Leaderboard

So there is a preprint that predicts about 80k deaths in the USA over the next 4 months with large uncertainties, though (MEDRXIV/2020/043752). See also https://www.reuters.com/video/?videoId=OVC6U1U23&jwsource=cl Edit: If true, it be more deaths than the deaths attributed to influenza (at least since 2010).

You are free to defend this in a thread in speculations You mean like stuff you posted in the other thread? That I debunked?

Alex, have you seen the web site "boblazar.com"? I don't know who created it, but what bothers me is you cannot copy and paste his descriptions of 115, "antimatter reactor", "antigravity drive", etc. Why would the person who created this site make it difficult to copy and paste the info? There are a few items such as W2 from his job with "U.S. Dept. of Naval Intelligence" and his badge for S4. But could those be faked? That is true. Would an expert on gravity, antimatter, and Element 115, please spend about 10 minutes reading a few paragraphs on boblazar.com and point out the bogus physics? Then I can say "Aha, that physics sounds bogus!" I'm not an expert. The bottom line to me about UFOs and antigravity drive is that this stuff can NEVER be verified with "extraordinary evidence." And the human race may have about 100 years left because of the number of threats to our existence, according to Stephen Hawking. Seems reasonable to me. If there were ETs interested in humans on earth, they may be "concerned" about our precarious position. Maybe they can't find other intelligence life to observe. Bob Lazar said, as I paraphrase him: "Maybe [aliens have] been kept from us for good reason. Many people have agreed to keep this secret. Who am I to upset that? Who am I to think I can out-think these guys? Maybe they already went over all the scenarios, and they know how messed up everything would be [if alien technology was revealed] . There is no guarantee this revelation will make [anything] good. There is just as much chance it could make everything terrible, and I will be to blame for that."

The entire Neil Young archives free for streaming. https://neilyoungarchives.com/info-card?track=t1975_1129_01

Here's a link to the pdf: http://www.healthdata.org/sites/default/files/files/research_articles/2020/covid_paper_MEDRXIV-2020-043752v1-Murray.pdf The prediction doesn't tally well with Trump saying that things will be easier at Easter and they all can start going back to work.

The Nimitz incident or Nimitz encounter refers to a series of UFO sightings that took place off the coast of San Diego, California in 2004 during a US military war games exercise involving Carrier Strike Group 11. Thus far six personnel involved in the war game have come forward describing what they saw: Commander David Fravor, VFA-41 Black Aces, U.S. Navy (testimony available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=977s Ryan Weigelt , (Leading Petty Officer, Power Plant Systems Specialist, USS Princeton) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QawDa0-UlnA Kevin Day, (Senior Chief Radar Operator, Combat Information Center, USS Princeton) (testimony available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2zRabdvKnw&t=961s Jason Turner, (Petty Officer Third Class, Supply Officer, USS Princeton) (testimony available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnvA5WZ1QV4&t=20s Patrick Hughes, (Petty Officer, A2 Aviation Tech, USS Nimitz) (testimony available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kycZgGc-Yec&t=16s Gary Voorhis, (Petty Officer, Fire Controlman + AEGIS Computer Technician, USS Princeton) (testimony available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YhlvUg2yk4&t=21s All of these gentlemen describe the same thing: an aerial vehicle maneuvering in such a manner as to defy the known laws of physics (and with remarkably similar characteristics as what Lazar described). There are numerous other articles available online regarding the Nimitz incident, including pieces in the Washington Post and New York Times. There is also FLIR footage of the aerial vehicle that was witnessed, captured from one of the Super Hornets that were tasked with intercepting it. (This footage is shown during Fravor's interview on Rogan). Skepticism is part of science, but so is a spirit of free and open inquiry into the unknown. The phenomena that Lazar describes fits squarely within general relativity theory. The technology that he claims to have worked on could supposedly manipulate/generate a gravitational field. If gravity can in fact be harnessed/manipulated, then time and distance become inconsequential in the context of general relativity.

Only if you just give up trying to make sense...

