Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/15/17 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    Puerto Rico agrees. Black athletes agree. The anti-fascist movement agrees.
  2. 5 points
    I use to post on this forum under the forum handle In My Memory between 2005 and 2007. I know it's a long time ago and few people either know or care who I was, but I want to apologize for my behavior back then. In short, I was a compulsive liar and a relentless narcissist. Let me unpack this in detail: Any single statement I made regarding my education, occupation, life, family, hobbies, or experiences was false. At the time when I posted on this forum, I was not capable of telling truths whether big or small. I was fully and completely aware that I was a compulsive liar in the clinical sense of the term. The compulsive lying started when I was very young. Without going into details, I grew up in a household where my parents hit and screamed as a first resort at the smallest, slightest annoyance. I spent my entire childhood tiptoeing around my parents' razor thin patience and angry outbursts. When they raised their voice at me, I lied as a defense mechanism to escape punishment. In time, the lying became so habitual that I couldn't talk to them without falsifying some fact or detail, no matter how small. If they asked me if I ate cereal for breakfast, I would say I had a bagel. If they asked me why I seemed tired, I would say I wasn't. If they asked me what I did at school, I'd tell a story about having lunch and a nice conversation with friends; when in actuality, I didn't talk to anyone because I had no friends. And so on in that fashion ad infinitum. This carried on into adulthood: anyone who engaged me would get an earful of embellishments and false memories. I occasionally lied for sport, saying outlandishly false things just to amuse myself. Predictably, I did screw up and lost friends, trust, and credibility along the way. I burned a lot of bridges. It took me a long time to realize why I did this, but the short version was that I was deeply sad and crushed by inferiority. I did not handle these feelings in a healthy way: I lied constantly to bolster my own ego and feel important for a change. I found it incredibly, stupidly easy to slip into the compulsive lying habit behind the anonymity of the internet. For years, I role-played personas on various internet forums. I weaved long, detailed back stories into my characters. All of my characters were idealized, implausibly talented, wishful versions of myself. The persona on this forum was a financial analyst struggling to hold her marriage together. Despite being an "idealized" version of myself, I was positively venomous at times. I deliberately tried to get under people's skin, broke people down to build up my ego, used narcissism as a weapon. I do not want to deflect responsibility for my behavior by psychoanalyzing it away. I was aware of what I was doing and in control of my actions the entire time. I take full ownership of everything I've done and said. I cannot express how deeply, irrevocably ashamed I am for my past behavior. I sincerely, earnestly express my regret and apologies. -- With that in mind, I also want to emphasize that I have mellowed out considerably in the past decade. I am self-aware and deeply introspective regarding my own behavior and the direction which my life unfolds. Consequently, I took deliberate steps to become a better person and manifest my idealized self; I decided that compulsive lying was incompatible with the person I wanted to be. I never sought the help of a counselor (I don't think I could have engaged one honestly even if I wanted to), but I was strongly self-motivated to police the things I say to people. I slipped up frequently at first, but I found that the less I lied, the less I needed to do so, and eventually I was able to talk to people in a completely transparent, truthful manner. I've also put a lid on my narcissistic streak and no longer swing my ego around like a wrecking ball. I've wanted to get this off my chest for years. Best wishes, IMM
  3. 4 points
    Here's another visualization of what walking around the spinning square would be like, showing 1 full side and part of two others:
  4. 4 points
    I am happy to credit Lincoln with abolishing slavery although today Republicans are the party of choice for white supremacists.
  5. 4 points
    "Scientific proof" is like "iridium glider" or "library tuba" or "poisoned vitamins". If you're looking for any of these things, you're missing the point completely.
  6. 3 points
    Since there is no science that claims that life came about by random chance*, this is moot. Which leaves us with a question: can God make a straw-man so big he can't move it? *the outcomes of chemistry are not random
  7. 3 points
    Ironically, under the title “time does not exist” it says “posted three hours ago”.
  8. 3 points
    Note that you mention harassment while the quote was about sexual assault. In these cases women are ~10 times more frequently victims than men in most statistics. Notably, most males are victims of other males, perhaps for obvious reasons. Now harassment is quite a different issue, and the gender difference is lower (women experience it ca. 3x more often). A typical lifetime statistic in the USA shows something like 50% of women experience harassment and about 15% of men. The rate goes up for both genders in male-dominated environments (e.g. according to DOD data 2014 ~79% of women and 35% of men), again pointing to a leading role of men as perpetrators. I am not sure where you are going with this, though.
