Leaderboard

Another possibility might be from opening a buoyancy tank that had been sealed for long enough for SRBs to poison its air contents. During my apprenticeship in the paper industry we had several fatal incidents due to personnel entry into poorly ventilated secondary water tanks without appropriate breathing apparatus. Concentrations as low as 0.1% v/v are often immediately lethal. It doesn't take much in a confined space.

Oh, you said "sine of a degree", but what you meant was probably "sine of an angle expressed in degrees", right? So, naturally, I understood "sine of 1 degree". Anyway, that's not x-x³/3!+... Neither is it (180⁰/π)(x-x³/3!+...) Rather, it's, \[ \left(\frac{\pi}{180}x\right)-\left(\frac{\pi}{180}x\right)^{3}/3!+\left(\frac{\pi}{180}x\right)^{5}/5!-\cdots \] Is it not? Sorry. I was confusing because I was confused.

From the second article cited in my OP: "In addition, overcharging a lead acid battery can produce hydrogen sulfide gas. This gas is colorless, poisonous, flammable, and has an odor similar to rotten eggs or natural gas. The gas is heavier than air and will accumulate at the bottom of poorly ventilated spaces." https://ehs.umass.edu/sites/default/files/Battery SOP.pdf see also: "Under normal operating conditions, the gasses evolved are hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O). However, under extreme conditions other gasses may be produced such as hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Some strange gasses are also given off in very small quantities such as carbon dioxide (CO2). This document only considers the evolution of hydrogen, oxygen and hydrogen sulphide." https://www.blueboxbatteries.co.uk/blog/industrial-battery-gassing-37 I also came across one news report from USA where people were found dead in a car. It was initially thought they had suffered from carbon monoxide poisoning, but forensic tests showed they had died from hydrogen sulphide poisoning from a lead acid car battery that had been shorted out by a defective starter motor. And here is an exhaustive academic study commissioned by the US Navy in a 2002 review of SEAL (Submarine Escape Action Levels) for hydrogen sulphide contamination in submarines, which discusses trigger thresholds for emergency action to be taken in response to the detection of levels as low as 10 to 15 PPM of this gas: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10242/chapter/9

That is not evidence in support of your claim, that is evidence that if you are struggling to breath it is also going to be hard to sleep.

Thank you for the update.

The non-linearity of GR only really shows up in the strong field regime, so there’s no real way for us to experimentally test it. We can, however, test it observationally - in particular, gravitational wave forms observed from collisions of black holes and other heavy objects are consistent with full strong-field non-linear GR, but not with linearised GR. Generally speaking, most (not all) weak-field regimes can be quite accurately modelled with linearised GR, but strong-field scenarios generally require the full non-linear theory. The non-linearity of the GR equations is very well understood mathematically - ref any text on systems of differential equations. As for perihelion precession, the non-linearity would only show up for very elliptical orbits (not the case for Mercury), or for orbits in highly curved spacetimes.

This article provides a simple explanation ... "An important property of gravity in Einstein’s theory is that it can create more gravity. The result is “non-linearity” – the gravitational influence of two bodies isn’t just the sum of their separate influences!" From The gravity of gravity « Einstein-Online

The danger is as swansont noted, though soon may evolve as AIs train on datasets generated by other AIs. The problems will amplify like making copies from copies from copies on the old xerox machines.

I think that idea is a non-starter. Wading about on two feet in water is extremely cumbersome for a big animal. Birds can do it, but they are small, lightweight and have wings to balance with. A water living dinosaur would have evolved bigger feet and a flattened tail for propulsion, as in crocodiles. There's been plenty of work done on T Rex locomotion, and the balance has never been an issue. The latest analytical work seem to suggest that the held the body more horizontally than earlier thought, and the tail was stretched out horizontally behind for balance.