I think you misunderstand skepticism. It's not a fence one sits on constantly. It's a brief stopover on the way to deciding how trustworthy a specific bit of information is. I don't approach everything skeptically, but extraordinary claims need to be investigated. That kind of skepticism drives a person to dig as deeply as they need to to satisfy "the nature of knowledge". My outlook is that people like Lazar will NEVER offer meaningful contributions to science by starting with flawed premises, so I'm not rejecting his ideas simply because they involve aliens. Joseph Newman initially persuaded many folks that he'd made a breakthrough in physics by combining a gyroscope with an inductor in a novel way. His claims of overunity through the manipulation of an abnormally large EM field sounded like just the kind of serendipitous accident all inventors dream of, and his carny pitch was perfect until the evidence failed to hold up. Even he couldn't recreate his original design, and he claimed he couldn't let anyone examine it because the USPTO denied his patent. He had an answer for everything except his poor methodology and his basic misunderstandings. He drove a car with his engine in it around stadiums full of people, but in the end none of that amounted to an ounce of real evidence.

I made a custom stream with all the subjects I'm interested in and then saved the stream's url as a bookmark on my bookmarks bar.

I like using a bookmark for 'Unread' myself. Avoid cluttering up your feed that way. Additional filters are available too if you want.

It's because it was a status update, and that's what the software displays for status updates. It's not an invite to join a subject; status updates aren't threads in the forums.

The phenomenon has been measured/observed, so you can't get rid of it. What you can attempt is to say it's an interaction, and yet we've seen nothing in the way of detail regarding such a claim. All we've gotten is seventeen versions of the same introduction. In one frame there are zero relativistic effects. So that's moot.

That is a good question. If I had to make a guess*: and My guess is that goal of this "point of view" is to try to get rid of time dilation all together by inventing some set of experiments taking place one after another in one single lab frame. That makes it possible to try to "forget" that observers of events in the lab frame and in the (unused) particle frame would not necessarily assign the same local time coordinate to events. The time dilation may seem to "disappear" when there are consecutive experiments measured in one frame instead of one experiment observed from two frames of reference in relative movement. In a single frame there aren't much of relativistic effects. Then there can be claims that these experiments reproduce some important aspects of SR, without introducing any time dilation or relative movements of frame of reference. The above is merely my observations from trying to read and really understand the posts in this thread. My conclusion is that OP will not be able to convince me that the "related experiments point of view" is a valid alternative to mainstream SR. That may of course change if there is reliable evidence presented, supported by valid mathematical modelling. *) Disclaimer 1: This is speculation about what's speculated about. Not speculation about mainstream SR. Disclaimer 2: I strongly believe Swansont's skills regarding clocks and time are several magnitudes above mine. But I couldn't resist the challenge to try to provide an answer in this case.

In the meantime some good news, especially for the OP. Free Fish and Chips for all. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52047985

On average, the OH bond will be polarised. In fact, it can participate in a particular type of dipole interaction called hydrogen bonding. As with all electrostatic interactions, it is not overly strong when you compare it to covalent bond strengths, but hydrogen bonds are considered quite a bit stronger than other intermolecular attractive forces. I have bolded a sentence that is not quite right. You won't covalently bond two ethane molecules together. You will get Van der Waals (also London dispersion forces) between molecules of ethane, but that's about it. They are very weak interactions. You will also get Van der Waals interactions with alcohol molecules. When you compare the two, you have (for example) ethanol, which has hydrogen bonding and Van der Waals interactions, and ethane, which only contains Van der Waals interactions. As you noted above, the stronger the interactions and the more of them that there are, the more energy it requires to break intermolecular bonds and pull molecules apart, which translates to a higher boiling point. As such, you would reasonably expect ethanol to have a higher boiling point to ethane. Another interesting comparison is between diethyl ether, acetic acid, ethanol and ethane. Can you predict the order of boiling points between those molecules from highest to lowest?

Yes, more or less. So with an alcohol, can you identify what sort of intermolecular interactions might exist? Hydrogen bonding, London dispersion, dipole, Van der Waals, etc.?

They don't necessarily need to be charged, they can be partially electron deficient / electron rich. Do you know what effect the strength and extent of these interactions might have on things like boiling point?