Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/16/16 in all areas

  1. 7 points
  2. 6 points
    Puerto Rico agrees. Black athletes agree. The anti-fascist movement agrees.
  3. 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
  4. 5 points
    Why do you limit your options to 'god did it' or 'everything popped out of nothing'? What about it didn't start, i.e. it's always existed? What about 'we don't know'? Also, as i understand it physicists have found that things do simply pop into existence. And yes, i'm frequently astonished by existence. Why does that imply god? I like this question. Many people seem to question that the universe could either just pop into existence or that it has always existed - but are happy to ascribe these exact same properties to something they call 'god'. Either way something has this property - why not discard the middleman and simply ascribe it to the universe. Depends how god is defined. A god that set up the conditions for the big bang but does not intervene at all thereafter would be impossible to detect, at least with our current capabilities. A personal god that answers prayers and parts seas has been pretty well debunked. Such a god would be easy to detect - we would just look for instances where the laws of physics contradict themselves (i.e. the rules change) - seas start to part, lakes turn into wine, whatever other crazy stuff you think a god might do. There is no sign of such a god.
  5. 5 points
    First off, dark matter and dark energy are two different things and the reasons for expecting their existence are completely unrelated. The only thing they have in common is that they have "dark" in their names. The initial evidence for dark matter came from observations of how stars move in galaxies. Galaxies are formed from stars that are mutually orbiting each other. If we look at a galaxy, and estimate its mass by the matter we can see, we find that there does not appear to be enough to hold the galaxy together. At the speed the stars are orbiting, they should fly apart. We also know how these stars should orbit if the mass is contained to the shape we see it as having. Not only does the galaxy have more mass than that we can see, but the unseen mass must be distributed a lot differently than the part we do not see. For example, in a typical spiral galaxy, a good deal of the mass must be located above and below the disk-like shape we see. If it was made of normal matter, we should see it, if not in the visible spectrum, it should be visible at some other spectrum. This leads us to believe that whatever is causing that extra mass is not made of normal matter, but a type of matter that does not emit or interact with light or any part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus the term "dark matter. There have been attempts to explain the discrepancy through developing different models for how gravity behaves, but to date, none have been consistent with all the observations we have made. Dark energy concerns itself with the expansion of the universe. We have known for a long time that the universe is expanding and that distant galaxies are moving away from us. But until couple of decades ago, we assumed that the mutual gravity between the different parts of the universe was slowing this expansion down over time. What we did not know was whether this was enough to eventual stop the expansion all together. In the 1990's a study was made to try to determine if this was the case or not. Basically it worked because as we look at distant galaxies, we are seeing them as they were when the light left them. Thus as we look further away we are looking further into the past. Thus, to explain it simply, by comparing various galaxies' distances to how fast they appear to be receding from us, you can work out how the expansion of the universe has change over time. The surprise came when it was discovered that the universe's expansion was not slowing down, but was speeding up. Not only was it mutual gravity not enough to stop its expansion, but something was overcoming the gravity and pushing the universe apart. They decided to call this unknown influence "dark energy" (mainly because they had already coined the term "dark matter") . We really know very little about dark energy, and the term really just is a place holder for whatever it turns out to be. (Much in the way the terms "X-rays" was coined before we learned that they were just a certain part of the electromagnetic spectrum.)
  6. 5 points
    scherado has been banned for multiple instances of rule-breaking in his quest to become the Troll King. We apologize that his interruption in the normal rational discourse was all noise and no signal whatsoever. Roger Dynamic Motion has been banned, NOT for incessant hijacking and almost daily irrationality, but for failing to respond to requests for clarity, EVER. Discussion requires that we express our ideas so others can understand. We wish him good luck with his ideas, whatever they were supposed to be.
  7. 5 points
    This would be very cool. Unfortunately, here in the USA, I don't see that happening any decade soon since there would be parental concern about the radioactivity as well as (unreasonable) religious concerns. * The discussion reminds me of a point I read once that if Darwin had been wrong, the discovery of DNA and how it works would have destroyed his theory and we would have been seeking an alternate mechanism. Instead the discovery of DNA lead to a refinement of Darwin's theory into the even more robust Evolutionary Theory. It is humbling to think of how Darwin, through observation and deduction, derived the process of natural selection and developed his theory and that we have only needed to refine it a bit in spite of more than a century of amazing discoveries. I used to believe in evolution but I no longer do after studying it – now I understand and accept it. I also now see three groups: those who believe in evolution, those who don't believe in evolution – but neither of those groups understand it – and those who understand and accept evolution. I have never met someone who understands evolution but doesn't accept it – all who claim to be such people show that they don't actually understand evolution and really they just don't believe in evolution.
