swansont

But the strike is not about the ones who can pick and choose what roles they will take.

Here are a couple of articles on the topic “Testing quantum gravity has long been thought to be out of reach of experiments, based on estimates that show it would take a collider the size of the Milky Way to accelerate protons enough to produce a measurable amount of gravitons (the quanta of the gravitational field), or that we would need a detector the size of planet Jupiter to measure a graviton produced elsewhere. Not impossible, but clearly not something that will happen in my lifetime.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/13/how-well-finally-wind-up-testing-quantum-gravity/?sh=6fff3015529e “The key place to look for gravitons — or a signature of the “particle” part of the nature of these gravitational waves that we’ve demonstrated exist — would be where quantum gravitational effects are anticipated to be strongest and most pronounced: at the shortest distance scales and where gravitational fields are strongest. There’s no better place in the Universe to probe this regime than where two black holes merge, as close to their singularities as you can conceivably get.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/11/20/ask-ethan-can-we-find-out-if-gravitons-exist/?sh=5bfb19ab1c85

But you devise experiments based on what you expect from theory. You might see an unexpected signal, but if the mechanism isn’t right you just see nothing. How many there are correlates to the chance you will detect one. If you detect one in a billion and your flux is one per second, it could be years before you detect it. And you need to detect more than one, because you need statistics. Detecting one won’t be distinguishable from the noise. That’s not how you framed the thread

Which we would have regardless of the show. It was set in the future, so naturally they extrapolated from existing technology. What’s interesting is what they got right and what they didn’t. They use data tapes - smaller than the contemporary technology, just like the communicators - but still bound by it. No digital media. No hand-carried high-res displays (no surprise, since that would have been hard to simulate). Almost like the writers just took miniaturization, that was ongoing with transistor technology, to the next step.

None. Geostationary orbits are equatorial

That’s true but isn’t what I asked. Stronger gravitation should mean more gravitons, and the gravity signal from distant collapse of black holes is very, very weak. Put another way, how many gravitons would be in the PTA signal? How will you detect a quantized signal from that?

Marconi didn’t have to limit his transmission power owing to government regulation (and he wasn’t sending a voice signal). But all you have to do is look at the trajectory - the first US patent for a mobile phone was 1908. The first car phone was used in 1946. Cell phone development was probably ongoing when ST first aired.

Avoid the issue if you want, but consider yourself on notice that continuing to dodge the rules (2.8 and 2.12, in particular) you will find yourself on the outside, looking in.

But that’s just an extrapolation of the technology. It’s not like the idea required ST to move it forward.

Why would you try to detect them in the background, instead of a stronger signal?

There’s a link in the article that discusses the issues with “tired light” and a few are mentioned by Gupta in their abstract. The “they” you cite is one person; it’s not like this has widespread consideration, much less acceptance. This is an ad-hoc proposal which apparently does not yet have independent confirmation. And my reading is that it’s two models, each fitting some subset of the data “We present a model with covarying coupling constants (CCC), starting from the modified FLRW metric and resulting Einstein and Friedmann equations, and a CCC + TL hybrid model. They fit the Pantheon + data admirably, and the CCC + TL model is compliant with the JWST observations”

A can of hydrogen wouldn’t contain all that much; it’s a gas (and I see that exchemist has just responded along these lines, so I won’t duplicate the effort) We already had wireless voice communication, decades before Star Trek, so I reject the notion that this “came from science fiction”

I found this: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/a-beginners-guide-to-baryons/ “For all baryons, nature demands that the combination of flavor and spin must be completely symmetric” Spin 3/2 is completely symmetric, and spin 1/2 is antisymmetric. Three identical quarks is symmetric. I notice that the uuu and ddd particles are also spin 3/2, for the same reason. I don’t have a clear recollection, since I didn’t dive into such discussions.

You can estimate the gravitational time dilation, and I expect it would be incredibly small. Further, it wouldn’t make a particle stable, even if it were measurable

I think it’s from Group theory and the SU(3) symmetry - a spin 1/2 sss particle is not one of the permutations of the symmetry - but that’s where my understanding gets very fuzzy. When they got to isospin and hypercharge and Lie algebra in class, my eyes glazed over.

Not my area of expertise, but I recall the “eightfold way” discussion, and the octet for spin 1/2 has strangeness of 0, 1 or 2. A spin 1/2 version of the omega would have S=3

Some (most?) of us care about facts, and when you make a purportedly factual claim, it’s not unreasonable to ask for the source of that information. Just making assertions (or worse, offering opinions as if they were facts) runs afoul of the rule on soapboxing, and possibly others. It’s not nitpicking.

u r joking.

deema78 has been banned as a sockpuppet of deema

What’s the evidence that she has an advantage? It’s not automatically the case. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/39/10/695.full.pdf “Individuals with this condition have a 46XY genotype (the typical male chromosomal make up), but fail to develop male sex characteristics because their cells cannot respond to the circulating male hormone (testosterone) in their bodies. Although the presence of the Y chromosome makes these individuals genetically male, they are phenotypically female—that is, they have a female morphotype and physiology—and they are usually raised socially as females. The presence of the Y chromosome (and more importantly, circulating testosterone) confers no physical advantage on them.”

The governing body uses gender as the determining factor for which group one should be in, not sex. Her gender is female. According to the IAAF’s rules, she’s a woman, competing in women’s races. https://theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448 (sports used to use anatomical determination, which is presumably what the doctor used to assign her female at birth)

“Semenya, who has always been legally identified as female” (from the provided link; emphasis added) She isn’t transgender - as you note, she is intersex - but this is an example of the issue of only having two categories being part of the problem, why there is difficulty in classifying people, and underscores the issue of whether we are discussing sex or gender.

The Thorium clock is an interesting challenge from an academic point of view but it’s not relevant to the claims here (and is unlikely to result in a clock that’s much better than optical clocks)

That’s certainly a major issue. I don’t see where real events were cited.

I’m pretty sure nobody has plummeted to their death from trans people competing in athletics, and since they have been, there should be existing evidence.