Leaderboard

It is difficult to explain why you are wrong because you don't understand the subject and so you just reject the explanations (this has been true in all of your threads). And yet you are the one who constantly quotes the words of others but ignores the science. For example: Dalo: I don't believe X Others: Here is a simple explanation why you are wrong ... D: That's a bit vague, can you be more specific? O: <detailed explanation with evidence and a mathematical analysis> D: I don't need all that maths and what about [irrelevant sidetrack] O: What exactly are you asking? D: How dare you! O: I'm just trying to clarify D: I don't believe Y, as I have been saying all along O: So you have changed the subject D: No, you keep introducing P and Q, but I want to talk about Z O: OK. Do you understand <basic schoolboy physics>? D: Why should I have to? If you can't prove me wrong ... O: <collective sigh>

It is not that you must agree with the premises. It is that you must understand them in the first place. It is that if you wish to reject what experts are saying, you need to know what they are saying in the first place.

That's not how theorems work. If there is a special case where the theorem doesn't work, then it's not a theorem (assuming the consistency of mathematics as a whole). There are two possibilities. Either 1) you doubt the proof of the theorem, or 2) you doubt that the hypotheses of the theorem apply. Do you know which one?

This makes more and more sense as we learn more. Worlds with liquid oceans and atmospheres seem to be out numbered quite badly, at least in our own planetary system... https://futurism.com/life-cosmos-exist-frozen-ice-worlds/

Fungi are being credited with allowing or at least supporting the rise of plants on land. These giant fungi were the first large land organisms known.

Great vid! It is part of the PBS Eons series. I had not seen this particular one before or encountered this idea. Very interesting.

Neither of which is a metal. Metals have electrons in the conduction band, which allows them to respond to a wide spectrum of EM frequencies. As others have implied, it's also an issue of thickness, because the attenuation depends on thickness. But the attenuation coefficient of a metal would be tend to be quite high for visible light.

The issue under discussion is that it does not even come to court. Prosecution is not only based on forensic evidence, but various studies have concluded that that a number of extralegal factors influence whether a case is being prosecuted or not. There are for example racial components when the assaulter is a stranger (highest rate are for white women assaulted by black men). Age is another determinant as younger victims are considered less credible (Spohn 2008). I a study in Detroit The same author (Spear&Spohn 1997) found that these characteristics are stronger predictors of eventual prosecution than forensic evidence or witnesses. In other words, it is more about the victim than the evidence surrounding the act. The most relevant factors were questions regarding moral characters (including e.g. whether the victim is in a stable relationship or had changing partners, but also alcohol or other drug use). In many cases I am pretty sure that the defense will attempt to discredit the victim. But if you really want egregious examples, there are cases where judges actively questioned the victim's behaviour (there are a couple of reports on US, Canadian and UK judges, if you want to look). One that comes to mind are the statements of a Canadian judge who asked victims to keep heir knees together and one from Montana who sentenced a teacher for raping a 14 y student to 31 days because "she looked older and was "as much in control". Obviously, that indicates that there are likely deeper issue within society with this.

It is not actually that. If you look at the molecular level it is more that the mobile genetic elements carrying the resistance genes (often in form of plasmids, but also transposons) move rapidly between bacteria. Under non-selective conditions they often get lost as they add cost to the host. However, when selection kicks in (i.e. presence of AB) they are maintained and spread further. The bacteria themselves have no advantage per se for sharing resistances (except in cases where the gene product can actively destroy the AB, such as beta-lactamases perhaps). In some bacteria, natural competence (i.e. active uptake of DNA) under stress conditions could also play a role, though again, mobile genetic elements are the most common source of resistance transfer.

Very true. However, are there any official court cases of this? Where it actually came into play? I mean, obviously, it'd have to be more extreme than "having breasts" but still. There should be at least 1 court case?

Any pairing of quantum teleportation with a mention of Star Trek

Also - even if there IS alien life from another planet - how is that related to "hierarchy of human life"? a - they won't be human. b- who decides who is higher up in this nominal imagined hierarchy anyway? Conclusion - their is no hierarchy of human life in the western world. In India however you have a class system which is strictly adhered too.... where depending on your parents lineage you are allowed to do certain types and classes of jobs. That is a hierarchy.... but it is constructed/imagined/invented by man.

Dalo has been banned for refusing to get off of his soapbox and engage with people in a meaningful way.

