Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/29/22 in all areas

  1. He mentioned it: It did not sound very 'einsteinian' to me, so I tried to google if I could find a reference that Einstein really said something the like. I found exactly one reference... An article by a certain 'Solomon'... If somebody has still has some curiosity left, he can look up everything there. It is the usual crackpotism. Obviously not. And your reaction: I assume Studiot thought more about Marcel Grossmann and David Hilbert. Historians more or less agree that Mileva's role was mainly that of a highly intelligent 'resonance board'.
    4 points
  2. These forums rely on a threaded discussion structure. When you start arbitrarily pulling out threads, the entire garment falls apart. Or, in this case, the discussion stops making sense. Conversation has PersonA, then PersonB responds, and PersonA replies, and PersonC jumps in, then PersonB posts, and PersonA replies. This keeps going on and on for days, often weeks or even months. Deleting PersonA leaves that "conversation" looking like "PersonB no context, PersonC no context, PersonB no context." Why does this need explaining? When creating a membership, you agree to certain rules. Also, you post voluntarily. If you're bothered by inability to delete later, then don't post. Problem solved. The volunteer staff here are not in place to help you try to revise your post history because at some point later on you suddenly decide you don't like it.
    4 points
  3. The mathematical "engineer" (I prefer that to "father") of GR was Bernhard Riemann. And the mathematical "engineer" of QM is David Hilbert. By that I mean the people who introduced the "mathematical scaffolding" that later accomodated the physical theory. But I don't think either one of them would have come up with the respective physical theories without experimental or theoretical physics input. In fact, when the essential ideas of both theories were formulated, the physicists that did it couldn't imagine the mathematical tools were there already. That realisation, as always, came later. I think there's always a cycle that goes something like --example: electromagnetism--, 1) Induction: Observation of patterns, or "crude" observation: Lenz, Biot-Savart, etc. 2) Inference of a mathematical or pre-mathematical simple relations: Faraday. 3) The big picture in mathematical terms: Maxwell 4) Experimental confirmation of further predictions: Hertz Something like that. The history of the development of electromagnetism is a great example of how this works. But, of course, it's more complicated than just that. The different "branches" feed each other in a complicated way. Once we get the mathematically-closed form of the laws, the great generalisation, it's a matter of pushing and pushing the mathematical model until we find where it contradicts the experiments. It's also a matter of doing more and more refined experiments to check everything's OK. In the case of quantum mechanics: 1) Wien, Stefan, the spectroscopists (Lymann...), etc. 2) Planck, Bohr, Einstein 3) Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac, etc. find out about a previously-existing mathematical scaffolding -> matrix algebra, Hilbert spaces, Poisson's formulation of mechanics... 4) Anderson finding positrons, which is a prediction of the relativistic version... Etc. Sometimes it goes the other way. We find a puzzling experimental discovery, and the theorists must rack their brains, within the mathematical scheme we already trust, in order to understand the unexpected result. If it doesn't, the mathematical scheme must be generalised minimally, ie, in such a way that the treasure of previous results is preserved. Example: discovery of the neutrino. So it's complicated. We may differ a little bit in what stage is what, but I think we agree in general terms.
    3 points
  4. I'm a nudist, I never saw any reason to reveal that here, never really seemed relevant to any issues I was discussing. But now that we have a nudist thread i would say that my username is associated with my nudity and that I love to walk around the beach in the nude but nude swimming is heaven on earth! I am, btw, an atheist and see no way to connect my love of being nude (naked means you are nude and up to something) of course these days i supplement my income via paypal donations by people who want me to keep my clothes on!
    3 points
  5. Going back to OP, fundamentally it means that ultimately power comes from the population. That could have many different means, but ultimately it requires the ability of the population to remove folks from power, if they so choose. There are challenges, of course and one of the key elements of democracy is that it relies on an informed public. It is no coincidence that controlling the flow of information is one of the key elements of any modern dictatorship. We had long discussions in the past on this forum on the dangers of media monopolies, mostly in conjunction with the Murdoch empire, but also the Koch brothers etc. which were actively working to create certain narratives to control public opinion resulting in folks voting against their interest (including on issues such as climate change which has gotten so bad that it is now impossible to ignore, but also aspects such as health care, taxation and so on). This issue has now been supercharged with social media, which in theory should democratize flow of information, but instead resulted in a fracture on how folks perceive reality. While media conglomerates put a lot of efforts in "spin", it turns out that you do not actually need to that. Rather you just need a stupid algorithm to push falsehoods and magically it will become reality for a lot of folks. Under these circumstances I am not sure how democracy is supposed to function.
    3 points
  6. If you reorder the letters of "Eigenvalue Matrix" you get "Laxative Meringue", a suitable label for the level of science in a recent discussion I took part in.
