Slashdot Mirror

BOS is an optical density visualization technique, belonging to the same family as schlieren photography, shadowgraphy or interferometry. In contrast to these older techniques, BOS uses correlation techniques on a background dot pattern to quantitatively characterize compressible and thermal flows with good spatial and temporal resolution. The main advantages of this technique, the experimental simplicity and the robustness of correlation-based digital analysis, mean that it is widely used, and variant versions are reviewed in the article.

Source: https://link.springer.com/arti...

Or for those who are not inclined to refuse Wikipedia as a source:

Background-oriented schlieren (BOS) is a novel technique for flow visualization of density gradients in fluids using the Gladstone–Dale relation between density and refractive index of the fluid. BOS simplifies the visualization process by eliminating the need for the use of expensive mirrors, lasers and knife-edges. In its simplest form, BOS makes use of simple background patterns of the form of a randomly generated dot-pattern, an inexpensive strobe light source and a high speed digital camera.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Google schoolar places the earliest mention of this method into 2001, which is not that new: https://iopscience.iop.org/art...

This is nonsense and Slashdot should get its act together.

Why are they publishing a public relations piece? I believe in global warming. It has affected glaciers and will continue to do so, with consequences that are both good and bad. But this supposed scientific report... let's start with "Who are they and where is this published?"

Who are they? We don't know. All we have is the following: "the Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment was put together over five years by 210 authors. The report includes input from more than 350 researchers and policymakers from 22 countries. " This appears to be the usual self-appointed group of experts. Again, they may be right or wrong- or more likely giving us the "This is horrible" bad news without the offsetting good news (more arable land, etc). Further tracking reveals all the four named authors are all from something called the "International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) Kathmandu Nepal" And who funds this? Good luck...

Where was it published? You follow the links in the article and they all lead to springer.com which says they are "Providing researchers with access to millions of scientific documents from journals, books, series, protocols, reference works and proceedings."

NO! I WANT TO KNOW WHERE IT WAS PUBLISHED. IS THIS A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLE OR NOT? The answer appears to be "not" . At https://link.springer.com/book... we finally get the following: "This open access volume is the first comprehensive assessment of the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region...". This is the usual non-profit funded PR piece trying to affect public opinion and through it public policy. I may agree with the conclusions or I may not but don't kid yourself, this is propaganda by one side of a policy debate and nothing more.

So thirty minutes of digging on my part yields "This is not science it is partisan BS"

Now back to the original question; Why is Slashdot publishing this? Are the Slashdot moderators and editors who select what appears here incompetent or are they so wound up in the left/liberal, phony moral outrage worldview that all an article has to do is agree with their moral posture to get into Slashdot?

Want to stop global warming? Well first stop flying around the world in jet planes, the biggest per-mile contributor to upper atmosphere pollution. Come on outraged snowflakes, forget the snowboarding trip to Colorado and do your part to save the planet. You are, after all, among the world's biggest polluters of the upper atmosphere. As for me, even knowing, I'll still head for Europe this summer. Dear snowflakes let me make it clear; I'm not claiming to be more moral, more pure than you, just less twitishly pompous.

And dear Slashdot moderators and editors; now could we get back to real news about technology for a change?

That would be a Wikipedia article (and a Daily Mail article, which presumably you added in for a laugh, because you must surely recognise that the Mail is not a go-to source for people looking to defend indefensible scientific positions like "drinking too much water is bioaccumulation"). If you look at an actual scientific article, you will see that bioaccumulation is about the *concentration* of the chemical in the body. And even in that Wiki you'll see that -- surprise! -- there are zero mentions of water as a bioaccumulated chemicals and quite a lot of mentions of substances that actually do bioaccumulate. Like mercury.

For example:
https://link.springer.com/refe...

I say again, seeing as you seem determined to be particularly obtuse on this: there is not a single article in the scientific press about that discusses the bioaccumulation of water in those terms. That Wiki on water intoxication that you linked to does not refer to water being bioaccumulated either. Tell you what, why don't you edit it to use that term and see how long your edit lasts before everyone tells you it's a stupid fucking edit because it's not using the term correctly. Or you can start quoting some scientific articles about bioaccumulating water (ha! as if).