  9. 3 points
    No. Instead say, "Want quick-read threads? Vote YES!" l personally dislike the idea. Forcing science discussions to be short goes against the nuanced and layered information structure of most explanations of natural phenomena. This is exactly why pop-sci articles cause as much trouble as they do to spur interest in the sciences. An explanation or argument should take as long as it takes. I think we already have a Quick Question thread for simple answers. I'm not sure what the objective is for a whole subforum of it, but if it attracts those who can't be bothered to read details, it sounds like it will mostly be good for dragging our reputation down as a serious science discussion site.
  10. 3 points
    1) For sterilizing vaccines like MMR, a minimum compliance rate required to eradicate disease, especially in the last "mile" (i.e. when the disease is persistent at very low incidence rates) is very high e.g. >99% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3720046/ This means that even extremely low rates of non-compliance increase the disease burden on the population as a whole. We need assess our endgame with regards to vaccination - is it a maintenance program that we continue indefinitely, or is the goal disease eradication? If it's the latter compliance enforcement may be necessary. 2) A proportion of the population is immunocompromised such that they either cannot be vaccinated (e.g. HIV patients, selective IgA patients, etc) or have had their immunity eroded (e.g. chemotherapy patients, organ transplant recipients, etc). These are the people most at risk due to a transmissible infection. If we are comparing to smoking, it IS legislated against in instances where it affects others - in public buildings, restaurants, on planes, etc. The difference of course being that one can decide not to smoke for a period of time, but one cannot switch on or off their vaccine acquired immunity. So do we legislate people who choose not to vaccinate out of public spaces permanently, or do we legislate to enforce compliance?
  11. 3 points
    I am not quite as positive about that. Certain groups, including the Hamas are fueling their power by declaring that the peace negotiations are biased against Palestinians. Often, they were forced to the negotiation table in order to demonstrate they themselves were not acting in bad faith. This step pretty much confirms to the Arab world that the negotiations were biased from the get go. My take is that this move is likely to empower the radicals while diminishing the influence of moderating forces.
  12. 3 points
    Not quite, Physics is never about defining reality. We leave that task to philosophers lol. One thing I always stress is a field is an abstract device. A field is precisely a treatment under geometric basis, where every coordinate is assigned a function. That function will provide either a scalar or vector/spinor quantity. Now that is clarified onto particle themselves. Its no mystery that everyday objects are comprised of particles. The coupling strength of the EM force provides us our sense of solid. Everyone pretty much understands this. However most people run into difficulty letting this "solid thinking" go when it comes to the quantum realm. They look for that solidity in particles. The wave particle duality teaches us that a particle has both wavelike and pointlike characteristics. However they tend to confuse two key aspects. The wavelike characteristic in this instance is not the probability waves. The probability waves simply provide the probability of locating said particle in point of detail the probability wave can have any number of particles. The particle excitation defined by the Compton wavelength for force particles and the Debroglie wavelength for the matter particles. For the matter particles when the pointlike characteristic becomes meaningful, the region of said particle is DeBroglie wavelength. Now each of these two waveforms have distinctive cutoff points except the HUP makes it tricky to pin down as it will always be inherently fuzzy due to the HUP. These two wave are akin to physical waves not probability So lets ask some questions. 1) the electron is a fundamental particle, it is not made of smaller particles. Yet has no internal structure. So lets think about that for a minute. How can a solid electron not be made up of smaller particles if it is solid ? 2) How does a solid particle pop in and out of existence, from where and how ? the novice tends to think quantum tunneling but that is wrong. 3) if you supercool an electron to a Bose Einstein state, why does it no longer appear spherical but becomes squiggly lines ? 4) How can a neutrino pass through a 1000 lightyears of lead without being deflected. It should hit another solid particle at some point. Simple statistics tells is that. Now lets borrow a passage from a condensate state article. "When this happens, the sample undergoes a phase transition: a Bose Einstein condensate forms. Because the particles in the BEC are all in a single quantum state (i.e. the ground state), they can be described by a single wavefunction. The constituent particles in a BEC can thus be likened to a ‘superatom,’ a system in which thousands or even millions of atoms behave like a single particle. The phase transition can be understood in terms of the particles’ thermal de Broglie wavelength." Now this indicates that particles can and do alter their waveforms and become indistinguishable from one another. This condition is thermal equilibrium. How would that be possible if different particle types are solid? When you start examining the body of evidence it becomes more and more clear that particles are precisely that "Excitations" and not solid. With excitations particle production answers all the above questions. The pointlike characteristic is indeed the DeBroglie wavelength. This is what any QM related field teaches us and experiments reflect. Nor are they made of Strings, that is not what String theory teaches. Here is the random grab BEC paper I borrowed that quote from. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://massey.dur.ac.uk/resources/mlharris/Chapter2.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiVt4vUw_HXAhUQyWMKHQ91DtMQFggkMAE&usg=AOvVaw1DHUh-BTAMS7yr-2lNfTFf A little sidenote you will be amazed how much easier physics becomes to understand when you can discard looking for "solid" or a fundamental cause where everything starts. Though by understanding potential differences between regions (anistropy is an immense help). As well as thinking of charge (attraction/repulsion) of any type as vectors.
