swansont

! Moderator Note As Genady has pointed out, this is a physics discussion. Please stay on topic.

For you, but you don’t speak for others. Others are not wrong simply because their view differs from yours.

This is fig. 4 in the paper that the blog post discusses. Error bars are one standard deviation, meaning there's a decent chance that the result is zero for each of these results. There is no conclusive evidence showing an effect. “Our study included up to 2,008,990 days with data for mortality, Kp index, temperature, and relative humidity from 263 cities. The mean daily total mortality was 14 deaths/day, with winter having 16 deaths/day, spring with 14 deaths/day, summer with 13 deaths/day and fall having 14 deaths/day, including 44,220,261 deaths in the study period” I notice that they don’t give the variation in daily deaths, and if you divide deaths by the number of days you get 22, which is larger than the daily mortality numbers they cite. Also, if their conclusions are to be consistent, geomagnetic activity must be preventing strokes.

Epileptic rats. You’re omitting important details.

I assume these other studies have similarly weak correlation, where the effect has a small bias but is still consistent with zero Why does a 50 nT storm have an effect but a daily fluctuation of 30 nT doesn’t? https://pburnley.faculty.unlv.edu/GEOL452_652/magnetism/notes/MagNotes19diurnal.html You’ve presented a few studies that have a tiny change, much smaller than the normal variation. If one argued that there is no effect, it would not be contradicted by the data. Contrast this with e.g. smoking tobacco, where you see ~20x higher death rates from certain afflictions (e.g. emphysema and lung cancer in men) https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm Small studies have large statistical uncertainties, which is why they require followup by large studies. It’s not uncommon for the followup to show no effect once you have better statistics. Where are the studies that show the effect under controlled conditions in lab animals? That’s usually the next step. Shield the earth’s field and put in place a known variation that can be turned on and off. It probably won’t happen, because something that only has a ~1% effect means you need a lot of subjects for the statistics to show up.

And it fluctuates by tens of nT every day. The overhead sun compresses the magnetosphere; I remember measuring a diurnal effect of about 30 nT when we were testing the magnetic shielding of an atomic clock. That’s the ”idea” but the connection is tenuous. They are explaining an effect that’s not there. If this were a physics paper there would be no result - you barely have 1 standard deviation on total deaths in fig 4 of the paper, CVD deaths have less separation and MI is even less. It would be properly reported as being consistent with zero. (in high-energy particle physics you need five sigma for something to be considered a real result)

How does this compare to the daily fluctuations of the field? And the overall strength of the field?

! Moderator Note Play it that way if you wish. Thread closed

Using a common language makes it better. Using terminology that you understand but others don’t is not better. English is the international language of science.

I think some printers allow you to update the firmware to modify the file formates. IIRC this was a feature of a large-scale plotter we had at work. But you need to connect a computer to it to do so.

Complexity, diversity and patterning can happen at almost any scale, but that does not mean it is invariant. Larger structures could possibly be more complex just because there are more parts that can be rearranged. Or less complex because certain configurations are unstable or otherwise not functional. For some structures, the fact that surfaces scale differently than volume will be important; it will mean that small structures necessarily look different than large ones. If there’s some overall rule about this, one can go look for it, but it’s not going to be adequately described, to the point we can discuss it, in a popular summary of the science, like the physorg article. Primary sources are better.

Evolution is a feedback loop. So, too, would be a system that can be rearranged and where selection takes place.

The measured variation was ~17 mm DBP and ~10 mm SBP.

“in patients with acute coronary syndrome” - niche group “in Elderly Adults” niche group Also, the effects are ~3mm Hg, and I don’t see what the control variation was. In epileptics, i.e. people already prone to seizures

! Moderator Note To rephrase/repeat what others have said: we expect a link and an excerpt of the article when posting in News. Discussion should center around that. Discussion of invariance of scale has been split: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133088-invariance-of-scale-split-from-evolution-not-limited-to-life-on-earth/

We’re a science discussion site. Saying you’ve seen news stories is very vague. Where are the actual papers where analysis is shown? Where are the statistics showing these alleged increased effects?

It’s not the perpendicular flux on the LHS of the equation The surface in question. Whether it’s reflecting or radiating. I’ve not seen that phrasing; the surface is perfectly diffuse, and it either reflects or radiates. Perfectly diffuse describes reflection or radiation. There is no transmission or absorption.

Dimensions are easy to find. The trouble is there are different versions of the vehicle. https://sportsmobile.com/transit-van-info/ The license plate could be used as a reference, but since it’s small the uncertainty of an extrapolation will be a bit larger. Some image software will let you count the number of pixels in a line you draw.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged What about them? Are there any statistics or reports of people dying while undergoing MRIs? You posted these links earlier, and they’re still weak tea. Summaries of studies saying there’s a hint of data, or effects on specific subpopulations (e.g. people with epilepsy)

You could also see if the models have consistent dimensions, and if so, use that as a scale.

For me it’s a form of Pascal’s wager

I knew people in grad school who studied adsorption on solid surfaces, and other surface effects. The forces are different than in the bulk solid, since you don’t have the interaction from all directions. The lack of symmetry makes for some interesting physics. Surfaces of the same material can have pretty strong attraction; the adhesion between metal surfaces is called galling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galling (I “discovered” this problem putting some bolts into a frame in a vacuum system and having one seize up. Right after, I was introduced to the anti-seizing compound molybdenum disulfide)

You’d use QM if there was some interaction involved that required it. You can e.g. use frames of reference to look at what happens to muons and their decay time, without invoking QM.

Frames of reference are important in relativity, where they are tied to a velocity, not necessarily a physical point. All points are at rest with respect to each other in that frame. To rephrase your statement, can you have a valid frame that does not apply to some potential scenario? I don’t know. I can’t think of one at the moment.

I can’t parse “Does a frame of reference have to be applicable to a potential physical scenario to be physically valid?” There’s an adage in particle physics that goes “that which is not forbidden is mandatory” so I can’t imagine a frame of reference that’s valid that would not somehow correspond to a physical scenario, but I don’t know if one exists, or what you might have in mind.