Strange

So we have had bats, balls, 30 people, various other objects and now boomerangs. What exactly are you trying to discuss? You seem to be talking about a specific injury here. Can you provide a reference? It is an injury, not a battle. It might occur in a battle, an industrial accident or a homicide attempt. Depends on the type of wood. As well as the shape, how it has been treated, etc. I don't see how you can possibly get an answer to this without more specific information. I imagine that the only way to know the strength of such a wooden blade would be to perform a series of rigorous experiments on multiple samples.

I started watching the first one. After 5 minutes of irrelevant background (in which time, I could have read the textual version of every video) you assert, with no justification that the universe is a dimpled sphere "like a golf ball". This is contradicts current cosmology and has no theoretical or evidential basis. I'm afraid I don't have the time or patience to sit through hours of this to try and find your falsifiable experiment. So why not just tell us what it is?

Are you asking if the words are related? I would say not. Almost certainly a coincidence. There are no known languages descended from Sumerian. There may have been a few loan words from Sumerian in Akkadian, but there is no evidence of much wider influence. Also, Akkadian was a Semitic language, while Hindu is Indo-European. Given the limited number of sound combinations and large numbers of words in languages, it is easy to find words that sound similar and have similar meanings in unrelated languages. There are a few examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate That is why historical linguistics can't just rely on "sounds like" evidence; but has to look at the history of the words, possible sound changes, contact/borrowing between languages, etc.

Friction plays no part in electromagnetism. A current flowing through a wire to generate a magnetic field does not involve friction. Light being emitted by an LED does not involve friction. A magnet sitting on your desk does not involve friction (unless your desk is not level, in which case, friction will stop it living on to the floor).

It doesn't cause a change. You can measure a wave-like property (e.g. wavelength) or you can measure a particle-like property (eg. location). But even if it did, I don't see the connection to mass or energy changing.

What duality are you referring to? Wave-Particle? If so, then all particles, including the Higgs boson, have both wave-like and particle-like properties. Energy and mass are equivalent. But why would measurement change that?

This is just an assertion. And what does "electromagnetism" mean? What units is it measured in? What does "form" mean? And how is it measured? This is not evidence, it is just an assertion. You need to use your "equations" to calculate the magnitude of the effects you are claiming, and then show that these predictions match what we observe better than existing theories. Can you do that?

So you would ignore the advice of doctors if you were seriously ill? However, it is refreshing to have someone admit to being completely closed-minded; it is usually an accusation aimed at others.

You don't need to write a scientific paper, just outline what the idea is. Apart from the fact that it would be much quicker to read the same information, watching videos is a major inconvenience for me, even on those rare occasions when they are worth it.

! Moderator Note Discussion of the merits of news sources and journalism is off topic. Start a new thread if you want to discuss it.

Both can happen. For example, the photons we receive from distant galaxies are red shifted (lower energy). Energy is only conserved within a single frame of reference. So on cosmological scales it doesn’t necessarily apply.

There is a bit of a bug in the software so equation are only displayed after the page is refreshed. No shame in working out something already known - especially if you are doing it in a new way

! Moderator Note Moved to the Speculations forum. Expansion is a scaling factor, not a speed. The "speed" of expansion just depends on how far apart the points you measure are (Hubble's law). Two points that are sufficiently far apart will be separating at the speed of light, or even faster. So, for example, we can see galaxies that are receding from us at more than the speed of light. You appear to be using special relativity, which is only valid for things in relative motion in an inertial frame of reference. You cannot use this to model the expanding universe.

Just a detail but ... These are not really electrical signals; there is no current flowing down the neurons, but cascades of potential changes caused by ions been pumped through the cell membrane. I don't know if this is a criticism of your concept or not, because I don't know if this mechanism would be affected by magnetic fields.

Video is pretty much the worst medium for presenting a scientific theory. Can't you describe it here (with, you know, words and math)?

That is one of the examples they use. And consent is one of the reasons that people give for their misgivings. And in this case, it seems fair. Social media platforms haven't asked (or even told) people about these trials. The odd thing is, people still use "consent" as a reason even when consent is given (eg. medical trials). But they used examples where there is no reason to think either A or B is worse. And if you (people generally) worry that you might get the "bad" one in a blind trial, why wouldn't you have exactly the same worry if the manufacturer just arbitrarily picks one? It seems that people think "well, they wouldn't have picked the one that isn't any good". But we can't know that until we do a comparative trial! I can sort of see the emotional reaction, but it doesn't really make sense to me.

Curved spacetime to be strictly accurate

The spacetime curvature caused by the feather and the hammer are insignificant compared to the curvature caused by the moon(*). So we can assume that the paths followed by the objects is purely determined by the mass of the moon. (*) This is equivalent to the Newtonian approximation of assuming that the masses are small and don't have any effect n the moon

Hard to know if there was a need or not, without knowing what the source was and what its purpose was.

This is more general than the opinion of the person being offered treatment though (if I have understood your suggestion correctly). This is more about people's attitudes to the principal of doing the tests (on other people) or not. They do attempt to identify the reasons for these attitudes (by a combination of questionnaires and further experiments) but there doesn't seem to be any one factor behind it.

What does that mean? What does "limited consciousness" mean? (Being asleep more? Or ?) How do you define "identity"? How or why would consciousness be limited by "identity"? And how is this related to the topic of the thread?

This result is just staggering and (to me) completely incomprehensible. And potentially really dangerous. Almost 50% of people think it is wrong to run an "A/B test" (eg. a randomised controlled trial of two medical treatments) but few people think it is inappropriate to just impose either A or B, without knowing which is best. I just cannot understand the psychology behind this. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/05/08/1820701116 I just hope it is the other (sane) 50% who get to make the decisions!

1 Pa = 1 N/m2 = 1 kg / ms2 But note the use of kilogram-force in that equation.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force) 1 kgf = 9.80665 N

What have you said that is falsifiable? What experiments are you proposing? What quantitative results do you expect?

Yes. Well, a line is a 1D thing (in 4D space) not 2D. Every object object is represented as a line (and in the case of point-like objects it will be a 1D line - no width.).