There are large text corpora available with you trying to write your own web crawler. For example: https://corpus.byu.edu or https://www1.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/external/clmt/w3c/corpus_ling/content/corpora/list/index2.html

Mike, is this what you were watching? https://www.channel4.com/news/pentagon-admits-secret-ufo-investigations Because I've just watched it a couple of times, and as far as I can tell the only "disclosure" in the whole story is that the Pentagon, for the period 2007 to 2012, had a division which was investigating UFOs. An interesting story from a political point of view, perhaps, but nothing more (particularly when, as the piece points out, the UK government has never hid the fact that they ran their own such investigations). No actual revelations of what might have been found during such investigations (and given that the division was disbanded five years ago, it seems unlikely they found much of interest). The rest of the four minute piece is background and filler. Unless you were watching a different story?

I wouldn't be happy yet. Here's the thing: your rejection of those assumptions is precisely where a mathematical understanding of the physics comes in. Understanding the difference between those two integrals is precisely where you must learn the mathematics behind both classical and quantum mechanics.

No, you hadn't, because there is a difference between rejecting the theorem and rejecting the application of its assumptions. I do not mean it as a critique. I mean it as an attempt to make your position clearer. Now that it is clear you reject the application of the assumptions of Bell's theorem - namely, the integrals - your position is far clearer.

Uncool is not second guessing yours; rather trying to get you to clarify your position. But, as always, you refuse to do this because ... well, because of course you do.

I am not asking you to analyze its mathematical structure. I am asking you only whether you accept the mathematical proof in it. Either the proof is valid, or it is not; whether that proof is being applied to a specific example or not is irrelevant. So I ask you again: do you accept that the proof is valid? Edit: As a note, you are free to have an answer along the lines of "I don't know whether the proof is valid; I think there is a problem with the conclusion for this example, and I don't know whether that problem appears in the assumptions or in the proof."

Fred, you should check your implementation of algorithm with literally 2, 3 words.. to be sure algorithm has no errors introduced during writing.. Then on 4, then on 5, then further.. Manually check output in text editor. Your implementation looks slightly different than #2 post in the link that you provided. ps. You should not hardcode path to file, instead take it from command-line as argument. If it's not specified, use hardcoded path (if you have to).

What, exactly, do you mean by "reject [Bell's theorem]"? Do you accept that the theorem - the mathematical theorem - has been proven? I was guessing that you were doubting the relationship between the mathematics and the physics, because if you accept both the mathematics and the relationship between the mathematics and the physics, then the only consistent possibility is to accept the physics.

To clarify a little bit: in the proof of Bell's no-go theorem, the following assumption is made: A classical (local hidden variable) theory is required to measure the expectation value of a random variable X according to [math]\int X(\lambda) p(\lambda) d \lambda[/math], according to some (hidden) probability measure p. On the other hand, a quantum theory is required to measure the expectation value of a random variable X according to [math]\int \langle \phi | X | \phi\rangle[/math], according to Bohr's rules. The theorem is then that there is a limit to the outcomes from any classical theory that doesn't appear for a quantum theory, as defined there, and therefore (since our experiments match Bohr's rules) that a quantum theory is necessary (or rather, a classical theory is insufficient). You seem to be asking for a justification for the assumption - why, philosophically, should a classical theory require such a mathematical description - and seem to think you have something that runs counter to that. Correct?

I find it surprising that they found it surprising. After all horizontal gene transfer of resistance cassettes is a well-known phenomenon. To make matters worse, it does not only happen in guts, but also in the environment, as we deliver significant amounts of antibiotics via effluents or manure to free-living bacteria. AB resistance are therefore also spreading in soil bacteria, for example.

Not helpful, but the title reminds me of the opening lines of Chandler's Red Wind: "There was a desert wind blowing that night. It was one of those hot dry Santa Ana's that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make your nerves jump and your skin itch. On nights like that every booze party ends in a fight. Meek little wives feel the edge of the carving knife and study their husbands' necks. Anything can happen. You can even get a full glass of beer at a cocktail lounge." I can well imagine that the heat makes people impatient and short tempered. But haven't seen any studies.

It is also a far cry from how we should be referring to the President of the United States

Use the longer PCR range, I think the fragment was damaged or mutated upon entry personally, also make sure your mRNA was not damaged upon entry, Cas9 will not function if it has mutations or damage in it nor will the mRNA Guide. Both of these are most likely, DNA repair does not work that way that you said only in breaks and crosslinks etc are repaired. check specifically that these both match the actual protein and guide mRNA code exactly and the mRNA for the protein was translated did you put a upstream or downstream promoter on it you may want to if this keeps happening and you find the codes match, exactly for the inserted protein and the actual protein. When checking for Cas9 fragment not the entire Cas9 gene had been inserted: in future we’d test for entire gene using long range PCR If this happens again post something, I have a different way to insert it, that will be quick and easy along with cheap that is not perfect but is more gentle way of insertion than the one that you are using. Sticky Blunt Ends. Though, if you are unlucky or do it wrong it will kill the plant cells used on or damage them enough that they will not grow, but this requires a high speed Centrifuge and two types of protein Endonuclease and ligase, a test tube, and a mutagen chemical along with Polyethylene Gycol 400 which I will outline if it comes to that.

