swansont

Why half? I left academia after my first postdoc, and I would argue I am having a successful career. It only looks like a pyramid scheme if you assume academia is the only career path that you can/should follow.

! Moderator Note Don’t advertise your pet theories in other threads. You can’t build one speculation on top of another.

What’s the connection to the topic (Sharia law in the US)? Evidence of this happening (in the US)?

I’m too old to jock anymore Well, then you are very confused. You neglected to mention relativity or gravity, and macro scale GR has nothing to do with QM. The inability to reconcile GR and QM manifests at small scales and strong gravity. The topic here is QM effects that can be seen at the atomic level or larger, in order to refute the premise of your question.

! Moderator Note We’re not a conspiracy site and the rules of speculations requires that it be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. All I see here is assertion. If you want to vent about what you consider to be wrong with physics and tell stories, go start a blog somewhere. It’s not what we do here. Don’t re-introduce this topic.

It’s up to you, of course, but the Aeron comes in three different sizes. On this side of the pond they run about $500, so that’s more reasonable. I recall looking at chairs at an office store and they were labeled with a time rating, of how long one could expect to sit comfortably at one stretch. Price generally went up with the time rating.

I have an Aeron at work. (Herman Miller) Pricey but worth it if you’re sitting a lot.

Yusef has been suspended for repeatedly linking to his pet theory in other threads, and continuing after being asked to stop.

I’ve seen both. The atomic number is redundant information, so it’s sometimes omitted.

Same issue, though, because C-14 is formed via the reaction you described earlier. With little nitrogen, there won’t be much C-14. The abundance if CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. “Billions of years” is irrelevant, too. The half-lives of the isotopes you form tend to be very short (O-19 is less than a minute), which means they will not continue to build up - you will hit steady-state pretty quickly (all else being the same) As JC said, it’s not an issue here, so why would it be an issue there?

You don’t need acceleration for that, and that redshift is in the waveguide’s frame, not in the source frame. If it’s transmitted in the source frame, it would be transmitted in all frames.

How long did it take to find the data that showed blizzards cost more than wildfires? It’s more than that, though; it depends on the crops you grow. California grows water-intensive crops, like alfalfa, rice and almonds. If they grew more crops that needed less water instead, I’m guessing they’d use less water. https://fruitgrowers.com/what-california-crops-use-the-most-water/ And that’s basically the objection to your threads - you present a narrative that’s poorly sourced, and simplistic, and one that ignores important (and sometimes contradictory) detail.

But you had not lumped these together, until you had to justify your claim. That was the problem. You had not presented evidence. So winter storms are, in fact, responsible for greater losses than wildfires, and heat. More than double. And in this data set, far more fatalities. Given that you were wrong about several elements, it’s not clear you did.

You need to make factual statements, backed by sources, and not just assert things. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216831/fatalities-due-to-natural-disasters-in-the-united-states/ Thus also shows your perceived risk is greater than the actual risk, in terms of fatalities. Do you have a citation that shows blizzards are less costly than other events, or are you making that up, too?

If it’s blocking all the light, it’s blocking UV. Filters that transmit the red end of the spectrum might block into the UV.

The topic in the OP is Mars.

If it doesn’t affect the photon, why would the wavelength change?

This has nothing to do with what I asked. ! Moderator Note You’ve been asked questions and been given ample opportunity to respond. Since all you are willing to do is repeat yourself and be evasive, which violates our rules on soapboxing and bad-faith arguments, this is closed. Do not bring the topic up again. (edit: dang, Phi beat me to it.)

Explain the middle part. Why would acceleration of the waveguide affect the photon?

At a greatly reduced rate, owing to the thin atmosphere and the fact that N2 only makes up a few percent, rather than ~80% It’s a nuclear reaction balance.

How is Mercury viewable in the HI2 FOV, which pretty clearly excludes it?

Water can’t be “contaminated with radiation”. Contamination is actual radioactive material. Water could become theoretically be activated via neutron absorption, but where would the neutrons be coming from?

If it’s a waveguide below cutoff, there can be no photon. If it’s a single-mode waveguide, the nominal speed is c, but the presence of the walls probably represents an index>1 due to the evanescent interaction, so it’s less than c. For multi-mode, the path isn’t straight, so the propagation speed is definitely less than c. Or are you asking about the scharnhorst effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharnhorst_effect

And where is the moon supposed to be? (I don’t actually see it in these images) Feb 23 2020 (a date in your animation) was a new moon. May 6 2010 it was third quarter, meaning its position was 90 degrees different. So it would have been in front of or behind the earth. You were asked for models, i.e. math, and they aren’t in your posts. You were asked how we see these objects, if photons only travel 1 light-minute, and you’ve dodged that one, too. How do we have these satellite images if that’s the case? That’s not a model

v=c does not represent an inertial frame, so using the Lorentz transform is inappropriate. For a photon, E = pc, as Markus has explained Neither of which need to be “a mass it interacts with”