Leaderboard

First off, dark matter and dark energy are two different things and the reasons for expecting their existence are completely unrelated. The only thing they have in common is that they have "dark" in their names. The initial evidence for dark matter came from observations of how stars move in galaxies. Galaxies are formed from stars that are mutually orbiting each other. If we look at a galaxy, and estimate its mass by the matter we can see, we find that there does not appear to be enough to hold the galaxy together. At the speed the stars are orbiting, they should fly apart. We also know how these stars should orbit if the mass is contained to the shape we see it as having. Not only does the galaxy have more mass than that we can see, but the unseen mass must be distributed a lot differently than the part we do not see. For example, in a typical spiral galaxy, a good deal of the mass must be located above and below the disk-like shape we see. If it was made of normal matter, we should see it, if not in the visible spectrum, it should be visible at some other spectrum. This leads us to believe that whatever is causing that extra mass is not made of normal matter, but a type of matter that does not emit or interact with light or any part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus the term "dark matter. There have been attempts to explain the discrepancy through developing different models for how gravity behaves, but to date, none have been consistent with all the observations we have made. Dark energy concerns itself with the expansion of the universe. We have known for a long time that the universe is expanding and that distant galaxies are moving away from us. But until couple of decades ago, we assumed that the mutual gravity between the different parts of the universe was slowing this expansion down over time. What we did not know was whether this was enough to eventual stop the expansion all together. In the 1990's a study was made to try to determine if this was the case or not. Basically it worked because as we look at distant galaxies, we are seeing them as they were when the light left them. Thus as we look further away we are looking further into the past. Thus, to explain it simply, by comparing various galaxies' distances to how fast they appear to be receding from us, you can work out how the expansion of the universe has change over time. The surprise came when it was discovered that the universe's expansion was not slowing down, but was speeding up. Not only was it mutual gravity not enough to stop its expansion, but something was overcoming the gravity and pushing the universe apart. They decided to call this unknown influence "dark energy" (mainly because they had already coined the term "dark matter") . We really know very little about dark energy, and the term really just is a place holder for whatever it turns out to be. (Much in the way the terms "X-rays" was coined before we learned that they were just a certain part of the electromagnetic spectrum.)

I think we need to define sexual assault. If Harvey Weinstein says - implied or explicitly stated - "I'll do this for you if you do this for me" and they concede, is that sexual assualt?

I think this should be moved to ethics. One element that explains the lack of reporting is that there is a system of normalization around his behaviour, coupled with an extreme power differential. In addition, only one or two decades ago, such abusive behaviour was perhaps considered in bad taste but had less social cost associated with it (and heck, even today it is largely situational, considering how people get away with abusive behaviour). Thus even if she had objected as a relatively unknown actress there is a high chance that it would not have been taken seriously. There is also an inner barrier to overcome. Most victims of abuse do not report it for a variety of reasons, including retaliation and/or the simple fact that people may not believe them (and call them gold diggers or worse). After all, the rumors were around for years (i.e. some people apparently did tell others) and yet nothing happened. Typically, these allegations are only taken seriously when they come from several sources, so the first one to break it, is at considerable risk.

Brilliant move. Victim blaming is obviously what’s needed here. Well done!

"Time slows down" for an object in motion, relative to another object. Acceleration is not necessary nor are "g- forces". Yes, a sub-atomic particle would experience "slower time" compared to the "laboratory" time, but as DrP says, that would be a negligible effect. The "aging of a radioactive isotope"" has been demonstrated by moving the isotope at high speeds in a cyclotron.