  8. 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:
  9. 4 points
    I am happy to credit Lincoln with abolishing slavery although today Republicans are the party of choice for white supremacists.
  10. 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.
  11. 4 points
    So things look like they have improved quite a bit over the last few hours. Looking at our server load averages for the last 12 hours, it's been quite clear that the load has reduced and SFN feels a lot more responsive. We'll see how we can do in relation to the 'bad gateway' issue over the next few days.
  12. 4 points
    Any President who supports the completely debunked Wakefield link between the MMR vaccine and autism is not pro science. Any president who wants to increase graduate student income tax burden by 400% is not pro science. Any president who wants to decimate science funding is not pro science. Any president who dissolves the DoJ National commission on forensic science is not pro science. Any president blocks public access to scientific data is no pro science. Trump is the most anti science president in recent history. His own party and appropriations committee openly defies him to support science.
  13. 4 points
    If you are suggesting that light coming from some distant galaxy is traveling slower when it reaches the Earth than light produced locally, then this would produce noticeable effects. One would be in stellar aberration. When look at a star that is located on a line which is at a right angle to the Earth's orbital motion. It apparent position shifts a bit which is determined by the relationship between the speed of light and Earth's orbital speed. Since the direction of the Earth's motion changes over the course of a year, the direction of the apparent shift also changes. The point is, that if the speed of light arriving from a further galaxy was slower upon reaching Earth that light from a closer galaxy, we would measure a larger apparent shift in the position of the further galaxy than we would for the closer galaxy. This would be noticeable in any Hubble picture which contained galaxies at varying distances. When the Hubble takes a picture of some distant part of the universe, it can't just take a quick snap shot, it needs a very long exposure. Much longer than the scope can remain pointed at a single point of the Sky as it orbits the Earth. So what is done is that the Telescope points at a part of the sky for a while, records what it sees, and then waits until it's back into position again to continue the image, and repeats this process over and over until the total exposure time is met. A single image can takes months to complete. But this means that the apparent shift due to aberration also changes while the image if being formed. This is fine as long as the speed of the light arriving from all those galaxies is the same, as the shift will be the same and can be accounted for. But if light from further galaxies was slower when it reached Earth, those galaxies would exhibit a larger shift than nearer ones. The image compiled of multiple exposures taken over a long period of time would show "smearing" of these further galaxies which increased the further the galaxy was away.
  14. 4 points
    In a recent discussion here at science forums, in a thread related to a similar discussion I explained how some scientists consider all observable matter as just ''longer lived'' fluctuations of the vacuum. This article seems to be related to these kinds of discussions. Scientific American is no stranger to the discussion of virtual particles. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/?utm_content=bufferbfd4d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
  15. 4 points
  16. 4 points
    It's just orbital velocity. The only way to transfer rotational energy is through tidal interaction, but this is slow and inefficient. Consider our own Moon. It gains only 4cm per year in orbital height. That's a gain of 1.33e-6 joules per kg per year gained by the Moon. This amount of energy gain in terms of equivalent velocity gain is 0.163 cm/sec per year. And a probe using a planet as a slingshot spends only a relatively short period of time close enough to the planet for this interaction to take place. It is inefficient in that the majority of the rotational energy lost by the planet is given up through waste heat and not transferred to the orbiting body. To explain a gravity slingshot, first imagine the probe some distance to the left of a planet. It is approaching it at 2 km/sec on a trajectory that will follow a parabolic path around the planet, so that some time in the future it will again be the same distance to the left of the planet, but now moving away from the planet to the left at 2 km/sec. Now imagine that this whole arrangement was moving right to left like the planet is orbiting the Sun. the planet's orbital velocity is 4 km/s. So from the sun fixed view, the probe is moving at 2km/ per sec to the left (the relative velocity between probe and planet is still 2km/sec.) the probe whips around the planet as before, and ends up once again moving at 2 km/sec to the right relative to the planet. But now it is moving at 4km/sec + 2km/sec = 6km/sec relative to the Sun. It started out moving at 2 km/sec to the left and ends up moving 6 km/sec to the left. Of course, it doesn't quite gain a total of 4km/sec. Because in the above, we ignored how the planet behaves during all this. It reacts to the gravitational pull between it and probe also, In the first scenario, it would pick up some speed moving to the left as the probe came in from the left, and then start moving to the right as the probe moved away. But since its mass is so large compared to that of the probe, its resultant velocity to the right will be infinitesimal, and in the second scenario, we will see it as an equally small decrease in its right to left orbital speed relative to the Sun.
