swansont

When you have to move the goalposts, I wouldn’t say so.

! Moderator Note I assume from this that no analysis will be forthcoming.

10% of antibiotics is about 8% of prescriptions in a given year. I’m assuming a similar fraction of the population gets a prescription at some point. 50% of that is 4%. That would account for half of the infertility rate. Even with a shift from “antibiotics have a negative effect on male fertility” to “a small fraction of antibiotics have a negative effect on male fertility”

Still don't see any analysis.

! Moderator Note You provide no evidence, and no testable model, just supposition. This does not meet the criteria for discussion in speculations.

That would still account for a large fraction - about half - of the cases of infertility. It would mean other factors are not in play.

I don’t see any analysis on your part that explains the discrepancy. Only some vague assertions. Nothing in your link says anything about discarding the big bang, or the notion of expansion.

! Moderator Note Start a blog

Given how many people are prescribed antibiotics, I’d say yes. 270 million prescriptions a year in the US. 805 per 1,000 people. https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/nearly-quarter-antibiotic-prescriptions-may-be-unnecessary# Fertility clinics would be flooded. Not the ~8% rate we see from men. https://www.yalemedicine.org/conditions/male-infertility/

Implosion bomb, yes. They were quite confident the gun-type uranium bomb would work, since they had already done tests, though they didn’t do a full-blown (as it were) test like Trinity. https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/national-security-science/2020-summer/why-wasnt-little-boy-tested/ “The scientists were not simply confident Little Boy would work, they knew Little Boy would work—it was a mathematical certainty. Thus, the weapon went into combat without a full-scale nuclear explosive test.”

You characterized this as a possible serious issue, which suggests a strong effect. If it’s hard to notice, it can’t be. You can’t have it both ways.

A circle spinning at light speed is a poor description. Spinning is a rotational effect, and light speed is a linear measure. Any spinning circle will have a range of linear speeds, depending on the distance from the point of rotation. If others indicate you are not being clear, you should believe them. But you just said that nothing was going faster than light. What is “pure flow”? You’re just substituting one ill-defined term for another

If it were permanent we’d probably notice the correlation.

The ether was discarded, as it did not match with evidence. Are you sure you want to describe your conjecture in that way? That wasn’t the objection. ! Moderator Note the objections are not personal and they are related to what you wrote; the interpretation of animus assumes too much. What you write is insufficiently supported with valid science. You may have been expecting a credulous audience but you don’t have one. Leave the animus out of the discussion and focus on clarifying and supporting your claims.

! Moderator Note You need to go start a blog somewhere. All you’re doing here is soapboxing, which is against the rules.

I commented specifically on the phrase “pure velocity” which is nonsense. You had an opportunity to explain what you meant. I notice you did not take it. Having a compton radius doesn’t mean they are the same. They both have charge and mass. There are significant differences between them. Please provide support for your claims

We can know what the military anticipated though. They made >1.5 million purple heart medals in WWII, many in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. Almost 500k were left over at war’s end. They’re still issuing medals from that stock.

Pure velocity? Pure nonsense. What do you think that shows?

! Moderator Note We often call this numerology. It's not science and this discussion has no place in a science forum.

A) Hot water? B) If one has to read between the lines, you can't argue about good faith. You've admitted that the meaning isn't clear. Since you quoted both Tokyo and the A-bomb, no that's not at all clear. But my point still stands - the circumstances were very different. The burning of Washington was not the culmination of some systematic retaking of territory as the opposing force was drawing closer and closer. If Washington had been burned after the British had won dozens of battles and were occupying a bunch of territory that the US had previously held, then we could compare the situations.

The circumstances surrounding this and Hiroshima are hardly comparable.

Klaus Fuchs. The Rosenbergs. And others. Also, your premise that Japan was beaten does not match the facts. They did not acknowledge it. They rejected the Potsdam terms. They did not surrender, even after the first bomb was dropped. Did they do their own Manhattan project equivalent, or did they use pilfered results? One thing about research is the time, money and effort you spend finding out things that don’t work. Subsequent efforts don’t have to expend resources chasing these down.

Yes. I don’t think your post has a sold basis in fact.

Assuming it would be economically feasible to retrieve these metals, I think the question this raises is what would happen if you could suddenly e.g. double the availability of these rare metals. IOW, are there efforts that are supply-constrained? If the new availability drove prices down, it’s possible that you’d come up with new products that aren’t currently viable owing to cost.

The blocked light forms a cone (see the eclipse link for an example) s = r*theta s is the size of the block. theta is the angular size. r is the distance to the screen blocking the light.