  13. 3 points
    Just for the fun of it, here's the square habitat done with stair steps to make it easier to walk around the interior since near the corners, the slope approaches 45 degrees. The simulated gravity will be ~41% higher at the corners than it is in the middle of each side, so you would be dealing with more "weight" as well as a steeper incline there. Maybe it's just me, but there's something very "Esher-esque " about this image.
  14. 3 points
    This is classic Republican strategy. If the EPA makes your businesses jump through hoops just to protect citizens, put someone in there who will mess it up good. Same with Education, same with FEMA (remember Katrina?), same with all the watchdog agencies that are there to protect us against just such people and tactics. I've worked with facilities that manufacture medical diagnostic equipment. All of them have to meet an enormous amount of regulations to satisfy FDA that their products meet federal requirements. And while all of them bitch about it, I never heard a single one of them say that NOT doing it would be better. It would be less work for them, but they all seemed to understand that their products are successful BECAUSE they're held to such high standards. In fact, in some areas like disposables, they worked to exceed the federal requirements just so they could brag about it. The villianaires that are trying to hobble our government aren't interested in fairness, they're interested in more profit. I hate this strategy even more than when Bush II implemented because it also weakens us in EXACTLY the way Putin/Russia benefits most from, which I'm sure is just coincidence. The conservative fears going around the world are aiding the Russians in keeping allies apart and isolating strong countries like the US and Germany. We're in trouble, and Trump is giving away or spoiling most of our best relationships while he pits his base against the rest of the citizenry IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. He's the greatest American Russia has ever produced, or he's doing a top-shelf imitation of it.
  15. 3 points
  16. 3 points
    OK I can see I have a bit of work cut out for me here. OK lets start with the problem of "Where does the energy come from". Well energy is simply a property that is defined by the ability to perform work. So it doesn't need to come from anywhere, it doesn't need to be created but simply emerges for various applications. Start with Potential energy: "In physics, potential energy is the energy possessed by an object because of its position relative to other objects" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy So by merely changing the position of one object compared to another I change the potential energy.... Kinetic energy: "In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy Now what about mass? Mass "is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass So looking at those statements Does energy need to exist in the first place or does it simply develop as field anisotropies develop via potential differences between two or more measurement points ? much like voltage in electrical circuits? Now as for the universe temperature. There is a very important relation between the density of particles in a given volume. This is simply the ideal gas laws in play. Yes pv=NRT. If you take x number of particles and compress them, the temperature will increase. To do otherwise would violate the laws of thermodynamics... In Cosmology applications the temperature follows a very interesting relation it is the inverse of the scale factor. [math]a=\frac{1}{T}[/math] that is a direct application of those ideal gas laws I just mentioned above. The question of the laws of physics becoming invalid in BH's depends on how one defines those laws of physics. In mathematical precision its when symmetry can no longer be applied. It would take a bit to fully describe that under math as it requires an understanding of various notations many aren't accustomed to but if you like I can readily post the mathematical descriptive.
  17. 3 points
    You should be aware that comments like these: . Don't exactly square with conclusions like these: And that’s just in THIS thread so far. The case against your conclusion becomes even stronger upon a cursory search of your comments in other discussions.
  18. 3 points
  19. 3 points
    Ah! I see the problem now - you are only about 5 years of age!... well, you are very intelligent for a junior! Well done for thinking about such things. Ask your teacher to explain it to you and they can show you with a diagram how the suns incident rays on the earth are parallel. If you still don't understand it then re address the topic in a few years when you've grown up a bit, learnt a little science, and you might grasp it then.
  20. 3 points
    The politics of Black Holes ? Why is there a political/religious undercurrent to anything we discuss here ? Next thing someone will be comparing D Trump's divisiveness to Dark Energy separating everything at an increasing rate.