    3 points
  7. I'm always wary of these terms politicians use to define themselves: Democrats, liberals, neoliberals, progressives... Democracy, liberty, progress. Yeah, sure. Gimme some of that, please. No political party will define themselves as "deceptionists" or "prejudicialists", or "spin-doctoralists." The ad will tell you nothing about what the product is. I suppose the Swedish must eat their pudding before they know what it's really made of.
    3 points
  8. Not big enough to accommodate all the egos of V.P. and Donald T. ....
    3 points
  9. Does that mean it's a video on polyester on polyester?
    3 points
  10. It wasn't being taught in schools. It's a collegiate level course that highlights the colonialist approach brought over from Europe. You would benefit from taking the classes, if you're old enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Florida#:~:text=Although the protest was mostly,and punched a police vehicle. Please read up on this. I think it's unfair to talk about BLM as "supremacists" or "rioters" in this context, especially when it was a few hundred extremists among hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. Does it make you feel better to call them "black supremacists"? He allows Cuban protests to go on, even though they look a LOT like BLM protests, so I'd say he's a racists who knows his constituents. And you don't know what you're talking about. I told you that was college-level material, and you've made it obvious you're a parrot for others who didn't take the courses either. You should study up on what critical race theory actually says, and not listen to Tucker or one of the other entertainers. Ah, the left wing media, that fills my BINGO card. What kind of idiot just stops talking about something grade school kids deal with every day? DeSantis, that kind. Sorry, but this kind of ignorance is what people like DeSantis want, and they start by making us dumb and uninformed in class 1-3. And he wants to take money from schools with vouchers, and his latest brainstorm is to hire retired policemen to be teachers so they can teach math and take care of school shootings at the same time. I just want a national database that tells me if something was made in Florida by someone with a DeSantis education. Call it consumer protection.
    3 points
  11. You don't seem to realize that you've just given an example of a co-ordinate singularity. If you use latitude and longitude as your co-ordinate system, the North Pole and South Pole are singular. You cannot go any further North ( or South ) from those points, yet there is no 'edge', and nothing stops you from going further ( around the globe ). That is the case with the Schwarzschild solution; a co-ordinate singularity ( at the horizon ), but nothing stops you from going further. It is not an 'edge' either.
    3 points
  12. Other strange mathematical constructions, of potential interest to cosmologists are Gabriel's Horn and Peano curves. Gabriel's horn is part of a family of infinite n dimensional objects that enclose our bound a finite (n+1) dimensional object. Peano curves are n dimensional objects that fill (cover) spaces of greater (n+1, n+2 etc) dimension. These completely cut though and violate conventional metrics such as Euclidian, Riemannian etc.
    3 points
  13. Why do you want to increase the extent to which essential workers are exploited? To address the fundamental inequality of the "employer/ employee" relationship. If you think there are no consequences then you do not know enough about the issue to have a meaningful viewpoint on it. No; it's common sense. In what ways?
    3 points
  14. On what level do you want an answer? Because on one level, it was a bunch of wars and abolition movements. But that doesn't answer how all those wars and abolition movements came together. On another, it was a bunch of philosophical movements that led to ideas of liberty. But that doesn't answer why those movements came to the forefront. On another, it was a result of economic forces giving rise to systems that outcompeted slavery. But that doesn't answer why they hadn't happened earlier. And so on and so forth.
    2 points
  15. I don't think the Bible is so much concerned with swingers, as Abraham, Sarah and Hagar were the first "documented" swingers in history, if I remember correctly. On the other hand, I don't think the Bible took public nudity so lightly, to be honest. It was as much lenient with genocide as it was with swinging... You see where I'm going. I guess what I'm saying is: Do what you want to do as long as it doesn't harm or humiliate, or greatly embarrass, or create unnecessary problems, etc. to others. Same here. If we're talking about sex. If, we're talking about having a nice day at the beach, I agree with moon-tan-man. Not that I get many chances to tan my moon.
    2 points
  16. Oh good, a chance to tell my parrot story. A true story. Friends of mine bought a parrot. (There are no fjords in this story, btw). The cage had a little tray for feed, which they kept filled, in accordance with the instructions for care that came with. Every day, they found most of the seeds on the floor underneath the cage, and a very hungry parrot who would make outraged noises as they refilled the tray. Not sure why most of the mix was being rejected, they consulted with a vet, who figured out that the feed was the wrong kind, and told them what to buy. Problem solved, except that the parrot remained a sloppy eater who would still send at least a quarter of the tray to the floor. So they named the bird Onan. Because Onan, in the Bible, "spilled his seed upon the ground." (And was swallowed up by the earth, which seems like a pretty extreme punishment, and clearly God decided to dial that penalty back or I wouldn't be here to tell this story - I am somewhat nearsighted, however...)
