swansont

Which vaccine(s)? What rate are people getting hospitalized or dying?

Which doesn’t make your mistaken claim about the study any more correct. Which is a different study, with a different data collection methodology To perform this analysis, FAIR Health drew on longitudinal data from its database of over 34 billion private healthcare claim records from 2002 to the present. IOW, if you didn’t file a claim, you aren’t included, even if you had COVID. Meanwhile, in the other study, Household members of patients who tested positive were included to ensure completeness of the cohort, and their infection was diagnosed by SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies at 2 months IOW, they went and found people who had COVID, which would include asymptomatic people. So, the insurance company would not include people who couldn’t establish they had had COVID, and possibly others, which would undercount the number of people with long-term symptoms, making the ~25% number a lower bound.

No, they can't. That's not how entanglement works. Feel free to look at the many threads we have on the topic, and if you have unanswered questions, start a thread to ask them. What does our experience match up with this? How much data do we have that's survived 500 years? How many species survive as long as 50 million years? That's another topic that's come up for discussion. Is this possible? How soon could an advanced technology emerge after the big bang? (again, feel free to consult other threads and open up a new one if necessary)

If this is a beam in a particle accelerator, it will have traveled upwards of 750 million km in the roughly 2.5 seconds it takes to drop 30m Not happening in any accelerator around here. Also, the Larmor formula says that the radiated energy in a 1g field is around 10^-50 joules in this period of time (just a rough calculation)

If you go to https://theconversation.com/concerned-about-the-latest-astrazeneca-news-these-3-graphics-help-you-make-sense-of-the-risk-162175 and scroll down about 2/3 of the way, you will find the exact cite given in the article. It's the 2019 version of the links you've shown. If it is not specific enough it's not iNow's fault. Blame the author of the article. (all I did was add "TTS blood clot" to the search to find the article)

If L/c is sufficiently large, the transit delay is longer than one's lifetime. (edit: just saw that iNow has already explained)

It can, however, prohibit conversation.

We need to separate the effect that Enthalpy is incorrectly including from the nonexistent increase in mass from the established physics prediction of a dropped or deflected particle. Which is why we need Enthalpy's calculation edit: and an observer that's co-moving with the particle will see it at rest, so the question is where is that 1 eV photon coming from. Even a proton has much less than an eV of kinetic energy after falling 30m, and the recoil from emitting a 540 nm photon would be quite noticeable

No, read it again. The cohort was 247 home-isolated and 65 hospitalized. Home-isolated suggests the immediate effects of the disease were not severe (or they would have been hospitalized) and possibly includes asymptomatic people, and the listed symptoms in the latter part of the abstract are for home-isolated, young-adult patients. (52% (32/61) of home-isolated young adults, aged 16–30 years, had symptoms at 6 months) (emphasis added)

We've had discussion about possible long-term effects of the vaccines. But now we're starting to see long-term effects of the disease https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01433-3?error=cookies_not_supported&code=15f3b4c5-db60-4dfa-b209-5334c13d613e Abstract: Long-term complications after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are common in hospitalized patients, but the spectrum of symptoms in milder cases needs further investigation. We conducted a long-term follow-up in a prospective cohort study of 312 patients—247 home-isolated and 65 hospitalized—comprising 82% of total cases in Bergen during the first pandemic wave in Norway. At 6 months, 61% (189/312) of all patients had persistent symptoms, which were independently associated with severity of initial illness, increased convalescent antibody titers and pre-existing chronic lung disease. We found that 52% (32/61) of home-isolated young adults, aged 16–30 years, had symptoms at 6 months, including loss of taste and/or smell (28%, 17/61), fatigue (21%, 13/61), dyspnea (13%, 8/61), impaired concentration (13%, 8/61) and memory problems (11%, 7/61). Our findings that young, home-isolated adults with mild COVID-19 are at risk of long-lasting dyspnea and cognitive symptoms highlight the importance of infection control measures, such as vaccination. More than half of the people having persistent symptoms after 6 months doesn't sound good.

So, Yanchilin. IOW, another non-mainstream claim. He even calls it an hypothesis in the opening line of the abstract, and offers it as a postulate in the paper, which means that there is no evidence that it’s correct.

Source for this claim? I keep asking for evidence, and your response is more things claimed without evidence. That’s not how this works.

Transverse KE does not. Your OP mentions electrons, not protons, and the acceleration is vertical. Compare the momentum of a vertically-directed photon with the momentum of the proton or electron The KE of the particle, in the plane of the acceleration. So you’re viewing this as a synchrotron with a bend downward. Synchrotron radiation depends on the bend radius, which gets larger as you give the particle transverse KE Show your calculation

Yes, there is. One hopes it gets fixed by the people that sell the software

Explain, please. What is phi? Which we aren’t in. And none of this is evidence.

You need to provide evidence of your claims.

Just read an interesting tidbit: the fraction of our rockets devoted to payload in getting to orbit is fairly small, and if you can’t get there, going beyond is a nonstarter. If you live on a planet that has a sufficiently higher g (denser than earth, or somewhat larger radius) then chemical rockets have no chance of getting you to orbit.

I have no desire to revisit this. The threads exist. I also can't help but note that my objection to you citing nonexistent technology is to cite...nonexistent technology. And has been for 40 years.

Claimed without evidence, yet again. You've never been able to support this without an appeal to technology that does not exist, and properties of the universe that are not confirmed.

I think you may have missed the part where it says thus the ultimate fate of the ΛCDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever-increasing rate under the influence of the cosmological constant.

This is relativistic mass, which is not an actual change in mass. If your proposed effect were true, you could form a black hole by moving fast enough. This doesn't happen. 540 nm? Where did you get that? It's 9 or 10 orders of magnitude more than the KE of an electron dropping that distance.

Are you claiming this is what GR predicts? If so, I find it odd that nobody has pointed this out before.

Does it matter if these are males of females? Typically the female is wearing ze bra.

That would be part of the evidence. Were they? Which means that this is a conjecture that has little or no support. Not something to base ideas on. Such an idea carries no weight here. IOW he's wrong, since we have confirmation that relativity is how things work.

Is there any evidence that they do?