  21. 3 points
    It often is; it certainly is if they got where they are by inheriting a company, or by getting away with sharp practice, or they happened to choose VHS rather than betamax, or they took over an existing company, or they were in the position of having a powerful friend block a competitor. You say "You make the company, or the employer pay more taxes...." And then you forget the important bit. Why is that? Is it that you don't want to acknowledge it? Anyway- since you won't look at the real world, I willpoint it out for you. You make them pay more tax and then you (as the state) use that money to do things like build roads (which practically no employer can afford) which allow the business to distribute the goods it makes. And you use it to build and run schools- so that the business can benefit from having a better educated , better trained workforce. And you use it to provide healthcare so that the business benefits from a healthier workforce- they work better , worry less and have better attendance. And so on. Now it's true that a big employer could, in principle, do any of those things. But big employers like that are rare. A government gets all the benefits of ensuring that nobody shirks their share and they also get economies of scale which no other mechanism would allow. So, there are lots of benefits that you simply ignored. You say "Rich people are not our enemies, they are the holders of the means of production." The two clauses are unrelated to eachother They often hold the means of production for no good reason except luck. When they club together and ensure that they get all the money and leave the rest in poverty then yes, they absolutely are the enemy. (and they have). https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/hope-despair-inequality/421806/ I doubt that, but let's look at the alternative- the usual system that people consider is the "flat tax" rather than a progressive tax rate. It's not hard t show why it's bad for everyone. Imagine a group of people- it could be a country but it's easiest to show the reasoning with a small group- say a small town. They decide that they want a "thing" again, it doesn't matter what the thing is- a school, a park, a hospital, a statue to the town's founder- whatever. The distribution of salaries in most places is fairly similar. A few people earning a lot, many earning in the middle and a few earning very little. For simplicity there are 100 people in town. 3 earn a million a year, 5 earn just 10,000 and the rest earn 20,000. The cost of living is 9000 a year. So, let's see what happens with a flat tax. Clearly you can't set it higher than 1000 a year, because that would kill the poorest families. So, the tax income for the town can't exceed 100,000. Sadly, the Thing the town want costs 200,000. OK, let's consider a progressive tax of 5% The poorest families are still alive- which is a good thing. In fact, they are better off- they pay 500 rather than 1000 as they would under the flat tax system. They contribute 1500 between them. The "middle class" each pay 1000 and there are 98 of them, and that's another 98000 in the town's kitty, and the rich pay 50,000 each so that's 150,000 to add in. So the overall tax collected is 249500. Because they recognised the problem with flat tax they can buy the Thing and live happily ever after. (and, in case you are wondering, yes, sure, one of the 3 rich guys could simply have paid for the Thing, but it would have cost him 200,000 and this way he gets it for 50,000) Please do not ever try to tell us that progressive tax is a bad thing. (unless, of course, you think truth doesn't matter)
  22. 3 points
    waitforufo has been suspended a week for his pattern of posting innuendo and soapboxing to incite emotional response, rather than engaging in fact-based discussion.
  23. 2 points
    "Unlikely" is probabilistic terminology. Indeed, the so-called Fermi Paradox is said to be based on probabilistic argument: Drake equation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation Lets have a look how the probability in question is calculated. From wiki: We can see immediately, or we can read it in wiki, that number of parameters are speculative with ranges varying greatly. Then the question to me is, how useful such estimation of probability is and if its possible to base any sound argument, the so-called Fermi Paradox in particular, on it.
  24. 2 points
    Delusion? Self-deceit? Communities of likeminded lemmings? Simply saying “goddidit” explains nothing, except (of course) the human proclivity for accepting simple inaccurate answers instead of facing hard truths and existing contentedly with uncertainties about challenging questions. Define “god.”
  25. 2 points
    These days, I give green to people who do their best to facilitate a reasoned discussion. I also reward clever, funny, and of course, really great mainstream science explanations. Too many people are so interested in "winning" an argument that they'll use really poor and obviously fallacious reasoning, so they get red from me. I give red to those who seem willful in their ignorance, asking for but then rejecting good science in favor of some pet idea. I give red to folks who don't understand the difference between critical analysis and personal attacks, and get rude about it. I give red to those who start with a decent question about science and then spend the rest of the thread trolling about how others treated their question. I don't give red for wrong answers. I don't give red because someone disagrees with me. I don't give red usually unless the behavior was pretty blatant. I give green to counteract someone else's red if I think it was done in retaliation for not agreeing with them. Those are always easy to spot,.
