swansont

No, it actually defines the uncertainty principle. The fact that calculus uses infinitesimals is irrelevant; there’s nothing that says you can’t measure any particular variable to arbitrary precision. The HUP only restricts you from simultaneously measuring one other, specific variable to arbitrary precision at the same time. The HUP is a ramification of QM and GR is a classical theory. You could just as easily claim that classical mechanics is flawed, and it would be just as much bollocks. We know classical theories break down at certain scales. It defines the limit of their applicability. We don’t have any theories that are universal in what they apply to. We don’t use QM to solve for an object being dropped off of a building, or calculating the trajectory of an orbit. You use the model that’s most useful.

Momentum is p. If you want to discuss physics and be understood you need to speak the language. Otherwise nobody knows what you mean. The larger point is that only a very limited set of variables are constrained in this way. It doesn’t apply to most. And calculus itself isn’t the limitation (but it describes the limitation)

That’s not superposition. The uncertainty principle applies to conjugate variables (x an p are, x and y are not), which are fourier transforms of each other, and you find that transform using…calculus.

! Moderator Note Apparently, none of the feedback has sunk in. No, we’re not doing this again. To be clear: the offer to re-introduce the topic was contingent on fixing the flaws that were pointed out, and presenting evidence that supports the idea. Articles that speak of neuron activity do not support it, so sections 1-8 are just a distraction. The problem is poorly defined, and you haven’t fixed that, nor have you changed the approach of stretching the definition of intelligence so far as to being meaningless. Without rigorous definitions, discussion is pointless.

No, I also compared outcomes. The US spends more on healthcare by a significant margin, but this does not translate to the best life expectancy. We are not getting the outcome we should get, given what we pay. If you took Americans and transplanted them to Denmark they’d probably start e.g. biking more, because the Danes have better infrastructure to support that, and other elements that support healthy lifestyle that are deficient in the US. But not because we lack the money. IOW, Danes are not inherently more healthy. It’s the system they live in. But patients might avoid treatment because they lack sufficient insurance, and don’t want to invite the crushing debt that they might incur.

I’m not sure how you make the leap to get to this from what I said. I simply meant that the US pays the most for healthcare but does not have the best healthcare ( measured by life expectancy at birth, for example), by a fair margin. i.e. overall, they are not getting what they pay for.

True; you’ve got the same un- and under-informed slice of the electorate, and perhaps some others who pay some attention but are barely literate, all prone to being hoodwinked by the double-talk and the unobvious consequences of a referendum.

*offer not available in the US Can you provide a link to where you got these infographs? Also you should factor in the cost of living.

Did you check with your municipal waste handlers? Lots of places have a couple of days a year where they handle HAZMAT waste. Also I think some manufacturers will let you print a prepaid shipping label for return to them, like the printing companies do for toner cartridges.

That’s good, but it’s likely not as expensive as e.g. emergency surgery. And if they needed meds, what were they provided? If it was a short-term script, then that’s like stabilizing a patient with a physical ailment, and sending them on their way or transferring them to a “charity” hospital/clinic. The meds run out, and eventually there’s another emergency.

! Moderator Note This is a discussion site, not your blog. What’s the issue to be discussed?

! Moderator Note Violation of rule 2.7. Discussion must happen here, and zip files are a security issue. Link and file removed And: free energy? Ha!

In theory, yes. ERs in the US are obligated to treat all emergencies owing to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) In practice, they would likely be very stingy regarding what is an emergency condition, and do the minimum required.

I think it’s more that he has no real expertise to lend, so it doesn’t matter much.

When you registered your account you agreed to follow the rules of this site. You replied to a post in speculations but it was a new take, meaning you hijacked the thread. That’s against the rules. Preaching is also against the rules. “Scientist have zero for sure proof ANYWHERE about ANYTHING” tells us you don’t really have a grasp of science and are posting in bad faith (another violation) Further, the first rule of the speculations section 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” which is why you were admonished for not using science references, and why the post was put into the trash - we told you that would happen, if you had bothered to check. If you’re referring to your right under the first amendment of the US Constitution, you still haven’t. That means the government can’t silence you. We’re not the government and can moderate as we wish. Your speech wasn’t erased, but it was moved, because this site has rules, you broke several of them, and that’s what happens. If you complain about this elsewhere, make sure you point out that you broke the rules. You wouldn’t want to bear false witness. Oh, and “The Bible is recanted live stories” probably isn’t what you meant to say. But it’s a funny typo.

Sure. But the issue was “wealth inequity” - which I took as the difference between the very rich and the very poor. And there are hundreds of millions of very poor. Are people, on average, better off? Sure! But the very poor aren’t, and the rich definitely are. The inequity is greater. And that’s really a tragedy of modern times.

I don’t see that there has been a serious job offer for that position, so it’s largely moot, but I don’t know how much time it takes to say “Let’s go to Mars!” every now and then. It’s not clear that he’s all that involved with daily operations of any of his companies.

That he’s a tad better than a coin flip is hardly a ringing endorsement. A coin flip gets you 6 correct out of 12, and all you need are three elections where the winner is pretty obvious where there’s no real guesswork (Reagan beating Carter, Bush beating Dukakis are two candidates)

Which means the disparity comparison should not be using the poor in an industrialized nation as the baseline, since there are a billion people elsewhere who are worse off.

What does being speaker have to with going to Mars?

We’ve been over why this is a bad idea, but beyond that, I don’t see how it solves your conundrum. Surely a referendum can be both good and bad? We have referendums in the US, and it’s not like they universally get huge landslide victories. There’s always something bad about them, in the view of some of the people.

Not sure. I’ve read things that show the NHS in the UK employs doctors. Canada, as I recall, is a single-payer system. The advantage of medicare is that it strips out the middleman (for-profit insurance) that only seems to add cost and deny service when it threatens profits.

That’s the payment vehicle - single payer insurance - not the healthcare itself. It’s not doctors and nurses on the state payroll, providing the services.

That has some physical significance, as it’s the most probable distance an electron would be from the proton in the S state of hydrogen. It gives you the scale of the size of the hydrogen atom. The classical electron radius doesn’t have an analogous role. By not saying much of anything other than citing the number, you didn’t do much to dissuade this notion.

! Moderator Note The Bible is not a scientific resource. Neither is AI. This is a science discussion board and this nonsense has no place here.