swansont

Your proposal would likely meet its failure at the hands of the lawyers, even if they passed muster with physicists and engineers. How does this get a car down a hill? Same question.

5 post, first day limit, a rule you were made aware of when you joined.

That’s one reason science uses mathematical models. Do you have one? How does one test and possibly falsify your idea? Please spare us your indignation. Posting here means following our rules. And our rules require a certain level of scientific rigor. A necessary but insufficient requirement.

You mentioned a book by an author with the same name as their user name, which is irrelevant to the thread. What part of “knock it off” didn’t you get? (that’s rhetorical. Stop posting off-topic material)

I don’t see any comments that are are irrelevant except yours. Not clear to me. He has three posts, and it’s inappropriate to offer such a diagnosis I don’t see posts with cuss words, much less “only cusswords” Let me be clear: knock it off. The topic here is the moderation response to a post, and its clone.

Basically. We designed a bunch of electronics and got the boards printed and got someone to assemble them. The optics layout was all done in-house, with a mix of off the shelf and custom components.

We are long past the point where everyone has to engage in the production of food and other basics to survive. This is not an either/or situation. One thing we know is that scientific inquiry expands the economy. A really good rate of return. If you have that, you can invest in other improvements

How is any of this relevant?

This isn’t about personal ethics. This is about enforcing the rules of this site. (thread has thus been moved) 1. Your discussion was not scientific. It was crap. 2. If another moderator happened upon your post first, they likely would have done the same. I certainly would have. 3. Your suggestion is noted and has been given all due consideration. 4. You are free to ask questions to figure out why numerology is not science. But not free to post more numerology.

To paraphrase my former boss, I am a physicist who sometimes pretends to be an engineer.

Bill Phillips, who won the Nobel in 1997 for laser cooling and trapping, has not been shy about how the Office of Naval Research funded his work, without knowing if there was going to be any benefit. In the words of Nobel Laureate William Phillips, speaking about the ONR investments leading to ultra-precise atomic clocks, “It was the long- term support of ONR, support that began when the ideas were vague and unproved, that made all of this possible." https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/About-ONR/History/tales-of-discovery/atomic-physics (Bonus: picture of two of the clocks I helped build) Not everyone gets shut down by the bean counters. But that's why it's important not to put the bean counters in charge. Also: https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2009/nobel-laureate-basic-research Phillips asserted, "ONR is different among the federal S&T organizations because it gives science a chance. A program officer with vision can say ´I think this is a great idea and I´m going to fund it.´ The recognition of the importance of basic research in support of mission goals can lead to mission success where a more tightly focused vision might not." He summed it up by saying, "ONR´s style has intrinsic and high value." Also, in regard to my earlier statement about funding "ONR is unique among S&T organizations in that program officers have access to all three phases of developmental funding: Basic Research (6.1), Applied Research (6.2) and Advanced Technology Development (6.3). This enables the full spectrum of an idea to be pursued from discovery to deployment."

Units matter I'll take that as "I can't answer the question"

Strange is absolutely right. This points to the difference between people who are doing science and people who are reading about science: the ability to quantify some effect and apply the analysis, vs just saying "do X" without any idea if it could work. If you haven't studied science, there's a decent chance you don't know that this step is missing. That depends on the people who fund the research. Basic research is funded without a need for that kind of justification. Applied research is more targeted in what is expected. (Unfortunately, when funding dries up, agencies have a tendency to spend less on research that is more aggressive in its desire to push the envelope, or on researchers who haven't yet developed a track record.) You pitch something to the NSF that has no benefit identified and you might get funded. You pitch it to DARPA and they will probably say "no," because DARPA is generally looking to advance technology, not do basic research. In my corner of the world, funding is broken down into segments, depending on how applied and mature the research is "The Department of Defense divides development further, giving each category a code: 6.1 is Basic Research, 6.2 is Applied Research, 6.3 is Advanced Technology Development, 6.4 is Advanced Component Development and Prototypes, 6.5 is System Development and Demonstration, 6.6 is RDT&E Management and Support, and 6.7 is Operational Systems Development." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_States When I was in grad school, I was funded by 6.1 money. When I started doing R&D, we got 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, depending on where we were in the arc of development. (roughly: 6.2 /6.3 to develop the parts for the prototype, 6.4 to build the prototype) Then we got non-research money to build working devices.

Why does scientific inquiry have to have a quantifiable benefit to society, beyond the new knowledge itself? A benefit that you can't know until you've made the discovery? To quote from The West Wing Senator Enlow: If we could only say what benefit this thing has. No one's been able to do that... Professor Milgate:That's because great achievement has no road map. Well, the X-ray's pretty good. So is penicillin. Neither were discovered with a practical objective in mind. I mean, when the electron was discovered in 1897, it was useless. Now we have an entire world run by electronics. Haydn and Mozart never studied the classics. They couldn't - they invented them.

Saying e.g. omega is similar to the physics definition but is still present when there is no spin isn't particularly helpful. Why are omega bar and k bar equal to one? What physical significance does this have? How does this compare to a solution from Schrödinger's equation? What boundary conditions did you apply? Why is this graphed vs time? Can you give the solution for the wave function as a function of position?

Most commercial places have ventilation systems that do up to 10-20 air changes per hour. A restroom might do 30. That means the air hangs around for minutes https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-change-rate-room-d_867.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_changes_per_hour Which means that you need a flow rate that is much higher if you want air to only hang around for seconds. That's not "unnoticeably faster"

How is there a net effect of the effect is isotropic? Meaningless Ah, enthalpy. Not enphalpy. How does an electron have enthalpy? That equation has no meaning That's a tautology, so we're good. Word salad. You should try discussing it here sometime. How about answering my question on the energy of the sun?

Retro-fit assumes you have a compatible geometry. What if the ductwork is in the walls?

1.5 min was for aerosol. 2 min for surfaces. Typically you look at >5 half-lives for significant reduction. That’s an extra 10 minutes. Assuming people tolerate the 80% humidity (they won’t) Higher intensity, sure. That should help. I’d like to see a study, rather than someone just whipping this up out of thin air.

So there’s no net effect? Then why mention it? Exactly - the effect of empty space is removed, because the space isn’t empty. But you haven’t accounted for this. How do you measure the energy? What is the energy of the sun? What is an enphalpic system? Does this exist anywhere outside your imagination? (Google has a grand total of 5 matches)

! Moderator Note If you want to discuss AI, open a new thread. Please focus this discussion on IQ

Why is it not attracted to the empty space behind it? Since the sun is not empty space, doesn’t that mean there is less attraction toward the sun, since there is less empty space in that direction? We already know a point source is isotropic with a 1/r^2 behavior; no preference for empty space. We know that light is deflected toward non-empty space (e.g. the sun) as it passes by

What duration of exposure is necessary?

1. I didn’t ask what the sun’s energy density isn’t. You need to quantify your claim. Otherwise how can we test it? 2. Show that the sun is attracted to empty space. The earth, too. The data are consistent with them being attracted to each other. For example, if I drop a ball, it doesn’t accelerate toward empty space. Why not? 3. How would you test your claim that EMR requires this attraction to empty space? Light is generally not generated via the gravitational interaction. You are making an improper extrapolation, leading to a false conclusion (the sun emits light into empty space, the sun has gravity, therefore the sun’s gravity somehow causes/permits the light to travel in empty space is invalid logic)

! Moderator Note I don’t see a connection between a discussion of IQ and immigration. The title of the thread is “IQ rates are dropping in many developed countries” Please confine discussion to that topic.