Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/22/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    There is a difference between the 'fossil' field and 'changes' to the gravitational field. Changes propagate at the speed of information, c , while the fossil field is pre-existing, and no new information needs to be transferred. IOW changes have to obey causality, and have a limited range of observability that is time variant, because of the limited speed of light, while the pre-existing fossil field is simply the existing space-time curvature, and if our measurements could be made accurate enough, we could know the 'overall' curvature of the universe at large ( not just the observable part ). Our current best measurements indicate the Universe is essentially flat ( to a very high degree ), indicating that it is extremely large compared to the observable part we see, such that curvature is trivial ( analogous to the Earth appearing flat at short ranges ), or, it was extremely 'fine-tuned' at the beginning, such that even after 13+ billion years of expansion, it is still essentially flat.
  2. 3 points
    Therefore it is subjective not objective. You need to look up the words subjective and objective in the dictionary. Your “sense of peace” is not objective evidence.
  3. 3 points
    There are occasional threads about the possibility of ancient civilisations that left no trace. Those interested in such things might find the following paper interesting: The Silurian hypothesis: would it be possible todetect an industrial civilization in thegeological record? https://fermatslibrary.com/s/the-silurian-hypothesis-would-it-be-possible-to-detect-an-industrial-civilization-in-the-geological-record I have only skimmed the beginning of the article, but the footnote on the first page is brilliant:
  4. 2 points
    We are not using it to explain how molecules form, we are using it as a word to that avoids us having to use several words. It's how language works. It's a classifier. Saying that an elephant is an animal, tells us nothing if we choose to ignore (as you are doing for emergence) to that this places elephants in a specific group. Emergent properties are a specific group of properties. That's all there is to it. It's a convenient way of facilitating discussion, however it only works if the all the participants understand the language. You've decided that calling something an animal tells us nothing.
  5. 2 points
    I studied it for years. I accept there is wisdom in it for contentment and peace and ways to love others and forgive. A lot of good things. But having to ditch most of it does not make it good evidence for the existence of god, which, is what this thread is about. I stopped believing there was a god (the Christian one or any of the world religion ones) a while back and the lack of consistency in the books was a contributing factor (one of many). Other things that influenced my 'conversion' from believer to atheist: Compelling evidence for evolution over creation. Statistical analysis of pray answers (if something is possible, however likely, it will happen eventually)... co-incidences DO happen. The realisation I was lying to myself as well as others. The bombing of abortion clinics by 'Christians'. Prayers neglected that made no sense. 'ask and you shall receive' / 'why would a father give a son a rock when he asks for bread' / 'taste and see that the lord is good'. The discovery of mental states that cause the 'feeling' of presences that are mental tricks not supernatural encounters. Some of the evil deeds accredited to god in the OT. You don't question it as a Christian because - 'who knows the mind of the lord' and 'do not test the lord' and 'who are you to question the ways of god' are common cop outs quoted from the bible whenever these issues crop up. There are many others and each point could be debated in depth or have an essay written about it on it's own. The evidence against the existence of deities described in the books from any of the worlds religions is overwhelming and pretty much incontestable.
  6. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note Those sites aren't this one. Here, we don't bother to discuss speculative science unless you can show something worthwhile, or at least more than your ridicule and waving hands. We require more rigor here. So get off your high horse and follow the rules we've developed to make science discussions meaningful. We attack ideas here, not people. So far, your ideas lack rigor. Show us, persuade us with your evidence and reasoning, because acting like an asshole is failing miserably. If you care to come back tomorrow when the five post spam limit is removed for new joiners, please do so civilly. And try not to label everyone who questions you a troll. It doesn't help you learn anything.
  7. 2 points
    Yet another iteration of stuff that had no scientific qualities to begin with, what is the purpose of posting things like this: This seems to be thread number four you have started for this kind of speculative device, so far using names such as hole generator, cellular automata, No battery - electric engine and RedBarron's Gravity Generator. That's about all the math I can find in this thread, I think something more rigours is required.
