Leaderboard

I have to amend my previous statement. They can interfere under other situations, depending on the kind of entanglement. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-68181-1 Interference does not affect the frequency.

Hey folks, i am an S1 student in Scotland ( it should be 7th grade for the usa ). I've been asked to write a 6 pages essay about General Relativity and it's implications. First, i looked some documentaries on Youtube to understand better how space is connected to time and how both are not absolute as newton described. I think i understood what Albert is trying to say pretty good now. What i don't get is how is it possible that gravity bends space-time, is it the matter that bends it ? or the relation of the mass and the space-time, like in the classic view of gravity ? or does spacetime alone "do the job"?. One last thing i don't really understand in General Relativity is that gravity "seems not to exist", like it is not something defined as a force or a photon. So does gravity exist in Einstein ideas? (Also, but this is for my curiosity: why is it called "the fabric" of space-time ?) Excuse me for the many questions, but i find this theory really really hard to understand even if physics is my favourite subject right now. See you, Ryan.

In case y'all are wondering where the Drag NATO Into War theory is coming from.... https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/11/17/pers-n17.html (World Socialist Website) I had a chuckle at the bit: And why were they able to precisely target an inhabited building in a sparsely populated rural area? Syllogism.

I acknowledge the possibility of being wrong. You, however, are asserting not only that he ordered it, but had nefarious intent when doing so. Only one of us is spreading fictions and conspiracies, and it ain't me. But nobody other than you and Russian propagandists think that's the case... IF THEN ELSE... The IF was never validated, hence there's no THEN nor ELSE in your algorithm. The statement can be safely ignored. They are everywhere, you just have to start using trustworthy and validated information sources to inform your worldviews. Are you familiar with the fallacy of personal incredulity? If not, it's worth looking up.

But the people actually making these decisions and driving these behaviors are hardly themselves suffering for lack of a sandwich. No... They're instead eating caviar off the backs of strippers and wagyu beef whenever they choose, so this "leverage" you suggest has almost zero likelihood of moving the situation to a better space (despite Archimedes fun quote about the lever just needing to be longer).

No. Because the claim is just a 2000 year old story with absolutely no evidence to back up the claim.

One simple way to see it: a^3 = (a^4)/a a^2 = (a^3)/a a^1 = (a^2)/a = a a^0 = (a^1)/a = a/a = 1 Does that make sense?

Yeah. When missiles hit countries unexpectedly, details are the LAST thing anyone considers, requests, or responds to. Oh, wait… https://www.thecipherbrief.com/the-impact-of-a-single-missile But hey… if this is suddenly a fictional site and you get to pretend Zelenskiy did it, why not go with hobbits… or orcs!! 🙄

In quantum field theory, particles are characterised as irreducible representations of symmetry groups. Symmetry transformations are different ways to look at particles that leave the quantum state unchanged. When these transformations can be expressed in terms of a finite number of parameters, these groups of transformations help us classify the particles according to their so-called Noether charges. When the system is symmetric under one of these groups --also called Lie groups--, Noether's theorem guarantees that these "charges" are conserved. Some transformations have to do with space-time symmetries. Examples are translations and rotations, which have the corresponding conserved quantities that we're familiar with under the name of linear momentum and angular momentum. In any quantum theory, charged particles are represented by complex wave functions. Everything observable depends on quadratic expressions of the form (field)*(field), where the asterisk represents complex conjugate. Because the physics is indifferent to a global phase change, a conserved quantity exists --by virtue of Noether's theorem-- that we call electric charge. In the case of angular momentum --due to symmetries under rotations--, it so happens that the spatial coordinates are not enough to represent all the rotational states of particles. Internal variables must be specified describing the orientation of a particle that allow no representation in terms of spatial coordinates. That's what we call spin. Spin has to do with rotation, although it's not nearly as intuitive as the rotation of a spinning top, eg. Charge has to do with something even more abstract, which is a phase shift in the wave function. This transformation is sometimes called "internal." Isospin invariance is not exact, it's only approximately conserved. It is an analogue of electric charge, and also occurs in this "internal space" of elementary particles. It so happens that, if you ignore electromagnetic interaction, a proton and a neutron are very similar when you only consider the strong nuclear force. You can kind of rotate the states smoothly from "being a proton" to "being a neutron." This is in close analogy with electric charge. There are other analogues of electric charge: baryon number, lepton number, hypercharge... Colour charge is similar, but more complicated, as the previous charges depend on a 1-parameter group called U(1), while colour is defined in terms of a 3-parameter group SU(3). Mass is very different. It is not a conserved quantum number like the other charges. So I would say that what gives a particle its charge and spin are its properties under global gauge transformations (global phase shifts), in the case of charge; and rotational properties, in the case of spin. This is a summary of the present theoretical understanding of these things within the context of the standard model of particle physics.