"President Trump is due to sign an executive order Thursday morning intended to allow individuals and small businesses to buy a long-disputed type of health insurance that skirts state regulations and Affordable Care Act protections. " https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-to-sign-executive-order-to-gut-aca-insurance-rules-and-undermine-marketplaces/2017/10/11/40abf774-ae97-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.bd6541516a25 Back in July Trump said “It’ll be a lot easier,” “We’re not going to own it. I’m not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We’ll let Obamacare fail, and then the Democrats are going to come to us.” .Trump is attempting to force change by creating chaos. This seems to be his move on a wide range of things. Just apply pressure, undermine what is in place, and hope what follows is better or at least something that saves faces. Trump does this with foriegn policy too. Trump has already created chaos with North Korea. There is no clear way forward yet his rhetoric just becomes more and more incendiary. Trump does this on trade publicly questioning NAFTA. A country can't be ran this way though. If the ACA fails without an alternate in place millions will suffer. If a diplomatic solution isn't found with North Korea war will break out and millions will suffer. Trump's approach to forcing change through chaos with an eye towards negotiating over the rumble in ludicrous. The down stream effect might be catastrophic and Trump seems perfectly willing to risk that.

"I think it would depend on where the impact was located on the shape." That's what I said. The pointy end dropped onto a wooden floor might indent and receive some cushioning from the softer material. I would expect that to come out when the different Elasticity moduli and poisson's ratios are taken into account.

I am assuming solid glass objects. I am not sure about this prognosis. Glass marbles are spherical and pretty tough cookies. I can't remember ever seeing one shatter when dropped from twice that height onto a concrete floor. Chip maybe, but not shatter. Anyway this is all about contact forces/contact stresses, not stress distribution. Contact stresses are generally much higher than ordinary stresses in a body, but they are concentrated over the contact area. Since this is an impact loading the impact force will also be much higher than the resting force due to the weight of the glass object. Let P be the resting weight force a be the contact area CE be a constant due to the poisson's ratio and elasticities of the glass and the floor D is the diameter of the glass ball at the contact point. Then Roark gives the following formulae for [math]{{\sigma _t}}[/math], the maximum tensile stress due to contact. [math]\max \left( {{\sigma _t}} \right) = 0.2\frac{P}{{\pi {a^2}}}[/math] Where [math]{C_E} = \frac{{1 - {\nu _1}^2}}{{{E_1}}} + \frac{{1 - {\nu _2}^2}}{{{E_2}}}[/math] and [math]a = 0.721\sqrt[3]{{PD{C_E}}}[/math] You can see from these equations that the max stress is inversely proportional to the cube root of the radius of curvature of the glass ball. A spherical ball will have a constant radius of curvature, but an oval one, of the same weight, will have a pointy end of greater curvature and a flatter side of lesser curvature. Further, most of the weight volume and surface area, will be concentrated in the equatorial, flatter regions of the oval ball. So presumabably the oval ball is more likely to land on a point of lower curvature than the equivalent spherical one, thereby suffering a lower impact stress. The use of triaxial is common in earth scineces as is the splitting of the stress tensor into two tensors. Engineers in particular know that whilst it is convenient for theoreticians to collect everything together into a nice compact package, as soon as to want to work the numbers in a real world situation you have to break them all apart. In the words of a wise old engineer "You cannot avoid the arithmetic" Not long after I joined here there was a long discussion about just this, with a Russian who was doing a Phd in ice Rheology. [math]T = {T_m} + {T_D}[/math] [math]{T_m} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{{\sigma _m}} & 0 & 0 \\0 & {{\sigma _m}} & 0 \\0 & 0 & {{\sigma _m}} \\\end{array}} \right][/math] [math]{T_D} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\frac{{\left( {2{\sigma _{xx}} - {\sigma _{yy}} - {\sigma _{zz}}} \right)}}{3}} & {{\sigma _{xy}}} & {{\sigma _{xz}}} \\ {{\sigma _{xy}}} & {\frac{{\left( {2{\sigma _{yy}} - {\sigma _{xx}} - {\sigma _{zz}}} \right)}}{3}} & {{\sigma _{yz}}} \\ {{\sigma _{xz}}} & {{\sigma _{yz}}} &{\frac{{\left( {2{\sigma _{zz}} - {\sigma _{yy}} - {\sigma _{xx}}} \right)}}{3}} \\\end{array}} \right][/math] Tm is known as the mean stress or hydrostatic stress tensor and is a summary of the pure direct stresses. TD is known as the devaitor stress tensor and is a summary of the pure shear stresses. Another term is the for triaxial the confined compression test, which can be seen in the diagram below, which also adds to my discussion with Area54.

