Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/12/17 in Posts

  1. 6 points
    Puerto Rico agrees. Black athletes agree. The anti-fascist movement agrees.
  2. 5 points
    I use to post on this forum under the forum handle In My Memory between 2005 and 2007. I know it's a long time ago and few people either know or care who I was, but I want to apologize for my behavior back then. In short, I was a compulsive liar and a relentless narcissist. Let me unpack this in detail: Any single statement I made regarding my education, occupation, life, family, hobbies, or experiences was false. At the time when I posted on this forum, I was not capable of telling truths whether big or small. I was fully and completely aware that I was a compulsive liar in the clinical sense of the term. The compulsive lying started when I was very young. Without going into details, I grew up in a household where my parents hit and screamed as a first resort at the smallest, slightest annoyance. I spent my entire childhood tiptoeing around my parents' razor thin patience and angry outbursts. When they raised their voice at me, I lied as a defense mechanism to escape punishment. In time, the lying became so habitual that I couldn't talk to them without falsifying some fact or detail, no matter how small. If they asked me if I ate cereal for breakfast, I would say I had a bagel. If they asked me why I seemed tired, I would say I wasn't. If they asked me what I did at school, I'd tell a story about having lunch and a nice conversation with friends; when in actuality, I didn't talk to anyone because I had no friends. And so on in that fashion ad infinitum. This carried on into adulthood: anyone who engaged me would get an earful of embellishments and false memories. I occasionally lied for sport, saying outlandishly false things just to amuse myself. Predictably, I did screw up and lost friends, trust, and credibility along the way. I burned a lot of bridges. It took me a long time to realize why I did this, but the short version was that I was deeply sad and crushed by inferiority. I did not handle these feelings in a healthy way: I lied constantly to bolster my own ego and feel important for a change. I found it incredibly, stupidly easy to slip into the compulsive lying habit behind the anonymity of the internet. For years, I role-played personas on various internet forums. I weaved long, detailed back stories into my characters. All of my characters were idealized, implausibly talented, wishful versions of myself. The persona on this forum was a financial analyst struggling to hold her marriage together. Despite being an "idealized" version of myself, I was positively venomous at times. I deliberately tried to get under people's skin, broke people down to build up my ego, used narcissism as a weapon. I do not want to deflect responsibility for my behavior by psychoanalyzing it away. I was aware of what I was doing and in control of my actions the entire time. I take full ownership of everything I've done and said. I cannot express how deeply, irrevocably ashamed I am for my past behavior. I sincerely, earnestly express my regret and apologies. -- With that in mind, I also want to emphasize that I have mellowed out considerably in the past decade. I am self-aware and deeply introspective regarding my own behavior and the direction which my life unfolds. Consequently, I took deliberate steps to become a better person and manifest my idealized self; I decided that compulsive lying was incompatible with the person I wanted to be. I never sought the help of a counselor (I don't think I could have engaged one honestly even if I wanted to), but I was strongly self-motivated to police the things I say to people. I slipped up frequently at first, but I found that the less I lied, the less I needed to do so, and eventually I was able to talk to people in a completely transparent, truthful manner. I've also put a lid on my narcissistic streak and no longer swing my ego around like a wrecking ball. I've wanted to get this off my chest for years. Best wishes, IMM
  3. 4 points
    Here's another visualization of what walking around the spinning square would be like, showing 1 full side and part of two others:
  4. 4 points
    I am happy to credit Lincoln with abolishing slavery although today Republicans are the party of choice for white supremacists.
  5. 4 points
    "Scientific proof" is like "iridium glider" or "library tuba" or "poisoned vitamins". If you're looking for any of these things, you're missing the point completely.
  6. 3 points
    Note that you mention harassment while the quote was about sexual assault. In these cases women are ~10 times more frequently victims than men in most statistics. Notably, most males are victims of other males, perhaps for obvious reasons. Now harassment is quite a different issue, and the gender difference is lower (women experience it ca. 3x more often). A typical lifetime statistic in the USA shows something like 50% of women experience harassment and about 15% of men. The rate goes up for both genders in male-dominated environments (e.g. according to DOD data 2014 ~79% of women and 35% of men), again pointing to a leading role of men as perpetrators. I am not sure where you are going with this, though.
