Strange

You made a ridiculous argument. It seems reasonable to ridicule it. It is a science forum. That is why it has rules about discussions being supported by evidence, for example.

That is the easy part of the problem. Health systems are very good at collecting samples, labelling them, transporting them to a lab, reporting the results the doctor & patient, and coating the data centrally. The challenges are things you have completely failed to address: - Creating a reliable test for the presence of the virus (or, even more difficult, for the antibodies) - Getting enough people and reagents to perform the necessary tests.

I am not commenting on your IQ. Just your inability to understand one thing. There are lots of things I am unable to understand. I don't think that makes me stupid. (Others may disagree.)

Or one on logic. I don't know what that means, but if you had said "If he existed he was a great prophet" then I would not have commented. But insisting that a probably mythical person "is" something is, essentially, false.

That is transparent (to visible light) in its pure form. So it may depend on other substances mixed with it to dye it or change the mechanical properties.

Stories, yes. But: if he didn't exist he couldn't have been a great prophet.

It doesn't look as if the instructions map directly onto those. I can only suggest reading the instructions for those calculators. I have just looked at a picture of the Casio fx-85gt and have to say it is not immediately obvious how you get values in and out of the memory! I assume you use M+ to store into the memory and maybe Alpha-M+ to read it? I guess it gets cleared when you press AC. The TI doesn't seem to have a memory function at all. (I'm sure it has, but it is probably not a simple memory.) Maybe buy a simpler calculator on eBay?

You haven't posted anything that requires comment from biologists or engineers. (Unless you want someone else to invent this device for you. But, as I say, there are lots of people working on that already.)

There is what?

Well, anything absorbed by the target is quite likely to also be absorbed by the sensor in a camera. But that may depend on what the target is made of. If it has very different absorption characteristics than a silicon chip, then you might be able to find a specific frequency which will affect one but not the other.

Memory problems? Not if he didn't exist.

So what is wrong with infra-red? Radio waves are likely to pass through the object (depending what it is made of and what the frequency of the radio waves are).

Right. But that is not what you said.

! Moderator Note I have taken the liberty of replacing the file with its contents as it just contains text. It is much easier to discuss (and quite) something posted on the forum, than the contents of a file. You seem to have skipped over the hard part of the test: how are these colours displayed. You have just described how such a device could be used if it existed. The big challenge is making such a test. Many companies are working on making such a test work. These would probably be similar to pregnancy tests with a colour displayed to indicate a positive test. Interpreting this would need to take into account the accuracy of the test.

If I do that on my calculator (just the app on my laptop) I end up with 13 in the calculator memory (ie. 3+4+6). If I change it to: 1 divided by 3 = M+ 1 divided by 4 = M+ 1 divided by 6 = M+ Then I end up with 0.75 in the memory. I don't know which of those was intended. I don't even know what that is supposed to do. If I literally follow the instructions then, at this point, I am left with 6 displayed on the calculator and so if I do "divide memory-recall =" then I end up with 0.46 (6/13) I have no idea what the calculation is supposed to be, so I don't know how you end up with 1.33 or what a correct sequence on a calculator would be. Ah, just spotted the reference to parallel resistors. So on my calculator, the correct sequence would be: MC (clear the memory) 1 divide 3 = M+ 1 divide 4 = M+ 1 divide 6 = M+ (at this point the memory contains 0.75) C (clear, may not be necessary but just to be sure) 1 divide MR = (1 divided by memory-read) This results in 1.3333 Does that help?

If that is a mechanism, show how you would use it to tell us which isotopes of atoms are stable and which are not. In other words, there is a mechanism but you can't describe it because it is just a vague feeling at the back of your mind. Again, just a description of what happens: if things are not in equilibrium, they will move towards equilibrium. We know that. That is why the word "equilibrium" exists. But it is meaningless. And, more importantly, useless. Unless you can show a specific example of how "coherent actualisation" can be used to define what the equilibrium state of a system is, or which systems are in equilibrium and which are not.

You are just defining what "equilibrium" means: a stable state. Obviously if things are not in equilibrium then they will tend to move towards an equilibrium state. The difficult bit (that you have skipped) is tho explain why. You can't tell us which atoms are going to be stable and which aren't, can you? (Except by a circular argument that only those that are not in equilibrium are not stable.) So you don't have a theory, you just have a statement of what happens. A post hoc description.

Why would you eve assume that? Why not start: "Assuming there is an invisible pink flying unicorn ..." It just seems a bizarre assumption to start from. If he didn't exist, he can't have been any sort of prophet. Maybe you should read that other thread about whether he actually existed or not.

! Moderator Note Merged with existing thread

! Moderator Note In that case, I am locking this before it turns into another "are we going to die tomorrow" thread. As always, when it comes to cosmology, the answer to that question is still "no".

The nearest I can think of is A for Andromeda, by Fred Hoyle. But it was a TV series not a book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_for_Andromeda You might find this a useful resource: http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com

Battery management of the powertrain batteries in electric cars is already very complex it may be that it is simpler to allow for trickle charging an external battery rather than have to account for extra, more variable loads. (Just guessing.) Just guessing or speculating here (after all, the OP posted on a general science forum, rather than a specialist battery technology forum) but I think that lead-acid batteries cope better with repeated discharge and charging cycles, in particular where there is only partial discharge. The control of charging is also much simpler, because there is a more direct relationship between voltage and charge level (related to internal resistance, maybe?) They are also less prone to explode if damaged or short-circuited.

This sort of idiotic, ignorant and false claim is off topic. If you seriously want to claim that virtual particles (ie. quantised fields) do not exist then start a thread in Speculations. If you want to actually learn something (seems unlikely) then ask questions in one of the physics areas. That's what I said.

And yet, the model makes predictions which precisely match the real world. So it doesn’t matter if you don’t believe, the model still works. Unlike your “proof” which only works if you believe. I think physicists would disagree. I am just pointing out that your “rational prof” is just a series of things unconnected things that you believe. No rationality and no proof. After all, if it were a rational proof then I would be convinced. And I am not. It wasn’t intended to be. There is nothing to refute.

No, they are mediated by fields and virtual particles. That is (1) a non-sequitur and (2) a statement of belief. It is not connected in any way to the previous statement (which was wrong anyway) and has no evidence supporting it. Nope. Don’t believe that. No, it just proves that those who believe in gods will tie themselves in knots trying to justify their belief. Your argument will only seem plausible to someone who already believes in the same gods you do. Because there is no evidence for that