Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/14/17 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Since there is no science that claims that life came about by random chance*, this is moot. Which leaves us with a question: can God make a straw-man so big he can't move it? *the outcomes of chemistry are not random
  2. 2 points
    Delusion? Self-deceit? Communities of likeminded lemmings? Simply saying “goddidit” explains nothing, except (of course) the human proclivity for accepting simple inaccurate answers instead of facing hard truths and existing contentedly with uncertainties about challenging questions. Define “god.”
  3. 1 point
    Because we are not that technologically advanced yet and have only been looking a very short while? In my lifetime alone we have seen incredible advances in being able to look further away and to be able to tell more about what is going on. 30 years ago we had never detected other earth like planets before and though that we would have no means of doing so or that it might not even be possible as we were a goldilocks planet just right for life. Now we know of many. Give it a century or 2 Moontan and I'm sure we'll know more.... Give a 3 year old boy a snorkel and tell him to find an octopus. Chances are he will fail.
  4. 1 point
    You need a fairly deep understanding of the nuts and bolts of a field to start productively philosophising.
  5. 1 point
    Maybe. He looks a bit like my Granddad, who introduced me to religion. I loved him very much. I understand how people get taken in by it. Times are progressing though and you have to be true to yourself, the whole of Christianity is based on the bible... which is provably wrong in many places and full of errors and contradictions... all of which you make excuses for and explain away when questioned about - I am done defending god and his bullshit in the bible. All it would reasonably take to disprove that the Christian god is infallible would be to find a single error in the bible. - the errors and contradictions are many. The whole lot is clearly a work of fiction, based on some very thin actual history passed on by hearsay rather than recorded text. I do, however, like the general idea of looking to something greater than ones self, practicing love, forgiveness, mercy, etc.. trying to be humble and going about life with a sense of humility and gratefulness. I have never gotten this right - but I am not sure it is possible - although I have met some lovely people that are fair 'better' than me with their love and compassion for mankind and animals and their peaceful natures.
  6. 1 point
    Yes the excellent Khan Academy video makes no unsupportable claims and is entirely within mainstream physics. And yes it make good use of the tried and tested Huygen's Principle to do this. I have reported Dalo's two fingers to my question so I will wait for the outcome before I answer your comment Geordie.
  7. 1 point
    Bigger fleas have little fleas Upon their backs to bite 'em And little fleas have lesser fleas And so on, ad infinitum Spike Milligan
  8. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note There isn't enough for this to meet the threshold for even a speculations discussion.
  9. 1 point
    I understand your confusion. maybe this will help
  10. 1 point
    I am not going to waste any more time on your redefining the wheel as a cog. I will be happy to help when you are ready to use well established words conventionally.
  11. 1 point
    Read the material my support is there as stated before I deal with physics and teaching it. Doesn't matter to me what you choose to believe in. I don't do useless metaphysics or disbelief arguments. ( a good metaphysics argument I have yet to see from this thread) good visual aid here the reference for how this works with constructive/destructive interference. You won't accept this either.... https://ocw.mit.edu/high-school/physics/exam-prep/physical-optics/interference-diffraction/8_02_spring_2007_ch14_inter_diffr.pdf
  12. 1 point
    These days, I give green to people who do their best to facilitate a reasoned discussion. I also reward clever, funny, and of course, really great mainstream science explanations. Too many people are so interested in "winning" an argument that they'll use really poor and obviously fallacious reasoning, so they get red from me. I give red to those who seem willful in their ignorance, asking for but then rejecting good science in favor of some pet idea. I give red to folks who don't understand the difference between critical analysis and personal attacks, and get rude about it. I give red to those who start with a decent question about science and then spend the rest of the thread trolling about how others treated their question. I don't give red for wrong answers. I don't give red because someone disagrees with me. I don't give red usually unless the behavior was pretty blatant. I give green to counteract someone else's red if I think it was done in retaliation for not agreeing with them. Those are always easy to spot,.
  13. 1 point
    Our perceptions of wealth have been shaped to allow for this behavior, I think. The smallfolk have always had to bow to the will of the upper class, allowing them their depredations in order to not upset the status quo. It's more acute now because the disparity is more acute. I wish we could see an overall shift in attitude that would value more than financial strength or your ability to make money as the worth of a person. I think extreme capitalism spawns the attitude that everything the underclasses have is cheap, and everything the upper class has is valuable. That includes your body, your self-worth, and your integrity. And there is also the persistent and contrary myth that men just can't help themselves. I blame the biblical story of Sampson and Delilah for a lot of it. The man/hero is so strong and virile and powerful, except when it comes to women, then he can't help himself and is undone. If the story had ended with him being killed for his weakness and stupidity, we probably wouldn't have so many Christians going along with the idea of a strong, famous man who can't keep his pants on. But the writers have Sampson regain his strength and defeat his enemies in the end, so we're left with an image of heroic virility tinged by a weakness even God will forgive eventually. Women are portrayed as openly conniving and treacherous in this story, while Sampson is a justifiable idiot who got the girl and became an icon of strength instead of gullibility.
