Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/07/17 in all areas

  1. 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?
  2. 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:
  3. 2 points
    What is true? That it is coincidence? A bit hard when you refuse to answer (reasonable) questions. I am not in favour of jailing people for not vaccinating, but your argument doesn't make sense. You can't say it becomes a criminal offence (if one were to do that) only when insufficient numbers have been vaccinated. Public health policy doesn't work like that. For example, a proportion of people's blood pressure is raised by excessive salt intake. For some people salt has no significant effect. You can't only regulate salt in food (for example) or only target the health message at a subset of the population. You have to target the entire population. Take the smoking example raised earlier. It isn't guaranteed that smoking a certain amount will kill you. But it makes it much, much more likely that you will dies of related diseases. Some people will suffer no ill effects. You obviously can't target the "no smoking" message (including legislation, taxation, and other deterrents) at just the people who will get ill - you have to target the whole population. So the goal in vaccination policy might be to achieve, say, 90% instead of the (impractical) 100%. But you can't achieve that except by targeting 100% of the population. And yet another straw man argument. What happened to the "rational discussion"?
  4. 2 points
    An object may be reflective to visible light but absorb heat producing wavelengths in the UV or IR range.
  5. 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)
  6. 2 points
    watch what happens to the images of the atom in transition to the Bose condensate state from this video Notice how the atoms appear to deform as it undergoes the phase transitions to the Bose condensate state? a lot of pop media articles mislead this loss of information phase transition under the descriptive squiggly lines. Keep in mind this is a graphic animation of the process including the images of the atoms etc in the first place. Not actual images of the atom in the first place lol. The mere act of trying to measure a condensate state heats up that state thus causing further phase transitions. In condensate state one cannot identify individual particles as per the article I attached above.
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    Interesting. That would a good school experiment for kids of the appropriate age.
  9. 1 point
    Actually early XIX century scientists split light using prism and placed couple thermometers at different colors of rainbow. They noticed that different colors of rainbow increased temperature by different amount. That's how IR was discovered- William Herschel placed thermometer in area of spectrum where was no visible light. "The discovery of infrared radiation is ascribed to William Herschel, the astronomer, in the early 19th century. Herschel published his results in 1800 before the Royal Society of London. Herschel used a prism to refract light from the sun and detected the infrared, beyond the red part of the spectrum, through an increase in the temperature recorded on a thermometer. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
  10. 1 point
    I fear your logic, reason, and evidence is wasted here, other than my +1.
  11. 1 point
    Saw this and had to put it here: https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/12/palestinians-recognize-texas-part-mexico/
  12. 1 point
    Yes that is a very good paper and quite detailed on the process of mass. In greater detail the process in the paper can also help understand particle generations of the SM model via the symmetry breaking process and the Higg's field interactions. Though keep in mind the paper is rather out of date on the Higg's research itself since the paper was published we have identified the Higg's boson and the mass term of the Higg's so many of the numbers the paper provides will change as a result.
  13. 1 point
    Another excellent question and one deserving an equivalent answer. What is mass? well the correct way to thinking of mass is resistance to inertia change. Which is the definition of mass under physics. Under particle physics treatments the mass term arises from the coupling constant [math]\alpha=\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c}[/math] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant
  14. 1 point
    Relativity falls into the classical case. It's QM where objects have to have momentum, and for that you can look at the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You can never say the momentum is zero, unless you have no knowledge of where it is.
  15. 1 point
    They all heat things up. Sunlight is mostly in the visible range, and it does just fine at raising temperatures. It may be for some objects that the emissivity is lower in the visible, meaning the object reflects, in which case the other wavelengths are more effective. But unless the object is transparent, it absorbs light in the visible spectrum, and that in turn creates phonons. IR is often associated with heat because something at ambient to a few hundred degrees above will radiate strongly in the IR.
  16. 1 point
    Let's assume it's true what you say. This is the level of compliance we have achieved with the prevailing level of pressure. If we reduced the pressure, the level of compliance will probably fall below effective levels over time and we'll be having more frequent epidemics or more pockets of infection as the number of potential vectors increases.