  26. 2 points
    Sexual harassment is against the law. Sexual assault is a crime. So let's dispense with the fiction that unlawful behavior is not in play here. We've talked to our daughters for generations. Maybe we should be talking to our sons, since they are the ones exhibiting the objectionable behavior. Women get talked to about how to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable situations, but men do not get the same institutional dialogue on not assaulting or harassing women. You are painting this with a very broad brush. Have you considered that women who seek out power (in your terms) are not the ones coming forth with harassment claims? Have you considered that the reason some women might go to some lengths to improve their appearance is because that's the only way they can advance with men in power? Because they have no power to do so on merit alone? Do you really think men kept their hands to themselves back when "women wore hats"? Far more many women have been assaulted and/or harassed. The straw man here is couching this as "playing the victim" which implies that there was no inappropriate behavior in the first place. Anyone who has been harassed or assaulted is not "playing the victim". The situations under discussion are not treated the same way as most other crimes. If someone is burgled, the reaction of bystanders is not "Why do you own such fancy stuff? You were asking for it to be taken!" The police generally do not dissuade you from trying to press charges. People don't rush to the defense of the burglar, saying how he's such a nice guy, and why are you trying to ruin his reputation? So this is not so simple as "innocent until proven guilty" and should not be cast as such.
  27. 2 points
    None, thank you alien friend. We'll never learn for ourselves otherwise. How about comparing notes on maths and art?
  28. 2 points
    That's what eradication means. If it were not present anywhere on the planet it would be extinct. Please improve your reading comprehension:
  29. 2 points
    At least not according André Maeder, University of Geneva: Interesting. Let's wait and see.
  30. 2 points
    An object may be reflective to visible light but absorb heat producing wavelengths in the UV or IR range.
  31. 2 points
    So, to be explicit, a shiny object will (all other things being equal) be less hot than a matt black object. However, a shiny object might be more likely to be made of metal than say plastic and so may feel hotter to the touch because it is a better conductor. (I will suggest that the mods move this to Physics)
  32. 2 points
    Because Dalo want's to display an image on the screen, not burn a hole in it ??
  33. 2 points
    Looks like it might be more than a bit weird!
  34. 2 points
    Bilbos Danny!!! I said Bilbos!!!
  35. 2 points
    angular speed is the same, linear speed is greater
  36. 2 points
    You've got to be kidding me; someone who has more money than he/she needs can't be bought??? WTF Why do you think they need to buy a bigger Yacht? Someone who is content with what they have, can't be bought; anyone who wants a bigger anything is bought every day.
  37. 2 points
    You regularly amaze me with the ignorance you show of how the world works. Do you not think the mother would feed the child if she could? Maybe she doesn't bother because she is black and lazy eh? You are either wilfully ignorant of the plight of the poor or just plain incapable of understanding their problems. He or someone asked you to say what policies the pres has implemented that impressed you so much as you were saying how great he was. What policies has he bought in that make him so great in your eyes? We don't want to know what he has tweeted or said in a speech.... what has he actually done legislatively? I think that was the question - apologies if I am wrong.
  38. 2 points
    Hi. I hope what you've written you find cathartic and can now draw a line under that chapter of your life to start a new one that will leave behind positive thoughts and memories of yourself.
  39. 2 points
    The coin analogy is brilliant man!!!! Thank you very much for that one!!!! Brilliant!!! I don't know.... further more, what if it's a country on an alien homeworld that you claim as an alien to have brought to Earth. And we don't even know of the planet nor of your species. How would I test? Check metal components? But they could be the same because your people might believe in traditional metalurgy..etc. That is a great question!!! As for Earth-only sim, well if a physical being exists, in both scenarios, than the sim would either use more or less resources than the real world, but never the same. If I play soccer in the real world it uses x resources. But in a sim it may use far less because it's all mental, or if it's an augmented sim thing it may use more or less, depending on who coded the sim and for what purpose. I think the key is some sort of resource allocation of the physical beings utilization of food and heat and so forth. But I'm not a scientist. Just a concept I'm playing with for a story. You obviously, for example, couldn't test the physics as they would be identical in an identical-sim. So yeah you are right. If we can not test it, then it doesn't matter. I think that's the gist we both agree on? So you're right, it is a "stupid" idea in that it's irrelevant as it can not be tested. Obviously the dude in Minecraft can not test what I as the player am doing or thinking, right? So it is dumb. But, if the admins of the sim and if it is a sim have an agenda against the player(s) then it is worth knowing if it is a sim by whatever method is available to the player. I guess in essence it's a question of if you're an agent is the system against you? Hahahaha
  40. 2 points
    Yet more bullshit from the queen of denial. Franken openly invited an ethics inquiry and will accept his lumps for the minor transgressions he was involved with, while Dictator Trump and Molester Moore get a pass for advocating sexual assault in the workplace and molesting/threatening youth. Your little jihad against liberalism fails again, miserably.
