Leaderboard

Thank you and thanks for letting me know that it was just nothing. Hopefully your linked information will help me later in life, either in science or just known knowledge. Also thanks to everyone who took the time to read this, I know now that this wasn't a good speculation. 🙂

Hello, everyone! A few weeks ago I had the idea that, contrary to my original thinking, the (relatively) slow burning of fossil fuels might be a good thing. The following is what got me thinking about that. What if one of the massive oil fields around the planet were to catch fire? Now, what if that happened to several at once? This got me thinking about mass extinction. Burning oil fields with no way to put them out would certainly begin to threaten life on the planet. I wondered if that had been considered for any of the previous mass extensions. Of course, as the internet has shown me over and over I'm almost certainly never the first to have any idea, and so I found that some newer studies suggest just that: https://www.livescience.com/17577-great-dying-coal-eruption.html Now this particular study suggests coal rather than oil which could also be the case since they burn similarly. Burning oil produces less carbon dioxide than coal but burning enough of either (or both) for hundreds or thousands of years would certainly explain the decrease in life and how it was kept at such low levels. Volcanic activity was the catalyst behind the Permian Extinction. There is plenty of evidence of massive eruptions. But would that on it's own be enough to take life down to the nearly completely obliterated levels of "The Great Dying"? I think fossil fuels burning in mass over that time explains nearly every "symptom" of what that world looked like according to the geological record. With those thoughts in mind, are we inadvertently lowering the planet's risk for another such event by burning those fuels off more slowly than a volcanic eruption would? This isn't an anti-environmental post. I just want to make that clear. It's just a thought. Hmmm ... and I thought I posted this under Earth Sciences. Would a moderator mind moving it? Thanks!

For those of us ( like me ) who are not up to speed on Virology, this thread, from another forum I frequent, seems t be a good beginner tutorial... https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1443947 Perhaps CharonY can have a look at it, and answer any questions we noobs might have. ( or make any corrections as needed )

A suggestion. Your diagram reminds me of something called a Venn diagram - Have you heard of these ? The point of a Venn diagram is that you draw a circle round everything you want to contain it and then a square outside that to contain everything else. You may make the diagram more fancy by drawing several circles, each containing different collections of things you want. These may overlap. The thing is that the circles are boundaries between your collection(s) and the rest of the universe (the reset of everything that is) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram Now the problem with this, for you to think about, is that boundary. Is there a boundary to the Universe and if not how does that work? I see you are new here so be advised you are allowed up to 5 posts in total in the first 24 hours.

Not necessarily a bad speculation, but certainly incomplete, and lacking rigor. Stick around ( or study at school ), learn a little, and try again.

It was a hiajck. Also, I am 99% certain the poster is a spammer, posting nonsense before posting some sort of spam.

very interesting topic I will visit from time to time

Oh you Frenchies… Don't get me wrong, I love the language. As the Merovingian says, in Matrix Reloaded, "Its like wiping your a*s with silk." But you have one revolution, in the very late 1700s,where you kill a large part of your people, oppressors and revolutionaries, and you think you're the most secular nation in the world. Yet you had troops in Italy, protecting the Papal lands of the Vatican ( a large part of central Italy ), and preventing Italian unification until the Germans kicked your a*s in the Franco-Prussian war 0f 1870. Now you want to claim the US isn't secular because of what they print on their money ? I could understand if you had said religious groups, like Southern Baptists, form the base of some high ranking politicians, like D Trump, the President. But that is how democracy works. Even the Religious have a voice. And that's a good thing; less oppression that way.

Took a look at the first posts and they look very good. Certainly more effort were put into them than I would realistically do. Don't think I would have anything to contribute (unless there are specific questions that went unanswered and I happen to have read something about it or have general molecular biological knowledge that applies). I don't think that there there is a database that would try to deconvolute that information. Given the current situation folks are probably more likely to be tested for COVID-19 than for influenza, meaning that after a positive I suspect that this would take precedence. There are case reports with co-infections reported in small studies (e.g. individual clinics) but I am not aware of large-scale surveys. Within hospitals the cases detected with co-infections were fairly low (but rarely quantified in detail).

Hi all, I'm looking for any research or insights related to a couple of questions I have about covid-19. If a person with flu-like symptoms dies and tests positive for both flu and covid-19 viruses, how can we tell if the death should be blamed on covid-19? The flu virus infection may have resulted in death without the covid-19 virus infection, and the covid-19 virus infection may have not resulted in death without the flu virus infection. Furthermore, what percentage of covid-19 infected patients are also infected with a flu virus? If you need clarification please let me know.

No disrespect intended but you are missing out on the opportunity to learn something from Eise. You are in over your head and don't recognize it. This is similar to arguing with a doctor who wants to adjust a patient's oxygen level, when to you it is obvious that the patient's blue lips indicate their lips are broken.

