swansont

Small number. Which is perfectly consistent with there being a spectrum of attitudes on the topic. I'm on the part that dislikes sport fishing and tends not to kill spiders (at least, the ones that can't kill me, were I to be confronted with that scenario)

Infinite monkeys would re-write Hamlet in the time it takes a typist going at the same rate to type out Hamlet, per the link in the OP

It’s from Lockheed, so it’s equally reliable, but the accompanying text is “An F-35B test aircraft completes its first-ever vertical takeoff (VTO) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., on May 10, 2013. While not a capability used in combat, VTOs are required for repositioning of the STOVL in environments where a jet could not perform a short takeoff. In these cases, the jet, with a limited amount of fuel, would execute a VTO to travel a short distance.” IOW, little fuel and no combat payload. So in the context of the original claim that you could put these on a battleship as part of its battle capability, it’s not a VTO aircraft.

“Can land vertically like a helicopter and take-off in very short distances. ” STOVL, not VTOL Is Lockheed Martin a good enough source? https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-about.html#b_stovl

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations, where you can explain your hypothesis

Yes. The volume is defined by the box

“nothing” doesn’t have a temperature

What’s the reason to think you could launch/land an F-35 on such a vessel? F-35B is not vertical take-off. It still needs >150m of runway. https://www.thebaseleg.com/Features/F35b-sg/ https://aviationbuzzword.com/f-35b-at-sea-dont-need-no-stinkin-catapult/

PrimalMinister has been suspended for dredging up a topic they were told to avoid. But we will give them one more chance to make their case.

! Moderator Note After staff discussion, we have decided to give you one more chance to post your “theory” It must be posted in speculations and conform to the rules. Meaning you need to make sure your post is complete enough to contain a model and/or make predictions and be falsifiable, and provide supporting evidence.

I’m not sure impossible is disqualifying as a philosophy question.

Is the mass varying with position in the first example? If it is, then momentum is not conserved for the object, and we can confirm this with Newton’s laws of motion. There must be an external force on it. Is the mass varying with time in the second example? If it is, mechanics or relativity tells us that its energy isn’t conserved. There must be some interaction (e.g. work is done) to account for this. You wouldn’t be applying symmetry to these problems if mass were varying, as their Lagrangians are not constant, i.e. not symmetric under the relevant translation.

! Moderator Note You were unwilling or unable to discuss you “theory” with anything approaching scientific rigor, we’ve gone several rounds on this with no evidence being provided by you, and you were told not to bring it up again.

But when one puts a physics context on it, those familiar with physics understand what is meant, and it’s not the nothing described in the OP.

I think you need to ignore physics, because if you account for it, the concept of “nothing” goes away.

There’s no way to test an hypothesis of their origin (as exchemist say, there’s no observation to be made) and no way to model it. Models require rules.

Right after that is the conclusion “Receipt of vaccination with either an mRNA or adenoviral vector vaccine was not associated with a worsening of Long Covid symptoms, quality of life, or mental wellbeing. Individuals with prolonged COVID-19 symptoms should receive vaccinations as suggested by national guidance.” which is a weaker statement. Probably because there were just 44 vaccinated participants, meaning the sampling error is ~15%, and the results showing improvement are within the error bars. Also, from the introduction: “there are no published studies on the impact on symptoms in patients with Long Covid. Anecdotal reports have suggested both a potential benefit and worsening of symptoms post vaccination with the uncertainty leading to some vaccine hesitancy amongst affected individuals.”

If nobody posted links until I asked, I didn’t miss them, and all of the links have been to surveys reporting anecdotes. They are not scientific studies, for the reason I have already given. If you would actually read what I wrote, you’ll see I said much less likely. So I am NOT telling you that it would be eliminated if all people are vaccinated. Less incidence of the virus would mean less of an opportunity to mutate. More vaccinated people means less incidence of the virus. So far you’ve provided zero links to scientific studies

A) a variable speed of light most certainly contradicts a constant speed of light. B) c^2 = -phi is speculation, and the rules preclude building further speculation on it. You may defend the claim by providing evidence for it, or try and disprove it, but that’s it. It’s not evidence of any mainstream idea being wrong.

Like I said, there is a thread where that comes up. I just moved it from biology to here in medical science. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125292-pfizer-vaccine-long-term-side-effects/

Yes. It should be "all of the long-lasting symptoms" (and I think the conversation doesn't include erectile disfunction, which I've seen mentioned as a long-term symptom)

This was brought up (rather haphazardly) in another thread. Also brought up, in a different thread, was all if the long-lasting symptoms from getting the disease even if it's not fatal to you.

I don't think there's very much physics in it. Nothing isn't a thing, so this is more like (the western view of) a Zen koan, like "What is the sound of one hand clapping" which (AFAIK) doesn't have an answer. Perhaps a more practical approach is if the box has a hole contained within it, obviously that hole moves with the box, because the material that defines the hole moves. In that sense, the notion of a "nothing" requires "something" in order to define it. But the issue of whether it's the same nothing, the question is "how could you confirm this, one way or the other?" If you can't tell different nothings apart, then there's no way to know for sure.

That's a good point. And those symptoms were included on the Norwegian study, along with others that might not warrant a claim.

The conserved quantities are certain properties of particles or systems - such as linear and angular momentum, and energy. Not spacetime. (also, mass is not a conserved quantity. This is the invariant mass, not the so-called relativistic mass, which is a proxy for energy) The symmetries involve whatever spacetime symmetry you are looking at - translation in space (momentum), translation in time (energy) and rotation (angular momentum).