  8. 2 points
    As to the question of range of gravity... Lets consider again QFT, the 'marriage' of Quantum concepts with Special relativity. All forces are thought to be mediated by virtual bosons, such as photons, W and Z particles, gluons, and gravitons. Photons and gravitons are massless, and must travel at c. They can also be extremely low energy/long wavelength such that when we apply the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to them, as their energy approaches zero ( wavelength approaches infinity ), the HUP says they can exist for a time approaching infinite. IOW they can approach infinite distance when their strength approaches zero because there is no time constraint; and this is evident in the inverse square law which the obey. Now consider the weak force, mediated by massive virtual W and Z particles. The fact that they have to have a minimum amount of mass-energy to exist means that their time is limited by the HUP. Since their mass-energy cannot approach zero, they can't have an amount of time approaching infinite to travel to infinite ranges. The distance they can reach is limited by the HUP and SR ( as they are subluminal ). The same analysis can be done for the strong force when it is modelled as a Yukawa potential with massive Pion exchange. But I'm incapable ( without doing some research ) of doing this analysis with massless gluons mediating the color interaction and residual strong force between protons and neutrons.
  9. 2 points
    The ability to experience fear, worry and anxiety is a vital survival trait. Worry alerts us to potential problems; anxiety is a message from our subconscious that the problem is almost certainly real; fear is confirmation and the preparation of the body to deal with the problem, by fight or flight. Alcohol allows a temporary change of perspective on reality, in the same way a ten mile run, a walk through the Louvre, or the contemplation of mitochondrial biochemistry does. Temproary changes of perspective enhance, rather than cloud reality. Faith, in contrast, is the ultimate means of hiding from reality. Faith is the most effective way of rejecting evidence. Faith allows one, like Carrol's queen, to " believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast" yet to do so without his charm. Faith allows one walk off a cliff, confident one will be unharmed. Faith allows one to immolate oneself and forty innocent fellow humans, confident one will awake in Paradise with a harem of virgins.
  10. 2 points
    The reason why people talk about the speed of an object relative to the expansion of space is due to a problem physicist have with describing the universe to fit the data from cosmic background radiation. Einstein discovered that mass increases when in object is seen to be in relative motion to another object, but the mass increase of other galaxies was never detected to fit that theory. It is as though they are in relative motion to us while still being considered to be at rest, since they are not affected by relative motion in this way. This is explained as being due to them still being at rest relative to space itself. Then it was found that a universal theory would have to allow the Big Bang to be faster than the speed of light in order to fit the cosmic background data. Then they concluded that an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light relative to the expansion of space in their theories, but space itself can expand faster than the speed of light.
  11. 2 points
    So as I suspected, a version of solipsism: https://www.britannica.com/topic/solipsism This is one of those rather "empty" philosophical ideas that can never be proved or disproved. Similar to the idea that the universe was created 15 minutes ago, but made to look billions of years old. Nothing can falsify the idea, but nothing can confirm it. (Which is why this is in Philosophy, rather than a science section.) These ideas may have some use for training peoples reasoning and critical thinking skills, but no one seriously tries to say they are true. (Well, obviously, almost nobody.) I would turn these questions around. If there are other consciousness (etc.) how can this theory be correct? Other problems: the universe appears to be very hard to understand. Most people cannot understand quantum theory or general relativity. So how can their (our?) consciousness create something they cannot understand? If the author hasn't managed to convince you in an entire book, I doubt anyone on a science forum can (where people will naturally be sceptical of the idea).
  12. 2 points
  13. 2 points
    Ugh. Headline editors. The probability may be low for a single decay, but the event is not rare if you have a lot of the isotope. If you had a mole, you'd have 33 decays per year. Less rare than payday (for me, anyway)
  14. 2 points
    That is a good summary. I believe we had discussed it in an earlier thread somewhere. But essentially, when vaccines were developed, it was assumed that local accumulation followed by a slow release would yield the highest immunogenic response. This is generally referred to as a the depot effect. However, this effect was not unequivocally shown to be relevant or even present, and especially the use of adjuvants makes it questionable whether intramuscular injection site is really that important for immune activation. There are other considerations, of course, as injection into subcutaneous fat layers may result in too low mobilization. Nonetheless, it is quite likely that with the proper adjuvants IV injection are feasible. However, as the vaccination methods were developed and tested with the "classic" method in mind and because they were shown to be reliable with minimal discomfort, there is generally no good reason to change it. One has to keep in mind that the medical profession is generally required to follow protocol rather strictly (i.e. based on the specifics that has been tested and documented), for good reasons. Edit: regarding the lymphatic system, one could really extend the whole thing to a rather large lecture. The immune system is quite complicated but in this context it is important to recognize that both systems (i.e. blood and lymphatic system) intersect and the lymph nodes is where the lymph fluid is drained into the circulatory system. Thus while the success of vaccines is ultimately determined by the actions within the lymphatic system, they can (and have to be) detected throughout the circulatory system (typically via antigen presenting cells of sorts), where they are then directed to secondary lymphoid tissue (via the lymphatic system). The antigens can also directly enter the lymphatic system, but it is not required per se.