  7. 3 points
    No. Instead say, "Want quick-read threads? Vote YES!" l personally dislike the idea. Forcing science discussions to be short goes against the nuanced and layered information structure of most explanations of natural phenomena. This is exactly why pop-sci articles cause as much trouble as they do to spur interest in the sciences. An explanation or argument should take as long as it takes. I think we already have a Quick Question thread for simple answers. I'm not sure what the objective is for a whole subforum of it, but if it attracts those who can't be bothered to read details, it sounds like it will mostly be good for dragging our reputation down as a serious science discussion site.
  8. 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?
  9. 3 points
    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.
  10. 3 points
    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.
  11. 3 points
    Just for the fun of it, here's the square habitat done with stair steps to make it easier to walk around the interior since near the corners, the slope approaches 45 degrees. The simulated gravity will be ~41% higher at the corners than it is in the middle of each side, so you would be dealing with more "weight" as well as a steeper incline there. Maybe it's just me, but there's something very "Esher-esque " about this image.
  12. 3 points
    This is classic Republican strategy. If the EPA makes your businesses jump through hoops just to protect citizens, put someone in there who will mess it up good. Same with Education, same with FEMA (remember Katrina?), same with all the watchdog agencies that are there to protect us against just such people and tactics. I've worked with facilities that manufacture medical diagnostic equipment. All of them have to meet an enormous amount of regulations to satisfy FDA that their products meet federal requirements. And while all of them bitch about it, I never heard a single one of them say that NOT doing it would be better. It would be less work for them, but they all seemed to understand that their products are successful BECAUSE they're held to such high standards. In fact, in some areas like disposables, they worked to exceed the federal requirements just so they could brag about it. The villianaires that are trying to hobble our government aren't interested in fairness, they're interested in more profit. I hate this strategy even more than when Bush II implemented because it also weakens us in EXACTLY the way Putin/Russia benefits most from, which I'm sure is just coincidence. The conservative fears going around the world are aiding the Russians in keeping allies apart and isolating strong countries like the US and Germany. We're in trouble, and Trump is giving away or spoiling most of our best relationships while he pits his base against the rest of the citizenry IN HIS OWN COUNTRY. He's the greatest American Russia has ever produced, or he's doing a top-shelf imitation of it.
  13. 3 points
  14. 3 points
    OK I can see I have a bit of work cut out for me here. OK lets start with the problem of "Where does the energy come from". Well energy is simply a property that is defined by the ability to perform work. So it doesn't need to come from anywhere, it doesn't need to be created but simply emerges for various applications. Start with Potential energy: "In physics, potential energy is the energy possessed by an object because of its position relative to other objects" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy So by merely changing the position of one object compared to another I change the potential energy.... Kinetic energy: "In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy Now what about mass? Mass "is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass So looking at those statements Does energy need to exist in the first place or does it simply develop as field anisotropies develop via potential differences between two or more measurement points ? much like voltage in electrical circuits? Now as for the universe temperature. There is a very important relation between the density of particles in a given volume. This is simply the ideal gas laws in play. Yes pv=NRT. If you take x number of particles and compress them, the temperature will increase. To do otherwise would violate the laws of thermodynamics... In Cosmology applications the temperature follows a very interesting relation it is the inverse of the scale factor. [math]a=\frac{1}{T}[/math] that is a direct application of those ideal gas laws I just mentioned above. The question of the laws of physics becoming invalid in BH's depends on how one defines those laws of physics. In mathematical precision its when symmetry can no longer be applied. It would take a bit to fully describe that under math as it requires an understanding of various notations many aren't accustomed to but if you like I can readily post the mathematical descriptive.
  15. 3 points
    You should be aware that comments like these: . Don't exactly square with conclusions like these: And that’s just in THIS thread so far. The case against your conclusion becomes even stronger upon a cursory search of your comments in other discussions.
  16. 3 points
  17. 3 points
    Ah! I see the problem now - you are only about 5 years of age!... well, you are very intelligent for a junior! Well done for thinking about such things. Ask your teacher to explain it to you and they can show you with a diagram how the suns incident rays on the earth are parallel. If you still don't understand it then re address the topic in a few years when you've grown up a bit, learnt a little science, and you might grasp it then.