I know a shit load more about water intoxication than you, mate. I helped a friend when they were writing a paper on a patient who suffered hyponatraemia as a result of drinking too much water. It's not bioaccumulation no matter how much you want it to be.

It's time to stop digging that hole -- it's bioaccumulating the watery shite you're spewing and you're drowning it.

Lets not forget their getting triggered over master/slave -- https://github.com/python/cpyt...

The parallel computing community was never that happy about calling the paradigm master/slave. Most references use the terminology master/worker these days. We can find references to manager/worker which sound a lot more neutral that date back decades. ( A PACT 2001 paper as a proof https://link.springer.com/chap... )

Lots of term in parallel computing ended up being renamed to make the term more accurate or more neutral. Famously, we no longer talk about "embarrassingly parallel" applications, but about "pleasingly parallel" applications because there is nothing embarrassing about the application being very parallel.

Thomas Gold and Russian researchers before him were looking at this back in the 1950's. He wrote a book The Deep Hot Biosphere. One might suppose that the strident opponents of the theory (and Gold) have died or retired so science can now progress in this area.

It is firmly settled, water is h2o. Yes, I know, some bastard will say 'what about Heavy Water'...

But you did not see this one coming: "Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism" by Hasok Chang (2012).

It isn't sudden. The terms "moonquake" and "marsquake" have been in use for several decades, including in scientific publications (e.g. this 1972 paper about moonquakes).

You need to follow the lead of this article. Insert something into your anus to get the "feels".

https://link.springer.com/arti...

Just like their self-driving cars.

These guys did a study and even dropped from 5.5 meters reaching a terminal velocity of 10 m/s (22 mph) a DJI Phantom could cause AIS 3+ (severe) neck injury if it fell on someone's head. My buddy has one of those and the biggest scare he had was in mid flight when the controller reported a battery problem. He was at 120m (~400 ft) which is the max unrestricted height, fortunately it was only a loose cable and was able to land safely but... had that been a total power loss it'd be 1.2 kg falling out of the sky from 400 ft, which is roughly worst case. At that point it'd be near terminal velocity which would be around 35 m/s (78 mph) (go to 15:00) for a drone of that size and a lethal weapon with enough power to crack an adult skull open.

Drones are, compared to say cars actually quite rare. They only have flight times measured in minutes, so run time is even less. And most are operated by sensible guys trying to avoid flying directly over people. Even when they're operated by idiots like above, they're quite reliable. But the Phantom is rated for 200g payload. Even if you just want to deliver a pizza you're going to need a much bigger drone with a lot more impact force and heavier drones drop more like a rock too. For a commercial operation in a hub-and-spoke model over populated areas... it's the "flying cars" idea in miniature. My bet is it'll last until Uber kills someone. And this time it won't be someone jaywalking in the dark, it'll just be whoever it happens to come crashing down on. Drones are cool. Drones and people are a really bad mix.

If Waymo get their self-driving car going I imagine we'll find many better alternatives to the "driveway problem", to the degree there actually is one. Maybe it could drop of micro-delivery bots that take stuff from the curb to your door or to a delivery box, if it's more like Amazon than pizza. I mean it's not like a drone leaving something on your lawn is optimal either. I mean if you'll have a drone dropping it from the sky it means it can't have no cover if it's raining, for example. Personally I think most problems would be most easily solved by a coat and slip-on shoes to go out, grab the delivery and be back inside in a minute. It's rarely that horrible outside...

Jesus H Christ do you people just make this stuff up on the spot ?

The two researchers have looked into precipitation patterns of the Holocene era and compared them with present-day movements of the intertropical convergence zone, a large region of intense tropical rainfall. Using computer models and other data, the researchers found links to rainfall patterns thousands of years ago.

"The framework we developed helps us understand why the heaviest tropical rain belts set up where they do," Korty explains.

"Tropical rain belts are tied to what happens elsewhere in the world through the Hadley circulation, but it won't predict changes elsewhere directly, as the chain of events is very complex. But it is a step toward that goal."

The Hadley circulation is a tropical atmospheric circulation that rises near the equator. It is linked to the subtropical trade winds, tropical rainbelts, and affects the position of severe storms, hurricanes, and the jet stream. Where it descends in the subtropics, it can create desert-like conditions. The majority of Earth's arid regions are located in areas beneath the descending parts of the Hadley circulation.

