StringJunky

I can only find unsubstantiated forum opinions on the net. Any idea what the correct spec for an electric die grinder with a range 3000-30000 RPM is? Would grease designed for petrol strimmer gear heads be ok - I think they run about 10000-12000rpm? Would it be classed as high speed/low-load or high speed/high load or high speed/high temperature grease that's needed? It's 750w. It takes 6mm shaft diameter bits. The heads on mine are up to 15mm diameter.

It is not the responsibility of SFN forumites to have endless patience with posters that don't want to listen... we are not social workers. that are paid to persevere. Strange is a prime example of someone who has demonstrated lots of patience many times, only for it to be wasted... it quickly becomes apparent when one should switch off. If you are in a football game you don't attempt to change the rules or exercise illegal playing tactics.... nobody will want you to play if you do. Same here.

Yes, I think so. Enough that an expert, or experts, think it's worth it, even if it's a long shot; they need to think the science is sound. At the least, there should be an independent expert panel that can assess the risks vs possible benefit for a particular patient. The final decision should not be in the hands of the drug company or prescribing doctor. The process could be: Company registers opportunity > Patient's doctor applies > Panel decides. This is probably likely to be happening to a degree, as CharonY said.

But doctors or drug companies should not be allowed to test on the desperate without even a modicum of known efficacy at which point it's no better than offering snake oil.

Right.

Free guinea pigs. It will probably save hundreds of millions of dollars of testing for each novel drug. I think the total is around $1B and 10-15 years before a drug reaches the shelves normally.

Phase 1 results just tells if the product is toxic.... it makes no clinical sense to give a patient this at this point. It tells you nothing about efficacy. Phase 2 would make more sense because this is where testing for efficacy start and even then the notes section of this phase states: .."determines whether drug can have any efficacy; at this point, the drug is not presumed to have any therapeutic effect whatsoever". It looks very dangerous to test and hope, on a wing and a prayer, to cure in the field just on phase 1 results. This just shows how thick this administration is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research

Response by Sanofi on Roseanne Barr's recent racist comment that tickled me:

If you're going to BS make it a whopper.

Your aspirations are loftier? A higher class of BS.

I think we here can't argue can't discuss and rationalise what terms mean, science as a body has to agree what they mean or what terms we use for what process, thing, or phenomenon and then standardise the nomenclature. Wouldn't you say?

Re-reading your post: particles as fields is standard physics. I don't think there's anything to argue there. They are the mathematical device scientists use to describe things at this level. The article predates the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs by a few months. in 2012.

I've only really just started thinking/reading about this stuff a bit deeper fairly recently, so I''m in no position, or indeed have any desire, to critique an experienced physicist like Matt Strassler... I want to learn from his articles. I'm actually only appearing to argue here as a way to learn. .. I don't actually have a position on this... I don't know enough.

You entangle two known particles and embed one in each device. You then manipulate the photon or other particle to one of two known values and restore the wave function. This changes the state of the particle at the other end which is then read. if necessary use two groups of two to handle incoming and outgoing transmissions; two in each device. The mechanism of how this is done is down to you. There has to come a point where the reader has to suspend the real science in SF. There is no such thing as accurate scifi. You can use this for real-time video and remote control across light-years. If the Star Trek writers can do it you can... look how many of us were prepared to suspend our belief watching that. Don't get hung up on accuracy but focus on the story line, which ultimately is what matters. Watch a few scifi films or read SF books critically and see where they fudge the science yet it still looks/reads ok.

Is energy intrinsic in a photon? Can it exist without it? If it can''t then it is a property of it by your definition.

Sobering.

Einstein-Rosen bridge aka wormholes for travelling and you can spin up a yarn on FTL communications with entangled devices where it was fictitiously discovered that information can be transferred between entangled particles which work as in binary coding and the wave function can be collapsed and restored gigatimes per second.

In annihilation: particle 1 + anti-particle 1 → particle 2 + anti-particle (Strassler)

But energy can be a thing but not stuff. A thing is too broad... a millimetre can be a thing (of the mind) but not stuff. I read this earlier: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

Matt Strassler says 'stuff', which I think is better than 'thing'. Photons are stuff but energy isn't because it's a property of stuff.

It seems that low pressure allows tissues to swell because there is less external pressure on them which in turn allows the tissues to exert pressure on affected parts, causing pain. This is with respect to arthritis, which is probably in the same ballpark as your injuries since joints are damaged.

I can't understand why people don't want to learn the real thing.

Why have you put this in The Lounge?

Also, patents last 20 years or 14 years if it's just a design patent.... if they are maintained by paying the ongoing fees. It's in the public domain after that. The name is protected though.

Yeah, it's a crap thread.