MigL

I had read ( don't recall where now ) that the initial strain of SARS-COV2 in China had three different strains. Strain A was the originator, followed by strain B and C. The reason I recall this fact, is because strain A, the originator, was more predominant in an area surrounding Wuhan, while Wuhan itself, had more cases predominantly strain B. This would lead one to assume that the virus originated elsewhere, rather than the Wuhan wet market, as many have thought. I do recall also, that the sample sizes were much too small to actually draw valid conclusions from. In regards to the further slight mutations you mention, keep in mind that if a virus becomes more dangerous by quicker onset of symptoms, and more deadly, most of the people it infects will possibly fall ill and/or die before they have a chance to infect others. A self-defeating mutation if which would lead to many deaths, but a quickly attenuated outbreak. SARS-COV2 is so virulent because you can be contagious for up to two weeks ( infecting all sorts of people ), before you realize you are infected, and isolate/get tested/seek medical attention.

I suppose 'alarmist' can be taken two ways... The 'Chicken Little - the sky is falling' interpretation leads a few people ( even some scientists ) to say things like "runaway climate change will lead to the Earth becoming like Venus, with pools of molten lead, and sulfuric acid rain". A Physical impossibility, that makes some people wonder what the he*l those few are thinking. The other way to interpret 'alarmist' is simply as someone issuing a warning ( sounding the alarm, if you will ) of possibly dire consequences, if we continue on the same path. That would be the majority of climate scientists.

And maybe that's what the ( Australian suggested ) investigation would find. That D Trump, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Emanuel Macron, Jair Bolsonaro, and even Theresa May, should base their policies/comments on the suggestions of respected scientific advisors. Certainly not their own personal opinions, wanting to 'save face', or trying to get re-elected. Or do you think, that, without throwing these findings in the face of some political leaders, the exact same thing won't happen the next time there's an outbreak ?

Some of the biggest critics of the Chinese response are the people of Wuhan, and the doctors/scientist that originally called attention to the outbreak. Seems China is more interested in "saving face' by silencing those people/doctors/scientists than working together. And threatens economic retaliation for even suggesting a future ( after the pandemic, suggested by Australia ) investigation to find out how to best avoid repeating this debacle, which has caused a quarter million deaths, so far.

Interesting discussion about rocks... I would say that quite a few climate scientists are alarmist. Then again, most feel they have to be, as a large portion of the population refuses to believe, much less understand, the science.

And you can't just rearrange relations ( E-=Moc^3 ???? ) to suit your needs... E=Moc^2 is actually E^2 = (Moc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 which, for massless particles, like light, that have no Mo, simplifies to... E^2 = (Moc^2)^2 + (hf)^2 The derivation of this relation took considerable effort and thinking on A Einstein's part. Maybe you could enlighten us with the thinking that went into your derivation of E=Moc^3 ????

Energy is a property of the configuration of a system. A volume of atoms, where all electrons are in their lowest orbitals will have less energy than the same volume of equivalent atoms where all electrons are in higher orbitals. And as a property of the system, you can't separate it from the system; Saying the volume ( object , mass, etc...) follows the energy flow is non-sensical. And if you were serious, you wouldn't post delusional crap about Black Holes.

I get the impression we are talking past each other, Phi. You are talking about essentials for living/surviving, which I fully agree with. I am talking about the non-essential things we all have a passion for. Take this forum for example. How many times have you told new people who post nonsense, that, if they have a passion for science they should be willing to invest the time and effort to learn the basics of that science ? If it's valuable enough to them, they will do it; if it isn't, we never hear from them again on the forums. Another example, often used for spoilt rich kids. Things which are obtained for free, or gifted, are never as valuable as the things you had to sweat for. ( there is also an old Italian saying about certain food tasting better if it's given to you, rather than cooking it yourself )

Oh great... Now I had to look up Napoleon's Theorem also.

Not sure I understand you exactly, but... Pick up a rock. It takes the equivalent energy of the entire Earth's mass, to accelerate that rock at 9.8 m/s/s, at a distance of approx. 6300 km ( Earth radius ). Yet you are resisting all that energy's gravity with your bare hand. Similarly, you could impart that same acceleration to that rock, with a small amount of gunpowder. Does that give you any idea of the magnitude of the energy needed to accelerate, even small masses, gravitationally ?

I'm an excellent artist, always have been; I can sketch a recognizable likeness of a person blindfolded. ( I have actually done this, in Gr12 art class, while I was in Gr10 ) But art has no interest for me whatsoever. I have always struggled with Mathematics, and still do to this day. ( probably even more so, I've forgotten an awful lot ) Yet Physics, the application of Mathematics to the real world, Is my passion, and what I find most interesting. Seems contradictory, doesn't it ?

Sooo. I gather from this discussion that both the Mathematical version and the Physical version will produce similar results. The difference is the Mathematical version has to necessarily be more generalized, to encompass more cases, while the Physical version is more specific, and usually pertains to the case of 'limiting dimensions' by examining boundary conditions. Or am I still missing something ? ( IOW dumb it down a bit, for the rest of us )

On the other hand, if nothing is hard, nothing has value. Why work hard to raise a family ? Why try to leave a better world for our children ? Why go to the effort to get along with other people/countries/cultures ? Why bother learning anything, learning new stuff is hard work ? ... Why strive to keep a marriage together ? ( oops, that one is already history )

Aha ! France is at the bottom of your first list. I wonder how the results would change if the IQ test included more questions regarding wines and cheeses ? ( instead of beer, tulips, and schnitzel ) PS Can we have this discussion without resorting to name calling ( racist ), but simply pointing out erroneous thinking ?

On further reflection, I have to agree with your disagreements. ( it was midnight, what can I say )

In much simpler terms... P, V, and T are independent variables, and can be considered just like x, y, and z coordinates in math. You can have a function which tells you how V changes with T on the V-T plane, where P is a fixed value ( held constant ). You can have a function which tells you how P changes with T on the P-T plane, where V is a fixed value ( held constant ). You can have a function which tells you how V changes with P on the V-P plane, where T is a fixed value ( held constant ). Edit: forgot to mention n can also be an independent variable. Or, once you get to higher math, you can have a partial differential equation which describes the 'surfaces' in P-V-T space relating the three variables. See here... http://mutuslab.cs.uwindsor.ca/schurko/introphyschem/handouts/mathsht.pdf

This is purely anecdotal, but I will present it anyway... During the 1950s ( after the war ) most Italian small towns and villages south of Rome were 'agrarian'. Very few businesses and even less industry ( mostly in larger cities ) and any paying job was extremely difficult to come by. My dad emigrated to Argentina for work in the early 50s, and returned to Italy in '55. He married my mom in '57 and I was born a few years later. He went to work in Switzerland for several years, and I only saw him during summer vacation and Christmas time. Finally, we came to Canada in '68, so the whole family could be together. My dad worked two jobs, and my mother also worked, but we purchased a home ( where I still live ), and both my brother and I were able to attend University ( we both studied physics ). I consider myself to be a productive member of society, even though I come from what you've labelled an 'agrarian' background. Where people come from doesn't matter; what matters is what they make of themselves.

An opinion piece on the response, successes and failures, of two similar countries, the US and Canada, to the Covid-19 pandemic https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canada-succeeded-on-coronavirus-where-america-failed-why/ar-BB13A2OT?ocid=msedgntp Makes for interesting reading, and places the large majority of blame, for the US's inadequate response, on its polarized political system, and lack of a universal heath care system. How many Americans need to die before you Democrats and Republicans learn to work together, and everyone has access to national health care ? ( Oh wait... Didn't I ask this same question regarding gun control ? ) Seems even Republicans can't work together... G W Bush has become the latest target of President D Trump after the former president released a video calling for people and their government to work together. The President 'slammed' G W Bush, questioning his absence during the impeachment trials. ( Maybe G W was embarrassed to be associated with what passes for presidential behavior today )

You can call it just 'aesthetics', but there are evolutionary reasons why trees grow 'round'. From better resistance to weather forces, sturdier shape to support a lot of branches, and the growth in circular or spherical pattern which minimizes expenditure of resources, a rounded 'aesthetic' form is healthier for the tree, and will most likely produce more fruit. Although most trees are ornamental, unless you're a farmer. I keep my lemon tree because it looks and smells great ( and sentimental reasons ), not for the lemons it produces; a bag of 20 lemons costs a couple of dollars, when I make Limoncello. ( although I've started putting lemon wedges in my Corona beer, rather than lime )

'Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today. Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion, too Imagine all the people Living life in peace. Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world. You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one." John Lennon 1971 Imagining is easy. Realization is the hard part.

No two trees are exactly alike, even if the same type. And as you've never pruned these trees before, there's always going to be some element of 'trial and error'. Or were you planning to start off as an expert ? Its not rocket science. Remove dead, or unwanted growth. Encourage new, and aesthetic growth.

I'm definitely not an expert, but my ( previously my dad's ) lemon tree is over 20 years old. Start by removing any dead branches; they should be easy to spot. Also remove any branches that are growing down, in other weird directions, or off the trunk. The next part depends on the kind of tree, and you should start pruning conservatively to see how it goes this year, and if you should be more aggressive next year. Branches that are still 'green' will continue to grow and keep other branches/fruit from sprouting, but if you cut them shorter, leaving a few 'buds', new growth will result from those 'buds' and allow the tree to fill out ( not just a few long branches ). Most fruit trees/grape vines like to be pruned by March. ( grape vines usually leave only 4-6 'shoots', depending on supporting wires )

Photons don't have mass, they have momentum. And are incapable of any speed other than c . A neutrino has ( very small ) mass, and is a fermion ( obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics ), while a photon is a boson ( obeys Bose-Einstein statistics ). There are, however, bosons that do have mass ( W and Z bosons involved with the weak nuclear force which governs neutrino interactions, for one ). That which gravitates is mass energy, and either will gravitationally interact. The property of energy will just as readily interact gravitationally as the property of mass, in fact J A Wheeler hypothesized non-singular collapsed EM waves ( photons ), and labelled them geons; they are perfectly compatible with GR. Why do you use a definition of matter which is dependent on the human experience ( philosophical ? ) ??? Matter is simply an aggregate of elemental building blocks called fermions, such as electrons, muons, quarks and their antiparticles. ( neutrinos are fermions, but interact so weakly, they don't 'aggregate' at all )

If you 'reverse' time and approach t=0, at the Planck era t = 10^-43 sec, Some of our physical laws, such as GR, cease making meaningful predictions; Some others don't. Quantum Mechanics, and all its effects, still work to some degree. Even the isotropic, homogenous, hot, dense state, that was present when the Big Bang began, was subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And anything subject to the HUP, by necessity, experiences quantum fluctuations. These quantum fluctuations would have experienced exponential inflation ( possibly ), and expansion, since that era. And they would have 'seeded' the large scale structures of the present day universe. ( which is still isotropic and homogenous on large enough scales )

Part of the problem ( or advantage ) is that J Biden is much more likeable, people are more apt to forgive his 'indiscretions', and attribute it to, J Biden being 'good old Joe', and not really being intentional. B Kavanaugh, on the other hand, exudes 'grown-up rich boy' arrogance, and a certain level of 'sliminess'. Not very likeable; at least compared to his accuser.