  17. 4 points
    When Congress created the NEO Search Program in 1998 they tasked NASA with finding 90% of the near-Earth asteroids that are one kilometer or larger. Then in 2005 Congress extended NASA's objective to include 90% of the NEOs larger than 140 meters. While the majority of NEOs have been identified via ground-based telescopes, they are not the only sources. Both WISE and NEOWISE were space-based infrared searches for NEOs before their cryogens were exhausted by 2010. It is a question of size. Since 1998 NASA has discovered ~98% of the NEOs that are one kilometer or larger. The percentage of known NEOs drops according to their size. At 140 meters in diameter fewer than 1% are known. However, while a 140 meter diameter meteorite impact could easily wipe out a large city, it would not cause an extinction level event. What was meant by the asteroid approaching from the "daytime sky" is that the asteroid approached Earth from the direction of the sun. Even with infrared sensing satellites we would not be able to see something approaching Earth from the direction of the sun, unless the satellite was closer to the sun than the NEO. It is our thermal blind-spot. Depending on the density and composition of the NEO, it will need to be between 20 and 25 meters in diameter in order to impact with the surface and form a crater. The Chelyabinsk meteor came very close to impacting the planet and it was estimated to be just over 15 meters in diameter. In order to be the cause of an extinction level event the NEO would have to be very large indeed. The asteroid that impacted the planet ~65 million years ago was estimated to be 12 kilometers in diameter. Currently, the known NEO with the highest probability of impacting Earth is 2010 RF12. Sometime between 2095 and 2117 there is a 5% chance that the asteroid may impact Earth. At only ~7 meters in diameter the NEO does not pose much of a threat. The odds of an unknown NEO causing an extinction level event is extremely unlikely considering the size it would have to be. However, it is only a matter of time before a 50 to 100 meter NEO that we didn't know about impacts the planet and could very possibly kill millions if it impacts a major city. Sources: NEO Search Program - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Center for Near-Earth Object Studies Sentry: Earth Impact Monitoring - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Center for Near-Earth Object Studies Absolute Magnitudes of Asteroids and a Revision of Asteroid Albedo Estimates from WISE Thermal Observations - Icarus, Volume 221, Issue 1, September-October 2012, Pages 365-387 (free preprint) The International Astronomical Union Minor Planet Center Asteroid Impact Effects and their Immediate Hazards for Human Populations - Geophysical Research Letters, April 19, 2017 (free preprint)
  18. 4 points
    "Didn't do anything" is incorrect. Obama, for instance, https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595 (Trump rescinded an EO limiting access for the mentally ill) Legislation is hard to do when you don't have the cooperation of congress. What would GW Bush and Trump's excuse be on that front?
  19. 4 points
    Bullshit, it's not your precious money to control after it's spent merely because you claimed to have worked for it, princess. It's the government's money. Your receive services from police, fire etc from healthy people, able to work because of a health care system. Yet, police brutality and corruption remains and you say/do nothing about it. The vacuum which is your economic vision of the country is flawed. You drive on roads, camp in parks, visit libraries, churches and museums. I''m not religious, does that mean my money won't be subsidizing those career mooches and purveyors of nonsense any longer? America is more socialist than you say, comrade. You don't want people to have health care, but you want roads paved to move yourself about the country at your whimsy. You want guns and laws to protect YOU from threats, yet "driving while black" (for example) remains a great threat to otherwise hard working, law abiding minorities. I have no kids, but I pay school taxes levied to my property axes.
  20. 4 points
    Why is gold still valuable if it's not money anymore? Might make more sense if the question read: Why is money still valuable if it's not gold anymore?
