swansont

No formal initiative yet, other than donating money for manufacturing the vaccine, but “If we have a surplus, we’re going to share it with the rest of the world,” Mr. Biden said this week, adding, “We’re going to start off making sure Americans are taken care of first, but we’re then going to try and help the rest of the world.” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/12/us/politics/covid-19-vaccine-global-shortage.html Which schedules, in particular? The ones I'm familiar with are for the US, citing a number of doses to be delivered by the end of March. And since it's not yet the end of March, we have no way of saying they have failed. One can extrapolate from earlier numbers, but since the companies are ramping up production, a linear extrapolation will not be accurate. i.e. providing 2 million doses a week in February does not mean next week's delivery will be 2 million doses. As with iNow, I'd like to know how you know this. How you know they overstated their ability to ramp up production, which could run into any number of problems (e.g. was any slated to take place in Texas or neighboring areas, which had serious weather-related problems recently? How could one anticipate this when the contracts were signed? There are multiple scenarios similar to that which could be in play. Supply constraints. QC problems.) The US just hit 100 million doses administered, last week. Those doses are coming from somewhere.

You’ve mentioned QT twice now, without connecting it to time perception.

This would be an issue of a regulatory agency monitoring tests of the product. Does someone monitor such products in your country?

No, the situation is not symmetric. You need time to have time perception but you don’t need time perception to have time.

Motion is relative and any inertial observer can say they are at rest. Nothing is required to maintain motion. As to what changes motion, it’s acceleration, and acceleration requires a force. A geodesic isn’t a direction, per se. Symmetry tells us there is no preferred direction. But the answer is the principle of least action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_as_Hamiltonian_flows#Geodesics_as_an_application_of_the_principle_of_least_action

It’s literally my job to measure time independent of time perception. I would agree that you cannot so easily disentangle time perception from time.

But you’re not reaching them in any event. This would be about reassuring people who are undecided on whether to get vaccinated

Politics is perception. If people think the vaccine caused it, an emotional response, a whole lot of them won’t be swayed by statistics and statements. So halting the rollout looks like protecting people. And as gordief notes, you don’t want people to have an excuse to not get vaccinated. A delay to “assess” things might be the assurance some people need.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-doctors-react-as-eu-countries-suspend-shot.html This is out of 17 million people DVT is normally about 1 in 1000 per year https://www.stoptheclot.org/the_basics/how_common_dvt/ Seems like this is likely the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

No, that doesn't sound like scientists. What we know is always with the caveat that things could change with new information. But you proceed with the best information that you have. As Markus said, you move forward. If they were certain that the list was complete, nobody would have continued looking with higher and higher energy particle accelerators. Yes. Some other sources (e,.g. photons) can be excluded quite easily. This sounds a whole lot like argument from personal incredulity.

Axion has been banned for his relentless soapboxing and bad faith arguments (primarily conspiracy, and appeal to science as dogma). Suspension didn’t make a dent.

You’re anthropomorphizing the situation. The earth doesn’t “need” anything. It will be here long after we are gone.

I don’t understand why you can’t just open a new thread to discuss it. Is there something preventing that? Don’t answer; it’s rhetorical. I’ve split this into its own thread. Have at it.

Where did I claim this? (hint: I never did; you are just making this up) Such nonsense has already gotten you in trouble, but thank you for confirming that you did not learn your lesson.

Time is something that can be studied in the context of physics. It is relative, not absolute. As you have posted on this topic, you are aware of this. As I have posted on the topic as well, you know I know this. Time perception is a psychological/neurological/philosophical phenomenon, as your quote indicates. Time seems to pass quickly or slowly based on a wide variety of condition, etc, etc. I will note that "relativity" isn't included in that list. So this "fixed entity" claim seems like a charade. The two (time, time perception) are distinct topics of discussion. Can we get back to the topic of the OP, please?

Good. There is no such thing, and nobody has suggested that there is. Was there a point to this?

And AFAIK it is considered to be that. To clarify: Friction is the source, not the type. Friction gives rise to particulates that get into the air. I was surmising. You should find other sources. I was going by the article I linked to, which discussed vehicles. The discuss friction as a source of pollution, specifically braking, pointing out that regenerative braking reduces this load, since the electromagnetic nature is non-contact (which also applies to electric motors)

Saying true things does not cancel out the garbage things.

A saying I have seen/heard people utter. Google tells me it's a way of saying that history repeats itself (from Nietzsche, apparently)

I think that professors are probably no different than any other professional of similar accomplishment. Twisting the rules and backstabbing are not confined to academia. I have known some pretty awesome professors, and some who are assholes. If your experience is different, part of it might be you.

No, not clairvoyant or ad hoc. You could investigate it, but it would require learning some physics. Neutrinos rarely interact but the do interact, and from the reactions you can deduce their properties. They never "replaced" them, and what physics has against them is that the model doesn't work. The model, I note, that you have not produced or discussed in any detail. No model of how an interaction between a proton and an electron could confine an electron to the nucleus, or how an electron in general could be confined to such a small region, and have this remain consistent with the physics that we know. And if it isn't, then you need new physics, which you haven't given us. Presenting the neutrino as an antiphoton doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the physics discussion you need to be prepared to have. You've written one sentence of the abstract. Where's the physics?

As I said, gas engines probably have more friction, and of course, there's the combustion.

I would guess it's because you hav no evidence that CBD is an alternative to a vaccine. Contradicting accepted science.

! Moderator Note That’s available in textbooks and journal articles. Summaries can be found on the web. Mainstream science is the default position here; nobody is required to reinvent the wheel. However, you own the burden of proof for alternative scenarios. Your posts need to be more than colorful pictures. You need a falsifiable model, capable of making predictions, and evidence that fits with the model.

! Moderator Note I’m not sure which infraction is worse: appealing to conspiracy, linking to other discussion boards as “evidence” or labeling all “footnote” links with the number 1. What I am sure of is this thread is closed.