swansont

In this context, it would be "understand and investigate"

There are different manifestations of democracy, and I think people lose sight of that. When they say "democracy" they are often looking at the form developed in the US and adopted (with certain tweaks) in most western countries: a republican government where everyone who is eligible gets to vote on their representation (i.e. they are all equal in the eyes of the law), with some form of majority rule but also reserving certain rights for the people. One of the issues is that you say democracy meaning "American democracy" and those with poor understanding or an agenda will apply the equivocation fallacy and use a different manifestation/definition of democracy in their "argument"

That's interesting. I was sure the UK had an income tax, and government assistance programs, which would allow them to see which people have low income. I would never want my (US) government to be able to tap in to corporate/bank data. And what is your fixation with ai? I don't think it means what you think it means. In this application it's not some magic bullet. It's just computer programming - comparing an income to some predetermined number.

! Moderator Note This isn't your blog. You either ask a question, or present some science to discuss. Define what it is you are introducing. Provide context. Do better.

The "arrive at the same time" explanation has been, AFAIK, debunked. But the air flows faster. If it didn't you'd have higher pressure in front of the wing, which would then force the air to move faster. The examples are usually for a specific shape of wing (do stunt planes have that shape?), and if you are in a situation where Bernoulli applies, how does it not move faster and still conserve energy?

! Moderator Note You've been posting about this for a long time, and never give relevant details. This, the trash can. And posting to advertise your youtube channel is against the rule.

It might help to look at the Bernoulli equation to see what studiot is talking about http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html

There are two possibilities that your inquiry raises: someone has the information you seek, about specific studies in a very narrow sector of medical (not biological) study, or they know where to look for it. What you have been given is the latter: a path so you can delve into this. We are not your research minions, to be sent off to the library to seek out citations for you.

So you made what looks to be a factual claim, but then admit it was a WAG. That's really not how things work here. You can ask questions or you can present ideas, but the ideas have to have some level of rigor. And you seem to be following a pattern, and this does not end well. You will quickly use up your allotment of goodwill if this trend continues. The problem here is that if you don't know how the quantum effects occur, there's no way to assess what "errors" are occurring. There no science, just your buzzwords. It needs to stop.

And yet I still see no evidence being presented. This does not fulfill the requirements of speculations. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ 1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. Last chance!

Telling you how to find what you’re looking for is a perfectly reasonable response. If someone had the knowledge, they could share it, but expecting them to do the legwork for you is…well, I think zapatos got it right: Privileged.

And what does this have to do with electrons allegedly traveling faster than c in atoms? Where is your mathematical model? What testable predictions do you make? How is the idea falsifiable?

Repeating an absurd claim is not evidence.

I studied quantum physics and this was not required. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

! Moderator Note Followup on this tangent has been moved https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127776-covid-behind-us-split-from-potential-mass-strike-action-in-the-uk/#comment-1216640

What defines a “pandemic level”?

What is the evidence that makes you think it’s moving faster than c?

That sounds like “no” If you can’t describe the process, how can you analyze any “errors” that occur?

! Moderator Note What is the point of posting something you posted to another site, where apparently you go your question answered?

Can you describe how our thought process occurs at the quantum level?

! Moderator Note Which is locked, and you were told not to bring it up again.

! Moderator Note The rules forbid you from advertising your pet theory in other threads, and you were told specifically not to bring the topic up again.

! Moderator Note Why is this posted in politics? Where is your evidence to support the thesis? This follows an unfortunate pattern in your threads. It’s too bad, because you can discuss things you like (in the right section) such as “I really like recent sci-fi” without framing it in the form of an unsupported cherry-picked premise and a conclusion that simply begs the question. But we don’t like logical fallacies, as it makes for poor discussions. Do better.

! Moderator Note Your refusal to provide a model and evidence violates the forum rules. You are not to re-introduce this topic.

Insist all you want. It’s been done. You have to share the information here, not in some article elsewhere. Will you answer the questions I asked? Then show the double slit changing when different materials are used. Why do we get interference with red light, which does not have enough energy to cause the photoelectric effect? Why do we see interference with microwaves, which have much less energy?