swansont

! Moderator Note You have presented no experimental evidence to support your claim, no alternative model to test, and are obviously not here to learn. Here endeth the trolling. Don’t bring the subject up again.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. They attract or repel. The interaction only differs in that one aspect, just as physics says.

Subatomic effects? Probably not. The object itself might have a different composition than the area. The K-T impact, for example, deposited iridium and other rare-earth elements; the normal surface composition of chemicals is different. If there were radioactive isotopes, they will be present. But effects on terrestrial materials are most likely going to me macroscopic, such as melting due to high temperatures, and not subatomic. What would be an unusual spin orientation? You have two options: up or down.

Saying something is easy. What you need to provide is the evidence (i.e. point to the experiment) that others can examine. And you need to do this with your next post.

Forgive me if I don’t take your word for this. Do you have any credible evidence of this? Mere assertion is not even close to being sufficient

Nothing about science demands naked-eye observation. Much of modern physics is inferred by the experimental results. You don’t e.g. actually see photons zipping around after being emitted by an atom, you measure a voltage or current after they hit a photodiode. You verify the model by whether you are getting the expected signal under various conditions. Please stop with the OT nonsense.

I don’t see one. Who is making this claim? Yes, there is attraction and repulsion, but that’s just a sign difference. The form of the interaction is the same, i.e. the same equations apply.

What is “high speed”? This is from StringJunky is the other active thread discussing interstellar travel IOW, your scenario does not jibe with the actual logistics. You can’t just hand-wave your way through this. Some actual analysis is required.

The models based on them work. By their very nature, you can’t directly detect a virtual particle.

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken notion that the universe needs to make sense to you. That it needs to not only be logical, but the logic that follows from a particular premise. This is fallacious reasoning. Science is not philosophy. Science requires that we test the validity of our models by comparing it with experiment - it is restricted by how nature behaves. We throw out models that don't live up to this. If you can't test to see if your premise is true, then it's not science, and will be uninteresting to some (most?) scientists. Others might ponder the question to see if they can think of a way to test it. Maybe others ponder it, owing to their own motivations. From a logical perspective we have a conclusion that holds if the premise is true, and doesn't hold if the premise is false. Not being able to test it limits its value. You've also made pronouncements about physics based solely on logic, with little or no basis in physics. Those aren't worth the electrons used to post them. GIGO applies here. You "refute" science by showing that it disagrees with experiment. Reminds me of the response to a crappy product that isn't selling. One way is to make a better product. But there are some whose response is to do better/more advertising.

BV63 has been suspended for repeated bad faith/straw man arguments.

! Moderator Note Strawmen. You are clearly not arguing in good faith.

How many people are in the healthcare industry, working in retirement communities and nursing homes? Estimate how many people would be in these retirement communities if you increased the lifespan by X amount, and how many people would have to work to support this effect. These people would have to be culled from the unemployed and other aspects of society. I suspect you would have an almost immediate impact if you were able to extend life an additional 10 years, and then another 10, and so on. You would have to pay them more to pry them away from other jobs. There would be a push to automate some jobs to free up additional workers, but the economic strain would be quite stark - a lot more people would be outliving their retirement savings. If this happened gradually, as it already has to some extent, you'd see older people delaying retirement because they can't afford it. With more people, you need more food, and workers to do this. More of a lot of things, too. Pretty much all of our consumables get a higher demand. At some point the burden of care would threaten other jobs necessary for the economy to thrive. You would stop using taxes to pay for certain things, like R&D, because it's needed for the social safety net. There's a flip side to this: in order for the longevity to increase, something must have happened, health-wise, to permit it. So maybe a little bit of the healthcare burden is relieved because you've e.g. cured cancer, and some of the the doctors, nurses and attendants can be shifted to geriatric care instead. But the millions of them that would be needed have to come from somewhere.

Your evidence of this? Can you please answer the question what an "off interaction" or "off magnet" is?