  18. 3 points
    The politics of Black Holes ? Why is there a political/religious undercurrent to anything we discuss here ? Next thing someone will be comparing D Trump's divisiveness to Dark Energy separating everything at an increasing rate.
  19. 3 points
    It often is; it certainly is if they got where they are by inheriting a company, or by getting away with sharp practice, or they happened to choose VHS rather than betamax, or they took over an existing company, or they were in the position of having a powerful friend block a competitor. You say "You make the company, or the employer pay more taxes...." And then you forget the important bit. Why is that? Is it that you don't want to acknowledge it? Anyway- since you won't look at the real world, I willpoint it out for you. You make them pay more tax and then you (as the state) use that money to do things like build roads (which practically no employer can afford) which allow the business to distribute the goods it makes. And you use it to build and run schools- so that the business can benefit from having a better educated , better trained workforce. And you use it to provide healthcare so that the business benefits from a healthier workforce- they work better , worry less and have better attendance. And so on. Now it's true that a big employer could, in principle, do any of those things. But big employers like that are rare. A government gets all the benefits of ensuring that nobody shirks their share and they also get economies of scale which no other mechanism would allow. So, there are lots of benefits that you simply ignored. You say "Rich people are not our enemies, they are the holders of the means of production." The two clauses are unrelated to eachother They often hold the means of production for no good reason except luck. When they club together and ensure that they get all the money and leave the rest in poverty then yes, they absolutely are the enemy. (and they have). https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/hope-despair-inequality/421806/ I doubt that, but let's look at the alternative- the usual system that people consider is the "flat tax" rather than a progressive tax rate. It's not hard t show why it's bad for everyone. Imagine a group of people- it could be a country but it's easiest to show the reasoning with a small group- say a small town. They decide that they want a "thing" again, it doesn't matter what the thing is- a school, a park, a hospital, a statue to the town's founder- whatever. The distribution of salaries in most places is fairly similar. A few people earning a lot, many earning in the middle and a few earning very little. For simplicity there are 100 people in town. 3 earn a million a year, 5 earn just 10,000 and the rest earn 20,000. The cost of living is 9000 a year. So, let's see what happens with a flat tax. Clearly you can't set it higher than 1000 a year, because that would kill the poorest families. So, the tax income for the town can't exceed 100,000. Sadly, the Thing the town want costs 200,000. OK, let's consider a progressive tax of 5% The poorest families are still alive- which is a good thing. In fact, they are better off- they pay 500 rather than 1000 as they would under the flat tax system. They contribute 1500 between them. The "middle class" each pay 1000 and there are 98 of them, and that's another 98000 in the town's kitty, and the rich pay 50,000 each so that's 150,000 to add in. So the overall tax collected is 249500. Because they recognised the problem with flat tax they can buy the Thing and live happily ever after. (and, in case you are wondering, yes, sure, one of the 3 rich guys could simply have paid for the Thing, but it would have cost him 200,000 and this way he gets it for 50,000) Please do not ever try to tell us that progressive tax is a bad thing. (unless, of course, you think truth doesn't matter)
  20. 3 points
    waitforufo has been suspended a week for his pattern of posting innuendo and soapboxing to incite emotional response, rather than engaging in fact-based discussion.
  21. 3 points
    It is especially sad considering how much Western Europe was against Polish integration into the EU for fears of them taking all the jobs and bringing all the crime (well, mostly car thefts). Even now Polish folks (if revealed to be as such by name or accent) face discrimination in many Western European countries. That is to a large degree inaccurate. What it lead to was a sense of nationalism. However, how that has manifested throughout polish history has been very multifaceted and was not always inward-looking. The best example is the romantic Polish nationalism of the the 19th century as represented by Mickiewicz or Chopin. This form was more framed by idealism rather than borders or ethinicity. And while politically ineffectual, it had a profound impact on Polish identity. In modern times there is a deep rift in the perception of post-WWII events, which is fueled by by feeling wronged by the communists, but also the Western world. PiS managed to ride the wave of resentment to create an exclusive form of nationalism with heavy revisionists aspects. On top, they masterfully integrated the church as an umbrella for the dissatisfied and, ironically, sprinkled the whole thing with elements of the communist and fascist regime that controlled Poland. The blood and soil rhetoric was, to my knowledge never a cornerstone of Polish nationalism. Rather, it was used as justification for the Nazis for ethnic cleansing in Poland. To embrace this is... well, depressing.
