Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/18/17 in all areas

  1. -Particles are entangled because a quantum state is entangled (like the spin of an electron). This can only happen because of some form of interaction. They will probably find several new ways of how particles or objects can interact to form entanglement...this will give more info concerning the range of separation in which particles or objects can get entangled at. -This concerns a model called Holographic Entangled Space time. According to this model...when you disentangle two regions in space then there appears energy which distorts the space...Energy is mass.(E=mc²) If this model is correct then there is a possibility that mass or energy can form because of the breaking of many body entanglement.
    2 points
  2. If you think that people get preferentially hired by ethnicity... that is not what happens. Neither statistic nor actual hiring practice support that. Rather, it is a bit of legislative thing here that is required to cover your arse. Essentially companies are prohibited to discriminate based on religion, race or gender and collecting information from applicants helps them to document that they are not doing that. For example if they can show that they only had a 10% application rate from women to begin with, they have some ammo to counter a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, for example. There are quite a few studies around where people sent out identical CVs and looked for calls for interviews or even simple assessment of fit. Rather consistently names associated with black people scored the lowest whereas white names got more callbacks. Gender difference is strongly associated with the type of jobs. Administrative jobs has higher callback for female names, management jobs has a bias for male names. To provide some numbers I have here randomly a paper (I really need to clean my desks at some point) from Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004 Am. Econom Rev) in which they sent out 5000 resumes using white and African American names, respectively. Throughout all job groups, the callback was consistently (on average 50%) lower for African American sounding names than for white names, using identical resumes. There are quite a few of those out there, but in all of them minorities were consistently evaluated lower. That is not to say that similar discrimination does not exist within racial groups. White names associated with lower social classes (more common in Europe) also score lower, for example. For your specific situation, if you are not an US citizen or have a greencard your options are, frankly, limited. Unless you are in a highly specialized profession with few experts, or having strong connections it will be very difficult to even make them look at your CV.
    2 points
  3. The following link might also be of interest to you, it is a bit more general than itoeros but points to the fact that all things could be entangled to a certain extent. It still does not answer your question ref range of seperation things can be entangled at. http://discovermagazine.com/2016/jul-aug/entanglement Itoero that link is incredibly interesting, the same arguments must exist in space also. Can matter form by the process of many body entanglement in space. Question mark
    2 points
  4. Today I learned that drones are being used to plant trees, lots of them. Apparently, 100 000 plants are planted daily just by drones. http://mymodernmet.com/biocarbon-engineering-drone-reforestation/
    1 point
  5. Take a look at the atomic force microscope, which is a further development of that principle. One of my favorite toys.
    1 point
  6. Today I learned about inverted river channels. In the Late Jurassic period, a network of braided rivers flowed across the Colorado Plateau in an area about 8 kilometers (5 miles) northwest of Hanksville, Utah. The rivers cut through layers of bedrock, chiseling valleys and depositing sand and gravel on their bottoms. Over the past 150 million years, geologic processes have reversed the area’s topography. The sandy deposits from the channel beds hardened into erosion-resistant caps of sandstone, while winds and water chewed away at the shale and claystone rocks on the river’s adjacent floodplains. Today, the shales and claystones have largely eroded and the sandy deposits that were stream channels are now sinuous ridges that rise above the landscape.https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79863 This is inverted relief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_relief
    1 point
  7. You would have to start with definition of morality or immorality. I would have to google what does it even means.. For everybody it means something else. For some people walking topless is immoral (according to their own personal definition). For some other people walking without Niqāb or Burqa is immoral.. (repeat question 7.5 bln times and you will have the all data, and it changes from century to century) If there would be created versatile AI and it would hear that somebody consider walking topless, or without face cover, is immoral, would probably get to conclusion that humans are nuts.. You would have to explain your AI, why walking naked in your own apartment/house/garden is "moral", and the same outside of some places, is "immoral" (and it's not constant, as some other people have no problem showing topless on the street in f.e. Africa or South America).
