swansont

You can apply the Rayleigh criterion to find out. Size is going to be an important factor. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/Raylei.html

People practically begged you to present evidence, and you didn’t This isn’t evidence supporting a theory. This is a list of things you want science to explain. Which would be an acceptable discussion topic, but you claimed to have a theory, and did not present evidence to support that claim. You had your chances. Every time you bring this up, you complain about how you’ve been mistreated, instead of presenting evidence - the one thing that would keep a thread open Sure. Open up a thread and ask that question. But don’t discuss your theory because you’ve used up you chances to do that. At this point, bringing it up again probably gets you banned.

Absent any actual physics, that’s all one can validly conclude

rule 2.5, every time you bring up unrelated material Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument. rule 2.7 (this is only an excerpt), every time you posted a link to a discussion board as evidence Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. rule 2.12, every time you refer to the dogma of science, or conspiracies like “big pharma” controlling things We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling. Please note that this is also in violation of rule 2.12 Yes, and we will deal with it once events have played out

I, in fact, did not move the thread, though I have no disagreement with that action. People with biology expertise explained the shortcoming of your claim Your original assertion implied CBD was a viable alternative to the COVID mRNA vaccine, and it’s laughable to suggest that’s not speculation. Further, your critical analysis skills are suspect, considering you can’t sort out the “lack of scientific evidence” from the “conspiracy” issues. (the latter are things like your assertions involving “big pharma”)

Mainstream science is backed with a large amount of evidence. It is subject to change if you come up with a better model, supported by more evidence. It is not dogma. Calling it dogmatic isn’t a good faith argument. At best it shows a lack of understanding of science. It should be offered in speculations, following the rules of that forum, which includes requiring evidence. It is not the WAG forum.

“it was noticed that” There doesn’t seem to be a claim that there is an actual connection or physical significance.

Where does the proton mass "refer to the electron mass" in this way?

I think drug testing in sports shows this not to be true. PEDs were around before there were rules banning them. The Olympics first did drug testing in 1968. Nobody used PEDs before that?

You're just throwing out physics terminology (spin ice, not spinning ice, I did not say anything about quantum tunneling) If you want to you can go study physics and follow along with Dirac's derivation of the monopoles he predicted, but I have little patience for anything resembling "we don't know everything so we know nothing" style of arguments, or appeals to physics as dogma. If you want to dive into the deep end of physics, you need to first learn how to swim. You need to bring a certain amount of physics knowledge to the table in order to have a discussion.

<sigh> Researchers have created and photographed synthetic magnetic monopoles under lab conditions. The development lays the foundation for the underlying structure of the natural magnetic monopole – the detection of which would be a revolutionary event comparable to the discovery of the electron. In the summary it is quite clear that they have not, in fact, discovered a magnetic monopole. A magnetic monopole is a particle just like an electron, but with a magnetic rather than an electric charge. Some 80 years ago Paul A. M. Dirac, one of the founders of quantum physics, discovered a quantum-mechanical structure allowing the existence of magnetic monopoles. Dirac's original framework has now been experimentally realized for the first time. They realized a Dirac monopole, which is a QM structure, not a fundamental particle. As I pointed out before, these are not the same thing. I really hope this does not have to be pointed out again.

Where was this proposed? Not only is there no typical, this is talking about the very top performers of sport, which is performing at several standard deviations away from average, assuming there is a normal distribution.

Maxwell's equations forbid a fundamental particle that is a magnetic monopole, not a material such as spin ice, or some other condensed matter system, that exhibits such properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole#"Monopoles"_in_condensed-matter_systems

Topological monopoles are not the monopoles excluded by Maxwell's equations.

Such correlation is not a scientific argument. Science requires these be quantified. The rise in methane has to have an actual causal connection to the amount released in fracking, and you have not provided that. Your position is not assumed to be true in the absence of evidence, and appealing to conspiracy does not support your case in any way. No, the best science available tells us that CO2 is more important than methane, even as methane is more potent on a kg-for-kg basis. CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is far longer and, as your graph shows, the concentration is under 2 ppm, while CO2 is over 400 ppm. So there's 200x more CO2, and even with methane being more potent, CO2 has the larger effect.

That's not a scientific argument. Also, you have asked two distinct questions: 1. Is fracking a major contributor to methane emissions? Not by anything you've posted. Seems to be no. 2. Is fracking a major contributor to methane's contributions to global warming? Contribute? Yes. Major? Again, not by anything you've posted. Methane contributes about 10% to greenhouse warming, and in the US, methane emissions are going down. Any US contribution from fracking appears to be compensated by other reductions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane No, it's not. If you click on that link, it does not mention fracking at all.

Plenty of papers on arXiv are published in journals, so plenty of good science has "come from there" Reading the articles there is like reading journal articles. The average person is not going to understand them, and even physicists can have trouble with material outside their area of expertise. I will quickly get overwhelmed by condensed matter, nuclear and cosmology discussions. Even in atomic physics, which is my corner of physics, I will not be familiar with some parts of the discussions. The world of physics is pretty big.

! Moderator Note Conspiracy is not consistent with how we do discussions here, and I told you to stop linking to other discussion boards. Closed. Do not bring any of these topics up again.

! Moderator Note That was one of my points; this is not on-topic, but also, you need to follow rule 2.7 ! Moderator Note You didn’t point to studies, you pointed to a discussion board. Not good enough. This is not a negotiation.

! Moderator Note That’s a link to a discussion board. STOP DOING THAT. It’s not a link to anything that counts as evidence. The burden of proof is on you. You can’t, in effect, say “go look for it”

I don’t see fracking listed, or 65 mln tonnes. But 65 << 363

! Moderator Note You are inventing the connection to the current topic, and unsubstantiated phrasing such as “vaccine hype” is unacceptable. As is a claim of CBD immune-boosting, without scientific evidence connecting it to COVID-19.

Can you quantify the leakage? You’ve given production. As Sensei notes, they would want to minimize this. What’s the conversion of cubic feet, given in one post, to tonnes, given in another?

! Moderator Note This is off-topic (the topic is vaccine risk). ! Moderator Note You admit you have no expertise, and posting to other discussion boards is not evidence. You can ask question, but not also answer them (that’s soapboxing, and possibly represents an agenda). “full of toxins” also suggests pseudoscience.

I can’t parse this. “the same is underreported extra”? It sounded like you couldn’t find information. Now you’re arguing against the information? Youtube isn’t really scientific literature, and just posting a video link is insufficient. Can you just post the info here?