swansont

It might help to look at the Bernoulli equation to see what studiot is talking about http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html

There are two possibilities that your inquiry raises: someone has the information you seek, about specific studies in a very narrow sector of medical (not biological) study, or they know where to look for it. What you have been given is the latter: a path so you can delve into this. We are not your research minions, to be sent off to the library to seek out citations for you.

So you made what looks to be a factual claim, but then admit it was a WAG. That's really not how things work here. You can ask questions or you can present ideas, but the ideas have to have some level of rigor. And you seem to be following a pattern, and this does not end well. You will quickly use up your allotment of goodwill if this trend continues. The problem here is that if you don't know how the quantum effects occur, there's no way to assess what "errors" are occurring. There no science, just your buzzwords. It needs to stop.

And yet I still see no evidence being presented. This does not fulfill the requirements of speculations. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ 1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. Last chance!

Telling you how to find what you’re looking for is a perfectly reasonable response. If someone had the knowledge, they could share it, but expecting them to do the legwork for you is…well, I think zapatos got it right: Privileged.

And what does this have to do with electrons allegedly traveling faster than c in atoms? Where is your mathematical model? What testable predictions do you make? How is the idea falsifiable?

Repeating an absurd claim is not evidence.

I studied quantum physics and this was not required. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

! Moderator Note Followup on this tangent has been moved https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127776-covid-behind-us-split-from-potential-mass-strike-action-in-the-uk/#comment-1216640

What defines a “pandemic level”?

What is the evidence that makes you think it’s moving faster than c?

That sounds like “no” If you can’t describe the process, how can you analyze any “errors” that occur?

! Moderator Note What is the point of posting something you posted to another site, where apparently you go your question answered?

Can you describe how our thought process occurs at the quantum level?

! Moderator Note Which is locked, and you were told not to bring it up again.

! Moderator Note The rules forbid you from advertising your pet theory in other threads, and you were told specifically not to bring the topic up again.

! Moderator Note Why is this posted in politics? Where is your evidence to support the thesis? This follows an unfortunate pattern in your threads. It’s too bad, because you can discuss things you like (in the right section) such as “I really like recent sci-fi” without framing it in the form of an unsupported cherry-picked premise and a conclusion that simply begs the question. But we don’t like logical fallacies, as it makes for poor discussions. Do better.

! Moderator Note Your refusal to provide a model and evidence violates the forum rules. You are not to re-introduce this topic.

Insist all you want. It’s been done. You have to share the information here, not in some article elsewhere. Will you answer the questions I asked? Then show the double slit changing when different materials are used. Why do we get interference with red light, which does not have enough energy to cause the photoelectric effect? Why do we see interference with microwaves, which have much less energy?

Reminds me of the “I built this with no help” business-folk. You didn’t happen to work for Craig T Nelson, by chance ?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse (more so for a government official), but he showed he understood these things when he was giving speeches about locking Hillary up for her email server.

“a thermonuclear” is not a thing. It’s a description of a kind of reaction. “No thermonuclear will last” makes no sense. We have observed fusion reactions We have observed fusion reactions, where electrons are not participants. You are dismissing a wide swath of physics for which there is good evidence, and offer basically nothing of substance. What is sintez? One very large problem is that you are “explaining” things without having provided the requisite background, so there’s no point of reference for understanding your “accumulation points” You need to present the foundation before you build anything on top of it.

Which is an utterly meaningless point. Salary/wages are typically paid out after the work is completed. Why would it matter the employee is actually working when that happens? The employer owes the employee for a short time. (an interest-free loan) Leave, being part of your earned compensation, is no different. (xpost with iNow)

Let’s have these predictions, and details of how you make them. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke.

I don’t think you’ve made your case that employers are less powerful than the employed, but I don’t see how your statement that “when the employee gets sick, the employer still has to pay them, even though he's getting nothing for his money.” depends on that notion. I have acknowledged that employees in the UK have stronger statutory support than in the US, where sick leave is not universal. Seems to me that this is more like insurance, where occasionally one could get benefits greater than the premium you’ve paid, but overall that’s not the case. Most workers work, and only take occasional sick leave, so they’ve already earned the time off by the time they take it. Is sick leave part of one’s compensation, or is it not?