swansont

It is true that if you multiply by something other than two you won't get the same answer as when you multiply by two, but I should think this is not surprising to anyone who understands math. But the notes are convention. We choose what note is associated with what frequency. Being able to distinguish between different frequencies doesn't depend on how we label them.

! Moderator Note Don't hijack threads to bring up your pet theories. (smoking as an evolutionary maneuver, for example)

! Moderator Note "Let's do an experiment and it shows I'm right" is not a prediction or something that can falsify an hypothesis. Closed. Don't bring this up again, in any thread

There's a limit to what any country can do when it involves actions inside of some other nation. Plus you had a recent administration that apparently liked authoritarian actions abroad and applauded human rights violations instead of working to eliminate them.

It won't necessarily be discharged to earth - you can shock yourself on a doorknob (which I regularly do in winter when stripping off a layer of the sticky mats in my lab; lots if static electricity generated) But if there is a path to ground such as what JC mentioned, that's the usual path the discharge takes, because it is intentionally made to be a low resistance path when wiring up electrical power systems

They were all apparently one person, and all accounts identified have been spam-banned, including ones that were still setting up the scam - inserting spam links into quoted posts. It's been a little while since we've seen that ploy. Thank you to those that noticed and reported these posts in the last several hours.

! Moderator Note The discussion has not included sufficient detail and rigor to be discussed (no, "conductors are shiny" doesn't come close to clearing that hurdle). If there is no model or testable predictions - something that makes this falsifiable - it will be closed

Posting in speculations does not absolve you of the responsibility to support claims with evidence and refrain from appeal to conspiracy

The geographic southwest was not part of the US during the civil war, so “the south” in this context refers to the southeast US.

Except you wouldn't, because you aren't seeing anything while the detector was off, so there's no way to see the pattern during that time.

In the south, yes. So much so that they went to war to preserve the arrangement.

This does not follow. The population of slaves can outnumber the population of the elites without outnumbering the population of non-slaves (i.e. white people, predominantly). It depends on what fraction of the population of non-slaves is considered elite. It's not as if every single family owned slaves, and, of course, not everyone is an elite.

1. Appeal to conspiracy is not an acceptable argument in a science discussion 2. "We don't know" is a valid answer (as in, we don't know what causes type 1 diabetes, but we have evidence that suggest certain factors being involved) 3. Bill Mahar may be left-of-center but he is also a loon when it comes to medical issues, and that particular affliction does not have any partisan leaning. (Not to say that specific manifestations have no such correlation, however) DO you have any evidence to share?

The quantum mechanical concepts are independent of the devices used; in general this is the same as assuming devices with 100% fidelity. A real detector will have limitations, and this has implications on how to carry out an experiment and/or analyze data.

Any efficiency. If you detect the photon, you can say the wave function has collapsed. If you don't detect the photon it still has an undetermined path. Observation does not require a conscious being.

I don’t see a green pipe Yes, the pressure you’d need depends on the height of the water column

This is like an inverted glass submerged in water. If the region started out full of water, you could transfer air in and it would displace water

! Moderator Note "Read the attachment" is not compliant with rule 2.7. However, I did read it and it falls well short of the level of rigor we require (which you acknowledge when you admit you don't have a theory) A better approach might be to learn the physics by asking questions, in order to propose an actual model.

! Moderator Note No, I don't think this will work. We want one topic per thread, and people are free to open a topic if they wish to discuss shortcomings/gaps/limitations of any particularly theory, so you are free to peruse the boards and see if such topics exist, or open new ones if you have something to contribute. Introducing multiple discussion topics tends to lead to confusing discussions. If anyone is proposing an alternative model of the universe, they may discuss it in speculations.

! Moderator Note Post it here, and don’t advertise your site

AlexandrKushnirtshuk has been suspended for advertising his speculations threads in other threads, and soapboxing (posting while failing to post coherent evidence) Suspended again because violated his parole about ten seconds after getting off suspension.

I asked you to tell me if shadows and holes are objectively real, or subjectively reasoned. (that’s a direct quote from my earlier post) If you really need this phrased as a question: are shadows and holes are objectively real, or subjectively reasoned? (But I’m shocked you can’t get from one to the other. Are you being obtuse?)

Is there something about my statement you don’t understand? I didn’t ask you about physical objects. I asked you to tell me if shadows and holes are objectively real, or subjectively reasoned.

You made a claim about things being real, not whether they are physical objects, so this is not really a response to what I asked you. Because this is irrelevant, I would say.

Apply to the prior discussion of shadows and holes. Are they objectively real, or reasoned? A lot of this points to the need to carefully define terms and context. Discussion of what is “real” is meaningless without clarifying if you mean real vs illusion, or real vs imagined.