You go with observations where they can be made. Where they cannot, you go with the predictive aspects of existing theory. Unfortunately classical GR fails at very small separations and hi energies, making infinite predictions. These same infinities appear again when trying to quantize the gravitational field, mostly as a result of gravity itself gravitating, and they cannot be eliminated by the traditional method of renormalization which has worked for QED and QCD previously. Other approaches have been tried, and while SuperString theory seems to be a dead end, Loop Quantum Gravity still shows some promise. As to when we'll have a workable quantum Gravity theory, it's anyone's guess, but unless AI becomes self thinking/learning instead of simply offering the 'best fiit' answer from a multitude of stored responses, it certainly will not be provided by AI.

If you have a religious faith, the next best consultant would be a spiritual advisor. Failing that, talking to wise elders (relative, mentor, family friend?) may be useful. If you have a spouse or significant other, they should certainly be made aware of your condition, and might be able to offer support. Consulting books or on-line sources of information may be a good idea, so long as you don't fall into some faddish regimen or self-medication. You could seek out support groups - live or on websites - with similar problems. Whatever you decide, it's better to share the burden with people you trust than trying to manage on your own.

All you have to do is build a spacecraft that can achieve escape velocity. Once you reach escape velocity you're guaranteed to not fall back to the Earth, regardless of the gravitational effect of other objects such as the moon. That's how probes such as Voyager work.

OK, let's look at what you said 3 posts ago. OK, that's not going to refute anything much. That's simply wrong. We pretty much always do- as I said, sunshine, alcohol... I already said essentially the same thing. As long as you know the risk is small, you don't need to quantify it So it's fairly stupid to claim that I don't understand it. Why did you do so? Is it because you are "a person can't keep track of arguments that were already made"? I already did. But you failed to understand it. What do you think they do with the data from the yellow card scheme? Do you think they use it as some sort of lottery? Or, if I make it obvious enough, do you realise that they use it to do analyses of the risks. It's not a meta-analysis. It's better- it's an analysis of the biggest data set available- the whole uk patient cohort. And I had already made the point (see above "Actually putting a number on the first risk- say it's a 0.1234% higher relative risk- does not change clinical practice.") So you were failing to read what I had said. Which makes this really stupid, doesn't it? Do you really not understand that data- including cancer data - is kept under surveillance? Were you not aware of things like this? https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/using-data-nhs-gdpr?gclid=CjwKCAjw_uGmBhBREiwAeOfsd9JFjMNx86yeyws3aIGInpt-FBc5zhgBnR_re34pl9FgvUpo3HG__hoC10gQAvD_BwE So, as I said, if it was a big enough risk to notice, it would have been noticed. On the other hand, you have failed to spot the real point I made here (presumably because you were too busy ranting). My point is that "too small to notice" is the same as "too small to notice". There's one thing which we both agree on- there's a level of risk that's "trivial". Once you know that the risk is less than some cut-off, there's no point putting the resources into measuring it. And we have systems for monitoring drug safety. Either our systems are not good enough to spot a problem which is "more than trivial" in which case there's a problem with our systems which has nothing to do with metronidazole. Or our systems are able to a problem which is "more than trivial" in which case, if the stuff is a problem, then we would spot it. Which of those conditions are you concerned about here?

Let me clarify the new synchronization procedure described in the OP and the difference from the standard procedure. In the standard procedure, the synch pulse is sent from the mid- point to the clocks at S1 and S2. The clocks, upon receiving the synch pulses, are set to t = 0 and start counting from there. Absolute motion will have no effect in this case. In the new procedure I have proposed (assuming isotropy of the speed of light), the clock at S1 is set to t = 0 and at the same time a synch pulse is sent from S1 to S2. The clock at S2, upon receiving the pulse, is set to t= 2D/c , and starts counting from there. This procedure will be affected by absolute motion and the clocks will be out of synch, which will manifest as time difference (at the detector) of 'simultaneously' emitted pulses from S1 and S2. In the case of synchronizing from the center, the effect of absolute motion will be cancelled (the so-called 'two way speed of light' )