swansont

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.

Is this somehow unusual?

But that’s not the reason for the radiation. The radiation is along the direction of motion, perpendicular to the instantaneous acceleration.

Moving in a circle is not a changing acceleration. It’s always in the radial direction

But there is radiation, so how is this an example of an acceleration not resulting in radiation? Not in its rest frame, but that’s not an inertial frame. In an inertial frame (i.e. in freefall) you would detect radiation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charged_particles_in_a_gravitational_field (see Resolution by Rohrlich) “The key is to realize that the laws of electrodynamics, Maxwell's equations, hold only within an inertial frame”

I read that Egyptians have use "Mexico" as secret code for Al-Sisi to avoid censorship since they’re not allowed to criticize his regime. If that’s true, the mixup doesn’t seem so strange.

If there is actual harm to health then there should be a limit set by a government agency. Companies generally guard their proprietary information; I doubt there would be a database you could access

Given that E=mc^2, I think that energy and mass are on equal footing. Both are abstractions; neither is real in the sense that they are properties rather than substances. The effects tied to them are quite real. But it’s important to specify what one means by real. Real (actually there/happening) vs illusion, or real (physically exists) vs. abstraction? Energy and mass aren’t illusions.

Sometime price is not a sign of quality.

Which happen every day Same topic. Threads merged “Undated cases were excluded from the analysis” No number is given; if these are randomly distributed then the ratio is smaller. They do not specify the size of the disturbance and why normal daily fluctuations don’t have an effect. “The analyzing data collected by the Moscow ambulance services covering more then one million observations over three years, cleaned up by seasonal effects of meteorological and social causes” Meteorological? I wonder how big of a magnetic field fluctuation you get from lightning.

Who is “us”? You might be confused, but to claim others are is projection.

No. We expect you to know some things. You repeatedly fall short of a reasonable expectation to have done some study. You demand that we spoon-feed you information. And you’re rude in doing so. You go with the best theory available to you. Science can’t progress if you ignore a model because it might show some disagreement with an experiment 20 years in the future. If the result needs the extra precision that 20 years brings, to show disagreement, then the basic model is pretty good.

Assuming all of the pitch is for making fabs, which nobody actually knows. This is all speculation. That’s all this is, since nobody has presented any facts about the proposal other than the dollar amount. Fabs use a lot of energy, so you need to install a lot of power generation capability. Processing also uses water, which means installing infrastructure for that. You can build your own cities for workers, so it’s possible you’d be building that, too. We don’t know how comprehensive it was. The basic knee-jerk analysis, that $7T for chip plants is preposterous, should lead to at least the possibility that there’s more to the proposal. The idea that you can only come to this one conclusion is idiotic, and just tiresome manufactured outrage. An exercise in bad-faith discussion.

We don’t think we know how the early universe would give us only dark matter, but if you skip over that, then yes, I agree with that. Not sure about black holes; I think Hawking radiation would lead to photons.

And how did we know that they were wrong? Because they did the experiment and reported the results. If you are trying to insinuate that because a result differed from theory that all results are suspect, the answer is no, that’s arguing in bad faith. You have to have evidence.

OTOH cheap things tend to wear out pretty rapidly, and quality often lasts longer and not in a linear fashion. (i.e. 4x more expensive lasting longer than 4x the time) Consider the Boots economic theory by Terry Pratchett Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

QM = quantum mechanics Which has little to do with trajectories, but does study the quantities that classical mechanics studies, e.g. energy and momentum Don’t project your confusion onto others. Welcome to science. When experiment and theory disagree, you modify the theory. We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years. And what is this substance you call electromagnetism? What are its properties? Density, elasticity, compressibility, etc.? How would you measure them? And how do you tell if you are moving through it, or stationary with respect to it?