swansont

I don’t know. I’m not a pathologist. Yes, most of the time.

The coroner didn’t say that. “Pathologist Dr Peter Jackson said Mr Gleeson's death, on January 23, was caused by asphyxiation due in part to the tampons, and said the sleeping tablets would also have added to his breathing difficulties. Coroner Michael Burgess recorded a verdict of accidental death.” The coroner was Burgess. The remark is attributed to Jackson. The article doesn’t clarify Jackson’s involvement in the case.

If it takes 200,000 years, that’s a “no” according to the conditions of the OP. If one iteration annihilates the world before we send people to space, that’s also a “no” The result also depends on what “end up in the same place” means and what “etcetc” includes. If the requirements are vague, then it’s more likely to be true, but predictions are like that. Psychics make money relying on it (the Barnum effect)

You can choke…

Evolution was not part of the framing, and the question was if all would end up in the same place. So you do agree. Given how close we know we came to nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion, one has to think that in some iterations, it would happen. In some iterations, a critical person dies an untimely death not seen in other incarnations. A butterfly flaps its wings…

Chaos theory says no. Life on earth is highly nonlinear, even tiny differences in the starting conditions, or the influence of random events, would yield different outcomes.

I recently read a comment about this, arguing that it makes sense for the brain to be close to the sensory input of the eyes, ears and nose. Sight perhaps the most important, since visual reaction times can be crucial to survival.

Why is that absurd? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Some restaurant food tastes better simply because they use an insane amount of butter. It’s not necessarily better food.

We make EM waves carry information by rapidly modulating them, which would be tough to do with gravitational waves.

The Apollo CO2 scrubbers removed CO2 but did not regenerate oxygen. LiOH is converted to Li2CO3 and water. If you regenerate the oxygen you require extra mass and energy. The Apollo fuel cells used oxygen to generate power, so is there even a net saving?

Note that “gravity waves” has a specific meaning, and it’s not what is described here. The “grooves” speculation can be tested by thinking about what would happen if a satellite were stationary. If there were grooves in the gravitational field, the object would remain, but we know it would fall towards the celestial object. And there’s no theoretical basis for such ripples in a static situation.

I was curious about the amount of oxygen used - We breath in around 10,000 L of air per day (search results vary from 7500 to 11500), so that’s ~2,000 L of oxygen, but only convert about a quarter of that to CO2, so 500 L. At 22.4 L per mole for an ideal gas, that’s around 22 moles. ~350 grams per day.

The photon is not localized to a point. It has a wavelength.

Do you see the connection between these two statements? If you can’t determine the distance between the particles, as their location is uncertain, then you can’t make precise claims about the energy. If you can estimate the separation, then you can calculate the potential energy, and see if it’s a problem. You also have to consider that pair production happens near a nucleus, which has a charge, and that will exert a force on the created charged particles, in opposite directions, which would separate them. And you haven’t done a calculation that you’ve shared with us. Because there is a magnetic field present, and the are moving. If you know the strength if the field - in this example it’s 1 T - you can determine their kinetic energy (or the speed), from the radius of curvature.

The obvious answer is thst they aren’t created at zero distance. Are you familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? What you think is far less important than what you can show. I haven’t seen any calculations.

Wolfram alpha can do computations, including topic-specific applications https://www.wolframalpha.com

While citations are good, your citation refers to efficacy of disinfectants, which was not the subject of the responses (aka assertions) Dry conditions for two months will indeed kill some bacteria, but not all of the common ones, and most viruses. Higher temperatures (which one might expect on a laptop) tend to shorten the time. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564025/

Not as designed, I think. The shuttle dropped its main tank and solid-rocket boosters. Even if it kept the tank, now you have to continue the launch with the dead weight of the tank and engines. Plus, the fuel was liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, so refueling would have been difficult, even if you could haul enough fuel up to LEO - the fuel mass was over 700,000 kg and shuttle payload 23,000 kg - and were able to keep it cold.

It’s not hard to find examples of ChatGPT giving wrong math/science answers. GPT stands for Generative Pre-trained Transformer, which is, as I said, a language model. ChatGPT is designed to generate answers that sound human. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/over-just-few-months-chatgpt-232905189.html “Over the course of the study researchers found that in March GPT-4 was able to correctly identify that the number 17077 is a prime number 97.6% of the times it was asked. But just three months later, its accuracy plummeted a lowly 2.4%.” https://news.asu.edu/20230221-discoveries-do-math-chatgpt-sometimes-cant-expert-says “Our initial tests on ChatGPT, done in early January, indicate that performance is significantly below the 60% accuracy for state-of-the-art algorithm for math word problem-solvers,” Also “It’s designed around a concept called next word prediction, where for when you ask it something, it’s going to predict what the related words are based on a corpus (text and speech) data.”

The incident happened. What was requested was a brief summary (there’s a Wikipedia article on it, which would have sufficed) because that’s one of the rules, and for some support for other claims, like sources being lost as a daily occurrence in the US. That seems incredible, given the list of orphan sources TheVat provided averages about one incident a year, worldwide.

29% increase for ICE, 72% for EV means that some aspect of it is EV-specific, in the UK.

The evidence disagrees with the hypothesis. Repeating the hypothesis doesn’t make it true. Backlash is why they have a public relations budget. This doesn’t support your hypothesis, though. If your idea was correct, they would not have dared to sell faulty products in the first place. As you proposed, “a private company would not take such a risk” As it stands, they lost business, which is an expected consequence of making a crappy product. They didn’t do sufficient testing to ensure the product was safe, likely because it wasn’t deemed to be worth the cost. A risk they were obviously willing to take.

This appears to be a local, not global, phenomenon. This article suggests EV insurance prices are trending lower in the US From the OP link: “for petrol and diesel car drivers, the increase is 29%” So part of the increase is a general trend, not because they are EVs. How much of this is because of BREXIT driving up the cost of parts? The point about the lack of data is important, too. Relatively few EVs means a low number of accidents from which to gather reliable statistics. Is any of this opportunistic price gouging?

LOL History is rife with examples of corporations causing environmental damage, and harming (even killing) people, without going out of business as a result. Union Carbide India Limited killed thousands in Bhopal in 1984, paid a settlement and renamed itself. Still in business. Exxon, Shell and ARCO are still around, despite serious incidents. TEPCO, owner of the Fukushima reactor, is still there.