All Activity

I would say that, since GR is geometric, and GR fails on approach to Planck time, any notion of geometry ( spatial or temporal ) is similarly not applicable. Fields have an energy density; any field will contribute to the stress-energy-momentum tensor, and curvature.

You have good counter-arguments. I gave you an outsiders perspective and you gave a good insiders perspective. +1 I think that my post before this one was my weakest. apologies for this!

MiG is currently a division of United Aircraft Corporation, also including Sukhoi, Tupolev, Yakovlev, Ilyushin and others. It was originally known as the Mikoyan and Gurevich Design Bureau after the engineers who founded it during the first stages of WW2, Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich. Both have been deceased for over 50 years, and design duties passed on to be succeeded by R Belyakov ( I believe ). Over the years they have produced iconic interceptor/fighter jets which have sold in great numbers because of low cost and 'simplicity' of operation, including MiG-15 ( Korean war ), MiG-19-21 ( Vietnam war), and MiG-25 ( Iraq, and V Belenko's famous defection in 1976, with vacuum tubes in the radar ). As with your other thread, I can't take this one seriously either.

Do you understand the concept of likelihood? Uh, I suggest you take a look at how proteins are formed... Uh, nope.

I disagree with this premise. I think what you do not quite appreciate is that there are things that are well-established and things that are still under investigation. Among the former, the key elements have been investigated so thoroughly that most reasonable folks with knowledge simply have no objections to the assumption. To a lay person it might seem like homogeneity, but it is really just because hundreds or thousands of scientists worked on that view and that it all the alternative explanations have been effective discarded because of the accumulated evidence. The laws of thermodynamics are such an example, in hundred of years no one really managed to challenge them meaningfully, so it makes a lot of sense to start with them as a given. Similarly, you probably would not want to consider flat Earth as a reasonable starting point. no This does not make sense. If you have a model it has to allow for predictions under the situation covered by your model. Data measured under those conditions either fall in line with the prediction or they don't. In the latter case you have to revise your model. This does not make sense. Either the field is fringe, which basically just means that not a lot of folks are interested in it (could be for a lot reason, personal interest, difficulty or insufficiently developed to do proper science). Or it is a field in which case by definition it is not fringe. I don't know either. But there are quite a few papers on near death experiences. Probably just not discussing it in a way that you find attractive. Natural science deals with the material world. It would be weird to criticize something, which is the basis for your work. It is likely trying build a religion but decide that humans have no place in it and only squirrels are allowed to follow it. I have worked with hundreds of scientists who are not famous (and I am certainly not myself). You should define mainstream here. If you mean with areas that are obscure, you are likely wrong. I know specialists in very weird and specific fields that do not make much sense to me, but they still follow scientific approaches. If you mean that they are doing non-mainstream approaches then I refer you to my above comment regarding rigor. If you cannot show that your approach is scientifically sound, folks will not consider it much more than unscientific guessing. When I develop a new method, I have to compare it with existing best practices. I cannot just make something up. This seems like a random statement without context. There are many scientists working on various aspects of consciousness. Probably someone should tell them that it is somehow bas for their careers. You are missing the point that some things are well established and some other parts (which are usually the key elements of the paper) are novel. But to understand the novelty you have to understand the field. If you have only a cursory understanding (if at all) it may not look like a difference to you. What I am sensing is that you have an assumption regarding science that confuses you, and it is clear that you would need more understanding of a given field (rather than superficial in multiple) to get a sense what is really going on.

Is Washington State a winner takes all of the electoral college votes? They would likely do Trump a favour by taking him off the ballot so that he could whine about being a victim and concentrate his resources elsewhere where he had an actual chance of getting electoral votes. That said ,if that is the law in the State ...

Your post has been very instructive. It may be I that needs to put my biasness in check over biasness in science. but a few more questions and point of views before doing so. Why this prevalent homogeneity of views in science? Does the process without intent turns square pegs into round ones in order to make them fit into round holes? Is it evidence that pushes results towards predictable outcomes or the process itself as well? why has entire fields of scientific investigation been relinquished to the fringes of science? Why are near death experiences all Susan Blackmore and not also Bruce Greyson? Have you ever heard of a case where a materialistic point of view has been criticized for being such? It happens all the time for a non-materialistic point of view! in my readings, I have encountered many very very good scientists that have remainder totally unknown, because their scientific results did not fit with mainstream science. why have some scientists been informed that their proposed line of scientific investigation was bad for their careers? It was like that for consciousness a while back ago. Why this incessant need to reassure readers of scientific articles that the results obtained are in line with currently accepted theory? This happens even more frequently in evolutionary biology, but in all other disciplines also. Hope that I am not upsetting anyone with my odd questions. i am a square peg not fitting in the round, and that is good and bad.