You would be the last one I would expect to say that. ''I feel like it so it must be true?'' And you've only heard about this after this transgender fad that's been going on. The boy would not even think about this if his parents hadn't been, presumably, bombarding him with this. But I guess it comes down to how you define gender. I've always thought it was the same as sex. But apparently not. If gender is some arbitrary societal term, then it is nonsensical because gender doesn't exist and therefore transgender doesn't exist. When you say you're transgender, all you are saying is ''I feel like a woman''. There is no evidence against you feeling like a woman. But it doesn't make you one nevertheless.

Really? Because he did. His quote: And I suppose ''because they feel like it'' is all the scientific evidence you need. I did say that gender (at least in the context the others bring it up) is a social construct and therefore, evidence doesn't exist because gender itself doesn't exist. Therefore, there is nothing to talk about here. As I said, there are people who feel like they are the other sex. I believe them 100%. But it doesn't make them the other sex.

I've never understood the point of these things. What difference does it make for you to go out of your way to identify as the opposite sex? What do you gain from that? After all, these people very strongly feel that gender is a social construct and a particular gender shouldn't impede one's desire to do things which the opposite gender ''likes to do''. So it is ironic that one wants to ''shift genders'' so that they may enjoy ''male activities'' or ''female activities''. He did. You may or may not be correct, but that's what he said. Whether the phenomenon is observed to exist or not is independent of what he said. So I may be wrong but that doesn't make him right, not in those words he used anyway. Of course it doesn't, but what I feel is often overlooked is that the fact that transgender might actually be legitimate doesn't mean that all of those people who claim to be transgender are transgender. That's my point. That's why I said ''fad''. This has been observed earlier in history but even though people have identified themselves as that in the 20th century, they were FAR FAR less prominent. Now all of a sudden, everyone is transgender. Does the fact that many autistic people are geniuses necessarily mean that all autistic people are geniuses? Absolutely not.

Is that your main objection to my claim? It concerns the philosophy of physics, and therefore also physics.

This is the same avoiding strategy I have met everywhere. Using mainstream science is legitimate, as long as it is to show how and why some arguments are not valid. To use it as a shield is unacceptable. Mainstream science does not dispense you from the need to present valid arguments. Just saying "science says" is a simple variation on "Simon says". It is childish and unworthy of a Science Forum. *** It is funny how I am accused from all sides of denying Science while my position concerning entanglement, if certainly not identical to Einstein's, is much closer to his ideas than to Bohr's. It seems that everybody in this forum still clings to the idea that Bohr's interpretation is the only correct one. I wonder then who is denying a great part of the developments of Physics and Quantum theory since Bohm and Bell. My claim is certainly not extraordinary. The denial, which I have certainly made clear, of the concept of entanglement, is absolutely not unscientific. It forms the basis of the famous paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), in which they emphatically reject the idea of entanglement. I am therefore in good company, and not ashamed of it. Let those who throw stones remember that the time where everybody thought that Bohr was right and Einstein wrong is long past. I am in fact defending Einstein's position with different arguments. Who could blame me without showing that my arguments are wrong? Assuming they are wrong from the outset because I reject entanglement would be the epitome of intellectual prejudice.

No, I do not think that Bell's Theorem has been proven in this special case. If I did, I would not advance my claim. Is that clear enough for you? And I certainly do not doubt the relationship between Physics and Mathematics. Not believing that Bell's theorem is necessarily valid is not rejecting all mathematics.

It is the assumption that both systems (photon + filter) are different, and that we still get the famous (empirical, therefore undeniable) statistical regularities. I say that they are not different according to the assumptions that: 1) both photons have the same polarization, 2) both filters are identical. If you accept those assumptions, they show according to me that both systems are equal and that it is therefore not surprising that they react in a predictable way, conform the known statistical regularities. That makes the distinction between local and non-local, and the necessity to appeal to hidden variables, both meaningless.

