swansont

That’s not being refused treatment. That’s refusing treatment.

A systemic refusal? Citation needed. Continued smoking might e.g. rank them lower for a lung transplant, (similar to an alcoholic and a liver transplant) but that’s not the same as being refused treatment

Gravitational sources? If that means hydroelectric, then the reliability can be impacted by drought conditions, as the US is seeing. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/western-drought-drives-decline-in-hydroelectric-power-generation-180978862/

Different observers will measure different shapes for anything that’s not a point particle. Nuclei in accelerators (such as the RHIC) will be more “pancake” than spherical, and this affects the charge distribution when modeling the interaction in the frame where the nucleus is moving. The claim is not wrong, but it doesn’t demonstrate the point they are claiming. I would go a step further and say that we can transform between frames, so the notion that it’s a “different location” is likely another manifestation of the fundamental misunderstanding of relativity. Transforming from (x,t) to (x’, t’) is an acknowledgment that it’s the same location, but each observer has their own coordinate system. The particle is not in two places at once. One person can say a location is 123 Main St while another describes it in terms of latitude and longitude. One location, two ways of describing it.

It’s not like this is a new phenomenon that appeared with COVID.

True of any relative property.

They are.

And yet we do it all the time. We tell them to drive under the speed limit and stay off the grass, and punish them when we catch them doing those things. Laws and regulations are part of the equation. I agree, but that’s not the only leverage. Get vaccinated or we fire you. If you’re not vaccinated your work-related health care won’t cover your COVID treatment (probably only applies to the US system).

That’s nonsensical. There is one particle, and “relative to itself” isn’t a thing. “Relative” requires two frames.

A muon being shaped like a worldline is not “well known” and not a true statement. It doesn’t have a physical effect. That’s your persistent misconception. Length contraction does not involve stress or strain or compression or any physical effect. A length is shorter when measured from a moving frame. No, it means you continue to misunderstand what superposition is, and what length contraction entails.

That’s the point. “real” (as in physical) is not required to be relevant, observable (as in measurable), and scientific, despite the claim.

I imagine it means there is a distance from A to B. But that distance is relative to the frame from which it is measured. I don’t think anyone who understands physics is going to. I suppose a crackpot could show up and do so. Length is not a physical object. Neither is time. They are relevant and scientific. Yes. The issue was being inherent. A square that is measured by a moving observer will not have four sides of equal length. The shape in the rest frame is not inherent.

In that regard it’s more like running a stop sign/red light, or driving drunk. It’s not just about the individual’s risk of harming themselves.

! Moderator Note Logic helps, but what we want is for you to support your claims with evidence And? I’m failing to understand why this matters. We can’t travel back in time to unscramble an egg, either. That’s a pretty meaningless claim.

And I’m arguing the latter. It’s somewhere you would stop to replenish supplies if you were headed in that general direction. But in arguing that, “10 light years is a small region relative to the size of the galaxy” doesn’t apply, and neither does “how many technological species are there in a region of 10 light years of the Earth” No, it’s not really like that at all. Grains of sand are touching each other. It’s more like islands in the ocean and you’re on a slow sailboat. You’re going to plot courses with stops where you can pick up e.g. fresh water, unless you absolutely know you can make to your ultimate destination. We’ve identified extrasolar planets and the premise here is that the aliens are more technologically advanced than we currently are, so they would know that there are rocky planets around that average yellow star. The latter does not require the former. We’ve noticed many extrasolar planets, without determining that any of them are special. Noticing comes first. How would you determine a planet is “special” without having noticed it first? Sure, there could be unknown motivations, but we already have known motivations.

I think you are incorrect about what “we” know Why does “existing in a physical sense” matter? The shape is not inherent. The best you can do is say what the shape is in a particular frame, such as the rest frame. It’s trivial to avoid. There is no superposition, as has been explained multiple times.

Small relative to the size of the galaxy is only relevant if your craft can traverse the galaxy without replenishing Irrelevant to the issue under discussion, unless one is proposing that the aliens wouldn’t be stealthy when approaching other solar systems, and that other systems don’t have resources aliens might want. I think you are arguing from a flawed premise.

! Moderator Note If anyone thinks rules have been broken they can and should use the report post function to bring it to the attention of the mods. Please leave enforcement up to the staff. Unless someone is asserting some sort of authority based on claimed credentials, I don’t see how profile claims are relevant to any discussion. In any event, we don’t require verification of them. If someone posts something that’s incorrect, feel free to correct it.

Unfortunately a fair number of people complaining about rights are invoking phantom rights, with the misconception that “freedom” means “doing whatever I want” Countries (generally speaking) have constitutions, which serve to describe the powers granted to the government. It may be that some powers may only be exercised under certain conditions, such as during a pandemic. If such power is granted, and exercised, individual rights are not being violated - they don’t actually exist.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Please post enough material to support discussion

Since time come into play in phenomena that do not involve human psychology, though, how can that be?

I don't see this as emergent. Pressure is related to a force, and the individual collisions also relate to a force, via conservation of momentum. It's a matter of scale and collective behavior. But I don't see how you can say that the force is not present in the parts. IOW, it's collective behavior, but this is not emergent behavior.

Not only haven't we reached a sustained reaction, from that other thread it's clear that we aren't anywhere close to that point. The video has precious little scientific detail in it that indicates we're making much progress.

! Moderator Note How about we discuss the topic of the thread and not extraneous detail of what's in someone's profile

"Common" is similar to the "throughout" I objected to earlier. How many rocky planets with liquid water are within, say, 10 light-years of earth? That's the thing; there aren't billions of choices if you are traveling along some path. And there's nothing about this premise where earth was "singled out" so that's moot.