This thread was inspired by a question asked in a thread about stored energy where the question was asked if energy could be stored in a Field. Since this was really a bit off topic in that thread and an important subject people are always asking about this and the nature of Fields in general here is a thread for folks to discuss the subject and ask their questions. For reference I described a Field this way in that thread. So the quick answer to the first question is yes if the field property is suitable, no if the field property is not. In order to illustrate this and another important question - What are the differences and similarities between classical and quantum fields here is a comparison. Consisder a stream running in its channel. At every point in the stream we can assign (and even observe) a velocity vector. The region is obviously the stream channel and chosen fields could be A) The magnitude of the velocity. B) Just the direction of the velocity. Both Fields are purely classical. Field (A) can be used to calculate the kinetic energy of the water, if we know its density. So Field (A) can be used to describe energy and indeed if the water is halted this energy is transferred elsewhere. For instance if the water encounters a dam and builds up, the up implies an increase in potential energy, which is exactly what happens. This energy is 'stored'. TO BE CONTINUED.

ProgrammingGodJordan has been banned for repeated spamming of topics after threads had been locked.

Both of these are Unix derived (or Unix-like) operating systems. Mac OS is used in servers, to a limited extent.

Yes super gravity is still viable today. No matter what treatment under physics your working with. Never treat space itself void of all particles as anything other than volume. Space has no particle nor will ever need one. The Prof site Strange linked covers bosons ie VP.

In terms of dark matter, vs baryonic on rotation curves. The main focus is the mass/luminosity relation including the relevant redshift effects (gravitstional within local group) gravitational bound system so Hubble isn't accurate in this case, which involves Cosmological redshift.. Though M33 will also involve Doppler. This also correlates to how Zwicky realized DM was required as it involved the mass/luminosity with a large part involving Jeans equation/Euler hydrodynamics. Currently estimates of DM clusters still use this technique though more advanced in treatment. One can apply the above and estimate the affect DM has on temperature. Though not directly via the properties of DM which are largely unknown. For universe particle number estimates one can apply the Bose-Einstien and Fermi Dirac statistics combined with nucleosynthesis and our current knowledge of particle physics. Utilitizing known particle degrees of freedom, spin, charge, etc one can apply these attributes to their contribution to temperature. From this we can apply those contributions to get the number density of any particle via the blackbody temperatures. For example one can calculate the number density of photons and neutrinos etc etc from CMB temperature etc. Not to mention the practical application as applied to stars/galaxies/plasma clouds etc. DM if a distinct particle will also have distinct thermodymanic relations ( unfortunately we can only make assumptions as to what property values to use). However one can still eliminate what is known from the luminosity data.

This article has a good introduction to the concept of virtual particles: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

I would like to see your inner peace if I screamed in your ears while you were sleeping.

I love dogs, and I'm pretty accepting of their barking. I know they're just doing the job that's made them the most successful companion of humans. I would definitely try to change what I could on my end before trying to change a dog's habits. That said, there are limits. The only time I've ever said anything to a neighbor about their dog was because one of them wouldn't settle down when I did yard work while they worked in offices during the week. I don't mind if dogs spend 10 minutes establishing that I better stay on my side of the fence, but one of their dogs just wouldn't let it go no matter how long I was working. I'm not a yard maintenance fan anyway, so add a dog barking for 2 solid hours and the situation goes very sour. I wouldn't go to the police unless my neighbors told me flat out they wouldn't do anything. As to the window part, you should have plenty of ventilation if your home/apartment isn't ancient. I dislike earplugs as well, and like zapatos I think white noise is essential. People who've had children appreciate masking the normal night sounds, because we know full well if something out of place makes a noise, we're awake immediately, standing in the hallway in our underwear brandishing a tennis racket.