I reject Bell's Theorem for as far as it concerns the example I have analyzed and the claim I have presented. As I have just told you a couple of posts ago, I am not analyzing the mathematical structure of Bell's Theorem, but expressing an opinion, a judgment, on its implications. And that is, whether it be an assumption or a conclusion, the idea that both systems are different and in need of hidden variables, be they local or non-local, for their explanation.

One could also say that the example I have presented does not fall under the cases treated by the theorem. Take your pick. I have no desire to attack or defend Bell's theorem because it would mean analyzing it mathematically, which I cannot do. I react to its general meaning and assumptions. Feel free to draw your own conclusions whether my position is justified or not. You seem to think that if a mathematical argumentation is mathematically or logically valid then it has to be true, and that is a very wrong assumption. That is why there is such a thing as pure mathematics. The validity of a mathematical theorem does not say anything about its empirical usefulness or even its general truth. It only shows that correct conclusions have been logically deduced from the initial assumptions, and that the calculations are correct. That does not mean that the assumptions are necessarily true. And that is the whole point. Bell did not show that von Neumann could not calculate or could not think logically. He doubted his (von Neumann's) initial assumptions and presented his own. The matter therefore is a matter which assumptions you start with, and that is not a mathematical decision.

Then you are both putting the cart before the horse. In the thread Why I am a determinist, I briefly engaged these issues. In this thread I want to build a case for them. It is evident that I am no fan of Bohr's interpretation of quantum physics. But a philosophical opinion as this is nothing new. The EPR paper heralded it, and there are hundreds of publications that defend it. What could my own reiteration mean in such a context? I think that my contribution would be much more meaningful if I proved such a thing as the claim I have presented here. That is why I refuse to be sidetracked towards a general abstract discussion. That is a very interesting claim. I hope you will flesh it out. I don't understand how this can be a critique. Have I not said the same clearly enough just a few posts ago to you specifically? People who would agree with me and at the same time have the necessary expertise would have a much easier time applying my analysis to other examples.

I assure you that you would be laughed at by not only philosophers, but firstly by the scientific community, if you ever tried to publish a paper defending this view Attacking a view under the pretense that your opponent is not qualified is the weakest argument you can think of. What is demanded are arguments, not a judgment on your opponent's abilities. Only people unsure of their own arguments would stoop so low.

I have made it perfectly clear from the start, and if you want I will produce quotes from this thread, that I am not analyzing the mathematical structure of Bell's theorem, or that of von Neumann's argumentation. In fact, I emphatically declared that the problem of hidden variables cannot be solved by mathematical means. The fact alone that there are at least two theories, von Neumann's and Bell's, with completely different conclusions, makes my position at least plausible. My claim is that the whole concepts of local and non-local are wrong in the context of the experiment described by Maudlin. I am not ready yet to widen the claim to the whole domain of entanglement situations considered by quantum theory. I lack the expertise to analyze in sufficient details every example. The drawing I presented above does show that it does not really matter which property or which particle is considered. But it is a general argument which I would find very difficult to defend in all cases. So, no, I am not pretending anything special about Bell's Theorem, except that I reject it in this special case, as well as von Neumann's. Whether one or the other can be proven mathematically to be correct in other situations is beyond anything I could claim.

Disagree you may, but that does not change the fact that I have not confronted in this thread the issues you mention. They are certainly fundamental and my own claim has certainly consequences. But that is not the subject of this thread, even if those issues are strongly related to it.

I do not agree. This is a "technicist" or "scientist" (from scientism) view that is a very subtle way of denying opponents any legitimacy unless they agree with the mathematical or interpretational premises. It is a circular argument with absolutely no value at all. Keep your convictions of superiority if you will, I refuse to acknowledge it. And this refusal is not a rejection of science but of a certain toxic and elitist view of science.

You are telling me how to think because any deviation from mainstream science is a mistake. I will be the last one to pretend that I cannot be wrong. Mainstream science is not a cult one simply disavows. One needs to have very serious arguments before they can be taken seriously. I understand the need for me to defend those arguments. I even understand the intensity and the emotionality of many reactions. It makes me look more critically at my own arguments. What I find unacceptable is that many people in this forum think that just by repeating what mainstream science says they have proven somebody wrong. That is an unscientific attitude, and also quite understandable among students who really do not need all the doubts while they are blocking for their exams. I expect more from you. You should know that just advancing mainstream theory is in itself not an argument. You systematically, in my threads, refuse to look seriously at what I have to say . Your first and last reaction is: but science says... I find that very frustrating. I would like you to keep your convictions, but also to respect mine and start a real dialogue. You would make more chance of convincing me.