    2 points
  17. Hui, Joigus, now you have fallen into a trap. If it is your own, or the 'Journal de physique' (or some other source) I don't know, but Bell is citing Einstein in your highlighted passages: Here Bell is speaking for himself: And after his argument: It is obvious that Bell doesn't like this conclusion, and discusses 4 ways out: QM is wrong, at least in the case of such situations Superdeterminism (he doesn't name it like that, but is clear that he is pointing at that) Lorentz transformations are not valid There is no reality below some "classical" "macroscopic" level (quotation marks from the original) Concerning the first point: Aspect was still working on his experiments, and Bell refers to that. His comment: We know how the experiment went out... From other articles, I have reason to believe that he was going for the first point, i.e. that QM is incomplete. He was puzzled by the results of the Clauser and Aspect experiments. Bell says exactly the opposite of what you are saying. I think it is important that you all, discutants (my word creation?), are very clear with the words you are using. I give a few proposals: action (or interaction): a physical process, where energy and momentum are exchanged, and so special relativity applies correlation: as in the example of the shoes in the boxes To 1: even Bell is confusing here, because he says "They cannot be explained, that is to say, without action at a distance." (Bold by me) To 2: I would say that the Bell inequalities, together with the confirmation that they do not hold in QM in experiments, show that QM has stronger correlations than local realistic theories allow. For me, I go with Bell's 4th 'way out', at least for now. The wave function is part of a calculation recipe. Why it works, we simply don't know. Why it leads to non-local correlations, we don't know either. But the formalism of QM simply leads to the conclusion that non-local correlations are possible.
    2 points
  18. Much of the major North Sea Gasfield infrastructure was installed in the late seventies and designed for a 25 year lifespan. At a pinch, much will last a decade or so longer, but particularly in a marine environment, corrosion will eventually take its toll. So if a 30+ year old facility is decommissioned, there's no point in mothballing it for possible future reuse. It's far more economic to just make it safe and let it rot. In practice, reopening an abandoned field requires a pretty well total infrastructure rebuild.
    2 points
  19. To some extent the embrace of anarchism (in the less bomb-wielding sense being discussed here) is dependent on aspects of personality that are not homogeneous in human society. While some people do value a high level of freedom and personal autonomy (and, if they are disciplined in their view, are willing to accept the decrease in personal security and increased social clash of values that might accompany this), there are others who crave a high level of "law and order" and a simplified nonpluralistic culture that has to be imposed by an authoritarian leader. They may crave a society that is parental in its control and top-down decision-making. Right-wing evangelical Christians, for example, often express the desire to have all submit to a divine will and be ruled by a theocratic ruler who will implement this. They wish for a State that acts in loco parentis for the same reason they prefer a religion whose authority structure is modeled (as Freud and many others pointed out) on that of childhood. Many people are, contra Benjamin Franklin's famous quote, quite willing to give up some liberty for the sake of security. Then there is the entrepreneurial wealth-seeking personality, which values freedom to conduct business more highly than other freedoms (e.g. social freedoms associated with the Left/Liberal platforms), and is fine with the cognitive dissonance of applauding regulatory freedom while stomping down social freedoms that might threaten their quest for personal enrichment and power (you want labor to stay cheap, cowed by police power, and not be afflicted with too much thinking or exploration of heterodox economic ideas). They may be anarchic in business practices, but authoritarian when it comes to squelching calls for cleaning up their effluents and fumes - often the first to support harsh laws against public demonstrations or class-action suits. However all these billiard balls of temperament collide with each other, it seems to me that truly successful Liberalism lies in the protection of freedom of discourse in education, freedom of the press (and protection of the press from predatory capitalist control), religious freedom, and the preservation of an intellectual life that can subject authority in any form to constant questioning and dissection of its stated aims. That questioning of received wisdom, of authority, seems to me to be at the heart of healthy anarchism, and must be protected by some kind of constitutional structure that can't be altered on a whim, or degraded because the world feels more dangerous than usual. So there's that seeming paradox: good anarchy requires a hardened bombproof structure of law.
