalated the rhetoric. And I don’t know what-all this has to do with academia; did you think you had wandered onto a college campus? We’re willing to host reasoned discussion, and the rules are set up to facilitate that. Follow the rules, and you can present your argument. If you don’t follow the rules, threads get locked.

! Moderator Note That’s enough of that. Please review our rules, especially 2.1 on civility and 2.7 on how you can’t just post videos to make your point Don’t bring this topic up again

Gravity doesn’t work that way, so I don’t see how that aids in conceptual understanding. Your drawing says a gap is no gravitational attraction. You also say gravitation toward the center but that’s not what the lines say.. Gravitational field lines are supposed to tell you the direction of the field at that point. The actual field was solved and is figure 2 in this paper https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1206.3857

Gravity points radially, not parallel to the x and y axes. There are no gaps

New NYT/Siena poll has the race tied, but there’s this (posted on bluesky) Not only ignoring recent history but also the post-Dobbs voter registration surge

! Moderator Note Post it in speculations, in line with the forum rules. Which means posting the material for discussion. Not just attaching a file

I learned how to say “I don’t speak <language>” in both French and Italian, in preparation for conference trips back in the day. Someone on the street in Torino said something to me as I walked to the conference site, so I got to use it. Used the French version when speaking to someone from the French embassy who lived in my apartment building What I really needed to learn is how to apologize for speaking the few phrases I knew so poorly.

1g acceleration gets you to 0.99c in a little less than a year (earth frame) https://rechneronline.de/g-acceleration/

Which is what was claimed when Obama was president, and the predicted disaster never happened.

Not with a population of ~8.1 billion, or anywhere close to it.

I think the ethics only enter into it if you’re wealthy enough to have options, and having a significant fraction of people above the threshold is a relatively recent occurrence.

Yes. More than once. It’s trivial to check. In the very first post you complained about how you get pushback whenever you mention them. The discussion was split off of a discussion on possible evolutionary advantage of religion because you went off-topic and brought up bias. It’s guarding the borders; making sure that science remains science, and things like astrology don’t get to pass themselves off as having scientific legitimacy without presenting empirical evidence. Which is why we keep asking for evidence.