You might like this then:

! Moderator Note And it's clear you aren't listening to any of the refutations of your idea. What you're doing is preaching, not discussing science. You have an idea that makes sense to you, but you've been shown over FOUR PAGES that there are inconsistencies with it, problems it causes that interfere with the definitions everyone else uses, but you didn't find intuitive. You aren't going to learn much in discussion if all you do is repeat yourself and soapbox ideas that others are trying to show you don't work. This is a science discussion forum. You need to learn to take criticism on board, and recognize when a more reasoned approach is necessary. Please don't spam any mainstream discussions with your pet idea about light. And since you're unable to support this topic, please don't start any more threads on it. Thread closed.

When the subject is cosmology, the answer to that question is always NO. Have you ever considered getting help with your anxiety problems?

That is because those “rates of transfer” are irrelevant to the propagation velocity of the radiation field, which depends only on the permeability and permittivity of the underlying medium: \[ c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_{0} \epsilon_{0}}}\] It cannot depend on any other quantity, since that would violate local Lorentz invariance as well as global diffeomorphism invariance. Both emitter and receiver couple to the same radiation field; they just label events in spacetime slightly differently, because their coordinate systems are rotated by some hyperbolic angle.

Well unfortunately you haven't got anything to work from on this conjecture. Now at least you recognize that your unfamiliar with current models and physics and ate not declaring it's this way. For that I give you credit. So let me help you better understand current cosmology. Though you will have to do the work of study lol. Here is some free textbooks to help get you started. Anytime you read a section your having difficulty understanding feel free to ask and I and others will be more than happy to help. Training (textbook Style Articles) http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau As mentioned by Migl all physics models require mathematics in order to make testable predictions. These articles will help provide those tools.

The Big Bang is not a moment, but a model of the evolution since that 'moment'; the point at which we can no longer regress in time because our theories don't work anymore ( usually taken as the Planck era ). We only have information about our observable universe, and know that it is finite. What is outside is causally disconnected and cannot be known. It could be infinite, and our 'universe' developed from a small part of an infinite, hot dense state. And from these small parts, infinitely many 'universes' developed. But then all these small parts would not all be in causal contact with each other, could not share information, and might lead to totally different universes. But there are many other possibilities. That was one of the purposes of the original inflationary model. Before inflation, all parts of it were in causal contact ( they are not now ) and so homogeneity and isotropy were ensured.

It seems you got a loose end or two on your conjecture.

This is not a theory. It doesn't provide a mathematical ( or any other kind ) framework, based on at least some evidence, and is incapable of making any testable predictions. How can you possibly defend this idea ( not theory ) to questions from scientists ? It is, at best, overactive imagination.

But you think that about everything. I assume a conversation with you must be like: Me: Good morning! You: Oh no! Does that mean we are all going to die? Me: No. I was just saying hello. You: Oh but it sounded like you were saying the world was about to end. Me: ... They say that their measurements are consistent with previous measurements. (That is science-speak for "almost the same as") How on Earth can a small difference in the expansion rate in different directions (or even a large difference) be a bad outcome for us? It's not like anything has changed, apart from our understanding.

When I was younger, I used to read Conan the Barbarian. A fictional character created by R E Howard, whose deity was the God, Crom. I will never forget Conan's one belief... "Crom helps those who help themselves." and I wish more people would insert their God in the above saying.

That is my understanding. The R and M flags just record the status of the page (referenced and modified). The read/write flag controls whether it is legal to write or not (that is why you get a page fault attempting to write to a read only page). (There may be others not mentioned in the article that are not relevant to this algorithm.)

Actually, you would be wrong. While turnout is low, the number of polling stations are often also very limited (perhaps unsurprisingly, especially in areas with many minorities, guess why...). So in certain areas you have long queues and wait times. It is ultimately a tactic to disrupt the democratic process and part of the larger voter suppression strategy.

So you would ignore the advice of doctors if you were seriously ill? However, it is refreshing to have someone admit to being completely closed-minded; it is usually an accusation aimed at others.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I suspect the answer to your question is "no". I'm afraid it may be time for you to recognize that the conversations on this site are simply above your comprehension level.

That’s depends on the values and if we’re still here.

It would change the age of the universe, change our understanding, change the lifetime of the universe, it would affect a lot of things

Right. I disregarded some rocks of the Science's mountain and took some others of the Religion's mountain to make my way in the valley. That's why I am here now. That's why I could be a problem for you now… 😄

I did it challenging things of Science and things of Religions, of course. I have developed a small site for that but I'm not allowed to publish the link here, right? But it is in my profile in the Forum. You can visit it and take a look in the site if you want. But is not possible to discuss everything about it here in this thread you know… And I guess you won't like what you will find so useless to discuss about...

Once you realize God exists, it is impossible to stop believing in Him. Once you invoke the word, wright the word or think the word, this just proves once again; God does indeed exist As I see it, anyway If you have an opinion, express it; just remember you do not speak for "people".,.,.,.,.,; just you

if it expands quicker it ends quicker Just trying to understand since this is local galaxy cluster