  22. 3 points
    Well I for one cannot find any consistency in the math posted. The formulas provided are literally useless. The explanations and replies by the OP clearly shows that the OP doesn't even understand the basic definitions of the terms he is using. However On that I am not surprised, its very common to see posters believe they can rewrite physics without even having a basic understanding of physics with no rigor to applying even high school definitions taught in high school physics. lets start with provide a mathematical definition for each term Swansont has mentioned as the OP is not using them in any recognizable standard (not that a pile of zeroth order formulas could ever have any hope of rewriting physics) there isn't a single vector in the above, all values above are apparently scalars.) I wouldn't even call them first order approximations until I see more rigor.
  23. 2 points
    Sexual harassment is against the law. Sexual assault is a crime. So let's dispense with the fiction that unlawful behavior is not in play here. We've talked to our daughters for generations. Maybe we should be talking to our sons, since they are the ones exhibiting the objectionable behavior. Women get talked to about how to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable situations, but men do not get the same institutional dialogue on not assaulting or harassing women. You are painting this with a very broad brush. Have you considered that women who seek out power (in your terms) are not the ones coming forth with harassment claims? Have you considered that the reason some women might go to some lengths to improve their appearance is because that's the only way they can advance with men in power? Because they have no power to do so on merit alone? Do you really think men kept their hands to themselves back when "women wore hats"? Far more many women have been assaulted and/or harassed. The straw man here is couching this as "playing the victim" which implies that there was no inappropriate behavior in the first place. Anyone who has been harassed or assaulted is not "playing the victim". The situations under discussion are not treated the same way as most other crimes. If someone is burgled, the reaction of bystanders is not "Why do you own such fancy stuff? You were asking for it to be taken!" The police generally do not dissuade you from trying to press charges. People don't rush to the defense of the burglar, saying how he's such a nice guy, and why are you trying to ruin his reputation? So this is not so simple as "innocent until proven guilty" and should not be cast as such.
  24. 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:
  25. 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"?
  26. 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)
  27. 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.
  28. 2 points
    It seems a very sensible approach. Not least because the current approach- legal prohibition- clearly doesn't work, and never did.
  29. 2 points
    It's not about "defending", it's about "discussion". Nobody wants your apologies, we want to understand why you think what you do, and help you. You wrote: 4) extra light off. Lasers on. Only three beams go through diaphragms 5) five bright spots visible from screen Nobody here understands how you get step 5 after 4. It's very simple, all you need to do is draw a diagram showing how you can see all five spots in step 5. What path is the light following? (Move the discussion along, instead of getting upset and defensive.) Your earlier diagram is a good start.
  30. 2 points
    Because Dalo want's to display an image on the screen, not burn a hole in it ??
  31. 2 points
    Above are questions I previously asked waitforufo. If were are going to discuss how good or bad the economy was under different Presidents we need to identify the goal posts. A lot of different numbers get used to make a lot of different arguments. You say Reagan inherited the "biggest mess". What specifically made it the "biggest"? When Reagan came into office the federal debt to GDP ratio was at 33% which was the lost it had been since 1932 (it is currently over 100%). Both Clinton and Obama came into office during a time when unemployment was rising rapidly. Obama in particular inherited worse unemployment numbers than than Reagan. Not only did Obama inherit a collapsed economy (worse since the great depression) but the country was at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287 https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet When you say Reagan had the "biggest positive change" I assume you are referencing the misery index? That is an accurate statement. One I personally would take with a grain of salt though. Currently if we look at the global misery index countries like Malaysia, Vietnam,and China are better than the U.S.. The Philippines better than Australia & Canada, Pakistan is better than Russia and India. The misery index is merely the sum of inflation and unemployment. It doesn't speak to quality of life, global economic power, or the stability of institutions. I personally feel the Reagan set this country on the wrong track. National debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen during every administration FDR - Carter but has grown during every administration Reagan - Trump. Reagan was a turning point I don't feel has been for the best as it relies of unsustainable rates of growth. The tax cut pass by the senate yesterday is a percent example. Debt is at 110% of GDP currently and the Senate is cutting taxes?