"We know that 6,000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert was a rainy place," Korty adds.

"It has been something of a mystery to understand how the tropical rain belt moved so far north of the equator. Our findings show that that large migrations in rainfall can occur in one part of the globe even while the belt doesn't move much elsewhere.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-12-...

And for the general case in central Asia.

https://link.springer.com/arti...

Model results clearly show the early Holocene patterns indicated by proxy records, including both the decreased effective moisture in arid central Asia, which occurs in the model primarily during the winter months, and the increase in summer monsoon precipitation in south and east Asia. The model results suggest that dry conditions in the early Holocene in central Asia are closely related to decreased water vapor advection due to reduced westerly wind speed and less evaporation upstream from the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas in boreal winter. As an extra forcing to the early Holocene climate system, the Laurentide ice sheet and meltwater fluxes have a substantial cooling effect over high latitudes, especially just over and downstream of the ice sheets, but contribute only to a small degree to the early Holocene aridity in central Asia. Instead, most of the effective moisture signal can be explained by orbital forcing decreasing the early Holocene latitudinal temperature gradient and wintertime surface temperature.

"lunar", "solar" etc. are used as adjectives.
But, in professional publications, the bodies are called by their regular English names (although with the initial letter capitalized).

See this from the IAU (International Astronomical Union):
https://www.iau.org/public/the...

The designation of our Moon is, therefore, the Moon, with a capital M and used as a name (a proper noun). The same applies to the designation of our planet — the Earth

e.g. there's a refereed journal specifically called: "Earth, Moon, and Planets".
https://link.springer.com/jour...

The only place I've seen "Sol", "Luna", and "Terra" used is in science fiction!

Although I mainly work on objects beyond the Solar System, I am a professional astronomer.

Transgenerational accumulation of radiation damage in small mammals chronically exposed to Chernobyl fallout. The genetic damage is permanent and hereditary, and is expressed even in animals raised in labratory but that whose parents were exposed. Through 10+ generations.

Nowhere in the article or summary does it mention anything about acceleration, or even comment on the rate of increase at all.

Then you didn't dig far enough. Their article is based on this paper which says its "research builds on a growing body of literature which suggests that SLR is occurring at a more rapid pace than even some of the more liberal projections can account for". So - accelerating sea level.

Meanwhile the page you linked clearly shows a steady upward trend in tide height.

Correct - to show there's no acceleration, so it's nothing about "climate change" from man. It's natural. Moral of the story? Don't build on land that is subsiding, has zero altitude, or in a flood plain. We've had an increasing sea level for thousands of years, and it's going to continue until the next ice age.

Let's look at the other end. Any chance he included this 1989 study showing an increase of 1.6 C for the instantaneous doubling case and 0.7C for the transient forcing case? No way. Low estimate in the past. Doesn't fit the narrative.

How about this one from 1967 with an estimate of 2.3C for a doubling of CO2. Low estimate in the past? No good.

How about this one from 1997 which suggests sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5C for a doubling of CO2, Better exclude that one!

etc etc etc. If you select studies from the past with higher sensitivities and more recent ones with lower sensitivity then you can show a trend towards lower sensitivity. Not to mention the fact that many of his sources aren't from the scientific literature at all but rather just references to other blogers. That's why you should look to the literature to understand the science rather than some trickster on the internet.

All terms are made up. That's how language works. This one seems to trigger you, but the meaning is clear: "The term Anthropocene suggests: (i) that the Earth is now moving out of its current geological epoch, called the Holocene and (ii) that human activity is largely responsible for this exit from the Holocene, that is, that humankind has become a global geological force in its own right. "

Here's another report showing the acceleration in bleaching: Monitoring Data and Evidence for Increased Coral Bleaching Stress:

Coral reefs live within a fairly narrow envelope of environmental conditions constrained by water temperatures, light, salinity, nutrients, bathymetry, and the aragonite saturation state of seawater. While many environmental extremes can cause coral to expel their symbiotic microalgae and bleach on local scales, only elevated ocean temperature has been shown to cause the widespread “mass” bleaching spanning hundreds of kilometers or more. Corals have, over millions of years, evolved strategies to cope with temperature extremes, but anthropogenic climate change has been increasing temperature much faster than corals have been able to adapt. As mass bleaching has increased in frequency and severity, the connection to unusually warm ocean temperature has become clear... We use long-term climatic datasets over the last 146 years and satellite records since the 1980s to document temperature and heat stress changes near coral reefs and the influence of large-scale climate patterns such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Since the 1980s, satellite-based observations of the oceans have dramatically increased our capability to observe ocean variations globally and synoptically and provide the basis for identifying recent changes in heat stress and patterns of coral bleaching. Furthermore, the latest advances in satellite-based sea surface temperature analysis and other products provide unprecedented means to detect and monitor, in near real time, environmental conditions related to coral bleaching events.

This one was published in July. It provides references showing that widespread coral bleaching and subsequent mortality have been clearly linked to elevated sea surface temperatures. It says that for global events there is not enough data to establish a trend (only five events on record), but that low-level bleaching has increased to the point where most regions and ocean basins are reporting some coral bleaching every year.

Here is a full book on the subject. Biotechnologies for Plant Mutation Breeding, by Joanna Jankowicz-CieslakThomas H. TaiJochen KumlehnBradley J. Till. It is free. https://link.springer.com/book...

Ok here are some links:

A Lightweight Video Storage File System for IP Camera-Based Surveillance Applications:
https://link.springer.com/chap...

Liquid Virtual File System:
https://github.com/LiquidFM/lv...

LVFS: A scalable big data scientific storage system:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/do...

etc. etc.

So I expected LVFS to mean yet another some flavor of an LV file system. I guess what I find confusing is a four letter acronym ending with "FS" but then again, nobody should have exclusivity. I probably would have chosen another acronym although to make that "LVFS" name more specific and meaningful.

It is trivial to find articles and peer reviewed studies that show that the VA is of equivalent quality to hospitals that are not under a single payer system. Single payer systems exist all over the world and consistently cost less and provide better care on average than the current US system.

https://medicalxpress.com/news...
https://link.springer.com/arti...

Not exactly sure why they'd go through some crazy process to put copper in fabric. The Japanese Indigo plant has long exhibited antibacterial properties. Why not just dye scrubs with that?

https://link.springer.com/arti...

Twenty years ago, the Green lobby tried to stop the development of astronomy in Arizona, first with a fake endangered species argument and then with a fake native claims argument:
https://link.springer.com/chap...

At the time, they claimed that Hawaii was a better location for ground-based telescopes than Arizona because the University of Hawaii owned an astronomy reserve on the summit of Mauna Kea, which was well supported by both the international science community and by the local economy. What happened, as we know now, was that as soon as the Greens lost in Arizona they immediately transferred their anti-science campaign to Hawaii, where they have been trying to oust UH from its deeded astronomy reserve and prevent the newest generation of telescopes from being built. They again ginned up a fake native claims argument, as in Arizona.

Their "go to Hawaii..." argument they tried in Arizona has now become "Send the telescopes to space..." When we have a space-based economy that will support scientific infrastructure on that scale, we will gladly do that. In the meantime, we need to finish our current generation of ground-based telescopes.

Mr. Trump, you have a bulletproof Supreme Court now. Send tanks up Mauna Kea, if that's what it will take, to get the keel laid for Thirty Meter Telescope.

Posting anonymously to avoid legal problems by disclosing the following information.

Not only fake journals are a problem. Supposedly "serious" journals with a corrupt editor using a coercive citation scheme are also an important issue. Coercive citation is typically used to increase the metrics of the journal, but I have seen at least one case in which it is used to increase the metrics of the Journal Editor (!)

Specific example: Springer's Journal of Supercomputing is edited by infamous Hamid Arabnia. Yes, this is the same folk that used to run the WorldComp conference series in Vegas, which is now rebranded as CSCE after it was widespread that they accepted any crap as long as you paid for registration.

