swansont

! Moderator Note This violates rule 2.3 concerning discussion of hazardous substances, in this case explosives

My point was that if we have expiring doses then there is no current shortage. And there likely will be no shortage any time soon, because in the early stages of the vax effort one constraint was manufacturing capacity, which was still ramping up. So there should be no problem. The US hit a goal of 100 million doses in Biden's first 100 days, and that was back-heavy, because the delivery in Jan/Feb was lower - the allocation for Pfizer was ~ 2 million doses a week. That quickly ramped up to 5 million per week by the end of March. Anyone in that first cohort needing a second dose would only take 40% of that capacity, leaving millions of doses for the currently unvaccinated. (Pretty sure there is a similar trend for the other options)

Which countries are implementing a vaccination-only strategy? And what is the cost of treatment vs vaccine? The US is throwing out expiring doses, which indicates supply exceeds demand. here's what's happening all across the United States: Millions of vaccine doses at risk of spoiling are sitting on freezer shelves, with no easy way to get them to countries desperately waiting for shots. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/10/1025463260/alabama-just-tossed-65-000-vaccines-turns-out-its-not-easy-to-donate-unused-dose

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your youtube channel is against the rules.

! Moderator Note When a thread is closed for a lack of rigor, it is not an invitation to open a new thread on a similar topic which is equally lacking in rigor.

! Moderator Note If you don’t offer a conjecture that’s supported with some amount of rigor (model, prediction, or evidence) then this does not rise to the level required in speculations. We don’t have a WAG forum. You are freeto ask questions and learn science, but this isn’t how we do things

! Moderator Note OK, then. Closed

Nothing is moving faster than c

Provide evidence of this claim. Not assertion. Evidence.

We have experimental evidence that GR is correct and this is wrong. Why are you wasting time with a model that’s contradicted by experimental evidence? The Pound-Rebka experiment.

I didn’t say it was a watch. But the oscillators used in GPS are adjusted to run slower (on the ground) so that the relativistic effects in orbit make them have the same frequency as a ground-based clock. Bottom of what? Ascent of what? You are saying things without giving context. I don’t see how this means anything. We’re talking about atoms. Fine structure and hyperfine structure refers to energy level splitting. There is no such thing as ultra-thin structure.

There’s no reason to think this is true, and probably no evidence you can provide. How would the knee know the nature of the mass providing this weight?

Strictly speaking, we know the Bohr model to be wrong, but the energy solutions for hydrogen-like systems is correct. There is no quantum theory of gravity This is the speculation? Why do clocks that don't rely on photons (e.g. quartz oscillators) feel the same effects? non-medzhu? What is that? Spin-orbit is the fine structure. The clock transition is in the hyperfine structure. e.g. in hydrogen, it's the fine structure is splitting of the excited P state. The hyperfine structure is seen in the ground state http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydfin.html The spin-orbit interaction is not involved in the atomic clock operation. My objections aside, I see no analysis of the actual amount of frequency shift you would expect. You have only hand-waved the answer. It needs to be quantified. There are none because the Bohr model is wrong. But if you mean by transitions between levels where the principle quantum number (n) changes, they do exist. They are called optical clocks, because these transitions are often in the visible part of the spectrum. And they have measured frequency shifts perfectly consistent with general relativity. https://www.nist.gov/publications/relativity-and-optical-clocks (this is from > 10 years ago) The top of what? You mean the redshift that you have yet to calculate for the conjecture you are championing? Why is there no calculation? How do you get from your formulas to 4gh/c^2? The 21 cm transition in H is the hyperfine transition I mentioned before, not the fine-structure splitting.

Most humans don't walk on their knees for very long. We walk on our feet. Beyond that, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Clarification is needed.

Can it? Or does it need some minimal functionality to make sure the body is working?

We already have a perfectly cromulent model of how fission and fusion work (and it's because stronger bonds are formed; energy released by "breaking bonds" is a pop-sci misconception). What does your idea bring to the table? If it's based on that misconception you've started down the wrong path.

That's not really how it works. You can have a rough idea and think it through to see if an idea runs afoul of established science, but for any kind of specific predictions that you would be comparing to experiment, you need to have a mathematical model in place. Such as: any prediction that a massive object could travel at c, or any speed above that, which can be readily rejected as it runs afoul of established science. Unless you can poke a hole in the established science, which you can only do if you have a mathematical model that shows a loophole that you can exploit, and you've covered all of the parts of physics you break by having superluminal speeds.

No, we're considering exploding vs not exploding, since cars don't (or only very, very rarely) explode.

"empty space" at the quantum level is a nebulous concept. The most basic interpretation of black holes is a singularity, and then a whole bunch of space out until the event horizon, so there would in fact be a lot of empty space inside a black hole. Dark matter being black holes is probably something that has been proposed and discarded. Something along the lines of: You would be able to detect it from the infall of matter into the BH. We don't see that. You're treating space as a substance here, which it is not. Any proper treatment of this topic requires math to explore, which you don't have. There is very little you can do without the math.

AFAIK they don't actually explode like you see in the movies. The petrol is liquid, not a pressurized gas, and you need the gas plus the right amount of oxygen to have an explosion. https://motorandwheels.com/cars-explode-catch-fire/ Plus it's a gas under pressure in the situation I described

I'm not sure of the current storage technology. I know metal hydrides were being used, but that was years ago, and the knock on them was they were heavy. Hydrogen under high pressure is a bit of a danger. "If a 20% hydrogen blend was rolled out across the country it could save around six million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year, the equivalent of taking 2.5 million cars off the road. Hydrogen blending at this level could also open the door to greater use of hydrogen – possibly up to 100% in the network – and kick off a low-carbon hydrogen economy in the UK. " This, of course, assume green sources for making the hydrogen, which is often glossed over in the discussions. Hydrogen can only be as green as the method that produces it. i.e. this tacitly assumes you're not burning coal to make hydrogen. As I recall hydrogen embrittlement was a problem for pipelines, and I don't know if that's been solved. There's no mention of that issue. I think there has been advances in plastics that would allow for hydrogen transport. But that would be all new infrastructure. Agree. I know there are fuel cell vehicles out there, but often they are for local use - forklifts and such, with hydrogen generation probably done on-site. Possibly for local delivery as well. But until you can "fill up" away from your home area, it's a non-starter.

As hinted at above, the big issue is that we don't "mine" hydrogen, or produce it in a way that gives us hydrogen for an energy input that's smaller than the energy we get from combustion. As such, it's not an energy source, it's a storage medium This the comparison is to batteries, not the energy source. Do you store the energy in a battery or do you store it in a hydrogen tank of some sort. Do you transport electricity over wires, or do you have a hydrogen pipeline. EV's are winning because the storage and transport are more mature infrastructure. Putting charging stations in places is easier because we already send electricity to those places, but we don't send hydrogen. The production is not there at scale, and the pipeline isn't in place.

Yes, that's correct for the twins paradox but this problem as stated is not the twins paradox, and therefore the twins paradox should not be under discussion. i.e. I answered the question that was asked, not some other question that was not asked. If they are moving at the same speed, they are at rest with respect to each other and therefore in the same frame. If they are not, then there is relative motion and they will not see length and time as being the same. I don't know what you mean by "stack" or "perceived reference frame"

You link to and describe "Hole through the center of the Earth " The earth is not a black hole. You don't even mention a black hole until. the end of your post. Sorry, I was looking for a legitimate physics reason. Silly me. Is "balance" an accepted phenomenon? What is the actual mechanism for changing the particle into its antiparticle, using only a gravitational interaction? ZPE is the inertia of the mass? Sorry, that's gibberish. Maybe you should take physics 101 first. More gibberish. Need less handwave, more rigor.

Until they slide off the side and crash. Or want to stop. Friction is more than an impediment to speeding up.