swansont

Col not Colin/Toby Jug (same user) has been banned at their request. VenusPrincess suspended for violations of multiple rules (civility being a primary charge)

! Moderator Note Hypotheses based on observation mean there are specific events (or sequences of events) that have been observed. You have not shared any such observations. Any model needs to be able to be applied in a similar fashion. To specific situations. The first rule of speculations is Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. You are not in compliance with this rule

! Moderator Note If you’re discussing fluxons and the topic introduced by the OP, it goes here. If it’s about the “electricity physics” terminology, introduced by someone who is not the OP, don’t post it

500k tonnes is about 1/1000 of total methane, which is estimated at >500 million tonnes https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020 That would mean it’s not a major contributor.

No, that’s not what he said, and let’s be clear here that you opened this door. YOU are the one who was complaining about too many concepts There is nothing inherently unreasonable about correlating electricity with Maxwell. It’s a field we call electricity and magnetism. joigus defined the scope of their comments. “electricity physics” is something you are choosing to define, after-the-fact, in order to score some points, to include quantum effects and effects that have nothing to do with electricity.

Can you post it here?

! Moderator Note You were asked not to bring this up again.

Did anybody say we are only investigating " at the highest levels of performance"? How is that not specific? As was pointed out in the MMA link posted early on, you can substitute skin color in for gender here, and find that these arguments have already been made when people worried about the "future of sports" that were being integrated.

Maxwell didn’t invent quantum anything. No.

There are physical difference between any arbitrary group of men, and any arbitrary group of women. Can just anybody succeed at basketball? At horse racing? Is there a lot of crossover participation between pro jockeys and the NBA? We have weight classes in wrestling and boxing. Yes, sexual dimorphism is real. But you’re presenting it as a specific, rather than a general trend. There are different issues when one is speaking of professional sports and amateur sports, where everyone is supposed to be able to participate

You could go with believing people when they tell you the gender with which they identify. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

Why not use an actual example instead of making something up?

The phrase “become transgender” is problematic. I’m not sure it’s something you “become” Is that how trans people describe it? Are you presenting a scenario where someone who is not trans pretends to be? i.e. they are trying to cheat? No, that’s not a true statement. Men, on average, are stronger. But that statement is assuming there are just the two gender categories. Anyway https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbt-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked/

But it’s not an example. It’s a boogie-man. It’s a monster under the bed. A made-up scenario to frighten people. A slippery-slope fallacy. You can’t have an honest discussion if you aren’t properly representing the situation.

I missed where Mike Tyson announced they are transgender. Do you have a link?

That’s a separate problem. Hydrogen is one possibility. Batteries are another.

Hydrogen is one possibility. Local generation is another.

True, but I didn't say anything about farming. Nor does it seem to address the points I brought up. (one being that you have to build the solar (or wind) farm. That's the key. Whether or not you use hydrogen is completely beside this point)

Or low frequency.

Or not, which is the issue. Hydrogen is a transfer medium, not a source, so it's a separate question. You could commit to hydrogen but burn coal to make it. This is similar to using copper wires to transmit electricity vs some other conductor. Neither one is inherently green or not green. The source needs to be green. Hydrogen efficiency or renewable efficiency?

Depends where the hydrogen came from.

You can test this yourself for visible light. Place the box between you and a bright light, so the bottom of the box blocks the light; top open. Can you see the light? If it was a piece of paper (i.e. thin) you could probably see a brighter area, as some light makes it through. For thicker paper (like construction paper) or cardboard, you won’t.

UV isn't shown there, probably because it does not penetrate paper unless it's very thin. x-rays and gammas are generally much higher energy than the UV we're typically exposed to.

Yes, that should protect from UV.

That's fine. But you haven't done any of that. You haven't provided any specific examples where you explain observations or predict new ones. You have no equations or simulations, or a physical model. We already have thermodynamics and a model for entropy. As we do for other phenomena you've brought up. You aren't bringing anything new to the discussion. We already have a concept of causality. Perhaps the better approach would be to learn what we already know, instead of striking out on your own. You're trying to discover a land that has already been mapped.