swansont

There is an antiviral treatment for COVID. nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, marketed as Paxlovid.

It’s a distribution that’s supposed to have a median of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, so scores above 160 are possible but rare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

“Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick had a few choice words for the public on his way out the door of the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office” https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxjydq/former-pentagon-ufo-investigator-is-pissed-because-congress-believes-in-conspiracy-theories “As of the time of my departure, none, let me repeat, none of the conspiracy-minded ‘whistleblowers’ in the public eye had elected to come to AARO to provide their ‘evidence’ and statement for the record despite numerous invitations,” he said

Yes. If there isn’t enough energy then you can’t create new particles. Yes. Yes. Particles scatter all the time.

I’m not sure why they would accelerate away. There could be an electrostatic force, but this typically has a small energy compared to the interaction energy. e- and e+ for example (creation or annihilation) - the mass energy is around 1 MeV but the electrostatic PE is of order 10 eV Owing to the uncertainty principle(s) you don’t get to “look” at the interaction in arbitrarily fine detail of whatever variable (e.g. position, momentum) You look at the start and end of the interaction and apply conservation laws - momentum, energy, charge, angular momentum You can treat the acceleration of a free electron classically.

What would be a comparable situation? Cases I can think of where acceleration matters are where you’d treat the particle classically. In quantum systems you’d look at the energy of an interaction.

WalidKhan suspended for spamming

All of physics is a technicality. If you’re going to use a scenario, you need to represent it properly, so that everyone is discussing the same thing.

The twins are the same age at the start of the scenario. One is younger at the conclusion of the experiment. They never “reach” the age of the other.

It was not just one post; this was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back. Your previous responses in the thread were flippant. You answered yes to a question and when you were asked for a citation you simply posted a picture of a magic 8-ball showing ‘yes’ Despite your claim here, there were serious responses in the thread. Elsewhere you had posted a stock discussion in quantum theory. You’ve posted pictures in other threads that did not contribute to the discussion. I recall trying to give you feedback about this, which you rejected. We reached saturation with that behavior. You can learn from it, or not

That wasn’t your original assertion. “When you look at the Cube it contains a point to point line, a square and a Cube, could this be written 1m¹+1m²+1m³, would this equal 3m⁶ equalling 729m?” The equation is incorrect. Nonsensical, in fact. It is in no way the equivalent of saying a cube contains a line, area and volume.

Yes, that only accounts for a little bit of the difference. It’s likely all the factors mentioned contribute. Several factors of 2 or 3 rather than one big one.

Comparable, but also that’s by weight, so Na is ~ 2x more abundant by number.

It’s 2,000,000 ppb for Na and 110,000 ppb for K, which might account for a large part of this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

! Moderator Note Material for discussion needs to be posted

This thread is about the news article. If you want another conversation, open a new thread

! Moderator Note This is in Science News and was not moved

This is not owing to heat transfer - the radiation isn't thermal. It's doing work.

If a point isn’t valid, you shouldn’t bring it up. But this is a science site. You should expect claims to be challenged. I can’t comment on things I don’t know about; if data are classified how could I? You don’t give any citations for claims, so they’re hard to follow up on. Your stance on gathering data is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's the point you brought up that I was addressing. Now that you know it's false, I assume you won't claim it again. If there were other points, by all means discuss them.

The notion that you could provide a picture of entanglement is ludicrous if you understand anything about entanglement. It’s not a request one can make in good faith. He “knew” what the best science at the time knew. Science is driven by data, not clairvoyance. The expansion of the universe wasn’t discovered until 1929

Technically paulfoolery…

That’s a hell of an interpretation. That it’s 100% wrong shouldn’t be surprising given the data. I accept science because of the evidence. We discussed this and your false dilemma suggests you did not absorb the concepts Yes, exactly. So why does the eyewitness testimony not count? I can’t fathom the confusion that would lead to this observation. Zero, I would say. Who was an “eyewitness” to this? Such is the way of religious zealotry, but I’m not sure what this has to do with science and scientific evidence. I’ve read the eyewitness testimony of others. No, because I have a degree in physics, so I know that “what powers entanglement?” is a crap question (nothing “powers” it, that phrasing suggests a complete lack of understanding of the underlying physics)

This isn’t a legal issue, it’s science You’re suggesting that eyewitness testimony isn’t a thing in criminal prosecution, and nobody has been convicted because of it, which is an unserious argument.

The data gets recorded, so it has not vanished, and since one describes how the experiment is done, others can replicate it. The Nobel committee wouldn’t worry about photons being destroyed. They aren’t stupid.