swansont

But you haven’t actually done that. If you have a false negative, and the ones with the virus who have mistakenly been cleared will be able to more easily pass the virus along. OK, I was taking “a set of 7 samples” to mean you test 7 people. Still, the false negatives will be amplified, and testing needs to be more sensitive to come up positive since they’re diluted, as J. C. has pointed out.

How does a 1% probability apply? Is that based on anything valid? How have you eliminated anyone you haven’t tested?

Was it because it’s an effective measure, or because the appearance of doing something would have a calming effect? (i.e. it’s theater)

Strange’s supposition is correct - a large electric field will do it. Provided by a potential difference of at least 13.6V (in practice, much larger) since that’s the ionization energy. Photons will do it, but the optics for >13.6 eV photons are hard to work with. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/field-ionization “Field ionization (FI) is the ionization of a gaseous molecule by an intense electric field, usually created by a sharp electrode at a high potential.”

Protium is rarely found in nature. Hydrogen is abundant. The electron can be removed, and then you have protium. A proton.

Protons are matter. They use protons. They most likely strip an electron from hydrogen.

! Moderator Note Posts to advertise your blog/video site are not permitted.

We can go that way. I had been thinking a comedic level of incompetence, where the protagonists inadvertently infect the people at the top of the terrorist organization, and think that drinking Corona beer (it’s the Corona virus, dude!) makes them more dangerous They fail to kill anyone at their target, which is supposed to be an old folks home but they end up at a military base with a similar name (they’re drunk on Corona), and nobody dies because they salute rather than shake hands and are young and healthy.

Sounds like the plot of a direct-to-DVD movie. Perhaps one that’s supposed to be a comedy, because the “terrorists” are incompetent Why would you choose such an ineffective method of killing people?

Then you can’t compare the times and positions.

I believe there is a strong correlation of exempted countries and location of Trump properties.

This looks like homework, so first, you explain what you've tried and why you're stuck

Neither time nor space is a substance. Directly, yes. But you don't always specify "directly" I don't think that will stand up to quantum mechanics tests. You are implying that outcomes involving undetermined states are in fact determined, because the universe in the future where the measurement has already taken place exists, so the outcome has no probability of being different. And yet experiment is inconsistent with that formulation.

...but not all of Europe.

Depends on the kind of scattering. Mie scattering has a forward bias. Rayleigh scattering does not (though it has a wavelength dependence) But isotropic scatter is a reasonable approximation for this discussion. OK, well, let's say you had a 1 W laser at 620 nm - that's 2 eV per photon. You would be emitting a little over 3 x 10^18 photons per second. Even if you had a billion people watching, that's the capacity to deliver 3 billion photons per second to every observer. We get far fewer photons into the eye when we observe If the number of photons falls below what the eye can detect, you don't see anything. Dim stars and/or ones far away can't be seen with the naked eye. You need to use a telescope, which has more light-gathering ability, in order to do so. And if you take a picture, which integrates the light gathering over time, you can see objects you can't see in real-time. edit: I now see Strange gave a similar example already.

I'm not sure of your point. On what should I budge? I'm asking a question that has gone unanswered. Is there anyone who objects to that notion? Is it not valid, somehow?

As you say, it's SR. Not QM. No, a factor of 2pi is not "weirdness." It's convenience and convention.

Particles interacting with other (real) particles are not examples of decay. Those are induced reactions. "SR requires it" is basically a statement saying "the best science we have says that this is what happens" ! Moderator Note Basically is seems you are asking for an alternative explanation, where time dilation is an electromagnetic interaction. Mainstream physics says it's not, so you are not going to get anywhere asking for such an explanation. You are free to construct your own model of how this might happen, and let everyone else try and tear it to shreds. Given how well relativity works, and that such a mechanistic approach would be contrary to relativity (I think you run afoul of local position invariance), I think such an effort is doomed to fail, but...have at it. As would require a model from you, this is not consistent with discussion as it is framed, even if it were placed in speculations. You are free post your model there, or to re-frame this in such a way that it is asking questions about mainstream physics, rather than requiring non-mainstream answers.

You've never adequately explained why you mean by "the coordinates are empty" despite requests. I don't have a problem with (viewing this with classical physics) "a point particle occupies one unique set of coordinates" which would mean only one time coordinate for one's current location in spacetime. But spacetime coordinates can be used to record events, too, so your statement that "the coordinates are empty" carries with it more implications than occupying a unique set of coordinates. Because I can refer to some set of coordinates with t prior to my current time, and if something was there at that time, I don't see how you can say that coordinate is empty. Paris existed in 1800. Saying that coordinate is empty is, to me, saying that Paris did not exist in 1800. History is not time travel. You seem to be treating them as the same thing.

SR is not GR, and these corrections are not a source of "weirdness" that anyone has brought up.

Is that really the sticking point? Is there anyone that objects to the concept of an object moving through time?

I don't think there's anything that inherently precludes a government from having internal competition for the best solution to some problem, but the taxpayers often see that as waste (possibly being unaware of how much it actually happens)

Consider a map with only spatial coordinates, like a real map. You generate a new map for each value of time. Paris is on the map in 1800. That doesn't change just because it's 2020. You can animate those maps and see how the maps change over time. But all of the maps will have something in them. The ones depicting history don't go blank.

Observers not in line with the laser will not see the photons, unless the photons scatter off of something (e.g. dust). The number of photons in the beam is large but not infinite (and can be found knowing the wavelength and power)

I don't think it's so easy to make this divide. There's a quote about polio : “If it was up to the NIH to cure polio through a centrally directed program… You’d have the best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine.” Samuel Broder, Former Director, National Cancer Institute The problem here is that he's critiquing government bureaucracy, not socialism, per se. Government management often has a different mindset than the corporate one. In government there is often too much meddling from above - managers making technical decisions based on bean-counting rather than technical ones. The quote rings true to me because there would be a focus on known paths to a solution, and not so much on risk-taking. But the polio vaccine wasn't a capitalist solution. It was funded by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, which was a non-profit. A lot of science in the US and elsewhere is funded by the government - not driven by profits. You can only be driven by profits if you think you will have a product that you can sell, and make more money than you invested in the development. You have to make a business case for doing it. Nonprofits and government are not restricted by that. The government also funds business R&D, and helps offset the preliminary costs to develop a product the government deems worthwhile. There are companies that seem content to compete for government research dollars but don't transition to making finished products very often. None of that is capitalism. Seems to me that capitalism involves people giving money to someone else in exchange for a specific product or a service. Socialism (one form of it, anyway) involves giving money to the government so that the government can provide a service (usually not a product) to a group of people, but the people giving the money don't get to pick and choose what service they get for their money. You can pay a private contractor to protect your home, but you pay taxes for police to protect everyone's home. The former is an example of capitalism, the latter of socialism.