Well, I submitted some years ago a real research paper to this Journal of Supercomputing. It was serious research, not top-level, but reasonable. Reviews were reasonable, but H. Arabnia requested to add citations to FOUR of his own personal papers, completely unrelated with our submission, in order to accept the paper. We didn't add any (and the paper was eventually accepted), but we could check that he did this routinely: you can check for example this paper, in which authors cite TEN unrelated papers from the editor of this journal. I don't blame the authors: in many cases, they badly need the publication and agree to the coercive mechanism.

You can also check H. Arabnia's Google Scholar page, with a very high h-index value. However, this page also allows you to check the citations of the papers. If you check the 88 citations to this paper from 1995, you can see that it was almost unnoticed for twenty years, and suddenly it resurged in 2015... with ALL citations coming from the Journal of Supercomputing, which he edits!!

The funny fact: The journal of Supercomputing has a JCR impact factor of 1.326 in the last (2016) list, being in the second quartile (Q2) of its category. Let's see the update, coming in a few days/weeks. According to the rankings, this should be a respected journal, but it happens to be the playground of this clown, abusing it to increase his own metrics.

Posting anonymously to avoid legal problems by disclosing the following information.

Not only fake journals are a problem. Supposedly "serious" journals with a corrupt editor using a coercive citation scheme are also an important issue. Coercive citation is typically used to increase the metrics of the journal, but I have seen at least one case in which it is used to increase the metrics of the Journal Editor (!)

Specific example: Springer's Journal of Supercomputing is edited by infamous Hamid Arabnia. Yes, this is the same folk that used to run the WorldComp conference series in Vegas, which is now rebranded as CSCE after it was widespread that they accepted any crap as long as you paid for registration.

Well, I submitted some years ago a real research paper to this Journal of Supercomputing. It was serious research, not top-level, but reasonable. Reviews were reasonable, but H. Arabnia requested to add citations to FOUR of his own personal papers, completely unrelated with our submission, in order to accept the paper. We didn't add any (and the paper was eventually accepted), but we could check that he did this routinely: you can check for example this paper, in which authors cite TEN unrelated papers from the editor of this journal. I don't blame the authors: in many cases, they badly need the publication and agree to the coercive mechanism.

You can also check H. Arabnia's Google Scholar page, with a very high h-index value. However, this page also allows you to check the citations of the papers. If you check the 88 citations to this paper from 1995, you can see that it was almost unnoticed for twenty years, and suddenly it resurged in 2015... with ALL citations coming from the Journal of Supercomputing, which he edits!!

The funny fact: The journal of Supercomputing has a JCR impact factor of 1.326 in the last (2016) list, being in the second quartile (Q2) of its category. Let's see the update, coming in a few days/weeks. According to the rankings, this should be a respected journal, but it happens to be the playground of this clown, abusing it to increase his own metrics.

Other women wanted tank top lady fired? Why didn't they all just dress comfortably and enjoy the loose discipline? Also, how can a US firm do business in Caracas without being sanctioned and/or expropriated? (!)

Mean Girls: Provocative Clothing Leads to Intra-Sexual Competition between Females

Maybe you can use some strong rare-earth magnets to help it along?

This is highly unlikely to work. The problem? You think of the intestine as a linear tube from mouth to colon (then anus), but in reality there are many twists and turns in the intestine (which happens in real time - aka peristalsis). So for any placement of the magnet, you are just as likely to hang it up as to move it along - so doing this yourself won't help - and may actually be harmful if the magnet is strong enough and left in one area too long. That being said....someone has already thought of this. But if you look at the article, it looks like a pretty elaborate setup that likely only exists as a handful centers in the world as this would need to be done in real-time with imaging (looks like a mini CT scanner).

After 12 weeks, the likelihood of this passing on its own is virtually nil, so it will need some help. Double balloon enteroscopy (aka push enteroscopy) can be used if not too far in, and is performed at most university/academic medical centers. Other medical options are descried here. A more aggressive, but not maximally invasive choice would be to bring a surgeon into the mix to do a combination of double balloon enteroscopy and a laparoscopy or just plain old laparoscopy.

Best of luck.

Here's an article:
http://bigthink.com/neurobonke...

About this similar study:
https://link.springer.com/arti...

I'm sure you can find more with about 60 seconds on Google.