  32. 2 points
    Doesn’t make much sense to me. There are an infinite number of integers but you can still say “5” without having to count up from -infinity. And if the universe is spatially infinite, you are still “here”. You didn’t have to travel from infinity to get here.
  33. 2 points
    1. It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion from observations. 2. It is not random. Quantum effects are deterministic, but only in a probabilistic sense. It is like tossing a coin: you know (deterministically) that you will get a head or a tail but you only know with a certain probability that you will get a head. 3. It doesn't suppose any "intelligence" in matter. So, nice three-fold straw man argument.
  34. 2 points
    Looks like it might be more than a bit weird!
  35. 2 points
    Hi. I hope what you've written you find cathartic and can now draw a line under that chapter of your life to start a new one that will leave behind positive thoughts and memories of yourself.
  36. 2 points
    The scale factor time derivitaves are simple ratios. The scale factor today is 1 you compare the radius at the time you wish to examine and compare it to the radius today. If for example the radius then is 1/2 the radius today. Then [math] \ddot{a}(t)=0.5[/math] it is as simple as that. If you have 3 dots then you compare to two dots. If two dots compare to 1 dot. They are just ways to keep track of the sequence of time comparisons
  37. 2 points
    31.5 million. She said half, and he got ~63 million votes. The thing is, the truly deplorable ones say the same thing. They just want to MAGA. They claim to be patriots. But we can see what their vision of "great again" is by their actions. Their vision is white, straight, and Christian (among other things), none of which is founded on the constitution, and how can one be a solid citizen if one rejects the tenets of the constitution? Your habit of making claims based on no associated evidence whatsoever has gotten tiresome. Is there a house or senate bill in the works that is proposing to disallow burning coal? Is this happening in places that have legalized recreational pot smoking? (IOW, do you have evidence to back up your assertion?) Evidence? (while we know for a fact that Trump has disclosed classified material to foreign adversaries) As opposed to Trump, who has not stood up to Putin. Based, again, on no evidence whatsoever. What if we passed a law outlawing straw man arguments? Really? You know this...how? Marital rape, OTOH, is illegal in all 50 states. Regardless of your political affiliation. (and see how easy it is to back up a factual claim? You should try it sometime.)
  38. 2 points
    Godel killed Hilbert's dream a nearly century ago. Firstly you still haven't answered this. Did you or someone else disprove Godel's two theorems whilst I was in the bath?
  39. 2 points
    There is a similar problem with dates. Is 10/11/12 the 10th November 2012 (UK) or the 11th October 2012 (USA) or 12th November, 2010 (Japan) Actually, I don't think people would normally use two digit years in Japan - apart from anything else, the current year is both 2017 and Heisei 29.
  40. 2 points
    Very detailed, very good paper. It even goes into some detail why gravity is classed as a pseudoforce, something a bit rare these days but pertinent to unification attempts, or failure, using a better word. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf
  41. 2 points
    We are social. We are intelligent. Just enough of each to make us susceptible to a concerted effort to keep us at odds with one another long enough to distract while the dark deeds we'll find out about later can happen. The gloves seem to be off now, the lies are bigger than ever, the global dialogue is focused on extremes like never before. And still I feel it's all to cover up a much larger middle ground of tolerance and cooperation than anyone suspects is there. I think people worldwide are tired of being lied to, but truths seem hollow and untrustworthy and scarce.
  42. 2 points
    It never stops to amaze me how a, so-called, social animal can be so antisocial at the same time as being, so called, intelligent; if we're so intelligent how come we can't understand the benefit of sharing?
  43. 2 points
    You are posting your own feelings about what you choose to accept. Trump has denied that human caused climate change and his spokes people refuse to clarify. His pivot is to discuss the economy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGEzFbRl-g8 At the one minute mark O'Reilly asks Trump specifically if he believes if humans impact climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uJCrYuZ7yI The WH's Press Sec won't say whether or not Trump believes human impact climate. So you are basically saying that is order to find middle ground I must accept your denials and deflections? Trump has denied climate and has denied Russia hacking in his own words many times. I could spend the day copying you links. Your refusal to acknowledge what is so plainly and painfully true is a major barrier to middle ground.
  44. 2 points
    The 'laws of Physics' ALWAYS apply. It is our modeling that ceases to apply in some conditions.