As others mentioned, the conclusions are not logical. For example the incredulity that SARS-CoV-2 originated at one and not many wet markets rather makes sense. Jumping species is a fairly rare event so you would not expect it to happen frequently. If it did, tracing the origin would be rather impossible. To take an earlier pandemic as example, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic ("swine flu) were associated with a reassortment of viruses circulating in Eurasian and North American pigs. Genetic tracing indicates that the pandemic hat its origin in North America in swine herds. Pigs are bred everywhere, but obviously the pandemic started most likely with this event. There are also more epidemiological work on the Wuhan market that has been the epicenter of the largest (known) outbreak. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8337 But what is perhaps more important is that OP still seems to think that genetic re-assortment, and associated development of new diseases requires some artificial intervention. In reality this is not so. There are many points of likely zoonotic spillover, which also includes our agricultural practices. There is a reason why we frequently hear of culls of thousands or even millions of livestock due to disease outbreaks. Due to immunization, treatment options and generally good access to healthcare, many countries are under the illusion that new diseases will only occur in exotic locations or, simply put, elsewhere. This, obviously a misconception. While we often have been lucky that many viruses e.g. in livestock do not simply jump to humans, the 2009 pandemic showed us that it does in fact happen. What we have is really a lottery and it can happen everywhere. Even if every single wet market is banned, there will be other sources. And since we are encroaching on natural habitats everywhere, we might increase the likelihood of genetic re-assortment of various as well as bacterial pathogens. While there are some legitimate concerns regarding pathogens escaping labs, I feel that the real issue why folks are so hung up on it, it because it seems like a much easier problem to address as the real one that were facing. These include zoonotic diseases, accelerated by habitat loss, but also the rise of antimicrobial resistances. Often times, the big challenges (not unlike global warming) just seem too big to tackle and instead we focus on the small stuff to make us feel that we are in charge. Then we get several warning shots (e.g. SARS, MERS, swine flu, etc) and even if something big happens that forces us to face it (COVID-19) we almost immediately go back into denial. I fear that the next pandemic will come as an utter surprise as all the ones before it.

You have obviously missed the fact that Zelensky has been claiming that Putin did it right from the start. Maybe HE should go with hobbits or orcs, using your 'logic'. And that's in spite of the fact that the NATO chiefs knew within hours that it was fired from Ukraine. " U.S. president Joe Biden, speaking from the G20 summit in Bali, said that it was "unlikely" that the missile was fired from Russia.[27]" US presidents are not in the habit of excusing russian behaviour. " President Volodymyr Zelenskyy blamed Russia for the incident in his nightly video address that day, saying that "Russian missiles hit Poland" and describing it as an infringement upon "collective security" and as a "significant escalation".[40] Around the same time, foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba labeled the suggestion of the missile being fired by Ukrainian air defense as a "conspiracy theory" promoted by Russia.[41][42] The next day, Ukraine's presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak had tweeted that European countries should "close the sky" over Ukraine after the blast.[43] Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, claimed that Ukraine had evidence of a "Russian trace" in the explosion, without giving any details.[44] Zelenskyy also said that he had "no doubt that it was not our missile" and that Ukraine should be given access to the site of the explosion.[45]" If Zelensky ordered the missile strike, the motive is obvious from the above wikipedia quotes. He wanted to prompt NATO to close the skies over Ukraine. A huge escalation of NATO's involvement. Signs that the Poles were less than happy with Zelensky are there to be seen. " Also on 17 November, Polish officials stated that Ukrainian investigators were likely to be granted access to the site of the explosion.[29] On 21 November, it was reported that Ukraine will not be granted access to the investigation by the Polish prosecutor's office.[30]" The official NATO line is that a Russian-made Ukrainian air defence missile missed it's target, flew aimlessly to Poland, and exploded on impact. But lots of Ukrainian missiles have missed their targets. Where are the reports of them exploding on impact and killing people? Nowhere. Only the one that hit Poland has done reported damage. Mighty strange. Ironically, this incident has probably made the world a little safer, because NATO will now look very carefully at any further scam by Zelensky to drag them deeper into a shooting war.

When news came out of this rocket hitting Poland, I immediately thought it was heavily odds-on the Zelensky had fired it, in a crude attempt to get Russia blamed, and drag NATO into a shooting match. Everything that's emerged since has fallen in line with that scenario. Zelensky probably calculated that he could aim it at the countryside, away from habitation, and everybody would go along with the deception and not look too hard at the details. What went wrong was that Polish People died, so the Poles were angry and not at all inclined to go along with it. So it was properly investigated and the source was established as Ukrainian. What's telling is that not one media source (that I've seen) has even raised the possibility that it was a deliberate act by Ukrain. Just show that our media are into propeganda, not news. But NATO probably knows, and are keeping their mouths shut.

I nowhere said "I can't believe" about the matter. Maybe you should research the burden of proof a bit. I wrote "nowhere" as an open invitation, because one single example would be enough to disprove it, (which you haven't posted), whereas proving a negative needs either exhaustive research, or proof that the positive is impossible. I've seen no reports of damage done by other falling missiles up to now, that's the extent of my claim, and it would be super easy to put me right on that, if actual reports were out there. But there's a reason that it's unlikely, and that is that the missiles are designed to self-destruct, if they don't hit their target. That's why this one accidentally exploding on impact in Poland is not impossible, but it's pretty far-fetched, especially when Zelensky was flatly denying that Ukraine had fired it in the first place. The evidence of intent is there for all to see. It's not incontrovertible, but it stinks.