  17. 1 point
    Since you have posted this question in classical Physics, where bodies are allowed to be 'at rest' I think it should be pointed out that a body at rest has no momentum, but may have mass. Its mass may be modelled as' light' that is insignificant in application.
  18. 1 point
    lol - It would have been a close race in my prime from 370 meters... Nowadays though I wouldn't stand a chance if it goes at 5mph in a straight line. I am banking on the tortoise not knowing wtf is going on though so it won't be going at the full 5mph and maybe not in the right direction.... hopefully it will stop to eat the grass too. I will out smart the thing.
  19. 1 point
    I think so. Light, for example, always has momentum, but no mass. (The amount of momentum is frame dependent, but can never be zero.)
  20. 1 point
    Haven't they just been banned from taking part?
  21. 1 point
    Er, no. It is an evidence-based conclusion. If someone has a disease that is easily treatable but will be fatal if not treated, you don't think that withholding treatment will kill them? Or that the person who withholds treatment is not culpable? ("It wan't me, I didn't do anything!") This sounds like that stupid line in bad action films where the villain says, "if you don't let me go I will blow up the city and it will be your fault". Headbangingly illogical. Another example might be that she contracts a minor infection but because freedom of choice is so important, you decide to go against the doctor's advice and not give her antibiotics. The infection spreads and she dies of septicaemia. But, "yay, liberty!" You didn't kill her the bacteria did. Hard to have a rational debate with someone who is blind to the evidence. How do explain the increased death rates when vaccination is either not available or is not used? Coincidence?
  22. 1 point
    Are you sure DrP? Some of those tortoises can move at 5mph! And if it's Russian, forget it !
  23. 1 point
    It sounds like something I saw before... Archers Paradox? or Arrow paradox? - something like like.... It is the same... The arrow can 'never' hit the target as it always HAS to travel halfway to the target before it reaches it... but of course when it has got half way it then has to go half way of the remaining distance and so on. As it has to go through infinite 'half ways' it can never reach the target. This is of course a misunderstanding and ignores the fact that time flow steadily in relation to the arrow flying and if you plot distance vs time you will see the point on the graph at the precise time the arrow impacts. The failing of the paradox can be shown by standing in front of an arrow after it has been fired and observing it actually hitting your body and passing straight through it if fired from a decent enough longbow. Also, if you want to take bets, I'd happily race a tortoise over 400 metres to prove the point. I'll give it a 370 metre head start. Normal tortoise mind you, not one of those big ones!
  24. 1 point
    You failed to understand the car accident example. Lets try another one which I hope will be easier to understand and will also be more aligned with the OP; As your son is dead at this point due to your failure to put your seatbelts on resulting in your body flying around inside the car during the accident and terminally crushing your sons skull - lets use your daughter as an example this time, lets see how you approach this one; You exercise your freedom to not vaccinate your 1 year old daughter, she contracts a disease which was preventable by a vaccine and she dies. How do you live with yourself after that?
  25. 1 point
    Here: The verb "be" in that sentence is a copula.
  26. 1 point
    you might want to read this http://backreaction.blogspot.ca/2017/11/astrophysicist-discovers-yet-another.html In essence their is numerous errors in his paper
  27. 1 point
    Let's see. On one hand we have a potential for psychological trauma, and on the other - a deadly condition if left untreated. How does this kind of question even come up?
  28. 1 point
    Thanks Mordred, really loved your explanation. +1 I would like some more context on this, though: What becomes squiggly lines?
  29. 1 point
    It was obviously trying to catch up with a slower computer. Perhaps here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes "Some of Zeno's nine surviving paradoxes..." Which is (not very clearly) referring to the fact that he wrote a book with 40 or so paradoxes in. Of those 40, only 9 are now known about (that is the sense in which "survived" was used).