  45. 2 points
    To be fair, it wasn’t 60 thousand regular nazis marching, majority of them were dumb, blinded morons convinced that they’re marching in the name of patriotism. It doesn’t change the fact that regular nazis were invited from Italy, Hungary giving straight up KKK style speaches during the event. All on our indepence day...it’s like our 4th of July. F disgrace.
  46. 2 points
    I didn't want to post a thread on this as I feel very ashamed of this. Unfortunately there is no nonviolent way to stop this, currently there isn't any way to stop this. The so called right wing party "PiS - Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (translation: Law and Justice) has essentially erased in the last 2 years (2 year anniversary propaganda running on TV as I'm writing this) the foundations of a democratic nation - 2 weeks after they were elected they joined the functions of the general prosecutor and the minister of justice and let a sick, deranged guy have the job - he's loyal to Kaczyński who essentially created a crawling dictatorship. They fired all the judges from the supreme court and replaced them. They implemented dozens of legislative laws enabling them to have absolute power over the opposition. They are also extremely effective at populist propaganda, they implemented a "500+" program giving 500 pln for every child in the country (it's a deformed legislation resulting in various types of pathology) The bottom line is that the 60K people marched in Warsaw on Saturday on the Polish independance day (we regained independance in 1918) and it ended up being a Nazi march. Te government media is not really condemning this, the government is openly not condemning this but the opposition is going nuts so that's a good thing. There is no way currently to stop this, Kaczyński has indirect but absolute power over courts, supreme courts, the constitutional tribunal, police, etc. People do not seem like they're going to wake up any time soon so it's either the EU which will enforce sanctions or for me - a passport change which we are considering with my wife and 18 month old son.
  47. 2 points
    No, I don't think consciousness is either an emergent phenomenon or greater than the sum of it parts to any degree beyond other traits. Being an emergent phenomenon greater than the sum of its parts is how I would describe the existence of life itself. I view consciousness as a function of the brain no more of an emergent phenomenon eyes, lungs or the brain itself. Evolution has produce many thinks which we humans can selectively be in awe of. I am not sure in context how you are defining "above" but will concede that on my part it was a poor choice of words. I should have used the word separate rather than above. I cannot predict the precise route or speed drift wood washed out to sea in a storm will travel or if that drift wood will ever make it to land again but that isn't anecdotal proof drift wood has free will. A couple pages back I asked the question does a teacher have control over the grade they give a student or does the student? The question being directed at grade school. I know parents who move to specific neighborhoods, feed their kids specific diets,medicate their kids, buy them specific type of entertainment (toys, games, books, puzzles), and etc assuming they can influence the type of student their children will be; do parents have control over the grade? Then of course they are school boards members and elections (in some places) for those jobs. Candidate argue their policies will increase academic performance. They claim they can increase the average grade but can they? Making things messier is the fact that students are forced to go to school and the whole grading system is measuring how well they are learning the mandatory information they must learn per the direction of others. I think that if you provided a psychologist, sociologist, statistician, or any smart person who is decide at understanding people and likelihoods key points about a child's life they would be able to predict what type of grades that child receives. I wouldn't call that determinism. Even if we assume free will is 100% thing and everyone is exercising choice all the time people would still make predictable choices over and over again.
  48. 2 points
    Hi, my googlefu found this: Doc. 2 The Principle of Relativity and Its Consequences in Modern Physics 117 - http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/131 from here: Volume 3: The Swiss Years: Writings 1909-1911 (English translation supplement) - http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/ Translated by Anna Beck Hope it helps.
  49. 2 points
    Short answer? No. More complete answer? I’m deeply unsure, and find myself struggling with this very question. I accept that my being...this entity described as myself...acts in distinct ways from the environment surrounding me...That there are activities and actions with me as their locus, eminenting from within me and radiating outward into the broader cosmos. It’s when I dig deeper into that “me” that the view becomes cloudy. I’m just a part of the universe and subject to chemical reactions. My sense of self and control and consciousness stem from those chemical reactions as their source. The idea of control seems to be a narrative applied after the fact, an illusion as elucidated in my previous posts. This all gives me pause. It prevents me from answering your question in the affirmative. Again, no. We can interact with our environment and affect it with our behaviors, but control is not the word I’d select to describe this exchange.
  50. 2 points
    From The Salmon of Doubt by Douglas Adams: