swansont

! Moderator Note “prove me wrong” doesn’t cut it. The one making the claim owns the burden of proof

fredreload has been banned for repeated bad faith arguments and soapboxing

AOM elements are small and can’t handle high power. Efficient free-space coupling (80%) requires good beam quality, and they only handle a limited wavelength range. I don’t see the connection to the 2nd law.

Unfortunately they don't actually break down the numbers of vaccinated vs unvaccinated people in the hospital, and dying. This article says 59% of the patients are vaccinated. If my math is correct, this means that being unvaccinated means you are ~2.75x more likely to be in the hospital as a vaccinated person.

Nothing is going to be perfect, which leaves us with "lock them all up because we can't be 100% sure" There is no such thing as a 100% safe society, so where do you realistically draw this line? This is a matter of acceptable levels of risk.

But you also cite (paraphrasing) "this is what society wants" and the two are not synonymous. Society's psyche contains an element of revenge. There's a reason the affronted do not get to decide what the punishments is for a crime. Our elected leaders should be implementing a system that does not pander to the baser instincts of the constituents, and instead does what is in society's best interests. Saving society from itself.

! Moderator Note Please don't wast our time with claims you can't or won't support.

! Moderator Note I said none of that. Eversion was a topic of another thread, which was closed. You don’t get to bring it up here. By making this connection, this becomes an argument in bad faith.

I know that’s an idea that’s been kicked around by some. I don’t know how to evaluate it.

To distinguish between how nature behaves and fantasy? Yes, that's one reason.

A black hole might fulfill the reverse of this. I don't know if someone inside a black hole (for however long they could continue to exist) could see outside, and we can't see in. So if there was some inverse of this situation, possibly.

Light doesn't leave or enter the universe. We are inside forever.

There is nothing we can interact with outside of the universe. It is inaccessible to us.

Inflation and expansion are not the same thing. Inflation is an accelerated expansion (i.e. it's a particular form of expansion) Having no central point is associated with expansion in general, not just with inflation. No, not so much. As above, changing scales is a feature of expansion, not just inflation. A meter isn't worth any less owing to expansion. Remember that expansion is only apparent where systems are not gravitationally bound to each other.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged

6 quarks (up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom) have been identified and confirmed, but none of them were discovered at the LHC. You haven’t done your homework. Your errors are legion, and I doubt anyone is going to rebut all of them

I don’t understand the question. It’s the column number. The actinides and lanthanides require an addition dimension, as it were, because you are now filling an additional shell. Or a much wider table, since you’d need 14 more columns, that would apply to only 2 rows. What is their “correct” position?

! Moderator Note Not if they are part of your argument. Only as reference material, or to support the details of your claim. People shouldn’t have to click on a link to participate.

What is that first distance? How is it chosen?

Can you link to where you showed the calculation for the synchrotron emission wavelength or frequency?

Updates always remove a feature that you liked. It's the nature of software updates, because in some software engineer's mind, different is needed to justify the update, and so different is considered better. In the user reality, different is automatically worse, because there is a new learning curve involved, and losses of function.

To be fair, we can move in any spatial direction (in principle) but only forward in time. For inertial motion our velocity through spacetime is fixed; the faster we move spatially, the slower we move in time such that our "four-velocity" remains invariant at c. (though we never notice, because for inertial motion we are always at rest and time moves normally for us. It's seen in the measurement by others, who are in a different frame of reference)

Relativity is a well-tested theory of physics, which describes these "restraints" It's the way that nature behaves. These "theories" of other dimensions are not. They are conjecture. Things that can't be modeled or tested are outside of science.

I have just one which has been in use for at least 5 years - I don't recall how long. A light that's on pretty much all the time I'm home and awake. Whenever it goes I will not consider it to be a premature death. (I think I've replaced one CFL bulb in the last 3-4 years. That's it for the modern ones.)

In laminar flow the different layers move at different speeds, which is decidedly not the case with light. Whether the light is focused depends on the optical conditions; it's not an inherent behavior of the light.