This is a very general claim. You have to establish that it is true. What do you mean by "2 off magnetic forces"? This is so vague as to be useless for a basis of discussion.

bots crawling the web The fraction of scientists who are interested in outreach such as this forum provides is likely quite small. It's of little value to an academic, as they get to/have to address all kinds of problems with fundamental concepts if they are teaching, and nothing here is likely to touch on any cutting edge research that they'd be doing at a university. The value of SFN to my job is that occasionally I have to refresh my memory on some topics in order to explain a concept or rebut a crackpottish claim. Occasionally, that topic has relevance to some aspect of research I'm involved in, so the info is fresh in my mind when I discuss it with colleagues. There's also just the exercising of the brain that comes with answering questions. It's like warming up before you physically exert yourself. But there has never been an instance where someone has shown up with some "outside the box" physics where my reaction has been "Wow, they're right! I can use this!" Never.

Who is saying it's a pseudovector? I don't see that in your book excerpt. It's a vector, following the protocol of a cross product. The dipole can have any orientation and the result will be the same. There's no directionality relative to a coordinate system. It's a scalar. The dissipation of energy follows certain rules, and it depends on the system. The gradient of potential energy gives you the force; the gradient is where directionality comes in, not the energy itself. Knowing that e.g. the electrostatic potential energy depends on the separation tells you the gradient is radial, and the force is indeed radial.

Are you new here? Have you met SFN? Pleading ignorance of the concept of "back up what you claim" isn't going to wash. Claiming that nobody is held to this standard is ludicrous. I have already clarified this (see my earlier post); it wasn't a response to you. And there are so many details one could consider. How quickly can you accelerate? How much fuel and reaction mass would you need for just this trip. You need even more if you need to maneuver. What of the problem of things wearing out - how much raw material do you need to fix things? Is radiation a problem? Damage to the ship because it's traveling at a million mph? How do you ensure you have the diversity of life that would allow survival for that long? Pick any aspect of the travel and there's likely a rabbit hole to go down exploring the problems that have to be overcome.

This is why dimreepr needs to specify what the conditions of the thought experiment are; discussing different scenarios gets confusing.

I suspect the young folks would balk at going to war for the old folks much more than they currently do. There would be a shift in other motivations, too, since you aren't likely to get an inheritance if you are only ~30 years younger than your parents. As far as a social safety net goes, who pays for it? How would an economy sustain itself if you only worked until you are ~70 and then spent 900+ years trying to not go broke?

You have to have many reactors, too, because the containment vessel will fail owing to fast neutron embrittlement. And all the components will wear out, which makes for logistical problems. But you didn't address this, just as you don't address any other solutions you present. There's never any detail. If you've glossed over nothing, show me where you go into the details of any of the proposed solutions to show that they are viable and not just a pipe dream. Instead of just saying "generation ship" how about estimating its size and what must be carried to travel even 1 LY through space. There's probably some very interesting science and engineering to discuss, but it's never come up, because you stop at e.g. "generation ship" and go no further. I cited physics as the reason that "They can travel to different areas at will" is a bad assumption (that's the only mention of physics by me in the thread before now). If you think that being limited to some (probably small) fraction of c and relying on some future generation to be alive at the destination is getting somewhere "at will" then I guess we have different definitions of "at will"

Assuming they have similar lifespans to ours. And if they do, that the interest level in these probes continues even though there is no feedback for a long, long time. And they maintain the technology to interface with the probes (though this is not quite like needing to find a device that lets you read an 8" floppy disk, which is only ~50 year-old tech, and hoping your software can read whatever files are on it)

You haven't answered the question. If we age the same but just don't die of old age for another ~900 years, all of our young people are going to be working in the nursing homes of people who are old and can't care for themselves. They would also have to be fed, putting a strain on food supply as the population grew because people weren't dying. So yeah, we'd stagnate. Things might be different if this were the case all along, but then it wouldn't be our society, it would be the society of the people that lived for 1000 years. And this all changes if puberty didn't hit until we were ~120, our fertility were different, and we didn't start suffering the ravages of old age until we were ~600 or 700 or even later, and many other things to consider. Lots to unpack, and impossible to do so with so many variables that have not been defined.

And the death rate from being unvaccinated is even higher than that. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-covid-deaths-for-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people/ For the month of March, “unvaccinated people 12 years and older had 17 times the rate of COVID-associated deaths, compared to people vaccinated with a primary series and a booster dose,” And if you look at the graphs, it's almost 17x for people 65+ and boosted, and even bigger for people 50-64 and boosted So the cost of this N-antibody immunity is a markedly higher chance of dying.

Where's the part that says that immunity from having the disease is better?