  30. 1 point
    Well, this is a rather unlikely scenario. Basically, that asteroid would have to appear out of thin air because there's no way it can exist in such an orbital configuration in the present day Solar System. Such density is also very unlikely to exist given it's size. Anyway, simple answer to your question is that it will result in a change in eccentricity of Earth's orbit. The "asteroid" itself would quickly end up on a highly eccentric orbit which would be in some form of resonance with Earth. The mass of this asteroid is still ~10 times less than that of the Earth so while the change in orbit will be noticeable, it won't be enough to completely de-stabilize our orbit. With tidal movements - we'll experience some quite catastrophic tidal effects. Given the object is around 16 times more massive than the Moon and will pass at half the distance from us, the force exerted should be around 64 times greater than that of the Moon gravity influence. So, it might actually result in some enormous tidal wave, but it won't last for an awfully long time. On the other hand since you specified that it should happen over the North hemisphere, it's also very likely that during the closest approach it will be over land most of the time and then tidal effects will be much less destructive.
  31. 1 point
    So you have "solved" the paradox by just ignoring it. Well done.
  32. 1 point
    That's quite possibly the most wrong thing I have ever seen anyone post "During the 20th century, it is estimated that smallpox was responsible for 300–500 million deaths." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smallpox OK, show me one that doesn't.
  33. 1 point
    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.
  34. 1 point
    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.
  35. 1 point
    If you are going to use Javascript, it can be used for animation by drawing shapes on the html 'canvas' element, which are then redrawn as a loop using requestAnimationFrame(). This works well if you are going to plot points / basic shapes using an equation. If you want a 3D animation but for simplicity are going to use canvas in 2D, a trick is to calculate the shapes as 3D into an x y z array, include an adjustment for the size of the shapes with regards to perspective, sort the array on what is furthest away from the point of view, and then draw the shapes as 2D onto the canvas in that order. This produces a 3D animation. Otherwise WebGL can be used for 3D plotting onto the canvas but I have not used that myself. Notes from w3school https://www.w3schools.com/html/html5_canvas.asp The HTML <canvas> element is used to draw graphics, on the fly, via JavaScript. The <canvas> element is only a container for graphics. You must use JavaScript to actually draw the graphics. Canvas has several methods for drawing paths, boxes, circles, text, and adding images.
  36. -1 points
    Your view on space is blinkered. I will try and make this as simple as I can for you. 1) First remember the Mantra everything is quantum fluctuations, this includes everything from virtual particles to planets and entire solar systems. got it, if not go back to 1. 2) Ok lets move on, space is expanding at an accelerating rate due to Quantum fluctuations otherwise known as Dark Energy got it, if not go back to 2. 3) Mass absorbs quantum fluctuations giving the appearance of stretched space equivalent to space time. got it, if not go back to 3. 4) The apparent contraction and expansion of space is due to Quantum fluctuations in space, being produced at a steady rate, but absorbed in proximity to mass at a rate greater than they are being produced, causing a flow towards mass, to fill the vacuum. got it, if not go back to 4. 5) Quantum fluctuations can be entangled and particles separated by distance can act as one, information is transferred instantly. got it, if not go back to 5. 6) To avoid violating relativity information transfer between entanglement particles requires at least one more dimension. got it, if not go back to 6. 7) Quantum fluctuations appeared originally out of empty space got it, if not go back to 7. 8) Space without quantum fluctuations is philosophically zero nada no dimiensions, no time no space time etc. got it, if not go back to 8. 9) Space only exists with quantum fluctuations, a vacuum in space with no Quantum fluctuations constitutes a black hole. got it, if not go back to 9. 10) Under Quantum entanglement all things could to a certain degree be entangled. got it, if not go back to 10. 11) From your Mantra above: quantum fluctuations make up all things they appeared out of space and can appear directly connected whilst still separated by space. Space time explains the apparent curvature of space. The common thing between Quantum fluctuations and space time is SPACE. got it, if not go back to 11. Quantum entanglement requires an extra dimension to explain entanglement without violating GR. Is that dimension the substance of space. I think we already have discounted the concept of infinities and singularities in GR as stretching the truth a little, the concept of everything being squashed down to the plank length we also agreed was a nonsense. If the Big bang concept is to be believed starting with radiation, we must consider the reverse process otherwise known as the Big Crunch. When matter is crushed it gets hot, in a black hole if all the matter in the universe was squashed to the plank length it would have temperatures equivalent to and exceeding those predicted for the theoretical big bang. Hawking also predicts that the centre of blackholes may be full of radiation possibly resulting from matter decomposing back to radiation due to immense temperatures and pressure. He theories this supports a Black hole core and prevents it from collapsing, raadiation has inertia and may well be able to do this, but what happens when the core all becomes radiation. etc Any way the thread is about Quantum entanglement, not space time, I was just pondering the concept that both GR and the Quantum world are explaining the same thing but looking at the problem differently. There is no time travel in quantum mechanics, or in entanglement, at least that is what Swansont tells me. So from that point of view the time problem popps its head up yet again. If you swing grand father clock around your head it will tick slower due to increased inertia on the pendulum. If you move an atomic clock at an different angles to a moving gravitational field it may effect the time also. The movement of Quantum fluctuations are what makes space time equations work. Space time does not exist without quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations and entanglement require an extra dimension to allow instant information transfer. That dimension is not time, unless you are talking about space\time in which case you are on the wrong thread.