In fact, the Cook 2013 study found about 4,000 papers that gave or implied an opinion about whether global warming is caused by humans, with 97% supporting that view, at least implicitly, and 78 papers (under 2%) that "minimized" or rejected human causation, at least implicitly. Since the research results are completely public, if I was Pruitt, I'd just ask my secretary to download those 78 papers and select the ones I like best.

Alternately they could find references via the 2016 paper "Learning from mistakes in climate research" whose goal was to find patterns of errors in 38 contrarian papers.

There's a book about post-quantum cryptography, and also conferences. There is plenty of research on the topic, and cryptography will be fine, just computationally more expensive (since our current block ciphers were chosen to be as computationally simple as possible).

"The Hawaii Medical Association said it wanted the issue to be studied more deeply because there was a lack of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting sunscreen is a cause of coral bleaching, and overwhelming evidence that not wearing sunscreen increases cancer rates."

Which translates into "We refuse to acknowledge the existence of peer-reviewed evidence specifically on this topic and have no countervailing peer-reviewed evidence of our own, thus that uncertainty means that the state should not act to protect corals because you just might be too lazy to switch sunscreen types..."

Finding ONE study does not refute the claim of "a lack of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting sunscreen is a cause of coral bleaching", given the piss-poor rate of reproducing scientific results:

The replication crisis (or replicability crisis or reproducibility crisis) refers to a methodological crisis in science in which scientists have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate/reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves. The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem.

"The Hawaii Medical Association said it wanted the issue to be studied more deeply because there was a lack of peer-reviewed evidence suggesting sunscreen is a cause of coral bleaching, and overwhelming evidence that not wearing sunscreen increases cancer rates."

Which translates into "We refuse to acknowledge the existence of peer-reviewed evidence specifically on this topic and have no countervailing peer-reviewed evidence of our own, thus that uncertainty means that the state should not act to protect corals because you just might be too lazy to switch sunscreen types..."

I'm sure that the five minutes of thought you've put in to this have found a critical flaw that the scientists didn't anticipate at all in their calculations. I suggest you look at for example https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200232060-00002 which discusses in more detail some of the underlying biology for why putting in more red blood cells has an effect of the type they are predicting.

Actually, studies have found that people prefer to use landmarks to get around rather than street names. When I first learned that (in the 1990s - before Google Maps and GPS), I began giving people directions with both names and landmarks. e.g. Turn right on Main St. That's the one with the Shell gas station on the corner. Once I began doing that, I noticed that the number of people who were late arriving at my house or to events I planned because "we got lost" dropped almost to zero.

Re: "There is a lot of talk about scientists and very little talk about physical theory. As far as I can tell, EU is some conspiracy theory about scientists as opposed to a science theory. Maybe it would be more attractive and approachable if they drop the antisocial, whiny cruft and stuck to business."

It's probably unfair to judge an entire cosmology through Internet comments. Since a lot of the efforts here are focused upon correcting misconceptions, these efforts may come off to some as "whiny". For a more thoughtful introduction, you might consider, instead, reading The Electric Sky by Don Scott, which goes into great length about how we can explain astronomical observations with ordinary laboratory plasma physics observations.

If you'd prefer to avoid purchasing their book, then consider their technical introduction, The Essential Guide -- which is actually geared towards those with an EE background. It is quite technical.

Alternatively, if you come from the world of plasma physics, you'd want to also supplement these works with the second edition of Physics of the Plasma Universe And in that case, there are also a couple of papers you should read here and here, which both review critiques of MHD in good detail.

Personally, I also recommend focusing upon the historical arguments, whose importance are greatly under-appreciated ... e.g., the mistaken assumption of empty space, the story of Kristian Birkeland, the history of the Birkeland current concept, the electron theory as a worldview, the story of Halton Arp, the Big Bang's big redshift assumption, and this discussion of the debate over uniformitarianism vs catastrophism, for starters.

For those that just want a very basic and quick introduction, then watch these two Youtube videos.

There is really no shortage of high-quality resources, pitched at all of the various levels. If you aren't seeing them, then that definitely says more about your own efforts to find these resources than anything else.

Let me summarize them for you since you took the assertion that I wouldn’t read it: there’s evidence of consciousness after clinical death.