  41. 2 points
    The scale factor time derivitaves are simple ratios. The scale factor today is 1 you compare the radius at the time you wish to examine and compare it to the radius today. If for example the radius then is 1/2 the radius today. Then [math] \ddot{a}(t)=0.5[/math] it is as simple as that. If you have 3 dots then you compare to two dots. If two dots compare to 1 dot. They are just ways to keep track of the sequence of time comparisons
  42. 2 points
    Sigh. Luckily, you don't need to depend on me being there. Science uses theories based on evidence: https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section3/bigbang.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Summary http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html https://sciencing.com/temperature-universe-during-big-bang-4822.html https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123101622.htm http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l1.html http://casswww.ucsd.edu/archive/public/tutorial/BB.html http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/bb/bb.html
  43. 2 points
    31.5 million. She said half, and he got ~63 million votes. The thing is, the truly deplorable ones say the same thing. They just want to MAGA. They claim to be patriots. But we can see what their vision of "great again" is by their actions. Their vision is white, straight, and Christian (among other things), none of which is founded on the constitution, and how can one be a solid citizen if one rejects the tenets of the constitution? Your habit of making claims based on no associated evidence whatsoever has gotten tiresome. Is there a house or senate bill in the works that is proposing to disallow burning coal? Is this happening in places that have legalized recreational pot smoking? (IOW, do you have evidence to back up your assertion?) Evidence? (while we know for a fact that Trump has disclosed classified material to foreign adversaries) As opposed to Trump, who has not stood up to Putin. Based, again, on no evidence whatsoever. What if we passed a law outlawing straw man arguments? Really? You know this...how? Marital rape, OTOH, is illegal in all 50 states. Regardless of your political affiliation. (and see how easy it is to back up a factual claim? You should try it sometime.)
  44. 2 points
    Godel killed Hilbert's dream a nearly century ago. Firstly you still haven't answered this. Did you or someone else disprove Godel's two theorems whilst I was in the bath?
  45. 2 points
    In different countries coma and dot can delimiter thousands and fraction part. It depends on operating system language and country settings and custom application preferences (if it allows override global settings). Machine can be shared by couple persons from different regions of the world. f.e. 1,000.0 means 1 thousand for one person in one country, but for somebody else 1,000 means 1. Imagine situation, stock market investor, or stock broker (freshly hired and not used to different delimiters), will use "1,0 mln" he will try to sell 1 millions of shares in one country, but in 2nd country it will mean 1000 mln = 1 bln of shares. Instant bankruptcy and/or collapse of worldwide stock markets (at least few minutes collapse, like in Flash Crash accident) Some programmers hardcode delimiters they are used to, and some others don't even know that different regions of the world use different delimiters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark (in the middle of Wikipedia article there is world map by delimiters)
  46. 2 points
    Damn xeno-asteroids, taking our gravity away.
  47. 2 points
    Because I can. Whataboutism in whatever trolly format shouldn't stand, no less an OP on a science forum with rules governing that sort of thing.
  48. 2 points
    This might help: Like Swansont is suggesting need to consider the convex lens and cornea of the eye. If you have a magnifying glass or a farsighted friend, you can see the image flip for yourself.
  49. 2 points
    Nuclear energy is no more "free energy" than throwing a match into a pool of gasoline is. It takes less energy to strike the match than is released by the burning gasoline. Burning gasoline releases energy that is stored in the chemical bonds of the gasoline, when the gasoline runs out, so does the energy. Nuclear fission releases energy that is stored in the nuclear bonds of the fissionable material. When the fissionable material is used up, the energy release stops. The admonition against "free" energy, doesn't mean that you can not release energy already stored and get more energy out than it took to release it, it means that it is not possible to get more energy out than in by using a method that does not rely on using up an energy store. In this context a free energy device is one that would run forever without consuming any resources.
  50. 2 points
    Please don't fall into the trap of thinking some physical pain has to be manifested in order to hurt someone. http://www.indiewire.com/2017/11/matthew-weiner-louis-ck-harassment-victims-1201895994/ These women were pressured professionally to keep their mouths shut. Their lives were reduced because of the actions of this man.