swansont

If nobody posted links until I asked, I didn’t miss them, and all of the links have been to surveys reporting anecdotes. They are not scientific studies, for the reason I have already given. If you would actually read what I wrote, you’ll see I said much less likely. So I am NOT telling you that it would be eliminated if all people are vaccinated. Less incidence of the virus would mean less of an opportunity to mutate. More vaccinated people means less incidence of the virus. So far you’ve provided zero links to scientific studies

A) a variable speed of light most certainly contradicts a constant speed of light. B) c^2 = -phi is speculation, and the rules preclude building further speculation on it. You may defend the claim by providing evidence for it, or try and disprove it, but that’s it. It’s not evidence of any mainstream idea being wrong.

Like I said, there is a thread where that comes up. I just moved it from biology to here in medical science. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125292-pfizer-vaccine-long-term-side-effects/

Yes. It should be "all of the long-lasting symptoms" (and I think the conversation doesn't include erectile disfunction, which I've seen mentioned as a long-term symptom)

This was brought up (rather haphazardly) in another thread. Also brought up, in a different thread, was all if the long-lasting symptoms from getting the disease even if it's not fatal to you.

I don't think there's very much physics in it. Nothing isn't a thing, so this is more like (the western view of) a Zen koan, like "What is the sound of one hand clapping" which (AFAIK) doesn't have an answer. Perhaps a more practical approach is if the box has a hole contained within it, obviously that hole moves with the box, because the material that defines the hole moves. In that sense, the notion of a "nothing" requires "something" in order to define it. But the issue of whether it's the same nothing, the question is "how could you confirm this, one way or the other?" If you can't tell different nothings apart, then there's no way to know for sure.

That's a good point. And those symptoms were included on the Norwegian study, along with others that might not warrant a claim.

The conserved quantities are certain properties of particles or systems - such as linear and angular momentum, and energy. Not spacetime. (also, mass is not a conserved quantity. This is the invariant mass, not the so-called relativistic mass, which is a proxy for energy) The symmetries involve whatever spacetime symmetry you are looking at - translation in space (momentum), translation in time (energy) and rotation (angular momentum).

As that says, it's anecdotal, and so the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy cannot be ruled out

Why does it need to be? Photons disagree with you. Neither mass nor velocity would change under a spatial translation

Right. They will tend to be skewed to the higher end of the age profile.

Because it matters in terms of impact to people. If we're all vaccinated evolving a resistant strain is much less likely. It's happening because people aren't vaccinated, and are not following (or being required to follow) the protocols to stop the spread. What do you base this on? I missed any link to studies showing that the vaccine eliminates issues of long COVID.

Which vaccine(s)? What rate are people getting hospitalized or dying?

Which doesn’t make your mistaken claim about the study any more correct. Which is a different study, with a different data collection methodology To perform this analysis, FAIR Health drew on longitudinal data from its database of over 34 billion private healthcare claim records from 2002 to the present. IOW, if you didn’t file a claim, you aren’t included, even if you had COVID. Meanwhile, in the other study, Household members of patients who tested positive were included to ensure completeness of the cohort, and their infection was diagnosed by SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies at 2 months IOW, they went and found people who had COVID, which would include asymptomatic people. So, the insurance company would not include people who couldn’t establish they had had COVID, and possibly others, which would undercount the number of people with long-term symptoms, making the ~25% number a lower bound.

No, they can't. That's not how entanglement works. Feel free to look at the many threads we have on the topic, and if you have unanswered questions, start a thread to ask them. What does our experience match up with this? How much data do we have that's survived 500 years? How many species survive as long as 50 million years? That's another topic that's come up for discussion. Is this possible? How soon could an advanced technology emerge after the big bang? (again, feel free to consult other threads and open up a new one if necessary)

If this is a beam in a particle accelerator, it will have traveled upwards of 750 million km in the roughly 2.5 seconds it takes to drop 30m Not happening in any accelerator around here. Also, the Larmor formula says that the radiated energy in a 1g field is around 10^-50 joules in this period of time (just a rough calculation)

If you go to https://theconversation.com/concerned-about-the-latest-astrazeneca-news-these-3-graphics-help-you-make-sense-of-the-risk-162175 and scroll down about 2/3 of the way, you will find the exact cite given in the article. It's the 2019 version of the links you've shown. If it is not specific enough it's not iNow's fault. Blame the author of the article. (all I did was add "TTS blood clot" to the search to find the article)

If L/c is sufficiently large, the transit delay is longer than one's lifetime. (edit: just saw that iNow has already explained)

It can, however, prohibit conversation.

We need to separate the effect that Enthalpy is incorrectly including from the nonexistent increase in mass from the established physics prediction of a dropped or deflected particle. Which is why we need Enthalpy's calculation edit: and an observer that's co-moving with the particle will see it at rest, so the question is where is that 1 eV photon coming from. Even a proton has much less than an eV of kinetic energy after falling 30m, and the recoil from emitting a 540 nm photon would be quite noticeable

No, read it again. The cohort was 247 home-isolated and 65 hospitalized. Home-isolated suggests the immediate effects of the disease were not severe (or they would have been hospitalized) and possibly includes asymptomatic people, and the listed symptoms in the latter part of the abstract are for home-isolated, young-adult patients. (52% (32/61) of home-isolated young adults, aged 16–30 years, had symptoms at 6 months) (emphasis added)

We've had discussion about possible long-term effects of the vaccines. But now we're starting to see long-term effects of the disease https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01433-3?error=cookies_not_supported&code=15f3b4c5-db60-4dfa-b209-5334c13d613e Abstract: Long-term complications after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are common in hospitalized patients, but the spectrum of symptoms in milder cases needs further investigation. We conducted a long-term follow-up in a prospective cohort study of 312 patients—247 home-isolated and 65 hospitalized—comprising 82% of total cases in Bergen during the first pandemic wave in Norway. At 6 months, 61% (189/312) of all patients had persistent symptoms, which were independently associated with severity of initial illness, increased convalescent antibody titers and pre-existing chronic lung disease. We found that 52% (32/61) of home-isolated young adults, aged 16–30 years, had symptoms at 6 months, including loss of taste and/or smell (28%, 17/61), fatigue (21%, 13/61), dyspnea (13%, 8/61), impaired concentration (13%, 8/61) and memory problems (11%, 7/61). Our findings that young, home-isolated adults with mild COVID-19 are at risk of long-lasting dyspnea and cognitive symptoms highlight the importance of infection control measures, such as vaccination. More than half of the people having persistent symptoms after 6 months doesn't sound good.

So, Yanchilin. IOW, another non-mainstream claim. He even calls it an hypothesis in the opening line of the abstract, and offers it as a postulate in the paper, which means that there is no evidence that it’s correct.

Source for this claim? I keep asking for evidence, and your response is more things claimed without evidence. That’s not how this works.

Transverse KE does not. Your OP mentions electrons, not protons, and the acceleration is vertical. Compare the momentum of a vertically-directed photon with the momentum of the proton or electron The KE of the particle, in the plane of the acceleration. So you’re viewing this as a synchrotron with a bend downward. Synchrotron radiation depends on the bend radius, which gets larger as you give the particle transverse KE Show your calculation