I think he is searching for outer peace, not inner peace.

Well in my house they need to make me happy by staying out of my way. I try to use a glass to put them out, but can't always practically do it... but it's evolution - the ones that stay hidden are the ones I want to select for reproduction - the ones that come at me boldly can be removed from the spider gene pool. I swear they are getting bigger and bigger each decade. I have had 2 or 3 in the last couple of years that would not fit onto a poker sized playing card!

CONTINUED Field (B) - the direction field - however cannot be used to store energy, as energy is not a viable function of direction. Now the statement is often made 'A particle is just a disturbance in the Field' and often accompanied by some wooly waving which means 'but I'm not sure how'. So let us use these fluid examples to display classical disturbances that can be localised and therefore have some particle like properties. Suppose there are some submerged rocks in the stream. The stream fields will change in response. Whirlpools will develop in the vicinity of the rocks. The direction field will show the whirlpools, the magnitude field will show something else. In the whirlpools the velocity will diminish and, as we have seen, some kinetic energy will be transferred to potential energy. Eventually a fairly stable flow regime will establish itself where the whirlpools represent 'particles' which for instance deflect passing small objects floating in the water, just like forces between massive bodies. OK so classical Physics an develop particle like entities in its Fields, what about Quantum Physics? The Classical Fields developed its 'particles' by interaction between the Field and its environment. This also happens in the Quantum Field. The variable property in the Quantum Field is the Wave Function. This is quite different from the classical point functions we saw in the stream. Without interaction it is non localised - that is it extends in theory over all space, although it is usual to restrict it to that region where the contribution is significant.

Yes I understand your concern with time being treated as an operator, are you aware that position is downgraded to a parameter on the same footing as time under QFT treatments? For other readers (and just in case you aren't) its hard to judge what theories you have studied from a few posts or your understanding in regards to particle physics and its treatments under QFT. QM we are taught that the symbols [math]\varphi,\psi[/math] are wave-functions however in QFT we use these symbols to denote fields. Fields can create and destroy particles. As such we effectively upgrade these fields to the status of operators. Which must satisfy the commutation relations [math][\hat{x}\hat{p}]\rightarrow[\hat{\psi}(x,t),\hat{\pi}(y,t)]=i\hbar\delta(x-y)[/math] [math]\hat{\pi}(y,t)[/math] is another type of field that plays the role of momentum where x and y are two points in space. The above introduces the notion of causality. If two fields are spatially separated they cannot affect one another. In QM position [math]\hat{x}[/math] is an operator with time as a parameter. However in QFT we demote position to a parameter. Momentum remains an operator. The reason I asked if you wish to take your model further is that I have a direction for you. Take your model and apply it to the Vacuum solution, then the Newtonian approximation, followed by the Schwartzchild metric. Why you ask well one aspect of cosmology that can be correlated to an uncertainty of measurement is the cosmological constant. There is a lot of work and different models looking at this possibility. This may provide some insight into your model at the least. SO(1.3) is the Lorentz group, hence the above. I have no idea if your familiar with Clifford and lie algebra ? if not then I can certainly help there as well. treat your particles as an excitation of a field, apply your creation and annihilation operators under a field treatment, this will also lead directly into the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations via the field treatments under QFT ie Langrangian field theory. Field treatments under symmetry relations where there is no priori of coordinates is extremely useful and grants us a great deal of versatility, after all why should the spherical coordinates, polar coordinates or Euclidean coordinates have a priority. They are all on equal footing, this is the elegance of field treatments under group theory. (also the basis of GR) Another member (Strange in another thread) posted this related article to the above, it will provide an example of using the uncertainty principle to apply it to the cosmological constant https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00543 as my field is cosmology I thoroughly enjoyed this article and found it extremely useful, you may find it so with regards to your model

