Leaderboard

! Moderator Note But rigor is more important now than ever before, so let's make sure not to repeat rumors that inevitably become the basis for more guesswork. Please remember how internet advertising works, and how sensational stories make you linger on the page to boost revenue. Reputably sourced facts are critical if any of these COVID-19 threads are going to do more help than harm.

Good point. (Reminds me of Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong")

One known, documented problem with masks is that they don't work properly for people (like me, as it happens) who have beards- because the beard stops the mask sealing properly. So, if anything, they are less likely to reduce oxygenation. In the real world, I have a beard and I do sometimes wear a mask; I don't get dizzy.. Again, your "point" is demonstrably false. Just stop trying to repeat this nonsense. I take your point but, even if the thread was about flower arranging, it wouldn't be appropriate to let Sensei's dangerous nonsense stand uncorrected.

1) there is no single unique design of mask on the world. Don't compare apples to oranges. 2) medic is healthy. Fair test should be performed on somebody with breathing problems. e.g. stuffed nose. 3) medic is performing test in just a couple seconds. Such test to get more precise results should take hours. 4) medic has no beard. If you have longer beard and wear mask after 5 minutes you will have dizziness. 5) his heart started beating faster by 5.4%. when he started test it was 74. At the end it is 78. Why do you think so? Because organism noticed lack of Oxygen and increased rate of heart-beating to counter it.. He should perform a much longer test and just fast rewind video. Put data on graph vs time. 8h+ time of experiment not just 70 seconds.. 6) medic should show what happens if access to air is completely shutdown e.g. what will happen after covering nose by hand and what Oxygen level will be on the screen.

You use energy to create a black hole. You get less energy out. Even if you pump that energy back into the black hole (or use it to create more black holes) you will still get less energy out than you put in. It is no different than trying to recharge a battery by using the current from the battery. All you will get is losses from the charging circuitry and, eventually, a flat battery (or evaporated black hole). You can't magically create energy from nothing. (I'm going to ignore the videos because (a) they are videos(*) and (b) they sound too fantastical to waste time on) (*) If they had something worth saying, it could be written in a few sentences. I'm not going to sit through someone droning on for half an hour, when I could read the same information in 5 minutes.

You mean this? The Tale Of A 1986 Experiment That Proved Einstein Wrong That is not true. Both QM and relativity are tested thoroughly. So if there is a new theory, it should at least explain what we already know to be correct, i.e. it should be consistent with all experiments we already did (e.g. the quantum eraser experiment). And I do not think you find new theories more intuitive than QM: string theory (10 dimensions, very intuitive), quantum loop gravity (time and space are not fundamental, also a very intuitive idea), to name just two.

Or it doesn’t matter, since it’s a relative speed, and both Alice and Bob will agree on it.

This is not how I understand the original situation. I understand it to mean that The distance from Earth to planet 2 has already been measured (and will not change in the lifetime of Alice) by othe astronomical means. Similarly the spaceship has a 'cruise control so its velocity is predetermined at a fixed rate of 0.99c. No one measures this. Bob starts out from Earth when both his clock and Alice's clock read zero. So by Alice will know that when her clock reads 20.5 years Bob is just arriving at planet 2 with his clock. Bob's clock will be reading a value given by the Lorenz transform of this time.

@Externet It may be part of an offshore cage for fish farming or similar. source: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4508e.pdf Edit: Pipes seem to be much larger that I initially thought, I guessed 35-50 mm (Source : https://menorcaaldia.com/2020/07/22/retiran-20-m-de-tuberias-de-un-emisario-submarino-que-habia-llegado-a-la-costa-de-menorca/ ) Invalid due to the new image: The white pipe parts look like pipes typically installed under a wash basin. What is the diameter of the pipes? 35-50mm?

Do you know I have this same gut feeling? I would love to discuss this point, whenever you have the time. +1 I'm currently involved in a discussion with a mathematician friend of mine who says it doesn't. I, on the contrary, always have the feeling that in mathematics there's always a sequence of operations, if nothing else, which foreshadows time. Doesn't it? He says no, and I'm not convinced. Edit: That not to mention the concept of probability on a purely mathematical basis, which I think is heavily impregnated with a notion of time by construction.

Now that is an example of bad philosophy... And a pretty good example of my present disclaimer: With other words: what you say is a philosophical remark. E.g. it is based on the assumption that only empirical facts matter in life. But that itself is not an empirically verified position, so, according to you, it distracts from true knowledge. Your position is self-refuting. As to the question of the poll: of course there is good and bad philosophy. But we should keep Strange's distinction in mind: 'philosophy' as a 'philosophical theory', i.e. the contents of what a philosopher is saying about the subject at hand; and 'philosophy' as an activity. Which of course agrees more or less with the same distinction in science. Good philosophy, in modern times: Is well informed about relevant science, culture and politics Takes into account other viewpoints about the topic at hand Confirms or refutes other viewpoints with good arguments, i.e. arguments that are relevant and well supported by sciences and other well argued philosophical viewpoints Is extremely aware of the methods it uses to argue for a certain position. Bad philosophy: Only expresses opinions without arguing Uses arguments that are already refuted by others Confuses scientific speculations with philosophy The specialty with philosophy which distinguishes it from sciences is that in science the domain of knowledge it tries to gather differs from the (transcendental...) subject (i.e the one that observes, experiments, and expresses ideas about the object) of the domain. A physicist investigating certain phenomena does not investigate herself. As I said elsewhere here, the object of physics is not physics: it is the natural world as we observe it. As soon as physicists investigate physics, they are philosophising. Philosophy is essential reflective: it tries to understand our thinking with thinking, just as the physicist thinking about physics.

Well drat. You’re quite right. I was defining median, not average. Oh well. Thanks for the correction. I was wrong once before. It was a Tuesday, on a leap year... during a full moon. However, in my defense, use of average almost certainly means that far more than half of the world will be below the number due to the massive asymmetries in wealth around the globe. So, in that sense the core point I was making in my reply only gets amplified by using average, not diminished. Cheers, and thanks again

LOL I had covid so the expert is me....................... The common cold has worse symptoms If you want to live scared and believe the nonsense that the government puts out have fun, because when I had covid the government was telling people not to wear masks. LOL

Well if you found it on the internet it must be real, right? LOL have you bought back issues that are available on the net for free? https://nym.pcdfusion.com/pcd/ShoppingCart/store/210/Category/1080 Again I had this disease and it was the best thing ever as now I have no fear