MigL

Falsifiable has little to do with it. You are putting the cart before the horse. And if the above is any indication of what you consider evidence of accuracy, you don't have a chance with peer review. Show me the evidence !

Point taken.

Had pasta ( rotini ) in a tomato/meat sauce with Parm and chili flakes sprinkled on top, for supper. It certainly was a good idea; for real, not a thought experiment.

Just doing quick mental calculations ... Mercury solidifies at a pressure of 14 Kilobar, which is approx. 14000 standard atms. That is equivalent to approx. 420 000 in of Mercury, which is 35 000 ft, or approx. 6.5 miles. IOW your hypothetical planet would have a Mercury 'sea', 6.5 miles deep, surrounding a solid orb of Mercury. Not sure about Gallium, as it expands when 'frozen' ( like water ).

Many historical 'facts' are contested and debated by historians. Things like the cause of the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, which, along with Crete, comprised the 1st Greek empire, fought a war with Troy, and literally disappeared from the face of the Earth. Things like did the Roman Empire really fall, or did it just 'absorb' invaders and convert them to the Roman way of life and governance. Things like the cause and mistakes in execution of the 1st World War. And its contribution to the beginning of the 2nd World War. Things like Papal authority ( even over Emperors ) and the amassing of power and corruption by the Church, along with wars encouraged by the Church and the selling of 'Salvation' which led to splintering into differing 'sects'. Things like was the Vietnam War winnable, and more importantly, was winning necessary or of benefit. Things like the paradigm shift that brought about the Renaissance. How many did you want me to list ...

Neutron stars are composed almost entirely of 'nuclear material with a 'possible' heavy element 'atmosphere'. As such, the normal chemical ( electron bonding ) reactions we normally associate with Chemistry, don't happen. I suggest the local library, or download an e-file, of the book Dragon's Egg, by R L Forward ( a Physicist ). It is Science Fact-ion, and provides a 'realistic' look at 'life' on a neutron star.

This is science fiction, not science. What ver you wish it to be.

Again, this would not happen 'naturally'. So, whoever did this 'artificially', could populate the planet with penguins and cats. ( but they wouldn't last very long )

And you, as a scientist, don't ignore them, as they can certainly point you in a more favorable direction, and get proper diagnostics. but you certainly would not base the diagnostics solely on the markers. They are simply a tool.

I'll re-phrase also. The standard mathematics of quantum mechanics are probabilistic. The 'interpretation' of the square of the amplitude of the wave function is as the probability of observation. The mathematical model, then, reinterpreted in the context of real-world scenarios, leads to a cat being both alive and dead before wave function collapse, in the Copenhagen interpretation. Or the universe 'splitting' so that the cat is dead in one universe, and alive in the other, for the Many Worlds interpretation. Do you also want mathematical proof that the universe is splitting every time a quantum particle interacts ? And that is all that they are, trying to interpret probabilistic-world math, to real-world scenarios. And yes, the math model works spectacularly well.

So, no natural process ...

So you think asking "What would be the scientific consequences of magic ?" is a well posed question ?

It is an interpretation of the mathematics. There are other interpretations also. How exactly would you mathematically prove the interpretation of specific mathematics ? There is something to be said for well-posed questions. And could be the reason your questions were ignored on the other forum.

All depends. As far as I know Max Planck was married; not single. Or do you mean a wood plank ? A Planck length is a specific unit of length determined by the distance light travels in the unit of time called the Planck time. Which Planck did you mean ? Other than that your question is completely non-sensical. We expect better.

Copenhagen ( or Bohr ) interpretation is simply wavefunction ( probability distribution ) collapse to single ( observable ) state on interaction/observation. There is plenty of math that confirms that. Are you going to reply/discuss any of the many questions you posted ? Or are you just tossing sh*t at the wall.

Answer: A month-old doughnut with mold on it. Are we feeling a little 'scatter-brained' today ????

I guess a lot would depend on the reason WHY, and HOW, a whole planet could be formed of Gallium or Mercury. Don't you think the conditions that allowed this might, somehow, affect the development ( or not ) of life ? Also do you mean a little, mostly, or 100% Gallium or Mercury ? If the latter, then you haven't really thought the OP through. ( eg. What would any possible life consume ? What would it excrete ?? What would it be composed of ??? )

Is this research driven by the need to find the specific amount of sauce to coat the pasta ? I suggest next, you look at density/viscosity of different sauces to achieve the same goal.

That was my first thought also. ?Don't know the location of the OP, but in most jurisdictions, the burning of plastics, polystyrene and rubber, is forbidden and illegal. After talking to the 'burners' and getting no results, you may want to contact the authorities/fire department. Do you think windows are the only source of outside air ? No house is 'air tight', and the large majority are far from it. It is expensive to build air tight homes, and even more expensive to retrofit. ( problems associated with air tight homes include mold, bacteria and the need for heat recovery ventilators ) It would be a shame to go to all this trouble, and then find out your house is only 70% sealed.

You cannot check whether a theory is true; that would be impossible. You can only check whether it is false; every scientific theory, then, has to be falsifiable. Even your new, alternative theory. The question then, boils down to, which one is a best fit to the available evidence. Is yours ?

Of the people involved in the study, who got infected with Coronavirus, 90-95% received the placebo. But 5 -10 people who received the actual vaccine treatment were also infected. IOW, a small group of infected people from a large group of test subjects. But as infections go up in the US, much clearer results should soon be available

Whooooo ! 2nd Coronavirus vaccine shows Early success in US tests. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/2nd-coronavirus-vaccine-shows-early-success-in-u-s-tests/ar-BB1b3x07?ocid=msedgntp 94.5 % !!!

But if 10% of the general population are part of an organized crime gang ( my numbers may be skewed because a lot of my acquaintances are Italian ), yet 50% bearded, tattooed bike riders are, why should this valuable piece of statistical information be ignored ? Of course the 'targeting' must be followed up by rigorous investigation and the weighing of evidence. Of course being told, or simply assuming, that someone is bad isn't good enough. But we are supposed to be scientific thinkers; why would we ignore information because it doesn't suit our sensibilities ( see the above quip regarding Italians' crime connections )

Doesn't that essentially mean the absence of exotic matter with negative energy ?

Of the four leading ( Western ) contenders, I'm not sure if taking more than one will be beneficial. They all seem to get the same result through slightly different means. The four leading Western COVID-19 vaccines (not from Asia) are all "expression-based," meaning that they introduce into the patient's cells the genetic code for a modified spike protein that can't trigger into the post-fusion form (After the virus enters the cell). The Pfizer/BNT and Moderna are mRNA vaccines, AstraZenica/Oxford is a ChAdOx1-vectored vaccine, and the Johnson and Johnson/Jansen is an Adenovirus 26-vectored vaccine. I think all require at least one booster within 3 weeks, and possibly yearly ( ? ) boosters thereafter. I was originally thinking the same thing; if one vaccine gives you 90%, adding another, even with diminishing returns, would get you 95%, and a third might get you to 97%, and so on. But, if initial results pan out, they can get 90%, and start ramping up production/distribution in early 2021, we should be enjoying life again by early summer. Most vaccinations are not even close to 100% ( Polio is, and measles at 97% ), but even at 70-80%, they have allowed us to control various diseases so that we don't even worry about them anymore. Of course there will be people who cannot take the vaccines ( babies, children,allergic reactions, etc. ? ); and then there's the anti-Vaxxers ... edit CharonY may have more ( accurate ) information