  37. -2 points
    Because you are the most wrong. hehe It's not a freedom to prevent others from doing something, anymore than it's a freedom to be able to fly. You keep confusing your inability to alter reality with a freedom. No I haven't been presented any evidence that I'm wrong, why would I realize I'm wrong when I'm not wrong? We know no such thing. Smoking increases the chance of lung cancer, but like my grandmother who smoked her whole life and died of an aneurysm doesn't "kill" you, it's just more likely to kill you. (a concept you seem to be struggling with) Not any more than the person I was responding to. The idea that not vaccinating = death is absurd. If you guys want to go down the absurd road I'll follow ya, but I'd much rather have a rational debate about the topic at hand rather than an emotional one where the supposed "proof" is NOT VACCINATING MEANS YOU ARE KILLING PEOPLE!!!! I would tell my wife that our son is 25 I respected his decision not to wear a seatbelt, and that decision may have gotten him killed in a car crash. (not sure how my leg is going to crush his skull in the back seat but these type of scenarios aren't really about logic are they?)
  38. -2 points
    On the point of climate change effecting eradication - http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up I tend to lead toward keeping it for research, which means it's not really eradicated it's just not currently in circulation, but could come back. I also agree with the point of bio-diversity allowing for better research, and therefore better cures. Didn't say you "would get cancer" that's a strawman fallacy. I said their smoke would get in your body which infringes on your freedom. The article you linked to the CDC does list "protection is complete" (or 100%) it lists "Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles". Please don't spread misinformation. Although I agree 90+% should be considered effective it is NOT "complete" protection. I wasn't trying to discuss the evolution of illness or the various misfires that some of the less scientifical community accepted vaccines have had.
  39. -2 points
    Please improve your reading comprehension. If something is still in a lab or in the ice somewhere... then it is on the planet. Please improve your reading comprehension. And I quote from the CDC article AGAIN "Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles". Just because YOU believe it's 100% doesn't mean it is, and the article YOU linked contradicts you... (I love when people are condescending and accusatory about the exact thing they did) You would have to find me, you would have to shoot first, and you would have to hit me in the brain, and unless you got all of it, my brain function would continue thinking. Even in your passive aggressive example you still attempt to bypass reality. Again not being able to fly is NOT a loss of freedom. Sure man. Start a poll to see if " the most wrong" is correct grammar, knock yourself out. Smoking does not "kill" or everyone who smokes would die. If someone who was really good at hitting small target blew all the brains out of your skull that would prove bullets kill. (that passive aggressive stuff is fun!) There is a correlation, and it increases the risks, but cancer kills you not smoke. Sure just look at how I respond to the people who have put forth reasonable discussion points. I've had plenty of civil conversations in this topic. You can of course quit talk about this if you prefer...
  40. -3 points
    Ignoring the "most wrong" grammar thing. Please show me someone who has died because they didn't get a vaccine. Not someone who died from a disease, someone who died because they did NOT get a vaccine. Lets use cars because they seem to be the go to analogy. While you can still be in a car accident, you aren't automatically in a car accident because you drive a car even though it does increase the risk/likelihood. My point is hopping in a car isn't what kills you, and you can't prove otherwise when it comes to vaccines. Freedom to think about whatever you wish is unbeatable but the freedom to dance in your house, the freedom to go in the woods, be alone and enjoy nature, etc also work.