  21. 4 points
    Thank you so much for your input! I was absolutely hoping for a response like this. I knew that there were inconsistencies, and I am glad that you pointed out and explained each inconsistency and flaw with this idea. When I say "independent research" I was mainly reading up on various reputable sources from various university websites that have certain topics that they have explained by lecturers posted online. I also have been listening to some physicists on youtube talk as well, but that can get a little sketchy, cause it's youtube after all. And then the chargeless and massless part I learned from cause I did not know that photons were massless and chargeless, but I did have "light" in mind because I knew that light was massless but didn't think that it was chargeless, but we are all wrong sometimes! I really am looking to get into this kind of field one way or another, but again, I gotta take baby steps. This was just an idea that I had that I wanted to bounce off already established laws and theories before I start doing anything serious with it! Thank you for that congrats! I like to try to stay humble with my ideas because I don't like to get cocky with this kind of stuff. I am completely unqualified and I really wanted to dive into the world of physics to try and better prove or disprove any ideas I may have. I do agree that I should get into some books and attend some courses but I gotta stick to my game design school so I don't fail it and miss out on a great opportunity like a B.S. in Game Design, you know? Both of you guys really helped me understand a lot! Thank you for your guys' inputs!
  22. 4 points
    Attenuated strains are simply viruses that have very low virulence in the target organism. They are produced by either by selection or, in some cases, targeted mutagenesis. They are typically propagated in vitro and quality control is quite complex and includes testing of the cultures (to ensure that they are still pure and only contain the virus), animal testing using susceptible models and so on. The theoretical risk is that somehow, attenuated strains may acquire further mutations that turn them virulent again. The only example I can think of where it actually has happened are the case of polio vaccines with something in the order of 20ish outbreaks in a decade throughout the world (interestingly, typically in regions where vaccination was inadequate). However, in order to allow transmission, the vaccinated individual would first have to become sick. But again, these are incredibly rare incidences, far outweighed by the risk of actual chance infection, especially in populations with low vaccination rates.
  23. 4 points
  24. 3 points
    Ironically, under the title “time does not exist” it says “posted three hours ago”.
  25. 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?
  26. 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.
  27. 3 points
  28. 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.
  29. 3 points
    Okay all, I have changed another couple of IPB-specific options. Initial observations are encouraging (disk I/O has been reduced considerably), so let's see if this performs any better...
  30. 3 points
    Inner peace is when you claim you have inner peace but repeatedly argue with other members on a forum.
  31. 3 points
  32. 3 points
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole You need to do some reading... LOL, what a surprise a neg rep from It...
  33. 3 points
    Yes, here is the bottom-up proof you are looking for. Modern math rests on first-order predicate logic. [All references below] Above that, we assume the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF). In particular, we assume the Axiom of Infinity which says that there is an infinite, inductive set. Given this foundation, we can let 0 be the empty set, and for any set X, the successor of X is defined as X unioned with {X}. The resulting collection is an inductive set as given by the Axiom of Infinity, and it's a model of the Peano axioms of the natural numbers. Part of your confusion is that the Peano axioms are NOT the axioms for the real numbers. They don't apply to the real numbers. There are no successors in the real numbers. You can't apply the Peano axioms to the real numbers. Also, the Peano axioms are not strong enough to model the real numbers as there are no infinite sets in the Peano axioms. There are infinitely many natural numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... but there is no completed set of them. For that, we need the Axiom of Infinity. In fact it's precisely the Axiom of Infinity that makes the conceptual leap from Aristotle's potential to actual infinity. The Peano axioms give us potential infinity. The sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... is never completed, but can always be extended. It's the Axiom of Infinity that says we may collect ALL the natural numbers into a completed infinity. Thus the real numbers require more powerful axiomatic principles than do the natural numbers. Once we have the natural numbers modeled within ZF, we can construct the integers (positive and negative naturals and 0). Then we can construct the rationals via a construction known as the fraction field of an integral domain. Then we construct the real numbers as the set of limits of sequences of rationals. This is traditionally done via a construction like Dedekind cuts or equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences. There are alternate constructions besides these. The point of all this is that we can build up a model of the real numbers within ZF. That is, the reals are an example of a complete, ordered field. Complete in this context means that there are no "holes" in the real numbers. Every nonempty set that's bounded above has a least upper bound. It's the completeness property that makes .999... = 1 work. In fact 1 is provably the least upper bound of the set {.9, .99, .999, .9999, ...}. Once we do that, the traditional proof via infinite series given by Uncool a few posts back is valid and is now proven from first principles. That is, if you'll grant me the empty set and the axioms of ZF, along with the inference rules of first-order predicate logic; along with the definition of the limit of a sequence, and the definition of the sum of an infinite series; I can then prove rigorously from first principles that .999... = 1 One more thing I wanted to mention. There is no smallest positive real number. Indeed if you claim that x is such, I'll just give you back x/2, which is a smaller positive real. Likewise the expression .000...1 makes no sense. The reason is because of the definition of decimal expressions. Each decimal position is indexed by a positive integer. We have decimal places 1, 2, 3, 4, ... There is no "last" decimal place for the exact same reason that there is no last positive integer. You can always take the successor of a natural number. There's no largest natural number and there's no "last" decimal position, since the natural numbers index the decimal positions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_fractions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_cut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number#Axiomatic_approach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least-upper-bound_property
  34. 3 points
    After some talks with two moderators at the site, I quickly came to realise my terrninology was actually offensive under the surface, which was much deeper than I intended at the time. I won't defend myself again, this is a public post to say, I recognise that behaviour should not be tolerated and my words to you about not wanting to talk or commune over the subjects here, can come to an end. I am sorry and it won't happen again. regards. G. Lee
  35. 3 points
    So Witherspoon was victimized as a teen and now continues to be victimized by guilt? I don't read grow and improvement in her statement. I just see long enduring emotional pain. Many people feel regret and guilt over things they had and or have zero control over. I personally do not think shaming victims for how they dealt with their victimization or demanding a specific reaction from them is useful on a macro level.
