swansont

Your thesis, as I understand it, is that the vaccines are causing this problem - that the virus would not be mutating if there was no vaccine. Pointing out that the virus is mutating, which is an expected occurrence, is neutral with respect to your thesis. Not having a vaccine - which, AFAIK is more of a regulatory hurdle than a scientific one - merely puts us back in the same boat as we were before. But not as worse, because more people are alive and fewer are dealing with the long-term effects of the virus, as compared to having no vaccine at all. So the question is, are you going to provide evidence to support this notion you've advanced, or are you just going to insult people who call you on your crappy argument? (I can assure you, the latter will not fly)

No, we can't do this in the near future. "Equipped with a laser sail just under one meter (3 ft) in diameter, such a spacecraft could be propelled by a 70 GW laser array to about 26 percent the speed of light in about 10 minutes" There are a lot of unstated assumptions here. I'm guessing someone just looked at the force exerted, calculated the acceleration and that was the end of it. Here is just one: what level of reflectivity does your solar sail have to achieve so it isn't vaporized by 70 GW of laser power? Another: at ~0.25c, how long would your probe get to look at a solar system?

Well, you should do more research. The Bohr model has been dead for almost 100 years. It was superseded by quantum mechanical treatments back in 1926, when Pauli and Schrödinger both published solutions for the hydrogen atom. ! Moderator Note Please note that linking to files is insufficient to foster discussion. You need to post a model here, so that people can discuss it without following links. You should start with the fundamental parts of your thesis before forging ahead, because we don't permit speculation to be based on other speculation.

It's not your earnings the rule refers to, it's any impact on earnings from the documents you quote. If you quote a chapter of some book and now people don't have to pay the author for that (say it was serialized, so one chapter was being published every week)then that would likely be a violation, even if you only published 1 chapter out of a very long book. But if you are quoting yourself then there is no copyright issue. Also, you are free to paraphrase. It is only specific wording that is protected, not the idea behind it. So quoting from a book might be an issue, but describing the plot of a book is not protected. e.g. you might have to worry if you are quoting from the book "Jurassic Park" but describing it as a book about cloning dinosaurs (and going into details of the plot) is not protected. Or, in an example I've seen elsewhere, there is a famous Charles Addams cartoon that shows ski tracks going on both sides of a tree. His cartoon is protected by copyright, so you can't publish an exact duplicate without permission (or one of the other allowable conditions of copyright, like fair use), but anyone can draw a cartoon with that same concept - the specific expression is copyrighted, not the idea. (again, I am using US law here; details will vary from country to country) You might see "in the daytime, the sky is blue" written somewhere, but stating that would not be a violation because this is common knowledge.

In the US, if you only quote small sections and provide citations, it should be fine. It’s called fair use. You run into trouble when you quote too much; this can potentially impact the market for the quoted material. You should consult your own country’s laws for specifics.

That would be another macroscopic, thermally-influenced event. There could be others.

! 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.