No problem it's easy to forget details when thinking of GR QFT etc lol. It may help to recall that it is the stress energy momentum tensor that spacetime how to curve and that spacetime curvature describes particle paths (geodesics). Hence the use of the (ct) interval is incredibly useful.

Surely, there are even some male only-child homosexuals or bisexuals. There is a gay young man on some chat room claiming to have two older sisters and no brothers. The gene thing might just be part of the equation. The protein thing might be another part. Children are also a product of their environment. Sons abused by mothers in childhood may feel uncomfortable around women. Life experiences may play some part. Sometimes a same-sex partner is just a matter of what is available or handy at the time. I think humans, not inhibited by any social taboos, are largely naturally attracted to whatever looks good to their own eyes or sounds good to their own ears like, for instance, a nice face, sexy hair, pretty white teeth, tan skin, puppy-dog eyes, a smooth, soft voice and a slender body. Most humans, male, female, straight, bi or gay, are averse to the sight of obese or old people.

Only if they agree with said 'free' speech.

By investigating methodologies and figuring out where in a given experiment or method bias can creep in and how to avoid that. The outcome is what we generally refer to as best practice. That is why a certain rigidity is presence of science and why if you come up with an entirely new approach, you have to provide evidence that your approach has less error than prevailing one. Otherwise it will get dismissed. This is also why I mentioned earlier that more rigour will throw out more claims rather than allowing more to prevail. No, if you have a group of three scientists, you likely have at least four competing worldviews. They may have similar levels of training, though the form is very discipline-dependent. A mathematician will have little experimental training, but might be able to tell you why your statistical analysis of your data is stupid. Again, rigour requires understanding of potential issues. By definition, it narrows it down to established best practices. Generally speaking, we do not want to entirely throw out new ideas if they might have merit, that is why some speculation is permissible. If you solidify it, you are more likely to reduce diversity.

Genetic does not necessarily mean inherited - mutations happen Inherited genetics can be recessive traits. There could be multiple alleles, and it could be that it’s not just one gene responsible. edit: xpost with CharonY This is an internet forum; it’s international. You might be posting from the US but others are not. As far as the first amendment is concerned, SFN is not an arm of the US government, so it does not apply. You need to follow the rules. It would behoove you to understand why

Almost all our behaviour is a combination of a genetic basis, that kind of forms a certain baseline, but, especially when the brain is involved, environmental exposures, learning and other feedback modulates the outcome (after all, the brain requires input to develop). So the question of nature vs nurture is, based on what we now know, mostly nonsensical. There is no versus, there is an end. The only part that is often unknown is how much. Also note that many of these non-genetic exposures can happen before birth- exposure to hormones but also chemicals in the womb affect early neuronal development. And yes, homosexuality has been observed in at least 1,500 species, suggesting that it is a common, low-frequency outcome of how sexuality is wired https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1019-7. There have been quite a lot hypotheses why it may arise, and why genes favouring homosexuality persist. Note that genetics is not a 1:1 carbon copy of traits. Combination of genes can result in a wide diversity of traits which can be quite different from the parent. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any benefit to sexual reproduction and we would more likely continue to procreate e.g. via parthenogenesis. What seems to be the case in humans is that the foundation of sexual orientation is laid early in childhood and, once developed, it is fairly stable. I think it is not yet known if and how much flexibility there is in the developmental path to sexual (and other) identity. There are suggestions that events in early fetal development already could be an important factor. One clue is the fact at least in men, the birth order sees to have a highly reproducible impact. Across many groups men with same-sex attraction have a greater number of older brothers, than heterosexual men. One hypothesis is that had a male child have some sort of immune response that creates antibodies specific to protein involved in male brain development. These antibodies increase with each male fetus and somehow increase the likelihood of developing same-sex preferences. There is some vague support for that (mostly the enrichment of antibodies against certain fetal proteins in mothers with multiple male children), but evidence remains at the correlation stage. So in short, it is complicated and not resolved yet.

