swansont

The math is the hard part. Not because math is hard, or needs to be complicated. But it allows for specific predictions, which we require, to allow for comparison with experiment. But you don’t have it, so this is closed

You need to identify what this substance is. How it’s detected, what the experimental evidence for it is, etc.

It’s like trying put a queen-sized fitted sheet on a king-sized bed. You get one corner on and another comes undone. IOW it’s likely to fail once you try to make it work with the rest of physics, and if so, it’s wrong. Energy is a property of things, so (like studiot) I’d like to see the actual statement and context.

Did the address whether you will know, when the rain washes you clean?

The consensus is no mass because that’s what the evidence says. Considering only the photon shows the problem; physics has a lot of moving parts and they mesh fairly well, so you can’t only look at a subset of it when considering such a broad topic.

“When is it satisfied?” can be addressed with some simple algebra. But you need to show you’ve tried to solve it first; we don’t just do homework problems for others. That doesn’t help anyone learn

What, precisely, needs explaining? Does ot have to do with the philosophy behind it, or the science?

Fundamental bosons are not matter. Can you show that they are unaffected by time? W and Z have mass, so they do not travel at c.

Slow recharging would help with that, too. Full discharge of the battery might be a factor; IIRC NiCd batteries preferred that.

My guess would be swapping rather than waiting to recharge, leading to quicker turnaround, for when this goes into service.

Clicking on post count takes you to your posts

They don’t mention what load was being hauled, and how that would affect the range.

Moderator NoteA youtube video is not a reasonable substitute for a link to some credible medical/psychology source (e.g the AMA or APA in the US) or a textbook or journal. Searching on that phrase gives pretty much only that one person’s youtube videos. That’s not credible, in terms of establishing it as part of the mainstream, and speculations can only be discussed in that forum.

With all due respect, asking for this sort of clarification is completely reasonable. It’s a discussion forum, not a personal chat.

This seems like a complete non-sequitur, as you have not posted here in a year and a half, and there doesn’t seem to be any accusation against you.

That’s not what Dawkins meant by the selfish gene

Possibly, but we’ve not detected any thus far.

This assumes it’s a genetic and heritable trait. And even if it is, it could involve a recessive gene that confers some advantage if you only have one copy.

When I click my avatar it takes me to my profile, where I can click to see my content (activity) If you click the post count below it, it takes you there directly

But having a gene to survive one malady might mean susceptibility to something else, and a gene that makes you susceptible to one could be really good protection against another, as with (or similar to) malaria. One issue here is trying to make simplistic arguments (e.g. movie-plot threat arguments like War of the Worlds) about a complex system.

Science has been wrong, but it’s corrected by better science — better evidence showing the flaws of the original theory, and a better model arises. Religion and mysticism didn’t step in with the better theory. As for acceptance, yes. Scientists are human, not robots. We do have personal biases and other weaknesses. New ideas take time to sink in. But even that doesn’t fully address the issue. Scientists are skeptics, and so it’s not just evidence, but the amount of evidence, because statistical flukes happen, and you want to be convinced that it’s not a fluke, or that there’s not some other explanation for the data.

Yes, we agree on the math, but the way you phrased it sounded like we’re not doing anything (or much) to treat adult diseases. We are doing a lot. Vaccines train your body to respond, granting increased immunity, but without running the risks of actually getting the disease. It strengthens your immune system.

This is a woefully under-specified question. You would need to understand the cognitive/neurological details of intuition before trying to tie it back to QM. Ultimately you would find QM at the basic level, but there’s so many layers above that to be considered.

What previous ones changed the life of everyone? I think the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine being available in a one-year time frame was life-changing. What constitutes a breakthrough? Would Nobel prizes count? We could discuss the impact of various Nobels. Are you talking about science or technology? “More pixels” is more the latter. Technology is usually the combination of a lot of scientific elements so it’s not likely you’ll see all of them being discovered at once. There can be one enabling discovery that allows for a significant advance — all of the other parts were there — but most of the time progress is incremental, like with more pixels. Depends. I did government R&D, and the project was assigned (it existed and the team members were hired to work on it) and we cared about progress/results because that’s how continued funding was justified. In commercial research there is a focus on money because that’s how you stay in business, but of course they care about progress because you have to make a product to sell. Academic research has no profit. Quality research increases the chances for grants.

It had a big impact, but it’s not like there was no impact on adult life expectancy. Here’s an example: life expectancy of a 20 y.o. in England and Wales was ~60 in 1850. It’s now >20 years longer https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages But you have yet to explain why you think there’s a cost. You didn’t frame this as investigating what downside there might be, and whenever you’ve been asked for clarification you’ve dodged the question.