swansont

You're the one that mentioned Southern Hemisphere in the same paragraph. Anyway, what's the record high for that area in December? Was it in 1811? I reiterate, all you have shown is coincidence. The burden of proof is yours. You claim this gravity was disruptive, so let's see a calculation of what the gravitational influence was.

February in the southern hemisphere is summer, not winter. One really doesn't need any special explanation for heat and humidity.

The coma was 50% larger than the sun. The nucleus was a few tens of km. If that cause earthquakes, then the moon should be devastating our planet with them. The timing of the quakes and eruptions with the comet were coincidences. You have presented nothing that suggests otherwise.

Why would there be an angle with the horizontal, other than the one it started with?

Until you go through and do a detailed (and correct) accounting of this probability, this is merely an assertion, seemingly based on misunderstanding the scenario. The calculation in the video is correct. How about taking the 9 cases in the video and showing which calculations are wrong. Any other orientation of the detector, or hidden variable scenario, is mathematically equivalent. This is the first time you have mentioned Lorenzo, and as there is no link, I have no idea what proof this is. Second time for CH74, but again, no link. You should probably focus on one example in order to identify and correct your misconception. Looking at multiple examples just leads to confusion, since the setups differ and so do the resulting explanations. And we have the inevitable appeal to personal incredulity fallacy resulting in labeling this as religion. It raises no suspicion because the critique is so obviously flawed.

The motion and vibration occur because they have kinetic energy. That answer is not going to change, even if you ask the question again. If that doesn't satisfy your curiosity, then you need to come up with a new question.

Nothing is at absolute zero, and temperature is a measure of the motion of atoms and molecules. So there is thermal motion because we have energy. Maybe you could be more specific?

The first two I encountered were: 30th of January, 1811, a submarine volcano broke out near the island of St. Michael, one of the Azores. the earthquake of the 26th of March, 1812. By that catastrophe the town of Caracas was destroyed The list at the end spans 16 years. Do you have any idea how many earthquakes happen every year? The Caracas quake was a 7.7. On average, since 1900 there are 15 of these per year http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php This is nothing but correlation, which is not causation. It's not evidence.

! Moderator Note "STFU and learn your place" crosses the line. It's not even close. You are entitled to give no weight to someone else's opinion, but this is a discussion forum, and everyone posting is free to offer their view as long as they follow the rules. If you feel that someone else has violated the rules, you should report it rather than lash out. ! Moderator Note As long as I'm here, I'll say that that's uncalled for as well.

! Moderator Note If you find it impossible to discuss, then perhaps not posting in the discussion would be the proper choice. The possibility or impossibility of time travel is physics, so please stay on topic (which would include not responding to this modnote in the thread) ! Moderator Note Addendum: further posts that are not on the topic of time travel have been split off to the trash "please stay on topic" has no hidden meaning

! Moderator Note This pattern is getting tiresome. You don't define what you mean by socialization threshold. You make a claim based on this vague terminology, but provide no model or evidence, suggestion of testing this, or links to where this might have been tested or even discussed. As such, this does not qualify for discussion in speculations. You need to do better.

What does that have to do with climate change?

I learned today that this is called a consilience. http://www.vox.com/2015/12/11/9898098/climate-skeptics-consilience The thing is, as the above article points out, merely being a "skeptic" doesn't present an alternative explanation. The "it's natural" falls well short because all of these mechanisms can be studied. While it is an explanation, it's a falsified one. We know it's wrong. Natural processes don't explain the warming we see.

Hmm. Not a speck of science. Global warming "skepticism" is creationism's younger sibling

No habla emoji

I'm going to need much more than a blog post as evidence that a comet or small meteor caused all of this. Also, since the rationale behind the beginning of this era is (as per your Forbes link) "what should we call this period of time when we started trashing the planet? And when did it begin?" why would you use a non-human influenced event as a marker?

Since a link is apparently not forthcoming, Google has shown this is known as the fire challenge. From http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/10/5/teen_burned_pine_hills.html "The "fire challenge" spiked in popularity about a year ago. Since then, hundreds of videos have been posted online showing young people taking the so-called challenge, along with "fire challenge gone bad" compilation videos. In most of the videos, the person participating usually becomes panicked and typically turns on a shower or jumps into a pool to put out the flames. The "fire challenge" is similar to other online dare videos, like the "cinnamon challenge," in which people attempt to eat a spoonful of cinnamon and usually end up coughing and in desperate need of water. There's also the "salt and ice challenge," in which people pour salt on their skin and then rub ice over it, which burns the skin. Most of these challenges are dangerous, and all for just an attempt to get a lot of views on social media." Googling 'teen dare fire challenge' yields 214,000 results, but most of the early-page hits link to two incidents: on in Florida in early October of this year and in Orange County California in August last year, so how widespread this is isn't immediately apparent.

I disagree. After you've been around for a year or so, and you're paying attention, you might see why — it's fairly common for people show up with such questions with an agenda. In this case, that there's something special or better about so-called natural remedies vs pharmaceutical ones. It's not unreasonable to inquire about whether the OP has such an agenda, or if there's just some simple confusion that can be cleared up.

Yes, that's true, but it's also true that if you are traveling north and you measure again using a different coordinate system (i.e. you rotate your axes) you will get a different answer, too, so I don't think it's particularly insightful. It's also irrelevant to the question we were discussing, AFAICT. It's also true that if you measure the spin along some other non-orthogonal direction, you will get a non-random distribution of up and down, just as one would expect for the spin having a determined value. As opposed to an undetermined spin, which would be random.

But you would be wrong within currently understood physics, so that would be a bad idea.

Most anything that requires blowing, I would suspect. Blowing up a balloon, for instance, probably doesn't work well without inhaling beforehand. Blowing a bubble with bubble gum, too. Soap bubbles.

"Biofield treatment" sounds like snake oil. Reiki, etc. Studies suggest they can reduce pain, but are there any that show that this is anything but the placebo effect? A small study suggests "no" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10328637 "none of the final participants in round 4 (4 breast cancer patients and 4 observers) could differentiate between the identity of placebo and Reiki practitioners." IOW, as long as the patients believed they were being treated, they felt better. Anything that shows that diseases have been cured at a rate above placebo?

! Moderator Note You don't have a theory, you have a vague idea. And coming up with the math is not the trivial part. This falls well short of what we expect for speculations

Uh, no, there is no hidden variable talk here. The particle's spin is undetermined until you measure it. Once you measure it, the particle has that spin. If you measure it again, it will always have that same spin. I don't see how saying the spin is undetermined until measurement, which makes it have a certain spin, could possibly suggest a hidden variable scenario. Further, the entanglement means once we measure the spin of the first particle, we instantly know the spin of the second one — all of the information about the spins is in that one measurement. If you want more detail on this, see http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/ Also, the assumption in science is that what we measure is the real behavior. So measuring the particle to be spin down means the particle is spin down.

If you have a hidden variable, i.e. the spin is already determined before it hits the detector, then half of your choices are not possible for detector A. You cannot detect a particle as spin down if it really is spin up. That makes any further critique moot. Did you even watch the whole video?