swansont

You can equate it, but you would be wrong. An oscillating field is not the same as positive or negative charges. Charges require that the field have a divergence, as shown in Maxwell’s equations. Positronium is a bound state of a positron and electron. It’s not the decay of either one. Show evidence of a single electron decaying.

What sources? What, specifically, do they claim?

Some of it might be, such as the thresholds in certain frequency ranges, but finding electronics damaged by lower-frequency spikes, as from lightning, wouldn’t be. Nukes aren’t the only source of EMPs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

You can test the formatting of your equations in the sandbox. Try using “math” tags

As Bufofrog said. It’s in rule 2.7.

Do you see the contradiction here? You acknowledge a photon, with an electric field, has no charge. So how can you also claim that you need a charge to be present? It doesn’t work the way you’re describing Let’s have them Is one that we can destroy an electron and get two photons out? Any experimental confirmation of that?

How does a photon move in anything other than a straight line in flat free space? Where does the charge come from? Electric fields do not contain any charge. Spin doesn’t work the way you describe. Is there any experimental support for this proposal?

How do you make a spin 1/2 electron out of spin 1 uncharged photons? How does this happen? Why do photons orbit, and how does that make charge?

I’m not sure that the technology itself is modified. You can filter the power and put the device in a faraday cage.

You should be aware that a voltage spike is one manifestation of an EMP. Any electronics damaged by not having a surge protector could be an example. Protection from EMP can range from disturbances at a few hertz out to a GHz, through the air or through the wiring.

! Moderator Note Your thread was locked. You don't get to open a new one. Others have pointed out the flaws in your claim to be using English and the issues this poses. Claiming that you are using the English alphabet is, in my estimation, a bad-faith argument.

The hologram relies on the interference between the reference beam and the reflection from the target which is the source of the image. Using more beams would change the phase of the interference and tend to disrupt the image

! Moderator Note As Genady has pointed out, this is a physics discussion. Please stay on topic.

For you, but you don’t speak for others. Others are not wrong simply because their view differs from yours.

This is fig. 4 in the paper that the blog post discusses. Error bars are one standard deviation, meaning there's a decent chance that the result is zero for each of these results. There is no conclusive evidence showing an effect. “Our study included up to 2,008,990 days with data for mortality, Kp index, temperature, and relative humidity from 263 cities. The mean daily total mortality was 14 deaths/day, with winter having 16 deaths/day, spring with 14 deaths/day, summer with 13 deaths/day and fall having 14 deaths/day, including 44,220,261 deaths in the study period” I notice that they don’t give the variation in daily deaths, and if you divide deaths by the number of days you get 22, which is larger than the daily mortality numbers they cite. Also, if their conclusions are to be consistent, geomagnetic activity must be preventing strokes.

Epileptic rats. You’re omitting important details.

I assume these other studies have similarly weak correlation, where the effect has a small bias but is still consistent with zero Why does a 50 nT storm have an effect but a daily fluctuation of 30 nT doesn’t? https://pburnley.faculty.unlv.edu/GEOL452_652/magnetism/notes/MagNotes19diurnal.html You’ve presented a few studies that have a tiny change, much smaller than the normal variation. If one argued that there is no effect, it would not be contradicted by the data. Contrast this with e.g. smoking tobacco, where you see ~20x higher death rates from certain afflictions (e.g. emphysema and lung cancer in men) https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm Small studies have large statistical uncertainties, which is why they require followup by large studies. It’s not uncommon for the followup to show no effect once you have better statistics. Where are the studies that show the effect under controlled conditions in lab animals? That’s usually the next step. Shield the earth’s field and put in place a known variation that can be turned on and off. It probably won’t happen, because something that only has a ~1% effect means you need a lot of subjects for the statistics to show up.

And it fluctuates by tens of nT every day. The overhead sun compresses the magnetosphere; I remember measuring a diurnal effect of about 30 nT when we were testing the magnetic shielding of an atomic clock. That’s the ”idea” but the connection is tenuous. They are explaining an effect that’s not there. If this were a physics paper there would be no result - you barely have 1 standard deviation on total deaths in fig 4 of the paper, CVD deaths have less separation and MI is even less. It would be properly reported as being consistent with zero. (in high-energy particle physics you need five sigma for something to be considered a real result)

How does this compare to the daily fluctuations of the field? And the overall strength of the field?

! Moderator Note Play it that way if you wish. Thread closed

Using a common language makes it better. Using terminology that you understand but others don’t is not better. English is the international language of science.

I think some printers allow you to update the firmware to modify the file formates. IIRC this was a feature of a large-scale plotter we had at work. But you need to connect a computer to it to do so.

Complexity, diversity and patterning can happen at almost any scale, but that does not mean it is invariant. Larger structures could possibly be more complex just because there are more parts that can be rearranged. Or less complex because certain configurations are unstable or otherwise not functional. For some structures, the fact that surfaces scale differently than volume will be important; it will mean that small structures necessarily look different than large ones. If there’s some overall rule about this, one can go look for it, but it’s not going to be adequately described, to the point we can discuss it, in a popular summary of the science, like the physorg article. Primary sources are better.

Evolution is a feedback loop. So, too, would be a system that can be rearranged and where selection takes place.

The measured variation was ~17 mm DBP and ~10 mm SBP.