swansont

In the beginning of the thread I asked about the path to experimental confirmation. If you’re going to appeal to this, let’s see the evidence of these SU(3) atoms or the superconducting nature of dark energy.

Musk’s secret talks with Putin that just came to light are a likely violation of his security clearance. I’m wondering if he gets his clearance yanked on Nov 6. (Before then might seem politically motivated)

And there are people in this thread that disagree. Acting as a cheerleader does not bring any rigor to the discussion.

Bezos also owns the Washington Post, and ensured the paper made no presidential endorsement

How is that implied? I see some assertions in the paper, but nothing that backs them up. No math.

Another common trick is focusing on distractions such as this. OK. Derive this SU(3) confinement scale number, with these solid physical principles, rather than giving hand-wavy arguments for it. i.e. give a rigorous calculation, rather than “implies” or “suggests” (later on you can provide the evidence that dark energy acts like a superconductor, rather than relying on hints or suggestions)

A wavy line extending from the mass would not illustrate the path of the orbit. It might illustrate something else.

As I recall what I was taught was in terms of the number line. Positive to the right. Negative meant “opposite” so it was to the left. Addition/subtraction was “jumps” and multiplication was like an expansion or magnification, but the negative meant in the opposite direction.

Or it just didn’t go through the translation algorithm. Accusing someone of misquoting but also saying you’re giving them the benefit of doubt aren’t consistent. It’s also off-topic.

Or they voted for Jill Stein as a “protest” because it made them feel better Some (not all) in the media are finally calling it racism (vs controversial, or other lame labeling) which might wake some low-information voters up. And Puerto Ricans living in states can vote, so this might shift a few votes.

It’s still going to take time to get up to speed, and you should look at what orbital radius you’ll have as you approach c. Hope you like it warm! (i.e. the orbital speed at the surface is a lot smaller than c)

Quantum pseudo-telepathy suffers from the same problem as quantum teleportation: the name evokes an unfortunate response in lay audiences. p-t is not actual telepathy (which is pseudoscience, and unfortunately that actually exists) Don’t hang your hat on the cute/quirky naming habits of physicists. Such names are not chosen to be literal, they are often puns or analogies. (A big one in my field is ‘“optical molasses” because the effect involves a large damping force, i.e. it appears viscous, not because it’s literally molasses or shares other properties of that substance)

Maybe it’s microplastics https://www.earthday.org/plastics-the-kingpin-of-the-fertility-crisis/ Or some other contributing effects. Blaming it on low power, non-ionizing radiation requires more than anecdotes. Appeal to post hoc ergo propter hoc won’t cut it

If it’s the right parameter there should be some other physics showing that, not just getting the answer you want.

More like QM is everywhere, but a lot of the time it doesn’t matter. The issue I have with some of these QM in biology stories is that they’re built on multiply-stacked hypotheses, individually without experimental confirmation. And the top-level proposal, of course, also lacks such evidence. Show me the actual entanglement and what the effects are.

If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It’s not much of an achievement to be wrong.

Given that nervous systems are ultimately comprised of particles, which are subject to quantum mechanics, it’s impossible for this to be false. The relevant issue is if any quantum effects survive in any measurable way. People diffract when they walk through a doorway, owing to the wave nature we know exists, but I don’t think anyone is foolish enough to assert that it has any measurable effect.

The paper says that the symmetry manifests itself in structures as small as nucleons, but I don’t see where there’s any true justification for picking that radius. Nothing presented to show it could not be much smaller. Not randomly chosen, but arbitrarily chosen — because it gives the desired answer?

! Moderator Note I think this is rife with unsupported premises; none of your assertions are backed up with evidence. I also think this sounds like propaganda. What I know is this is a discussion forum, not your blog, and opinions do not overrule facts. I also know this is locked.

! Moderator Note Congratulations. This is a discussion forum. What is the proposed topic of discussion here?

“radioactivity” is not some independent form of radiation. It’s simply the property of a nucleus being unstable and emitting energetic particles when it decays to a lower energy state. Those can be alphas, betas, gammas, neutrinos, protons, neutrons - they are the radiation. Of those, only gammas are massless, electromagnetic, and moving at c. For any other particle, differing speed would mean they would arrive at a target at different times if emitted from the same source simultaneously (though neutrinos would take a while) There is no “carrier of radioactivity” since that’s nonsensical.

You started this thread, so it’s assumed you could carry on a discussion at some level. The discussion thus far doesn’t really involve any advanced economic concepts. I’m not sure how broader horizons enters into it, especially when you won’t go into detail. You also probably have no idea what my professional interests are. Maybe it’s better you don’t assume you do.

Is it, though? I get the impression that even though there’s a fair amount of installed capacity, wind is under-utilized in the midwest. Though the Biden administration’s infrastructure legislation may be helping with that. According to this, no state got more than 40% of their electricity from wind this past July https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-state/ South Dakota, Kansas, Iowa and Oklahoma are the states that got over 30% Agree. It’s a version of shooting the messenger. Since physics and chemistry in particular deal with systems converting/liberating energy, just about any discovery of systems that do so quickly and/or efficiently is prone to be co-opted by the military. And similarly with enabling technology; you can’t effectively limit how people will use knowledge.

Did stupid Americans do that, or was it their elected representatives, influenced by the people who would profit off of it? Also to think that capitalism is the default system in the country and be afraid of other systems; socialism has become a bogeyman label (even though the Constitution describes a whole bunch of socialism)

So far as I know, it is not. In fact, I think it might be argued that failure to do it when circumstances dictate would be, since at such times people are not buying government bonds. If the government raised the bond rates attract buyers, the taxpayers would be on the hook for even more money