    2 points
  20. Ned has been banned. They seemed adamantly opposed to the purpose of learning science.
    2 points
  21. Our Australian system of voting is a "preferential" (transferable?) ballot, with some variations between States and Federal and between upper House and lower (Senate vs House of Reps) - some require all candidates numbered, some allow leaving blank spaces. It is also compulsory to vote... well, to turn up or post a ballot; it can be left blank. I don't find it a great burden and it does give a sense of confidence that the results are truly representative. We number our choices, from first preference to last. When votes are counted the candidate with the least first preference votes is eliminated and the ballots that voted for them are re-counted, with their second choice used - and so on until there are two candidates and one winner. Upper House is on a State sized "electorate" and that gives opportunities to smaller parties to get representation in proportion to their popularity. Lower House is many geographic electorates and favors major parties by winner takes all. I think similar to US and other nations. Some countries require absolute majority (>50%) to win and preferential voting would prevent a need to go back around for a second election where there are more than 2 candidates and none reach that threshold. I read about follow up elections and think our preferential voting is better than that. Other places it is the candidate with the highest vote - even if less than 50% - that wins. I like preferential voting but don't really know if it is better or gives outcomes different than a simple highest vote wins - but it does allow "protest" votes for independent or minor party candidates without losing the option to choose between the major party candidates and I think that does facilitate sending a message about levels of community concern about particular issues to major parties. And most recently we have seen the major parties lose seats to independents and minor parties - the rise of The Greens and "Teals" (who are centre-right leaning climate action supporting and loosely aligned independents - our conservatives are "blue", so blue mixed with green). I don't know that preferential voting made a lot of difference but it there may have been some protest votes from people who didn't expect them to win, who may have voted for a major party first if they had. Whatever the system used it seems like it is public confidence in it that seems most important. I can't say I have ready solutions (besides Vote!) for where that confidence is absent. We have (for example) Statutory bodies for deciding electoral district boundaries - but that wasn't always the case; we did have a culture of gerrymandering. Perhaps fortunately it was not so entrenched that public opinion could be subverted enough to successfully obstruct doing something about it. Although rural voters do still get more bang for their votes, with smaller voter numbers per electorate - and that favors conservative parties. I should say that for all the good I see from the sorts of government Australia has there is no shortage of serious failing and things to criticise - nor that the trend is always consistently towards doing it better. I see "soft" corruption - undue influence, regulatory capture, partisan media, support for "rent seeking" and favors - as perniciously persistent and problematic. Thus the issue of a standing anti-corruption watchdog at the Federal level is one that could have long reaching consequences. In a roundabout way that could result in less government - the wasteful contracts that go to party supporters that evaded scrutiny for example can end up reduced when there are anti-corruption bodies.
    2 points
  22. I've found that the following seems to work pretty well for me: - Read, understand and apply the forum rules when contributing to discussions. - Try to understand and act according to the spirit of the forum.
    2 points
  23. I hear he's ordered a 32ft table to replace the 16ft table...
    2 points
  24. Here us an easy to understand explanation.
    2 points
  25. As an older, somewhat educated person, I stay away from social media ( forums, which exchange ideas, are my weakness ). Young people have never experienced the old style informative, not opinionated, news, and get a lot of self re-enforcing opinionated news from social media. The 'splinternet' makes it easy to find like-minded people who share your opinions, no matter how extreme, and 'splinter' us into different groups. Social media is possibly the biggest social engineering experiment ever, and although the internet was initially hailed as a way to bring us together, it could turn out that it ruins society as we know it.
    2 points
  26. To give a very general answer - Schwarzschild spacetime relies on certain conditions that need to be in place for this particular geometry to arise. It is static, stationery, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat (ie there are no other distant sources of gravity). If any of these conditions is violated, we are no longer dealing with Schwarzschild spacetime, but something more complicated. In principle, yes. But remember, a Schwarzschild BH is stationery and relies on an otherwise empty universe, meaning it doesn’t permit any changes - so you can’t have anything falling into it. If you add even as much as a single particle falling in, it’s no longer truly a Schwarzschild BH, but some other geometry. Yes and yes. But again, this wouldn’t be a Schwarzschild BH any longer. That’s a really good question! I presume you mean a gravitational wave. You can certainly embed a BH into a background gravitational wave field. The result would be something pretty complicated. I don’t know for sure just exactly what would happen, because, since GR is a non-linear theory, metrics don’t just add - you’d have to actually derive an entirely new solution for this scenario, which is likely only possible with numerical methods. I can make an educated guess though - given the right wavelengths for your gravitational radiation, the event horizon of your BH would begin to oscillate and ‘vibrate’ (like a bell) and eventually achieve a state of resonance with the external wave field. But this also means that the BH itself becomes a source of gravitational radiation - so it would essentially reflect some of the radiation back out. I don’t know if it would re-radiate all of the energy, or absorb some of it and grow in mass; one would have to run the numbers to find out. What’s more, the re-radiated waves will interfere with the incoming background waves in complicated non-linear ways, changing the wave field in ways that I can’t predict here now. And to go even further - if you were to ‘turn off’ the external wave field somehow, the BH will slowly ‘ring down’ like a bell, and eventually become stationery; however, the surrounding spacetime will remain permanently altered by all these waves having gone through it. It’s called the gravitational memory effect. This is a really complicated scenario, but very interesting. Yes, the event horizon will deform and ