Strange

It was a rhetorical question. Feel free to stick around and ask questions if you feel you don't understand

It doesn't mean it is, yet. They are talking about their future process. But design freeze sounds like it is end of the last stage before handing over to manufacturing. During development (of almost anything) it is always possible to keep researching, tinkering, trying to make improvements, etc. So, in my industry (electronics and software) there will be several stages of development: specification (define exactly what the product is), design (work out how you are going to make it), implementation (actually create the first version of the product), test (make sure it works) etc. Each of these needs to stop at some point before the next can start (in reality, they overlap and you move back and forth between them). So, at some point, the project manager will say that the specification or the code is "good enough" and it is time to move on the next stage. When writing software that is called a "code freeze"; there are no more changes allowed to the code unless major bugs are found. So, the development of vaccines seems to have similar stages of development. "Design freeze" means (I assume, from the quote) that they have come up with something they think is good enough - further work will just take time and not add significant value - and at that point, the design will be shared with other companies to ramp up manufacturing. Then, I assume there will need to be further testing to ensure it is sufficiently reliable, etc. when manufactured in volume.

That is not static, is it.

I think that will be similar for many places. For example, the mayor of Bergamo, at one point, said the death rate was probably 10 times the official rate. In the UK, the official figures only include deaths in hospital. The Office of National Statistics does, later, get figures for all deaths from death certificates. But if there hasn't been a positive test result then it is put to individual doctors whether they put it down as a cause (or contributory factor) so even that figure will be lower than the real death rate.

! Moderator Note Unless you can provide photographs where it is possible to see anything and answer people's questions, this thread seems fairly pointless. Some fuzzy photos of a piece of rock with no information about where it was found, or other relevant information, will not help anyone identify this. You make some odd claims about light and quantum physics but these don't seem to have anything to do with the rock or the contents of the photographs.

! Moderator Note I have no idea what this is about. Unless you can explain what you want to discuss, this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note That was not a threat. But if you think other people's posts are inappropriate then use the report function. Do not comment on it in the thread. And please don't play the martyr. You are not Bruno or Galileo. ! Moderator Note If you don't understand the concept of falsification then you probably do not have a scientific hypothesis.

I think it will take quite a lot of research to get a complete list together. The 5 main proteins are easy to find. Exactly which lipids form the bilipid layer might be a bit harder to track down. And there are probably other things I am not aware of. I am curious why you want this?

Bones are mainly hydroxyapatite, which is an insoluble salt of calcium and phosphorus. There are also other mineral compounds and various proteins. As studiot says, it is a living tissue, with cells that continuously break down old bone tissue and others that constantly make more (there are various diseases where one or other of these go wrong). Bone is also an important organ, acting as a reservoir of minerals the body needs and a place where blood cells a re made. Shells are mainly calcium carbonate. Calcium has the useful property that some of its compounds are soluble, making it readily available to organisms to use. But other compounds are insoluble and, in some case, very hard. There is also a lot of it about; it is the fifth most common element on Earth.

So, a quick look gives me the following for deaths/cases: Italy: 22,170 / 168,941 = 13% Spain: 19,315 / 184,948 = 10% China: 4,632 / 50,333 = 9% Germany: 4,051 / 137,698 = 2.9% Korea: 230 / 10,635 = 0.2% So, if the differences were due to covering up the figures then Germany and South Korea are far worse offenders. The truth is, there are a great many factors that contribute to the differences between countries. Some that spring to mind immediately: Age and health of the population Social structure (in Italy families of 3 or more generations often live in close proximity) How much testing is done (this reduces the case fatality rate by increasing the number of cases detected) How early action is taken How stringent the measures are (just asking people to stay home, actively tracing all contacts, quarantining all suspected contacts, etc) How well the population obeys the rules What are the definitions of "case" and "death": only those confirmed with a test? number of people tested vs number of tests done? all those with symptoms? only deaths in hospital? Quality of data collection (in Italy, many areas have, apparently, been too busy to fill in paperwork) Honesty of governments/media I'm sure there are many other factors as well. I don't think we will know the answers to a lot of the questions about this virus for many years.

! Moderator Note I am not sure what to do with this thread. It doesn't belong in Modern and Theoretical Physics. It might belong in Earth Science or Speculations. @AviiPk Can you clarify what you are suggesting? If not that we should do these things, are you suggesting that governments are involved in some sort of global plan to pollute the planet to make it easier to leave?

It is this year. (See what I did there)

! Moderator Note This is not "Science News"; moved to Speculations. Note that you need to present your idea here on the forum, not just post a document.

Can you provide the source so we have more context

What part of it is the problem? Do you know how to write a function? Do you know how to compare two values? Do you know how to write a loop? Do you know how to access the elements of an ArrayList? If you can answer "yes" to all the above, then you should be able to solve the problem If you don't want to help people, maybe don't post in the thread

! Moderator Note I think people interested in Earth Science (geology) are more likely to be able to identify a rock, even if from space. You really need to try and take some pictures that are (a) in focus and (b) without camera shake (try using a flash).

Well, I do

January

! Moderator Note I am closing this thread as it is obvious that the OP has no interest in understanding the science.

! Moderator Note This is not Science News. I have moved to a, hopefully, more appropriate forum. But I doubt anyone can tell you much from such fuzzy photos of an unknown rock. To help identify it, you probably need to give more detail about where it was found. You may also need to explain what you think is "abnormal" and what "forces" you are talking about.

Their "very recently" is about 13.4 billion years ago. As it say Yes, so in this hypothetical model there was a change in state of the vacuum which gave neutrinos a large mass; they then decayed to the light neutrinos we see today. (Which shows that if it happened, it happened here.) (And again, "relatively recently" means more than 13 billion years ago.) They don't know it did. They are describing what we would see for each of several different models. And it IS describing the neutrinos that we see around us, which may have got their mass via this mechanism, possible via a higher mass intermediary. You are picking a few words at random from the paper, without understanding it, and trying scare yourself. Please, please please, talk to your doctor. You are getting yourself into a state over something you don't understand. (I suppose it might good that you are worried about something that can't possibly harm you, rather than the real threats around us.) I have explained this to you multiple times. No one here can help you any more. Speak to your doctor.

No. IF it happened, it happened here (and everywhere else) already. More than 13 billion years ago. It created the universe we see around us. Nothing is "coming for us". Apart from a virus. So make sure you wash your hands regularly.

Because we are talking about cosmology. If a geologist says "recently" they might mean 500 million years ago. If a cosmologist says "recently" they might mean 13 and a half billion years ago. Here, "recently" means "more recently than you might have thought; ie. not 13.8 billion years ago, but only 13.5 billion years ago". (If I talk about "recently" at work, it could mean days or millionths of a second, depending on context.) I have explained why this is not true, in multiple ways. So stop lying. Yes. That you cannot read. Depends on your age. In my case, maybe 20 years if I am lucky. You can find actuarial tables that will give the average life expectancy for someone of your age, weight, health, etc. Although, with the current pandemic, it might be a lot less than that. I don't think you are stupid. I think you have some mental health issues that you need to seek medical help with. They didn't see it. They are suggesting what we should look for, to determine if we can see evidence that it happened. IF it happened, then it happened everywhere. Which would be why neutrinos everywhere in the universe have mass.

Almost every part of this is wrong. 1) There is one small section on the hypothetical (fantasy) "existential threat". That is about 200 words out of the total 4,500 words in the article. Less than 5%. It is a passing mention. 2) The paper does not state that it happened. It says IF it happened THEN we would see X, Y, and Z. So we should look for X, Y and Z to see if it happened or not. (The concept of conditional sentences does not appear to be a feature of your dialect of English.) It does this for several different models so we know what to look like to confirm or disprove each model. 3) But that is just one form of vacuum decay: the phase change that may have given neutrinos their mass, according to some models. But it may not have happened. 4) There are other vacuum decay / phase changes that probably did happen: inflation - probably; the separation of electroweak forces - very probable; the Higgs mechanism - almost certainly. 5) Even if the specific phase change they discuss did happen, it was more than 13 billion years ago. Why worry about it now. It's over. (And if it, or something like it, hadn't happened, you wouldn't be around to panic about it: "Oh no! Something perfectly normal happened billions of years ago! Help!") From the physics. In simple terms, reaching the temperature and pressure that enabled the phase change. (There is probably more to it than that but a lot of this is beyond my understanding.) Actually, later than that, because the main model they look at is a "supercooled" model, where the phase change doesn't happen until long after the necessary conditions have been reached.

Quite. If those phase changes (vacuum decay modes) had not happened, we would not be here now to discuss it.