Washington state has a law about felons running for office https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/plot-twist-for-trump-wa-has-a-law-against-felons-running-for-office/

Tribeca Bob has not been pulling punches, re TFG, for years. But people seem to be getting their MAGA panties in a twist lately as if it's a new thing. RW cancel culture is in full bloom now, with the National Association of Broadcasters rescinding their public service award to Bob a day or two ago. It was quite the blinding display of hypocrisy given that the NAB is supposed to be big on free speech advocacy.

Get in trouble even here in First Amendement America? Boy! I'm hopelessly shivering in my sandals with socks! My overpopulation thread was not such a big hit here. Might have offended the "be fruitful and multiply" crowd which might also be homophobic. However, Mig (as in Soviet jet?), you failed to answer any of my questions.

How does one check his biasness at the front door when one does not even know that he may be biased. Why even bother checking his biasness at the front door when one thinks that the peer review process will take care of it. Aren't members of the peer review group basically scientists sharing the same worldview. Total arrest is impossible. Peer review is necessary and irreplaceable I do not want to demolish the foundation, but to solidify and broaden it.

Ah yes, I must have a blind spot.I thought I understood that spacetime was just a mathematical construct but my question showed that I didn't. I think I was also probably equating in my head curved spacetime with spacetime itself -as if flat spacetime wasn't "proper" spacetime.

@Airbrush Why do your posts often sound like sermons ?

The gravitational wells of galaxies are extremely 'shallow'; the galactic voids where expansion occurs, just slightly more so. The dark energy term ( Cosmological Constant ? ) only slightly exceeds gravitational potential in the voids between clusters, but is not enough to overcome it at galactic scales. The gravitational potential difference is not enough to account for sufficient time dilation which would explain expansion.

Oh my. You sure are picking to discuss all the topics that will get you in trouble.

I appreciate all the info! As you can tell, I'm not a scientist, just a curious bystander. I respect your offering your time to me. It was not my intention to explain or even raise the question of what causes universal expansion (which seems to me a natural consequence of observation in an infinite universe, but I don't want to get sidetracked on that point). I specifically used the phrase "given the initiation of expansion..." in my initial comment. In other words, taking the causal mechanism of expansion for granted, can expansion then be explained in terms of time dilation? It is my understanding that expansion is something that occurs in the spaces between matter and energy as opposed to within them, or am I misunderstanding? My question, to clarify, is whether the absence of matter and energy in the Cosmic voids could cause a time dilation effect which would naturally lead to an accelerating expansion of the universe, as opposed to a steady expansion. It seems like you are telling me that time dilation is already factored into the models, but on that point you have me confused. Isn't the whole mystery of Dark Energy the fact that the Universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate, which was not predicted by theory but rather discovered through observation? Couldn't that reasonably be explained by differences in the relative passage of time in empty space as opposed to spaces occupied by mass?

There is a flash drive with a built-in keypad where you have to enter a PIN code to access it. https://www.ebay.com/itm/395407083462 so, unauthorized person will have difficulty at accessing it.. If you format a flash drive to ext4 instead of NTFS/FAT32/exFAT, it will not be accessible from a standard Windows OS, only from Linux. There are data encryption programs, which you might use.. 7zip and zip have built-in encryption algorithms.

My maternal grandfather once said that men were attracted to women and that women were attracted to men. He also said that genes were responsible for homosexuality. I have heard a number of claims, including from one chemist, that homosexuality was "not natural". Granted, humans do many things that don't seem natural like travel in automobiles, have plastic surgery, type here on science forums, put on messy makeup and wear clothes. I personally think many more living humans on earth are inherently attracted to others of the same sex (or perceived same sex) than many people dare realize. Modern man, often under monotheistic religious influence, has made this kind of attraction "taboo" and man-made government in some jurisdictions has even imposed the death penalty for certain homosexual practices in extreme cases. What have various scientific disciplines, including psychology and biology, said about same-sex attraction? It has certainly been observed with animals, has it not? How much of our sexual attraction is nature and how much is nurture? I think my mother once tried to nurture me with "heteronormativity" as a little boy by telling me that I would someday find a nice girl and marry her. However, I've been a bachelor all my life and consider myself bisexual since before puberty. "Heteronormativity" (heavy social pressure "not to be gay") is something Mother Culture seems to have screamed out loud in my 1964-born baby-boomer ears since elementary school. If homosexuality is genetic, if it supposedly runs in the genes, then how did homosexuals inherit this sexual orientation from their male and female parents who conceived them heterosexually, quite obviously?

Actor Robert De Niro isn't pulling his punches in his comments on Trump, is he?