swansont

You need to test other areas, not just where you are, to show this. If you’re just measuring background, it will be similar everywhere. I don’t know what your detection band is, but things at room temperature do radiate at longer wavelengths, and there’s a lot of surface area in a room. A 1 m^2 surface radiates several hundred watts; most of that is in the IR, but a small amount is in the microwave/RF. A human would radiate even more, since a body is hotter.

It should drop off with distance from the source. For a localized source, it would vary is 1/r^2. (if there’s an antenna, it will be somewhat different, but still decrease with distance) How did you test this? Do the reading go away if you move away from the meter?

First video is all you need. Merely by asking the question you can infer that this isn’t the consensus, and it confirms that mass warping spacetime is the basic idea of general relativity, which, of course, is the consensus. Time dilation is a consequence of the postulates of relativity. But you can look at the equations and decide what causes what is different. If y= mx, does x cause y or does y cause x? It depends on the framework you use. If you don’t have some mechanism in place you can go either way. So sure, you can interpret things to say time dilation causes gravity. Is it the consensus? No, it’s not. ‘ IMO it’s a game. In SR time dilation is a consequence of motion, but does anyone insist that time dilation causes things to move? No. We still have Newtonian physics as a basis (even though the math is an approximation, valid at low speeds) where something starts moving only if there’s a force on it. Time isn’t a force. In GR things get muddled because gravity isn’t a force..But kinematic time dilation doesn’t cause gravity. The kinematic term is the wrong sign. Satellites at a radial distance of ~9600 km (~3200 km in altitude) have the kinematic and gravitational time dilation cancel. Is there no gravity at that altitude?

! Moderator Note Rules require that material for discussion must be posted. Files are for supporting information Time causes gravity? No, that not the current consensus

“we” Do you represent Microsoft? Can you provide a link? edit: nvm, I did your work for you https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/11/01/microsofts-2023-diversity-and-inclusion-report-a-decade-of-transparency-commitment-and-progress/ “Inside the U.S., all racial and ethnic minority groups who are rewards-eligible combined earn $1.007 total pay for every $1.000 earned by U.S. rewards-eligible white employees with the same job title and level and considering tenure.” There’s a bit to unpack here. rewards-eligible presumably means performance-based awards, meaning that ethnic minorities could have just earned a smidgin more in bonuses by doing more and/or better work. Their base pay could even be less, and bonuses just more than make up the difference. No smoking gun of discrimination there. “same job title and level and considering tenure” does not preclude the possibility that more white workers have been promoted, leaving the mediocre performers behind, while the better-performing minorities are passed over. It doesn’t mean this is the case - it means we don’t have enough data to evaluate the situation. But see the above comment about bonuses. Manufactured outrage.

Upwards, I would think. Exerting pressure on the water, forcing it through the holes, which presents less resistance than forcing water elsewhere.

! Moderator Note I think you’ve beaten this to death. Can we move along?

So, as I said, I think the piezo draws water in and forces it through the perforated piece as it oscillates

Is the perforated material part of the PZT, or above it? I could envision water going into a gap and being forced through the holed by an oscillating piezo, producing a mist. I think stainless steel is a substrate or housing, and not a piezo itself.

! Moderator Note Moved to HW help. No, we won’t do it for you

Part of the issue here is the general lack of math you have in pop-sci descriptions. (IIRC Hawking noted the adage that your audience drops in half for each equation in a book; he only had E=mc^2) which forces one into imprecise language. Take “Hawking particles are not created in the near vicinity of the horizon, but instead come from a region surrounding the black hole with a few times the black hole’s radius” What does “near the vicinity” actually mean? It’s not quantified. A 10 solar mass BH has a Schwarzschild radius of under 30 km. Are Hawking particles created 50 or 100 km away in the vicinity, or not? 100 km is quite a small distance in astronomical/cosmological terms, and these numbers would be small even for a 10x or 100x bigger BH. We get reassured that some rock passing within 50,000 km or so of earth will exhibit a near-miss. That’s almost 10x the radius, and it’s considered nearby.

I’m not so sure I’d call these things myths; no matter what physics you’re talking about, there’s a good chance that you’re discussing an approximation and that a deeper dive will show that. When you discuss a topic with someone without that background, the deeper dive isn’t possible. Simple explanations are simple, and actual physics is not. Are we perpetuating a myth when we say that kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2?

We get it a lot in the US “Partisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 13 States and for some judges in an additional 8 States. Nonpartisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 17 States and for some judges in an additional 3 States. One-half of the States hold elections for State supreme court judges. Seventeen States out of the 32 which have intermediate appellate courts elect judges to these courts.” https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/judicial-selection-united-states-special-report

What evidence can you provide to support your claims?

Which could be psychosomatic; if you think you are suffering from some kind of debilitating effect, your body might just accommodate that belief.

SCOTUS once ruled (Nix v Hedden) that tomatoes were to be classified as vegetables, so it’s not like the courts feel beholden to science when they want a certain result.

But what about his cognitive issues. Do they get as much coverage as Biden's alleged issues?

It crops up from time to time. We’re not going to dispense medical advice, but a lot of the “X is making me sick” topics have science that can be discussed to debunk the claims.

That’s a good question - ratings, perhaps - but it doesn’t change the facts. e.g. the economy is doing great, with unemployment numbers not seen in 50 years, real wage increases and a record high stock market, but it’s not reported that way. Perhaps you should ask the media/punditry why. Trump’s very real issues are not being discussed much at all. Why is that?

You’re citing the media’s framing and GOP talking points, not his record. There have been plenty of people who note that Biden is sharp and engaged, which won’t be the conclusion you draw from video clips edited to give a different impression.

Do you know the frequency of these readings? Wifi uses 2.4 and 5 GHz, at up to 50 mW of transmission power, and bluetooth use 2.4 GHz. A PC might intermittently try to “discover” nearby devices. You could measure at different distances from the computer, or any other suspected source, to see if it drops off with distance (which it will, if that’s the source) No, not really. But simple transmitters are pretty easy.

! Moderator Note Requiring that people follow the rules is not an attack on Islam. This is not a government site; nothing here has anything to do with your rights.

The lifting ability of a helium balloon is roughly 1 gram per liter, at room temperature and 1 ATM. (Slightly more as the balloon gets bigger, owing to the scaling effects)

These frequencies are present as part of the background; every object radiates with a profile dependent on its temperature. You might be measuring the RF background. Any health issues are likely from another cause. Consult a doctor.

But you cast this in terms of “democratic process” and “checks and balances” and it seems to me that this is the expected process. AFAICT every time there was a serious primary challenge to an incumbent, the incumbent lost. How much of that was due to the poor performance of the candidate and how much due to the challenge causing a divide or doing other damage is something one has to assess. But given that both candidates are old, this should be a non-issue for choosing on that particular metric. Biden has a great record to run on, so there’s no reason to expect a serious primary challenge, and it’s not like there’s someone waiting in the wings that could beat TFG. So any objection along these lines would seem to be moot. As far as the age discrimination question is concerned, I’m not a fan.