swansont

I don’t think it’s more important; relativity says it’s not. It’s also true that if an event happens in one frame it happens in all frames, and I am free to pick the frame in which I check. Who said it can’t? Polarity doesn’t represent an energy difference. So it’s zero. A linearly polarized photon has the same energy as a circularly polarized photon of the same frequency.

! Moderator Note Irrelevant. I’m asking that you follow our rules. ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. Knock yourself out

! Moderator Note Non-mainstream responses to mainstream science topics are off-topic. If you have evidence to present, start a thread in speculations

! Moderator Note I guess you forgot you “knew” they were fractions

! Moderator Note Yes. Rule 2.5 Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument. Also, speculations rule #1 Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. One speculation can’t be used to backstop another, since a speculation doesn’t qualify as evidence or proof You can, and should, review these rules.

Unpaid, but all the cheez nips I could ever want.

The term in question is sharia, not jihad. Nobody mentioned jihad until you brought it up. That’s not evidence that anyone “instruct the press to misuse the words like Jihad to give a false impression” But the topic is specific, not general

I work in a government lab. I build atomic clock for the navy at the Naval Observatory. Presumed by whom? Scientists tend to be able to do math and extrapolate from incomplete data. I don’t think many science grad students are all that surprised that most PhD’s can’t go into academia.

What is the threat, though? You make this assertion, but it’s a narrative, not an objective fact. A few dozen deaths a year from any cause is way, way down on the list of causes, but you make it sound like everyone is dropping dead from disasters. Earthquake-prone areas like California have building codes to mitigate risk and damage. Just like we do for other potential dangers. A lot of people live in California because other factors outweigh the tiny risk from earthquakes. Not “threats to life safety be damned” which is your concoction. People grow water-intensive crops in California because they can. If water rights/regulation changed, they would likely grow something else, because most farmers are not terminally dim.

! Moderator Note If you’re going to ask questions about physics, you need to use physics terminology, or a much better job of describing what you’re talking about

Why half? I left academia after my first postdoc, and I would argue I am having a successful career. It only looks like a pyramid scheme if you assume academia is the only career path that you can/should follow.

! Moderator Note Don’t advertise your pet theories in other threads. You can’t build one speculation on top of another.

What’s the connection to the topic (Sharia law in the US)? Evidence of this happening (in the US)?

I’m too old to jock anymore Well, then you are very confused. You neglected to mention relativity or gravity, and macro scale GR has nothing to do with QM. The inability to reconcile GR and QM manifests at small scales and strong gravity. The topic here is QM effects that can be seen at the atomic level or larger, in order to refute the premise of your question.

! Moderator Note We’re not a conspiracy site and the rules of speculations requires that it be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. All I see here is assertion. If you want to vent about what you consider to be wrong with physics and tell stories, go start a blog somewhere. It’s not what we do here. Don’t re-introduce this topic.

It’s up to you, of course, but the Aeron comes in three different sizes. On this side of the pond they run about $500, so that’s more reasonable. I recall looking at chairs at an office store and they were labeled with a time rating, of how long one could expect to sit comfortably at one stretch. Price generally went up with the time rating.

I have an Aeron at work. (Herman Miller) Pricey but worth it if you’re sitting a lot.

Yusef has been suspended for repeatedly linking to his pet theory in other threads, and continuing after being asked to stop.

I’ve seen both. The atomic number is redundant information, so it’s sometimes omitted.

Same issue, though, because C-14 is formed via the reaction you described earlier. With little nitrogen, there won’t be much C-14. The abundance if CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. “Billions of years” is irrelevant, too. The half-lives of the isotopes you form tend to be very short (O-19 is less than a minute), which means they will not continue to build up - you will hit steady-state pretty quickly (all else being the same) As JC said, it’s not an issue here, so why would it be an issue there?

You don’t need acceleration for that, and that redshift is in the waveguide’s frame, not in the source frame. If it’s transmitted in the source frame, it would be transmitted in all frames.

How long did it take to find the data that showed blizzards cost more than wildfires? It’s more than that, though; it depends on the crops you grow. California grows water-intensive crops, like alfalfa, rice and almonds. If they grew more crops that needed less water instead, I’m guessing they’d use less water. https://fruitgrowers.com/what-california-crops-use-the-most-water/ And that’s basically the objection to your threads - you present a narrative that’s poorly sourced, and simplistic, and one that ignores important (and sometimes contradictory) detail.

But you had not lumped these together, until you had to justify your claim. That was the problem. You had not presented evidence. So winter storms are, in fact, responsible for greater losses than wildfires, and heat. More than double. And in this data set, far more fatalities. Given that you were wrong about several elements, it’s not clear you did.

You need to make factual statements, backed by sources, and not just assert things. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216831/fatalities-due-to-natural-disasters-in-the-united-states/ Thus also shows your perceived risk is greater than the actual risk, in terms of fatalities. Do you have a citation that shows blizzards are less costly than other events, or are you making that up, too?

If it’s blocking all the light, it’s blocking UV. Filters that transmit the red end of the spectrum might block into the UV.