swansont

It was not just one post; this was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back. Your previous responses in the thread were flippant. You answered yes to a question and when you were asked for a citation you simply posted a picture of a magic 8-ball showing ‘yes’ Despite your claim here, there were serious responses in the thread. Elsewhere you had posted a stock discussion in quantum theory. You’ve posted pictures in other threads that did not contribute to the discussion. I recall trying to give you feedback about this, which you rejected. We reached saturation with that behavior. You can learn from it, or not

That wasn’t your original assertion. “When you look at the Cube it contains a point to point line, a square and a Cube, could this be written 1m¹+1m²+1m³, would this equal 3m⁶ equalling 729m?” The equation is incorrect. Nonsensical, in fact. It is in no way the equivalent of saying a cube contains a line, area and volume.

Yes, that only accounts for a little bit of the difference. It’s likely all the factors mentioned contribute. Several factors of 2 or 3 rather than one big one.

Comparable, but also that’s by weight, so Na is ~ 2x more abundant by number.

It’s 2,000,000 ppb for Na and 110,000 ppb for K, which might account for a large part of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

! Moderator Note Material for discussion needs to be posted

This thread is about the news article. If you want another conversation, open a new thread

! Moderator Note This is in Science News and was not moved

This is not owing to heat transfer - the radiation isn't thermal. It's doing work.

If a point isn’t valid, you shouldn’t bring it up. But this is a science site. You should expect claims to be challenged. I can’t comment on things I don’t know about; if data are classified how could I? You don’t give any citations for claims, so they’re hard to follow up on. Your stance on gathering data is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's the point you brought up that I was addressing. Now that you know it's false, I assume you won't claim it again. If there were other points, by all means discuss them.

The notion that you could provide a picture of entanglement is ludicrous if you understand anything about entanglement. It’s not a request one can make in good faith. He “knew” what the best science at the time knew. Science is driven by data, not clairvoyance. The expansion of the universe wasn’t discovered until 1929

Technically paulfoolery…

That’s a hell of an interpretation. That it’s 100% wrong shouldn’t be surprising given the data. I accept science because of the evidence. We discussed this and your false dilemma suggests you did not absorb the concepts Yes, exactly. So why does the eyewitness testimony not count? I can’t fathom the confusion that would lead to this observation. Zero, I would say. Who was an “eyewitness” to this? Such is the way of religious zealotry, but I’m not sure what this has to do with science and scientific evidence. I’ve read the eyewitness testimony of others. No, because I have a degree in physics, so I know that “what powers entanglement?” is a crap question (nothing “powers” it, that phrasing suggests a complete lack of understanding of the underlying physics)

This isn’t a legal issue, it’s science You’re suggesting that eyewitness testimony isn’t a thing in criminal prosecution, and nobody has been convicted because of it, which is an unserious argument.

The data gets recorded, so it has not vanished, and since one describes how the experiment is done, others can replicate it. The Nobel committee wouldn’t worry about photons being destroyed. They aren’t stupid.

Repeating fanciful stuff like this without any supporting documentation doesn’t exactly lend credibility to any claims you make. It’s likely one of those things that has a tiny grain of truth to it that kept getting modified with each retelling, like the ‘whisper’ game, until you end up with this claim. What’s telling is the credulous telling of it, just like the blind acceptance of other things. Skepticism is required here, and this doesn’t pass the sniff test. What’s much more likely, to me, is that this method appeared in a document that was classified, and remained classified for some time because it contained other information that still needed to be classified, or there is some other reason for not declassifying (like some statute that says you can’t declassify the document for 100 years) that has nothing to do with this specific item. If this were top secret, who broke federal law to point out that it’s classified? edit: The last time this came up I pointed out that the document was declassified in 2011. You should update your story. Further, it's probably this one https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP11X00001R000100010003-7.pdf Item 38. The document is confidential, not top secret. There are 50 items in it, and any one of the other 49 might be the reason the document was not declassified sooner. But saying that lemon-as-invisible-ink is classified is like saying "the" is classified because it appeared in a classified document.

That's the problem of cooking something that's frozen. One section gets defrosted first and the heating gets much more efficient and cooks while the rest is still frozen.

Plenty of non-scientists gather data that's useful (amateur astronomy, citizen science projects like bird counting.) It's not controlled conditions - these aren't done in a lab - it's the rigor of gathering the data e.g. instead of a random snapshot, it's multiple pics from different vantage points, with calibrated distances and background shots for reference. The problem with existing pictures is that there is almost no data you can get from them. The military data you don't have access to wasn't collected under controlled conditions, either. Again, "qualified by science" and who collects it isn't inherently the issue (unless you're a known charlatan)

I will add to this that all of these methods transfer heat, from outside-in. Microwaves do not do this, as MigL and JCM have described. It’s not outside-in, but it is depositing energy to the interior, and somebody probably decided to describe that as inside out. Which it kinda-sorta is, but not necessarily center-out. The poor pop-sci description persists because zombie descriptions are hard to kill, when they are so easy to repeat.

You didn’t say re-check, you said confirm. The confirmation is with which instrument detects the photon. The photon no longer exists by the time you know this. I have to say that your line of inquiry smacks of bad faith and has gotten rather tiresome. People have sincerely engaged with you and given you good information. Their reward has been a bunch of attitude.

So go get your own data. There are a lot of national security possibilities for the military to not share their data; that just seems like a convenient scapegoat. I thought there was a TV show about some hotspot for UFO sightings. Where’s all the data from those sightings? (the obvious candidate answer is that it’s fiction, strictly for the suckers. Actual data would wreck the illusion)

I described this already.

How can one tell if a photon has passed through a lens? Does the lens itself indicate this? Nobody has claimed this happens.

You knew and yet you asked anyway As I stated previously, one method is spontaneous parametric down-conversion. It's a two-photon decay in an atom. Along specific paths the photons will be entangled (yes, the scientists know which paths; you can google this if you want more info) You couple the light into a fiber with a lens. News flash: any detection of a photon destroys it. You only "have" the photon for as long as it's bouncing around in your optics.