  36. 3 points
    The danger of inbreeding comes from the fact that it increases the likelihood of the pairing of recessive genes for harmful traits. I'll give you an example. There are two types of Poly-cystic kidney disease. Both are eventually fatal. One, which is carried by a dominant gene doesn't manifest itself until well into adulthood. If you get the gene from either parent, you will get the disease. But since this doesn't occur until you have likely already had offspring, it doesn't get culled from the gene pool. The other type is carried by a recessive gene, and you need to get it from both parents. This version is fatal within a few months of birth. If it is only passed on by one parent, you are just a carrier and you aren't born with the disease. This genetic disorder, while it does prevent the person born with it from furthering the genetic line, remains in the gene pool because it is recessive and can be passed on from generation to generation with the disease itself ever manifesting. This is true of a good many genetic diseases, they hang around because they are recessive traits. Now let's say that thae chance of any given person in the general populace is a carrier of a particular one of these recessive diseases is 1/100,000. Then is is pretty slim odds that two mated people will both have it and low odds that any of their offspring will suffer from the disease. But what if you have a lot of inbreeding within a given family. If that recessive trait exists and is being passed on from generation to generation, the odds of these any two people in this family having the gene is higher than for the general populace and there are higher odds of offspring from a mating between family members of exhibiting the disease. It is not just the paring of identical chromosomes, its the increased likelihood of the pairing of the wrong identical chromosones.
  37. 3 points
    ! Moderator Note First, if swansont (or any mod/admin) is participating in a discussion, he doesn't actively moderate it (with some exceptions in Speculations, where the rules don't require as much judgement). He's not wielding any unfair authority to support his positions. I suspect instead he's using his knowledge of science as a working atomic physicist to support the explanations he uses. ! Moderator Note Second, it's abundantly clear you don't understand much of what you're defending, since you can't support it with evidence or make a testable prediction that anyone studying science could use to verify the accuracy of your claims. Science isn't about finding proof, it's about finding the best natural explanations, which are always the ones that have a preponderance of evidence to support them. Third, you've failed to support your arguments according to the rules of this section. You're also trying to drag our standards down rather than using more rigor to meet them, and that's not what you agreed to when you joined and said you'd follow the rules. If you wanted to test your ideas in a moderated science discussion forum, you shouldn't be pushing back so hard against the constructive criticism. Thread closed.
  38. 3 points
    The thing is when one is in the grip of insanity one doesn't know one is insane.
  39. 3 points
    Pretty much every or any Law is wrong if you give the words meanings that were not intended.
  40. 3 points
    More commonly known as confirmation bias and so no more important to philosophy than verbosity is to understanding.
  41. 3 points
    No the uncertainty does not arise for random reasons. There are two different ways that probability arises in both quantum and classical mechanics (the same in both) Probability assigned to/ associated with time and position which is the result of a continuous variable Probability assigned to/ associated with discrete energy states which are the result of a discrete variable. Which do you want to understand? The 'uncertainty' of Heisenberg arises for a different reason, do yo uknow what a double integral (area integral) is?
