Leaderboard

It breaks down to how one describes something as outside a model. The only correct answer is "Can the mathematical basis, provide an accurate prediction" So having a model that without any changes to its underlying mathematical formalism. Then applying those same rules, (in this case the Eightfold Wayen, via the conservation laws of the Eightfold baryon octect and meson nonet. Ie charge, spin, parity, mass, energy/momentum, color, isospin, flavor. Think that's all of em but might be missing one or teo) Anyways the mathematical basis behind these conservation laws, provide us with the means to predict what particles are possible. So simply detecting one that the Eightfold Wayen can and did predict isn't new beyond finally being able to measure it. Something outside the standard model would require something ie a new conservation law etc, that the current mathematical basis cannot answer/nor predict. As far as Pentaquarks are involved I for one read the mathematical basis for their prediction long before finally being measured.

Seriously? What is difference between trying to figure out how to sleep at night when dogs are barking, and how to achieve spiritual calm?

Oh I didn't know that. If humans can't hear it, it seems like an appealing option. If the dogs can troll me all the time, I can troll them a little bit as well.

My understanding is that you could do it whenever you hear barking even during the day to try and train them. The advantage of a dog whistle is that it's annoying as hell to dogs but humans can't hear it. On a related note after my PhD I can't sleep without listening to a podcast or radio. I started doing it as a distraction from thinking constantly about research and just not sleeping. Got to pick the right show, something with short sections that you don't get invested in.

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/webprogram/Paper81031.html http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/pluto-alive-where-heat-coming http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AGUFM.P51A2044W I would appear that tidal heating and a possible geological recent impact are the two contenders at the moment...

You may find it "ironic" that Canada is interested in encouraging people to reproduce yet have a healthcare system the provides contraception but I think that view distorts the purpose of what's provided. The majority number of women use birth control for reasons other than pregnancy avoidance. While condom use is important for STD protection which is critical to having a healthy population capable of reproduction. Bringing the importance of planned vs unplanned pregnancies into this only muddies the waters. It implies a direct relationship between a nations birth rate, outcomes, and the use of birth control. Can you provide a citation that such direct connections exist? "Among the reasons for using oral contraception other than the most obvious one are reducing cramps associated with periods, regulating periods, which for some women can prevent menstrual-related migraine headaches. Other uses include controlling endometriosis, a condition in which uterine tissue grows outside the uterus, and reducing bleeding due to uterine fibroid tumors. Some women also use birth control pills to control acne. In fact, the study found, most women who use the pill use it for multiple reasons. Only a minority — 42 percent — said they used it exclusively for contraception." http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/11/15/142358413/the-pill-not-just-for-pregnancy-prevention

Beavers have been reintroduced into Scotland. I believe a handful of bird species have also been reintroduced. There are moves to reintroduce wolves and lynx. These efforts to restore a recent, or damaged ecology are, I think, ethical. Attempts to restore damaged ecologies by cloning species that are now extinct would be analogous to this and would, therefore, be ethical. I am less certain about attempts to clone species whose environment is no longer extant and which would therefore be confined to laboratories, zoos or small nature reserves. That said, I really miss the ammonites!

The same was said of surgery, especially on the human heart which was considered untouchable.

That helps in the case where pressures are also a problem ( as in The Abyss ). Otherwise, what's wrong with a supplied air respirator, or SCBA. It keeps everything other than 'fresh' air out, and, since it's external, it can be removed without coughing up a gallon or more of liquid.

And that one example was solidly within the standard model; predicted decades ago. I'm sorry you don't like being challenged. But if you post factually incorrect statements, then I will challenge it.

In all fairness, the OP has reached his newcomer temporary post limit and stated that he cannot answer at the moment. (We have seen this before). He also said (several times) that he would answer questions about his wording and hypothesis My only other post here was to take him at his word and ask a simple polite question about one particular aspect of this. I await the response with interest, when he is allowed to post this response.

But... that is just linguistic trickery to avoid answering the question. After all, magnetodielectric subterranean trans-euclidean anapraxic field hypergeometry tells us all we need to know.

I think Janus' post was a bit short and may lead to false impressions so here is a longer version. I was the Romans who are credited with being the first to apply the principle of the arch, although they didn't properly understand it. They believed the arch had to be circular in shape to work successfully. To emphasise that this is not true I have used quite pointy ellipses in my diagrams. Fig1 shows the principle that direct normal (perpendicular) loads can be transformed into tangential stresses within a body. The figure shows a complete ellipse, as with an egg, but again this is not necessary, although it explains how radial forces can be directed into a self sustaining loop of circumferential forces. But a light bulb is not a complete loop of glass. So Fig 2 shows that we must suppl;y stout abutments or springings at the palces where the circumference terminates. These abutments must be able to supply the reaction forces to the outward pointing circumferential forces at each termination point of the circumference. There must be at least two such points and they are labelled A and B in the figure. Note the abutments are shown as faces perpendicular to the circumference. In the case of the light bulb the abutments are provided by the sides/faces of the metal base of the bulb. Obviously we can't block off the space under an arch bridge so bridge arches require separate abutments. Equally we know that bridges support quite heavy loads travelling over them so the system is capable of supporting unevenly distributed loads. So it cnnot be the differnce in pressure alone that breaks the bulb. So how does it break? Well Fig3 shows how the situation changes when the load is unevenly distributed. So far all the forces have been direct forces. Just two forces F1 and F2 are shown with one greater than the other, and they are still direct forces. Since the forces act in the same direction they do not form a couple. But because one is greater than the other their moments about the midpoint between them are not equal. So uneven loading leads to bending moments within the supporting circumference shell. Glass is particularly weak in bending. So it breaks.

Why start a topic on how insurance works? The concept is very simple. Insurance is a means by which people pay expenses. Since we are talking about medical expenses in this topic, let's narrow the conversation to that type of expense. Let's start by defining just what the expenses are and then talk about how they are paid. Medical expenses are simple. Every person providing a medical service has to be paid. Every piece of medical equipment utilized has to be paid for, maintained, and replaced when worn out or obsolete. All medicine needs to be paid for. All medical disposables such as tongue depressors, syringes, rubber gloves, have to be paid for. There is no magic, so all of this has to be paid for. Insurance is one means by which people pay for these expenses. A recurring fee, or premium, is paid by insurance participants, typically on a monthly basis to an insurance company, and that company then pays for medical expenses for participants as they occur. Simple. So what value do individual insurance participants get for their premium? Well some people win life's lottery and never access medical care. These people receive the value of peace of mind knowing that if they do occur they will be paid for. Other people have a life full of medical tragedy and require constant expensive medical care. Those people are insurance lottery winners. They receive a value far in excess of their premiums over time. Most people however have typical occasional medical expenses, which at times are high cost. These people receive the value of spreading the cost of their medical expenses over their lifetime which prevents their rare high cost medical expenses from also being a financial tragedy for themselves and their family. Since the life lottery winners cancel out the insurance lottery winners, insurance premiums are determined by the medical expenses of the typical person. This is how it should be. That means it is correct for and individual to say I pay for my own medical expenses by paying for my medical insurance premiums. It is quite common for an individual to pay the insurance premiums of others. For example, I currently pay the medical insurance for my spouse, and in the past, I paid the medical insurance for my children. Again, it is correct for a person to say I pay the medical expenses of others when I pay their medical insurance premium. If one's taxes are subsidizing the insurance premiums of another person, that tax payer is paying the medical expenses of that subsidized person. This is simple logic people. Now, how does one keep the cost of medical insurance low? Well, one can attempt to get currently healthy people to participate in insurance. By paying now, their individual premiums pay the medical expenses of people currently unhealthy, and when those people are healthy they pay the medical expenses of the person paying now. That's how insurance spreads an individual's medical expenses over time. Again, that's how insurance works. So how do you get currently health people to participate in insurance? Well you can penalize those not paying for insurance. One way to do that is to penalize them by law through taxes. The other way is to penalize them through their medical expenses. Those without insurance pay more than those with insurance. Another way to reduce insurance costs is to cover fewer things. For example, some might think that aroma therapy improves their health. Most however think this is quackery so aroma therapy is not covered to reduce insurance costs. Also, not all medical devices are covered. Tooth brushes and bathroom scales are an example. The costs of these medical devices are purchased by individuals on an as needed basis. The same goes for over the counter medicines. The question at hand, is should birth control be a covered or uncovered expense. I say uncovered. The expense is just not that high and people should bear the cost of their elective activities. One way to increase the cost of medical insurance to is to pay for medical care for those who don't pay premiums. While this might be a altruistic thing to do, it does not reduce the cost of medical insurance.

scherado has been banned for multiple instances of rule-breaking in his quest to become the Troll King. We apologize that his interruption in the normal rational discourse was all noise and no signal whatsoever. Roger Dynamic Motion has been banned, NOT for incessant hijacking and almost daily irrationality, but for failing to respond to requests for clarity, EVER. Discussion requires that we express our ideas so others can understand. We wish him good luck with his ideas, whatever they were supposed to be.

You could just say "No i can't answer this, i don't understand your terminology" and then ask for clarification of any terms. I'm happy to provide that and I can assure you there are all terms you can find in a physics dictionary and ones that aren't really speak for themselves and couldn't mean anything other than what they sound. Question 1 is a little complex and unorthodox, i get that, why don't you give it a skip and try questions 2 and 3. =)

Area 54, No need to change terminology, it is what it is and i can clarify terms if need be. The point is they do actually denote real phenomena. They may not be used in the very specific manner and order that i've written them in (hence your very scientific method of google searching came up with naught). If you know what these terms mean individually then you can easily put together what they refer to when used in the way i've presented them. They are correctly placed and used in perfect context. I'm sorry but you won't be finding answers to these questions in contemporary academia, it's fairly new at least in regards to the contemporary scientific community and hasn't been entirely assimilated into academia yet, not as a whole, but the knowledge does exist, in parts and pieces, among plenty of sources you would easily recognize such as Nikola Tesla for one example. I think the reason the order these terms have been applied perplexes some of us is because they represent a unified model and understanding of EM somewhat contradictory to what is currently accepted. Take note however when i do say that there is really nothing 'new' about it, the issue is popularity i guess. Question1 is really an exercise in due diligence, i expect nobody here to instantly grasp what is being asked much less be able to answer it. But if you hadn't guessed already it simply refers to the properties of electromagnetism on a most fundamental level. There is a very important reason i have not used other terms where i could have, such as 'electron'. Because the question is rooted within a not well known model and framework, they simply do not teach EM this way in mainstream education. It's a little bit fringe i admit, but not for long i promise you. So, perhaps you'd like to present what you DID find, and attempt to piece together what it being asked. With pedantics aside, it's very simple really. Until then, why not have a crack at the other two questions instead of criticizing me for a lack of scientific lexicon when perhaps that error is the burden of the reader, not the author. If you're all still scratching your noggins after i see some effort, i'd be happy to simplify my sentence structure, and 'water it down' as it were, but i expected better than that. Again, i'm also happy to clarify any terms that are being struggled with, but i really feel that WYSIWYG and that shouldn't be necessary for the intellectualism i expect to find here from this lovely forum. Thanks for your time so far. Good luck cracking this riddle.

How do you make extensions to a standard model, without making it something it isn't, as in to mean, it is no longer actually the standard model? Really ... why are you acting so ... retarded, when I am sure you are not? The standard model, means the original model we started with. Anything added to it since, have/has been by definition, extensions that have made them beyond the standard model. So many years have past, I have done much reading, I take my physics seriously.. and so, I tend to take great time with people. You have been the biggest disappointment, I cannot tolerate you any more.