  15. 2 points
    „Although common belief is that vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream, they are actually administered into muscle or the layer of skin below the dermis where immune cells reside and circulate as occurs following natural infection” https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health „Most vaccines should be given via the intramuscular route into the deltoid or the anterolateral aspect of the thigh. This optimises the immunogenicity of the vaccine and minimises adverse reactions at the injection site. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of administering vaccines correctly.1–3 Clinical practice needs to reflect considerations about the right length and gauge of needles used to ensure that those vaccinated get the immunological benefit of the vaccines without local side effects” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118997/
  16. 2 points
    I have no idea about your disability (I am not a mind reader) but I did attempt to be helpful and encouraging by explaining in detail what made each of your sentences incomprehensible. You could look at that feedback and use it to improve your writing. There seem to be two main problems: 1. You use pronouns (“it”) and verbs with no obvious referent so it is very hard to know what the “thing” is that you are talking about 2. You seem to use words in non-standard ways so it is completely unclear what you are trying to say. So: be more explicit about what you are referring to and check the meanings of words in a dictionary before using them
  17. 2 points
    Comment not needed... The article is here. Do not forget to follow this link (from the article) for the zoomable version. What are all these ring structures? I thought planetary nebulae do not exist that long, so to see so many seems impossible. But what else are they?
  18. 2 points
    Always try to keep sexual fluidity contained with condoms or dams. They are a medium for STDs. Oh, that isn't the intended meaning ?
  19. 1 point
    Extremist capitalism encourages avoiding taxes by any means. They like it when corruption is considered part and parcel of the process. I disagree, both with your conclusion and your style of chopping up replies.
  20. 1 point
    As there is mass-energy everywhere, there must be gravity everywhere. No mathematical equation works for infinity. Because infinity is not a number you can put in the equation. We can only describe what happens as you approach infinity. What do you mean by "infinite gravity"? If you mean gravity having infinite range, then yes, that is part of GR (because in the limit, it is the same as Newtonian gravity). There isn't really "proof" of anything in physics. What we do is create models and test them. The two models of gravity we have (Newtonian and GR) are both supported by evidence. That is all we can say.
  21. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note If you need to take a voluntary break and rediscover your civility, now would be an excellent time.
  22. 1 point
    This is a paragraph below the one you quoted above from the link I gave. Are you even reading the answers were posting?: ”Injecting a vaccine into the layer of subcutaneous fat, where poor vascularity may result in slow mobilisation and processing of antigen, is a cause of vaccine failure1—for example in hepatitis B,2 rabies, and influenza vaccines.3 Compared with intramuscular administration, subcutaneous injection of hepatitis B vaccine leads to significantly lower seroconversion rates and more rapid decay of antibody response.1 Traditionally the buttocks were thought to be an appropriate site for vaccination, but the layers of fat do not contain the appropriate cells that are necessary to initiate the immune response (phagocytic or antigen-presenting cells). The antigen may also take longer to reach the circulation after being deposited in fat, leading to a delay in processing by macrophages and eventually presentation to the T and B cells that are involved in the immune response. In addition, antigens may be denatured by enzymes if they remain in fat for hours or days. The importance of these factors is supported by the findings that thicker skinfolds are associated with a lowered antibody response to vaccines.1,2”
  23. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note As per Strange's comment and swansont's previous mod note, this is being closed.
  24. 1 point
    Well the purpose of vaccines is to prepare and stimulate the human or animal immunological system - ie the lymphatic system. This is not the blood system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphatic_system Are you asking would put the stuff into a vein or an artery? Arteries carry oxygen-rich blood away from the heart to all of the body's tissues. ... Veins become larger as they get closer to the heart. The superior vena cava is the large vein that brings blood from the head and arms to the heart, and the inferior vena cava brings blood from the abdomen and legs into the heart. What are the three main types of blood vessels? - WebMD Putting stuff into a vein or an artery will may take it to the wrong place! Here is a readable medical publication on the subject. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5287301/
  25. 1 point
    I agree. Sorry, I hit further than I should have I see what you are trying to do and will try to use the feedback. As for my 'disabilities' they haven't been that usually. Here, its self evident. The point I was trying to make was, that is all we can go on here. The evidence.