swansont

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.

Where did I claim this? (hint: I never did; you are just making this up) Such nonsense has already gotten you in trouble, but thank you for confirming that you did not learn your lesson.

Time is something that can be studied in the context of physics. It is relative, not absolute. As you have posted on this topic, you are aware of this. As I have posted on the topic as well, you know I know this. Time perception is a psychological/neurological/philosophical phenomenon, as your quote indicates. Time seems to pass quickly or slowly based on a wide variety of condition, etc, etc. I will note that "relativity" isn't included in that list. So this "fixed entity" claim seems like a charade. The two (time, time perception) are distinct topics of discussion. Can we get back to the topic of the OP, please?

Good. There is no such thing, and nobody has suggested that there is. Was there a point to this?

And AFAIK it is considered to be that. To clarify: Friction is the source, not the type. Friction gives rise to particulates that get into the air. I was surmising. You should find other sources. I was going by the article I linked to, which discussed vehicles. The discuss friction as a source of pollution, specifically braking, pointing out that regenerative braking reduces this load, since the electromagnetic nature is non-contact (which also applies to electric motors)

Saying true things does not cancel out the garbage things.

A saying I have seen/heard people utter. Google tells me it's a way of saying that history repeats itself (from Nietzsche, apparently)

I think that professors are probably no different than any other professional of similar accomplishment. Twisting the rules and backstabbing are not confined to academia. I have known some pretty awesome professors, and some who are assholes. If your experience is different, part of it might be you.

No, not clairvoyant or ad hoc. You could investigate it, but it would require learning some physics. Neutrinos rarely interact but the do interact, and from the reactions you can deduce their properties. They never "replaced" them, and what physics has against them is that the model doesn't work. The model, I note, that you have not produced or discussed in any detail. No model of how an interaction between a proton and an electron could confine an electron to the nucleus, or how an electron in general could be confined to such a small region, and have this remain consistent with the physics that we know. And if it isn't, then you need new physics, which you haven't given us. Presenting the neutrino as an antiphoton doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the physics discussion you need to be prepared to have. You've written one sentence of the abstract. Where's the physics?

As I said, gas engines probably have more friction, and of course, there's the combustion.

I would guess it's because you hav no evidence that CBD is an alternative to a vaccine. Contradicting accepted science.

! Moderator Note That’s available in textbooks and journal articles. Summaries can be found on the web. Mainstream science is the default position here; nobody is required to reinvent the wheel. However, you own the burden of proof for alternative scenarios. Your posts need to be more than colorful pictures. You need a falsifiable model, capable of making predictions, and evidence that fits with the model.

! Moderator Note I’m not sure which infraction is worse: appealing to conspiracy, linking to other discussion boards as “evidence” or labeling all “footnote” links with the number 1. What I am sure of is this thread is closed.

Better than “time is a flat circle” because I have no idea what that’s supposed mean.

! Moderator Note I was hoping for a rigorous explanation, rather than a superficial hand-wave. Answer Bufofrog’s question (How could you use a scale to measure this alternative weight?) or this is finished.

No, it’s not. Time perception is time perception, not time.

You need to establish the validity of this “equivalent mass” nonsense. Your other speculation is based on this speculation. The rules don’t permit you to bootstrap like this.

! Moderator Note Moved from philosophy (which this isn’t). Note that we are discussing science here, not myth. IOW, it’s why the flood story is contrary to physical law, and/or the real origin of the myth.

! Moderator Note Split because you shouldn’t hijack someone else’s discussion to make proclamations like this