  42. 3 points
    No, that would be the observation problem. It is true that Heisenberg himself said this was the reason but quickly realised it was wrong. It is not just that we can't measure conjugate pairs (momentum-position, energy-time, etc) accurately, it is more fundamental than that. They don't both exist more accurately. It is a Fourier transform. So, for example, to have a signal of just one frequency, the signal needs to be of infinite length. If you shorten the signal, the greater the number of different frequencies. So you can either specify an exact frequency or an exact length but not both. I'm not sure that the "random" nature of quantum theory is directly related to this. They are both consequences of the theory, not cause and effect. (It is not really random, just that outcomes can only be predicted in terms of probabilities. But it is not like anything can happen.)
  43. 3 points
    There is something interesting that points to a causal relationship between energy (mass) and entanglement. " In stark contrast to transport experiments, absorption of a single photon leads to an abrupt change in the system Hamiltonian and a quantum quench of Kondo correlations. By inferring the characteristic power law exponents from the experimental absorption line-shapes, we find a unique signature of the quench in the form of an Anderson orthogonality catastrophe, originating from a vanishing overlap between the initial and final many-body wave-functions. We also show that the power-law exponents that determine the degree of orthogonality can be tuned by applying an external magnetic field which gradually turns the Kondo correlations off."https://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3982.pdf This wiki concerns Electronic correlation, interesting stuff.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_correlation#Mathematical_viewpoint Maybe, If it's true that the breaking of entanglement creates energy or mass then that might be related to the way the observable universe is created...but it's a very big 'IF'. According to big bang cosmology there was a thermal equilibrium. Regions which today are out of causal contact were once in equilibrium with each other...https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.1584.pdf Matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space. Mass is a property of a physical body. It is the measure of an object's resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied.
  44. 3 points
    There is a way to address the fact that violence from anyone is inappropriate that does not ignore the fact that there was a major white supremacist rally during which someone who was protesting against them was killed by a white supremacist when he intentionally drove his car into a crowd, which Trump did in his initial remarks. He then made a statement addressing those concerns days later which it later came out he was essentially forced to do over his own protestations by his staff, complained when the press coverage of his handling remained negative even after he made the statement everyone said he should have made in the first place and then the day after that he effectively repudiated everything he'd said the day before and went back to "Both Sides Are Bad." Trump's statement that there was violence on both sides is true in the same way that it is true that there were Jews who committed crimes against Germans in the 1930s: It might technically be true, but completely irrelevant in light of the larger discussion of what was going on and useful only as a tool to draw false equivalencies and distract from larger problems. Even if there was no violence at all from anyone on either side, the rally that happened would not be ok. Legal, but not ok, and the fact that deadly violence was used by that side on top of it makes any attempt to draw an equivalence between the two morally bankrupt in the extreme. A statement being literally true does not mean that it is not also Trojan horsing a lie by implication nor does it render the statement immune from criticism.
  45. 3 points
    Moontanman, that reminded me of Bo Burnham's song, "From God's Perspective - You're Not Going to Heaven". ROFL!!!
  46. 3 points
    So your going to rewrite physics and mathematics just because your too lazy to learn. Got it Thanks for wasting our time
  47. 3 points
    As it happens my father in law passed away two weeks ago and we had a celebration this past weekend in his honor. I bring this up because I was so impressed by the way he came to terms with his own end of life. He was 91 and recently diagnosed with a cancer that would end his life within months. His response was to ponder it for a moment, state that he didn't want to pursue any treatment, and then asked what time the baseball game was on. In order to make sure he looked his best he went out and got a haircut. He planned his memorial mass, a luncheon (including the menu, venue, and guest list), and paid up front for the party which included an open bar. About 150 people showed up. He scheduled the festivities for two weeks after his death so as to not cause anyone to have to make sudden travel plans. He also declined to have a funeral procession to the cemetery as he thought they were disruptive to traffic. The eulogy he wrote for himself was short and sweet because he said he knew if could be difficult for the person who has to read it. He went out with a smile and treated his last day no differently than he treated any other. I don't know how he did it, but his example of how to approach death is what I now aspire to.
  48. 3 points
    Apparently every website now needs to be like a social network. Soon you'll be able to see pictures of every meal swansont has. I know, I don't understand it either. To make it a bit easier I added an "Unread Topics" link under My Activity Streams, which takes you to see all unread topics, condenses the list, and has links to take you immediately to the first unread post. Is that more helpful to you? I'll be sure to add a separate "Swansont's Lunch" feed later.
  49. 3 points
    GeniusIsDisruptive has been banned. Was too little genius and way too much disruptive.
  50. 3 points
    I thought everybody knew by now that the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is 42.