    1 point
  8. You're right. It's not wise to call your idea unsubstantiated. It's wise to call it completely and utterly unsubstantiated. 9 pages of circles and no evidence. My first post on the first page still stands.
    1 point
  9. No true Scotsman fallacy. Unless you believe every Christian who eats shellfish is not really a Christian: they have to follow every single part of a holy book to count as a 'true' religious' person. This is an extreme position to take for membership isn't it? More extreme than most Christians even.
    1 point
  10. I think you're wrong about statues being pieces of history, and that's why the rest of your stance seems arguable. "Sanitizing history" is a bad thing, and you've mistakenly grouped the removal of statues in that category. Statues aren't a plaque teaching history, they're objects of veneration, bigger than life and placed to inspire. Our societies and the reasons for our veneration change. It's not changing history to remove a statue. What changed was the veneration of that history due to how society views the actions currently. If a former hero on his horse who fought a brave battle back then is later found to have tortured the prisoners to death, you can still commemorate the brave battle without venerating the monster.
    1 point
  11. If someone did go ahead and, against your advice, put up a swastika now, would you oppose taking it down on historical grounds once it was up?
    1 point
  12. It would only work if one added a plaque or something to contextualize it. You don't think that putting up a swastika in Germany as a reminder of dark times would be giving the wrong idea? Edit: I realize that perhaps, you think, that there is enough distance so that people clearly see what the statues actually represent. As a counter I will remind you what the President said and the fact that he is echoing a non-trivial part of the population. The divide caused by racism is far from healed. Unless, of course you mean that it is a good symbolism for ongoing racism, which would be an extremely convoluted train of thought.
    1 point
  13. So replace each statue of a Confederate general with a statue of an enslaved person, or marchers being sprayed with fire hoses. If you really want to memorialize a dark period of history, memorialize the consequences, not the perpetrators.
    1 point
  14. There is a difference between a memorial and a monument. After the civil war a number of memorials were erected as symbols of mourning (often in graveyards. The next wave, however, were tributes to the confederacy and often intended to be a symbol of white supremacy placed half a century after the civil war. Historians have argued that especially placements of theses statues in front of court houses was a clear declaration of the power (im)balance. The equivalent would be to erect statues of prominent German WWII generals near synagogues in the year 2000. And, using a logic of another poster here, especially republicans should be keen to get rid of them. After all many of those, I assume, were built by then-democrats.
    1 point
  15. No you can't. As in, it doesn't work that way. Taking down a statue does not remove something from history. I don't see a lot of statues of Hitler around, and yet he's very much a part of history. Statues are there for admiration. We should not be admiring traitors. AFAICT, it's quite uncommon to do so.
    1 point
  16. No, the re-definition expresses that humans are Gods (that simulate universes such as illustris). That our particular universe is simulated is scientifically unfounded, and the definition does not approach that matter. The definition also underlines the probability that humans shall, given sufficient time, create cognitive machines that exceed humans in all cognitive tasks. Both hot air ballooning, and coarse fishing are evidencable, unlike the archaic God concept.
    1 point
  17. Removing venerations to Civl War Generals isn't whitewhiting historty. It is not usual to build monuments to ones belligerents. Battlefield memorials, museum displays, history books,and etc is how nearly every war is remebered in the U.S..We name schools, highways, parks, and so on after those we mean to pay great respect to in honor of their contribution to the nation. It is nonsensical to bestow that respect on those who committed treason and attempts to end the nation. Most of these Confederate venerations were put up well after the Civil War and in places of no reasonable relation to the Civil War. In Idaho they have a Robert E. Lee Creek in the the Boise National Forest and a Robert E. Lee campground in the capital. Idaho wasn't even a state during the Civil War. Idaho has no relationship to the Confederacy. The peak period of schools being named after confederates and parks being built was during civl rights. These things don't date back to the Civil War itself. This discussion reminds me a bit of past national conversations about the the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. There are always those who argue that the founders we religious and it alters or rewrites history to remove "under god" from the pledge. In reality the pledge was written in 1892 long after all the founders were dead and the "under god" part was added in 1954. The alternative history is including "under god" and not vice versa.
    1 point
  18. The concept of a God is potentially the subject of scientific study. It would be part of psychology. You do not start a scientific enquiry into something by changing the meaning of the words used to name that thing. Do you see why this statement doesn't make sense? I plan to undertake a study into the science of hot air ballooning- and by "hot air ballooning", I mean coarse fishing.
    1 point
  19. Perhaps we should rename the thread 'Reconciling Science and Handy Andy'; although I think the OP is easier.
    1 point
  20. That is the same page. It shows you are bullshitting. Really? Then please state the hypothesis, then show us the model, the predictions it makes and the experiments performed to test those predictions. Also, please explain what would falsify your idea. As you have not done any (and can not do) of these things, it is not science. Also, science is a lot more cautious in its approach than your arrogant posts. You will find phrases like "it appears that", "the evidence is consistent with", "more work is required" because real scientists know that their results are provisional and could be contradicted by further evidence. It was a sarcastic caricature of your "science". It is exactly as scientific (and stupid) as your redefinition of the word "god".
    1 point
  21. Science is not silly. The stuff you write is very, very silly. You write like a 14 year old. Actually, with all the colours, more like a 9 year old.
    1 point
  22. When I retired from engineering I took a job as the Science Teacher fora small Christian High School. One of the concessions I got from the school was that we would teach science using the best available secular textbooks-- No religious science books. At the next 'Parents Night' one of the parents asked me point blank how I could reconcile Science and religion. This was my answer: "You believe God created the World. In my classes the students will learn how the world works. In Religion class your students should learn how to make ethical use of what Science provides." The parents accepted this and we had no later issues.
    1 point
  23. I would also post this at Chemical Forums. I do not recall seeing anything like this.
    1 point
  24. You're very much mischaracterizing what waitforufo said in this thread.
    1 point
  25. There is a link between a temperature that is nearly 0 K and many body entanglement. "A many-body quantum system is cooled to zero temperature so that it is forced into its overall non degenerate ground state. We discuss the measurement of a sub-system Hamiltonian and demonstrate that it can be found in an excited state with a probability that depends on the coupling to its environment. This non-intuitive result is a pure quantum phenomenon" https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0311647.pdf
    1 point
  26. I thought this was about the tv show
    1 point
  27. That's always been clear; it was racists. Perhaps you should have pointed out that it was men who firmly ingrained racism into American culture and law. That would have been just as meaningful. What is much more important to note is who is firmly working to keep racism ingrained in American culture and law.
    1 point
  28. A memory bus transmits addresses plus requests and data in parallel, meaning memory addresses plus requests are transmitted in one clock from processor to bus over multiple wires that connect the memory subsystem. A processor can request various sizes of data from 8-bits to 128-bits, depending on program requirements. Thus, part of the memory subsystem splits wider data that cache and the memory subsystem transfer in a clock cycle into different sizes used by a processor. The cache and memory system may transmit huge words, for example 256 bits at a time. Chip designers try to match memory bandwidth with CPU chip performance, because multiple core chips can use more data than fewer cores. A memory bus has multiple connections to processors, just as your local home network has multiple connections. Each device has an address that the network manages. When a memory request comes from device 1 on the bus, the reply goes to device 1 on the bus. Similarly, device 2, 3, etc. send and receive requests and data.
    1 point
  29. The cache simply stores data that has been fetched (or written) so that if it is fetched again it will be quicker to access. The data is read from memory, store in the cache and also passed to the CPU (which knows what to do with it because of the ordering mentioned above). The cache stores the address the data came from (in a shortened form) along with the data. This works because data accesses tend to be local: if the program accesses variable x it is likely to access x (and the nearby y) again. The cache stores a whole "chunk" of data from around the fetched data so any nearby data will also be accessed more quickly in future.
    1 point
  30. Particles have to be indistinguishable with regard to the state that is entangled. i.e. if you entangle the polarization of photons, you can't have that polarization be associated with the direction of emission. That doesn't require co-location, but it makes the process easier. AFAIK, virtual particles have nothing to do with this. That is a separate topic.
    1 point
  31. Just to add a little to DrP's levity, i would define " nothing " as what my partner finds in her wardrobes when she's looking for something to wear, even though the wardrobes seem to me to be full of clothes. That apart, could " nothing " be defined as that which has no perceptible quality or quantity?
    1 point
  32. ! Moderator Note I see a lot of claims, but no citations. You have one chance to back up everything you've just said before this gets closed. Be mindful of the fact that this forum also has very strict rules on posting slurs against a group or groups of people. Much of what you've written is close to crossing the line, some of it is substantially over. We won't tolerate this. Stick to facts and scientific discourse, or you will find your time here very short lived.
    1 point
  33. From: http://currentaffairs.gktoday.in/bees-choose-flowers-landing-color-petals-07201414231.html As per a scientific study, Bumblebees select most nutritious flowers for providing best food for their young simply by looking at the colour of the petals even before landing on the flower. As bees do not ingest pollen unlike nectar while foraging on flowers, it has been unclear whether they are able to form associative relationships between what a flower looks like and the quality of its pollen. The study used bumblebee foragers housed under controlled conditions to test whether they do learn about flowers during pollen collection. The findings showed that bumblebees can individually evaluate pollen samples and differentiate between them during collection, quickly forming preferences for a particular type of pollen. They are able to detect differences in pollen, even before landing, which means they may be able to discriminate, just from the colour of the petals, which flowers are richer in nutritious content.
    1 point
  34. Hmm ... In Philosophical terms, I am not so sure that you cannot be a closed or open minded sceptic. Philosophical scepticism is not incredulity in the absence of proof - it is the belief that proof cannot be forthcoming in said particular scenario. I think one could be agreeable to persuasion regarding the possibility of empirical evidence (an open-minded sceptic) or be firm in one's conviction that proof cannot be forthcoming - perhaps misguidedly - and unable to be persuaded regarding any potential proof (a closed minded sceptic). To give an example - I do not believe in the possibility of scientific proof of the supernatural; because as soon as there is empirical evidence the phenomenon in question is no longer supernatural by definition (the supernatural part of it will probably have been shifted to one place more remote on a spectrum of abstraction). Scientific Rationalism / Scepticism is not the same thing really and is much more a term referring to the twin aspects of refusing to believe without evidence and the ability to be persuaded once evidence is presented.
    1 point
  35. Everyone else was doing a fine job of pointing out the OP's deficiencies. I criticised a portion of someone's post for a potential weakness in their style of criticism. Eise was perfectly free to accept or reject that criticism. It was offered in good faith. Ironically, I notice that rather than continue criticising the OP you would rather take potshots at my minor intervention. Note: I have broached my previous statement that I would not comment further on this in this thread, since your forum settings prohibit me from communicating with you by pm.
    1 point
  36. Apparently my own post lacked precision. I am contrasting your example (the black hole at the centre of the galaxy) where the implicit meaning would typically be evident, with this instance (Eise's response) where the implicit meaning may be ignored by the OP. I've restated my point with slight expansion. The OP has offered a rather garbled and seemingly unsubstantiated speculation. Experience suggests that the authors of such speculation may focus on apparent ambiguities or inconsistencies in any critiques that are offered in order to counter such criticisms. In these cases I believe it is worth taking a little more care and offering a little more precision when making the criticism in order to avoid such a counter attack. At the risk of being censured by the moderator team for an ad hominem here is my point in more robust language. The OP is talking nonsense in the medium of word salad. We shouldn't descend anywhere near this level and therefore should take extra care in how we phrase our criticism. Avoiding absolutes is a good way to start. It was a small aside. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. If you, Eise or anyone else wish to continue discussion about it I shall be happy to engage in a dialogue by pm, or in a thread set up for that purpose. I shall not reply further in this thread since the extended discussion is off-topic.
    1 point
  37. Superficially this appears to be a sound point. I suggest, however, that there is an important distinction between the instance I drew attention to here and the example you have given. In your example, if the statement is in the context of a discussion of galactic structure, or perhaps galactic evolution, then it is wholly reasonable to assume the implied caveat. However, in this instance we are discussing a speculation that, to be charitable, does not easily fit into consensus science. Experience suggests that the authors of such speculation may focus on apparent ambiguities or inconsistencies in any critiques that are offered. In these cases I believe it is worth taking a little more care and offering a little more precision. Perhaps we should now return to the topic of the thread and my apologies to Abnormally Honest for the deviation.
    1 point
  38. I think precision in language is important. I regret you took offense at the way I made that point. Your proposed solution is flawed, but I don't think either of us should lose any sleep over it.
    1 point
  39. Would it not be more accurate to say "All the empirical evidence I am aware of ............"?. The distinction is surely important else you risk being guilty of the logical fallacy, Argument from Ignorance.
    1 point
  40. ! Moderator Note Rule 2.10 says "Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations)." So posting this to the lounge is a rules violation. Further, since this does not conform to the rules of speculations, there's no point in continuing it there. I will go ahead and drop it down into the trash.
    0 points
  41. So, with respect to the boiling water thing, are you saying that you could measure the water boiling at 50C but the person standing next to you would see the same thermometer reading 100C? Actually, science doesn't say any such thing. You cannot prove they don't exist. All science can say is that every attempt to detect such things has failed.
    -1 points
  42. Not if it's true. maybe, but we don't know which is true.
    -1 points
  43. No, RangerX, but she was at a protest which included violent protesters ( and on both sides, look up Redneck Revolt ). But I don't see what any of this has to do with either J Trudeau, or S Harper. ( try to keep up )
    -1 points
  44. First time I've heard the word Orthography, but no proof-reader needed. One of my master's degrees is in journalism, and I was editor-in-chief of the UCLA Daily Bruin, etc., and so needed to discipline myself in the written word. But as to real life, I spent most of it developing and acquiring real estate, mostly shopping centers, and became a zillionaire who now looks around for intellectual mischief to get into. Happily so, having spent part of my adolescence with my Scottish immigrant family who during WWII needed to live in a converted chicken coop.
    -1 points
  45. What lacks meaning to you in this particular scenario? Does the fact that humans simulate our cosmos (i.e. illustris) lack meaning to you? Does the fact that God persisted in archaic science lack meaning to you? (Hint?: Even if you're atheistic, God concept still has meaning in archaic science) Does the fact that science facilitates updating of its models, (such that myths are purged etc) lack meaning to you? FOOTNOTE: What do you mean by meaning? For example, it is valid to express that life has scientific meaning (See wikipedia source). (where said meaning constitutes scientific descriptions on the origin of life, ultimate fate of the universe - heat death, etc) Why did I ask you about about meaning? Prior conversations with others, have revealed that they possess some pre-conceived notions of "meaning" that may block them from immediately clearly observing facts, like the wikipedia source underlined in the sentence above.
    -1 points
  46. See this url (posted/edited several minutes before your response above): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method To begin, you need observe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_scientific_inquiry The scientific method was utilized to update the archaic God concept, in modern science terms, as is typical of science. The redefinition is not constrained to archaic descriptions, and so omniscience, etc is purged. How is your quote above relevant to the OP? Remember to see source 1, and source 2, to begin.
    -1 points
  47. I'm sorry iNow but could you explain where your underlined rhetoric is coming from? I mean who would you expect to be at the heart of the KKK - black females? Plus your statement that "White males are at the heart of current extremism" is false from the global, political and religious point of view of whats going on with extremism right now globally. When looking at it just from the point of view of the US this statement seems at least weird as well. I'm curious, which groups are more likely to get hired in the US? I'll tell you this...While looking for a job recently, I applied to probably a couple of thousand job offers in various countries including a 100 or maybe 150 jobs in the US in the last few months. Every single job offer that I applied for in the US was asking for my ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to other countries where I never got asked about my ethnicity, gender or religion. Kinda makes you think doesn't it.
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.