swansont

So this means you are exerting an additional ~80 N of force (+8 kg display) in order to raise your body. This number will vary, depending on how fast you do this. Doing it faster requires a larger acceleration, which requires a larger force. You would see this if you jumped. 57 kg (~570 N) is not the weight with no forces acting. Gravity as acting on you, as is the normal force of the scale on you, and you are exerting a normal force on the scale. i.e. that's what you are exerting on the scale with no additional effort. There is no point in this example where you can say no forces are acting on you.

"U.S. to share 4 million doses of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine with Mexico, Canada" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-mexico-exclusi/exclusive-u-s-plans-to-send-4-million-doses-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-to-mexico-canada-official-idUSKBN2BA22S

I'm not asking for your explanation. I'm asking how you are actually doing this measurement; i.e. I want an explanation as if I were going to try and replicate it myself. You stand on the scale and it reads 57 kg. When you reach up like you're picking fruit it drops to 8 kg?

This is kind of irrelevant. Your scale reads a value, and we can compare those values, since g isn’t changing How do you measure just your calves?

t0 can be any arbitrary time. Physics doesn’t have an absolute t=0; it doesn’t work earlier than about 10^-43 sec.

! Moderator Note No, physics doesn’t work this way. Only external forces can cause an acceleration, and it has no effect on mass. You need experimental evidence for your claims. You’ve been asked for it, and haven’t provided any, despite multiple references to your experiment. Do you have an experiment? If you don’t answer this question, as your next action in this thread, it will be locked

No measuring instrument has unlimited precision, so all such measurements have uncertainty/error.

First point? I said nothing about the issue. You seem to be making a rather large extrapolation OK. And relativity is physics using coordinates within spacetime, which is perfectly consistent with what I said.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand. The implication is that these statements are related. Informing you that you’re breaking the rules is neither disagreement nor a personal attack. Pointing out that you have not posted evidence is neither disagreement nor a personal attack.

You haven’t even established that the goals haven’t been met, nor quantified “outrageously higher” You’ve been asked for evidence, and you’ve responded with hyperbole and trying to move the burden of proof to others. Experienced at mRNA vaccines? No. “At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, no mRNA drug or vaccine had been licensed for use in humans.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine So their vast experience at ramping up production to get hundreds of millions of mRNA vaccines out the door is zero.

"Low yields" sounds like "lower than expected" rather than "we knew this would happen" Again you make a claim without backing it up. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32655.html On October 5, 2004, Chiron...notified U.S. health officials that British regulatory authorities had suspended production of influenza (“flu”) vaccine in its plant in Liverpool, England, due to vaccine safety concerns. A shingles vaccine had shortages a few years ago because they couldn't ramp up production fast enough. And here's one about the mRNA vaccines, which rely on special ingredients, which have been in short supply https://www.vox.com/22311268/covid-vaccine-shortage-moderna-pfizer-lipid-nanoparticles We’re still racing to make a special type of lipid, a relatively unknown but critical component of the vaccines being manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech IOW, evidence be damned. Not needed when it's inconvenient! Which you could claim if you saw the contracts, and knew who got priority and who paid more. But you admit you don't have this information.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/us-tops-100-million-covid-vaccine-doses-administered-13percent-of-adults-now-fully-vaccinated.html "The U.S. on Friday topped 100 million Covid-19 vaccine doses administered, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." We've been going at > 2 million jabs a day recently 110 million doses as of today's reporting https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/28/960901166/how-is-the-covid-19-vaccination-campaign-going-in-your-state I was using the numbers as an example, but they are roughly in line with what I had been reading about the gloom and doom articles about how nobody is going to deliver what they promised. (The articles which also mentioned how production has been ramping up; it's pretty shortsighted to try to extrapolate linearly when you acknowledge it's not a linear process.)

No formal initiative yet, other than donating money for manufacturing the vaccine, but “If we have a surplus, we’re going to share it with the rest of the world,” Mr. Biden said this week, adding, “We’re going to start off making sure Americans are taken care of first, but we’re then going to try and help the rest of the world.” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/12/us/politics/covid-19-vaccine-global-shortage.html Which schedules, in particular? The ones I'm familiar with are for the US, citing a number of doses to be delivered by the end of March. And since it's not yet the end of March, we have no way of saying they have failed. One can extrapolate from earlier numbers, but since the companies are ramping up production, a linear extrapolation will not be accurate. i.e. providing 2 million doses a week in February does not mean next week's delivery will be 2 million doses. As with iNow, I'd like to know how you know this. How you know they overstated their ability to ramp up production, which could run into any number of problems (e.g. was any slated to take place in Texas or neighboring areas, which had serious weather-related problems recently? How could one anticipate this when the contracts were signed? There are multiple scenarios similar to that which could be in play. Supply constraints. QC problems.) The US just hit 100 million doses administered, last week. Those doses are coming from somewhere.

You’ve mentioned QT twice now, without connecting it to time perception.

This would be an issue of a regulatory agency monitoring tests of the product. Does someone monitor such products in your country?

No, the situation is not symmetric. You need time to have time perception but you don’t need time perception to have time.

Motion is relative and any inertial observer can say they are at rest. Nothing is required to maintain motion. As to what changes motion, it’s acceleration, and acceleration requires a force. A geodesic isn’t a direction, per se. Symmetry tells us there is no preferred direction. But the answer is the principle of least action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_as_Hamiltonian_flows#Geodesics_as_an_application_of_the_principle_of_least_action

It’s literally my job to measure time independent of time perception. I would agree that you cannot so easily disentangle time perception from time.

But you’re not reaching them in any event. This would be about reassuring people who are undecided on whether to get vaccinated

Politics is perception. If people think the vaccine caused it, an emotional response, a whole lot of them won’t be swayed by statistics and statements. So halting the rollout looks like protecting people. And as gordief notes, you don’t want people to have an excuse to not get vaccinated. A delay to “assess” things might be the assurance some people need.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-doctors-react-as-eu-countries-suspend-shot.html This is out of 17 million people DVT is normally about 1 in 1000 per year https://www.stoptheclot.org/the_basics/how_common_dvt/ Seems like this is likely the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

No, that doesn't sound like scientists. What we know is always with the caveat that things could change with new information. But you proceed with the best information that you have. As Markus said, you move forward. If they were certain that the list was complete, nobody would have continued looking with higher and higher energy particle accelerators. Yes. Some other sources (e,.g. photons) can be excluded quite easily. This sounds a whole lot like argument from personal incredulity.

Axion has been banned for his relentless soapboxing and bad faith arguments (primarily conspiracy, and appeal to science as dogma). Suspension didn’t make a dent.

You’re anthropomorphizing the situation. The earth doesn’t “need” anything. It will be here long after we are gone.

I don’t understand why you can’t just open a new thread to discuss it. Is there something preventing that? Don’t answer; it’s rhetorical. I’ve split this into its own thread. Have at it.