  14. 1 point
    While a supernova would scatter elements into the galaxy, I doubt any of it would reach another galaxy. As far as heavy elements in the inner planets go, Earth has a density of 5.52 g/cm3, Venus 5.24 g/cm3, and Mercury 5.43 g.cm3 . Earth has the highest density, but is also the largest. This becomes a factor because as a rocky planet gets larger, the pressure at its interior increases, which compresses the core and brings up the average density of the planet. Earth's radius is 5.4% greater than Venus' and its density is 5.3% greater. Earth's Mass is 22.6% larger than Venus. We can assume that at least some of the average density difference is like due to the greater compression at the Earth's core due to its larger size. The Earth is only 1.7% denser than Mercury but its radius is 161.4% greater. Mercury is smaller than Mars, and has a density 38.2% larger. From this we can conclude that Mercury has a higher percentage of heavier elements than the Earth does. Exact values for the total elemental make up for Venus or Mercury don't exist. Only two landers have ever done a test of the crust of Venus, and this is not enough to tell us about the planet as a whole, And the only mission to Mercury was a fly-by.
  15. 1 point
    If you have charges on a metal surface, they will respond to changes in the electric field at any given point, and you will measure a voltage on your oscilloscope. Since it's AC, the signal should go through zero. Also, the probe itself will affect the charge on the plates, especially one that's 10 cm across. You have a 10 cm ball. There can be currents flowing on the surface of it.
  16. 1 point
    Indeed it may be. It is the electric field that antenna respond to.
  17. 1 point
    There is a systematic problem on many levels here. One is that conviction, even if pursued by authorities, is very low. There was an inquiry in the UK fairly recently and it showed that only about 8% of all reported cases lead to trial and convictions. As proving assault or rape is quite difficult, there is a sense among victims that moving on is better for them then getting involved in a process during which they may face significant repercussions (as in many cases they know the perpetrator) with little chance for a positive outcome. But there are also many examples where the cases are not properly investigated or simply ignored. Take a look for example at Maricopa Country, Arizona under ex-Sheriff Arpaio, where rape and sexual assault cases were in many cases simply ignored or mismanaged. Or check out the backlog on rape kit tests. Again, it takes a lot of effort, time and resources to fight against this momentum. And not everyone is able to afford that (mentally and fiscally)
  18. 1 point
    This may just be acting like an antenna. You're picking up the mains frequency; the field is driving a current on the ball. Which may be happening with the capacitor plates, too.
  19. 1 point
    I think there have been great improvements in that area (in the UK, at least). Although the subtle/unconscious biases do still persist. But the real problems exist before cases even get to that stage. And in the discussions in the press / social media once it becomes public.
  20. 1 point
    I was talking about the way the police and the courts treat cases. am not sure there is a huge problem overall -account taken of the fact that members obviously come from the community and are susceptible to the same unconscious assumptions as the public in general.. On the other hand ,when a woman (or anyone obviously) is treated inappropriately by the system it is another injury ,and on a different level.
  21. 1 point
    Yes. And I think the fact that many people don't even realise this is part of the problem. So many times, the victims of such assaults are told not to make a fuss (perhaps because it will cause problems for the accused, or the accused will make problems for them). Or they are just not believed ("I can't believe he would do such a thing"). Or people talk about the victim's behaviour or the way they were dressed or how much they had to drink. These things may be changing now, with the publicity generated by Weinstein and others. And there is, of course, a danger of it swinging too far the other way, where there accused is assumed to be guilty. I'm not sure that is too big a problem (once the hysteria of the scummier end of journalism has died down). But, anyway, wouldn't that bring it in to line with most other crimes? I think most people assume that if someone is accused, arrested, brought to court, etc, that they are guilty. It is often thought to be some sort of miscarriage of justice if they are acquitted.
  22. 1 point
    Are they ,considering the circumstances of the alleged crime (if it is a crime as sometimes,maybe in most cases actually it can be far less than that) ? I am not saying that they cannot or are not sometimes treated wrongly by the authorities(I don't have that information) but they do presumably have the right to take a case ( a class case?) against particular authorities if they feel they have been treated unfairly by the justice system .
  23. 1 point
    Indeed. And the problem is that the victims in these cases are treated very differently as compared to victims of other crimes, as are the perpetrators.
  24. 1 point
    They should be each treated with the same objectivity and dispassion until the evidence is concluded and guilt established, or not.
  25. 1 point
    That doesn't mean you should discount, or blame, the victim.
  26. 1 point
    Playing the victim is power in itself. Many men have experienced times when a woman playing the victim is always right regardless of the truth.
  27. -1 points
    It seems blindingly obvious to me that the odds against life evolving/developing from non-life are infinitely huge. But even if it were possible for life to come from non-life, there remains the basic question - 'How did it all start?' Not just how did life start, but how did the non-life start [the basic atoms, molecules, chemicals etc etc] from which life could have developed? The only answer which can explain or answer this question with any degree of certainty, is the existence of a designer or higher intelligence, which had no beginning and has always existed. In human terms, this seems impossible, since experience tell us that everything must have a beginning or start-point. However, those who have faith in God - the Creator - have an enormous advantage, because believing in the existence of God can instantly explain everything about life and the origin of the universe. Now I hear the atheists saying 'codswallop' - but its easier to prove the existence of God [if you don't have a closed mind], than to prove that life came about by random chance.