Making us more resilient could pose other problems to the symbiosis we call the human digestive system. If they wanted us to be able to get the nutrients we need without bacteria and other lifeforms living in us, they would really have to rework the human body to overcome the deficiencies. Also there are issues with creating a totally different type of class warfare where you have the designer people of means versus then randoms who can't afford it.

he Justice Department confirmed in a court filing late Friday that neither it nor the FBI has evidence that Trump Tower was the target of surveillance efforts by the Obama administration during the 2016 presidential election. The Motion summary of Judgement was filed in D.C. district court in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the watchdog group American Oversight, which is seeking government records of surveillance in Trump Tower. In March, Trump wrote on Twitter that he had discovered that former President Barack Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped during the run-up to the November election, which he called "McCarthyism." http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/348987-justice-dept-says-it-has-no-evidence-of-trump-tower-wiretapping This is an example of an effect of Trump. He makes illegitmate claims putting the onus on others to correct. Resources are wasted correcting the record and by the time the matters get resolved the general public isn't paying attention anymore. How many man hours were lost by the DOJ & FBI on this and at what cost to tax payers just so Trump could temporarily change media focus with a bit of whataboutism? The Presidents wastes his own agencies, helmed by his appointees, time chasing fictions. The loss in productivity has an associated cost which tax payers must cover.

Even scumbags deserve their day in court, Swansont, so they are 'alleged' victims, so far. ( and I do hope there are charges coming so the seedy underbelly of Hollywood is exposed for all to see ) Don't have a problem with A Judd, or R McGowan; they came forward and were brave. And they have the most to lose as their careers are not huge. M Streep ( and some other huge stars like N Kidman, A Jolie, etc ), who spoke out about D Trump at an awards show, remained silent for almost a week. I guess she didn't want to put her career on the line for the 'right thing to do'. But then again, I stopped considering 'Hollywood types' as normal people, a long time ago. How many of these 'stars' still support R Polansky so many years after the statutory rape ? ( maybe they think society's rules don't apply to them )

The word genus is a human invention. We use it to help us understand the relationships between species because we have a brain that insists on categorizing things. Once one species evolves into two species the two species will rarely interact or interbreed. This reduces their relevance to one another and so we call them separate "species" so we can understand the "relationship" between them. When species diverge in such a way that they look to be too different from each other (to our eyes) we might say they are members of different genera (plural of genus) but there is no such concrete thing in nature. Specifying a form of evolution (macroevolution) for such a "stage" is meaningless because a genus is not real. All it means as a word is that mere mortal humans see these two groups of organisms as very different indeed. What happens to one species or set of species does not necessarily affect the other. They no longer have a relationship in the real world. Each evolves in a micro way with respect to the other individuals with which they do have actual relationships - there own species mates and perhaps occasionally a closely related species. Microevolution is real. Macroevolution is all in our heads.

Recent news reports tell us of decades of sexual abuse and harassment by Harvey Weinstein. I'm sure the abuse we have heard about is simply the tip of the iceberg. My guess is the list of abused aspiring actresses is much larger. The reports we have heard so far often refer to rumors of abuse swirling around Weinstein throughout his decades of abuse. In addition there are reports that the news media has spiked stories about this subject. What I find absent in all of this is stories questioning the ethics of actresses who remained silent about their abusive and criminal encounters with Harvey Weinstein. How culpable are these women for the abuse of women that followed them on the casting couch? Let's take for example Ashley Judd. Ms. Judd is a vocal feminist. Here is an image of Ms. Judd protesting the comments of President Trump. https://every2min.com/2017/01/22/rape-survivor-ashley-judd-explains-why-trump-triggers-so-many-sexual-assault-survivors/ Here is another image of Ashley Judd with Harvey Weinstein. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4962354/Ashley-Judd-breaks-silence-Weinstein.html Ms. Judd could find her voice politically, but not professionally. How many women would have avoided Harvey Weinstein abuse if she had publicly accused Weinstein? The same question goes for all the other women abused by Harvey Weinstein.