Good, you're making progress. Now that you accept the existence of NDEs, let's look at how they relate to OBEs:

https://link.springer.com/arti...

https://link.springer.com/jour...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hahahaha

Let me summarize them for you since you took the assertion that I wouldn’t read it: there’s evidence of consciousness after clinical death.

Good, you're making progress. Now that you accept the existence of NDEs, let's look at how they relate to OBEs:

https://link.springer.com/arti...

https://link.springer.com/jour...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hahahaha

Let me summarize them for you since you took the assertion that I wouldn’t read it: there’s evidence of consciousness after clinical death.

Good, you're making progress. Now that you accept the existence of NDEs, let's look at how they relate to OBEs:

https://link.springer.com/arti...

https://link.springer.com/jour...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Let me summarize them for you since you took the assertion that I wouldn’t read it: there’s evidence of consciousness after clinical death.

Good, you're making progress. Now that you accept the existence of NDEs, let's look at how they relate to OBEs:

https://link.springer.com/arti...

https://link.springer.com/jour...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It's just a conceptual label. The core claim of the Electric Universe -- the most important -- is simply that we can model cosmic plasmas as laboratory plasmas. Astrophysicists disagree, and instead model them as fluids subject to gravity. Yet, there is no fluid model which can ever accurately explain the behaviors of electricity and magnetism -- so where we see cosmic plasmas conducting, realize that the models in widespread use by astrophysicists today cannot explain this. By contrast, astrophysicists have rigidly stuck to claims that Debye shielding and quasi-neutrality undermine the notion of electricity in space. The recent announcements that electric currents travel along AGN (black hole) jets is an unacknowledged admission that Debye shielding and quasi-neutrality are meaningless conjectures. And those of us who have paid attention to concepts from the plasma laboratory understand that plasma double layers will make Debye shielding and quasi-neutrality meaningless (double layers are what allow the formation of complex macroscopic charge structures in plasmas). But, even though double layers have been definitively observed within both the plasma laboratory and even the Van Allen radiation belts, astrophysicists have refused to classify them as astrophysical entities. There have been a number of observations in recent years where scientists expressed surprise by some observation which was readily explainable with laboratory plasma physics concepts like double layers.

Those who are following the debate can see clearly how this is playing out; those who refuse to track it lack the context necessary to judge the debate's trajectory -- and these are the same people, imo, who have come to accept space as mysterious. Much of the mystery is actually introduced by the idea that gravity is dominating at the larger scales. The electrical cosmology approach generally treats gravity as a localized force which becomes irrelevant at the interstellar scale.

To go into more detail would take many more pages.

The EU arguments about cosmic plasmas can -- and actually have been -- put into mathematical terms by people who have no relation to the Electric Universe at all.

Re: "I have no idea what it is, specifically, that you're upset about that people won't accept as science."

Sort of. What I am actually arguing for is that people should track controversies over time. We need to crowdsource information about controversies, and what I promise is that if we do finally create such a system, it would boost the rate of innovation in the sciences across all disciplines.

The debate over electricity in space is merely a piece of a larger puzzle which speaks to our awkward interactions with scientific claims. That's at least how I view it. It is not the end of the story, and there is a lot of progress which can be made from merely studying the ways that people interact with scientific controversies. This is what I've been doing for 12 years now, and it's how I will design the social network which will eventually fix these problems.

It's important to stress that this is not an idea I came up with last night. My approach was to embed myself into the Thunderbolts Group, and then over the course of many years, I ran their claims directly against their biggest critics + the public. By observing the reactions to the same claims, many times over, you start to observe patterns. The point is not to say that this is all that is important; the point is that the social processes play an inordinate role in how people come to these conclusions. There is very little engagement with actual claims and technical details happening -- and this should to some extent alarm people -- because it should be clear that this is how groupthink can emerge.

Several studies have been released on this subject.

The IAEA, the Russian Federation has also produced a report, with the effects on males and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has also produced a report.

The question being What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?

One analysis revealed that in the study group, the number of follicles was lower than that in the control group. The decreased number of follicles in pups exposed to mobile phone microwaves suggest that intrauterine exposure has toxic effects on ovaries.

