swansont

note: I have added to my post I don't know what you mean by "false" and you have given no examples of the devices you are referring to, so one cannot evaluate their claims. They are probably UVC lights if they say they are, but they also may emit over a large wavelength range, and would therefore be dangerous

"specialist equipment" suggests the answer is "no" The article I linked to mentions "filtered excimer lamp" This article https://www.laserfocusworld.com/lasers-sources/article/16571809/lowdoserate-excimer-lamps-in-hospitals-schools-and-airports-could-safely-curtail-spread-of-flu-watch-video gives details: 207 nm light is emitted by a krypton-bromine (Kr-Br) excimer lamp, while 222 nm is emitted by a krypton-chlorine (Kr-Cl) excimer lamp (and goes on to discuss the study)

There's a Nature article that claims that far UVC isn't an issue for mammalian skin https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w its [UVC] widespread use in public settings is limited because conventional UVC light sources are both carcinogenic and cataractogenic. By contrast, we have previously shown* that far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently inactivates bacteria without harm to exposed mammalian skin. This is because, due to its strong absorbance in biological materials, far-UVC light cannot penetrate even the outer (non living) layers of human skin or eye; however, because bacteria and viruses are of micrometer or smaller dimensions, far-UVC can penetrate and inactivate them. We show for the first time that far-UVC efficiently inactivates airborne aerosolized viruses, with a very low dose of 2 mJ/cm2of 222-nm light inactivating >95% of aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus. Continuous very low dose-rate far-UVC light in indoor public locations is a promising, safe and inexpensive tool to reduce the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases. This suggests that the longer-wavelength end of the UVC spectrum (and possibly even longer wavelengths from commercial sources, that bleed into the other parts of the spectrum) are the danger. *"we have previously shown" has citations to go along with it, in the body of the article. References 13, 14 and 15. So for a source that's 260-280 nm: no don't use it if it exposes you. It's dangerous. But it probably kills the virus, if exposed for long enough.

Sorry, I mucked that up that (not sure what I was thinking) Pressure isn’t constant going through a nozzle (and V is proportional to T for the case I gave) As the gas moves, the pressure tends to drop (Bernoulli’s equation).

Of what use is it as a conceptual tool, if it doesn't work? How do you assess whether or not the idea applies to a specific situation? You need an objective way of determining this.

Your breath is cooler than the soup and warmer than the air. There is no inherent contradiction, if that’s all there was to it. Blowing on the soup promotes evaporation, which is a cooling process. Blowing through an aperture means there is expansion afterwards. If the pressure and composition of a gas remains constant and it expands, the temperature goes down. (an ideal gas follows PV = nRT, so they would be proportional under that condition) edit: see below

Then he’d be out of office, at which point he could be arrested and tried.

Not until after he’s out of the presidency.

If congress were willing to do its job enforcing the checks and balances, Trump would be far less effective at gumming up the works. I don't know how you conclude this isn't an actual issue. It can be more than one thing. Campaign finance is one of the issues. It has allowed the election of people whose goal is to seize power, rather than to be a public servant. But people had to be in power to enact the laws and get the right people on the supreme court to not be a heck or balance, and strike down existing laws. Kind of a chicken vs egg issue. Which came first?

53 of them are in the senate, not doing the job they swore an oath to do

Wrong. The issue is that some people aren’t upholding the constitution. Trump would be ineffective without the rest of the GOP being co-conspirators. And Trump is doing a horrible job.

Coming up with examples where your hypothesis works doesn’t cover up for cases where it doesn’t

(Renaming, since there has been a response) I recall a presentation some years ago on a problem (in the life sciences, in this example, but potentially elsewhere) that you'd draw some samples from your test subjects, and because it was so hard to get the experiment set up and approved, you would end up running all sorts of tests on the subjects. Not being in the field I can't recall what the tests were, but apparently you would test for dozens of different effects. The problem being that you were looking for a p-value > 0.05, and statistically speaking, you would do enough tests (>20) where a false positive would be expected to pop up. So you have the same problem here. if you start looking for correlations, you will eventually find them, without them being causal. (one of my favorites is that buying certain types of cars correlates with voting for a particular party is mistaken for causation , i.e. the situation where one might claim buying a Ford pickup truck causes you to vote republican) This is one reason why you don't rely on one study, and also why you need to find a causative agent that you can independently test. So they say there's correlation, and you see a correlation, but word this as if you disagree?

! Moderator Note This topic is "navigation ability" not "misuse of statistics" Do you want it to be retitled?

But we have a condition you have defined as not in equilibrium. A system being less than the sum of its parts.

But atoms reduce mass to form a stable state. ADS is wrong.

The trend says no, since Trump never takes responsibility fir anything bad.

So I have an atom, whose mass is less than the sum of its parts (individual neutrons, protons, electrons). You say this atom will change until equilibrium is reached?

What does this even mean? What are a and b? States of a system, or two objects/systems? What does “Or more” refer to?

Plus good and bad are subjective. Making them situationally dependent sound a lot like having the ability to define them so that your premise works, no matter what.

! Moderator Note No, that approach will not fly here, especially considering the consequences. ! Moderator Note "Free exchange" of information that is known to be wrong does not advance a conversation.

Do you have anything of substance to add? I mean, do you have evidence that Trump doesn't have a financial stake, when the reporting is that he does? Yes, it's small, and this won't move the needle, but there is a substantial track record of Trump funneling money to himself so it's not unreasonable IMO to have raised the question. If all you have is "bias!" then please go vent somewhere else. All this whining is giving me a headache. (To me the more likely motivation is that if it pans out, he's hailed as a hero. Nothing more than his narcissism in play)

No. I expect that will change in the future.

Then this philosophy already must exist, since science exists.

You appear to be mixing science and philosophy.