Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Strange

  1. While I wouldn’t disagree that gender is (partly) a construct I don’t think that means it isn’t real. Language, money, ethics and art are all social constructs and are real (depends ng on the definition for f “real”).
  2. Ether evidence?

    Yes. The previous post was about space (not space-time).
  3. Congenital Amusia

    No, it is a general term for any inability to process sensory inputs in a specific way - theWikipedia entry mentions hearing related forms (not recognising voices) and touch (not being able to recognise an object from what it feels like) and so on.
  4. Ether evidence?

    Space IS (not has) three dimensigons. That’s all it is.
  5. Black hole?

    The gravitational waves originate in the space-time outside the black holes as it is “stirred up” by the orbiting black holes. I’ll find you a link and summary of the parameter estimation paper when I get home. I don’t know. But I was going to say that s better question would be: how are black holes represented in string theory, LQG, CDT, etc? (I don’t know the answer.)
  6. What I was trying to get at (not very well because it is difficult) is that, surely, the evidence for people having particular internal feelings or experiences is that they say they do. If someone says they feel happy or can hear voices or are not comfortable in their bodies or whatever then what other evidence should we look for to confirm how they feel. (It is obviously not that simple. As SJ says, you might want to consider how consistently they feel like that.) I suppose one could look for some sort of neural or biological correlate. I don’t know if any research of that sort has been done. So you know the boy in question and exactly how his parents brought him up? Or is it just a wild assumption, based on your own beliefs? It certainly isn’t what I intended to say. And looking at it, I can’t interpret it like that.
  7. Isn’t that the evidence you are looking for? I guess you mean is a there any basis for the feelings people have? I would have thought that the fact that people feel they are transgender is the evidence.
  8. Black hole?

    No one can answer that until we have a theory of quantum gravity. Into the energy of the gravitational waves.
  9. Congenital Amusia

    Isn’t it more like a type of agnosia?
  10. No proof of what? More accurately (science doesn’t really do proof) no evidence of what?
  11. APolitical Correctness, a scientific approach

    Is apolitically correct the opposite of politically correct, or does it just mean correct (with no regard to politeness/politics)?
  12. Black hole?

    One difference is that the expansion of the universe is the same in all directions (so things become increasing compressed as we go back in time). In the case of a black hole, material undergoes spaghettification, which means stretched in one direction and compressed int the other two. As a result (if I remember correctly) the volume stays constant. So not the same compression, heating, etc.
  13. The list also includes “evidence-based”! WTF?
  14. Why does this ball go faster than c?

    Because there is a horizontal component to its velocity. So the vertical component must be less to maintain the same total speed.
  15. Can old DNA be extracted from an organ

    The usual forensic techniques such as finding hairs, saliva, etc.
  16. Why does this ball go faster than c?

    It doesn’t. The right red ball reaches the screen after the left right ball
  17. Four dimensions (split from The meter-second)

    This appears to be completely off-topic. Anyway, replace each of the faces of a cube with cubes (I know, not possible in three dimensions):
  18. Black hole?

    No. The gravitational waves originate in the space-time between the orbiting black holes. (There is then a smaller post-merger oscillation as the event horizon settles down to a sphere again - the ringdown phase.) This is an entirely classical theory so any mention of quantum fluctuations is stuff you have made up.
  19. Interferometers and Superposition

    Huh? Interferometers are easily (much more easily) explained by classical wave behaviour than by photon models. The former requires schoolboy arithmetic, the latter requires quantum electrodynamics and the path integral. So I suppose this is going to be another “I think science is wrong so I am going to refuse to understand it and make stuff up instead” thread. Good luck. I’m sure it will be just as successful as the others.
  20. Ether evidence?

    Well, first you would need a theory or model that predicted its behaviour. Then we could say what evidence would be required. So what does your ether do?
  21. Nice. You made me think about it a bit more as I hurtle down the motorway. I did a quick search and found a paper that estimated the mass of iron around one supernova to be about half a solar mass - which sounds like a lot of iron. Not sure how typical it is though. That is about 150,000 earth masses. The earth is about 1/3 iron, so enough for 450,000 earths. There are about 100 billion planets in the galaxy so (if they were all earth-like) that would need more than 200,000 supernovae. Does that sound about right?
  22. I guess it must have been a large number of supernovae in the billions of years previously. Just based on the amount of material - think how many stars and planets there are in our galaxy: as far as I know they all have roughly the same mix of elements and so there must have been vast numbers of supernovae to create all those heavy elements. (The first generation of stars were much bigger and shorter lived than current stars, because there weren't these heavier elements around.)
  23. How about: all of them, until you find one that satisfies your bizarre criteria.
  24. LMGTFY
  25. How is it a theoretical assumption, when it can be observed in experiments. Incidentally, "theoretical assumption" doesn't really makes sense. Assumptions are based on little or no evidence, theories are based on large amounts of evidence. You may have meant, "a theoretical conclusion that hasn't been observed." Except that isn't the case. It was a theoretical prediction that has been shown to be correct.