The general findings suggest that emissions from wi-fi routers and the X-ray scanners used before boarding have enough energy in them to damage the mitachondrial DNA within the unfertilized eggs carried in girls. Energetic emissions absorbed into the body damages reproductive cells in both sexes which causes transgenic diseases that can manifest in the next generation.

Damage to mitochondrial DNA in the eggs of girls, who are born with their entire inventory of eggs, occurs as low as 10 Gy according to some of the papers. Considering that any damage done to mitachondrial DNA will be passed down to *all* subsequent human generations as an increased prevalence of many kinds of inherited diseases, accumulating the more we are exposed to it, it shouldn't be too difficult to take a pragmatic view of this issue and decide what is really important to us.

Being pragmatic about what that means, wifi affects children more because they have a lower body mass than adults, that they need to keep their distance from wifi because they have less water, muscle and bone to shield their reproductive system, that schools should be cabled with fibre optic and ethernet instead of trying to scrimp installation costs with wi-fi. They're not difficult problems to solve by making simple construction and infrastructure decisions.

The thing we have to remember is we cook food with this wavelength all that differs is the wattage and time it takes to do the cooking. Yikes!

Lol, how did I know that that article's source was going to be Petra Östergren? Literally whenever anyone wants to claim anything against the Nordic Model, it comes down to her rantings ;)

Meanwhile...

The Swedish case thus seems to support the claim of a causal link from law to reduced trafficking. Furthermore, there are indications that traffickers consider the legal rules surrounding prostitution when choosing destination countries. For instance, Swedish police investigations using taped phone conversations show that traffickers have problems due to the Swedish law which criminalizes buying sex since; (i) time is lost because street prostitution is not viable; (ii) Swedish men fear being arrested which requires a lot of (costly) discretion; (iii) to avoid detection, several apartment brothels have to be used; this is costly and often requires more local contacts. Furthermore, victim testimonies have shown that traffickers prefer to operate in countries where prostitution is tolerated or legalized and the Latvian police have concluded that Latvian traffickers avoid Sweden due to the effect the Swedish law has on the profitability of their business (Ekberg 2004).

But hey, what's peer review when you can cite the unsupported minority opinion of a well known opposition activist...

The analysis revealed that in the study group, the number of follicles was lower than that in the control group. The decreased number of follicles in pups exposed to mobile phone microwaves suggest that intrauterine exposure has toxic effects on ovaries.

Your Nuclear ideology is immoral.

Not China. About four-fifths of all Chinese research is hidden from Western researchers eyes, and can only be viewed within China.

The most important Chinese research is published in English. This is one critical result; this is much more important work.

Not China. About four-fifths of all Chinese research is hidden from Western researchers eyes, and can only be viewed within China.

The most important Chinese research is published in English. This is one critical result; this is much more important work.

This Bullshit is why the Alarmists are doubted all the time.

The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.

      The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.

Roads are the very definition of a public good.

A congested road isn't a public good.

Everyone benefits from better roads, whether they drive on them or not. They bring goods to your store, food to your market, customers to your business.

That's true. Streets (roads with driveways) benefit the property owner like you said, and so streets should be financed with a street frontage fee. Then the property owner can decide how much street he/she wants to pay for.

Non-street roads benefit the traveler and therefore should be billed to the traveler.

Pay per use is horribly inefficient. You burden the poor...

False. In fact, the poor love pay per use, because it gets them out of paying taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes. Except maybe you.

You burden...those with the greatest distances to travel.

Yes, but what's the downside?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0202289316040071?no-access=true

Agreed. And last I heard, there was research into making the large batteries needed where volume & weight is no object (as would be the case for these static batteries) out of cellulose, aka wood fibers! https://link.springer.com/arti... As you mention, the amount of lithium needed is minimal, the insulating layer between the electrodes within the battery is a larger problem, however.

Which one, this one?

...we don't know the percentage of human/nature.

We do know. It's all caused by human activity. Solar output has been dipping slightly, so without the extra carbon dioxide that humans have produced, the planet would have cooled slightly. See for example this paper and references.

I'm asking what the studies that backs this TV segment actually tested, which you didn't answer and then proceeded to accuse me of group think and being incurious.

By the way, I checked and couldn't find any studies that support there being no innate gender differences (since that's the question we're trying to answer), only the ones that show the opposite.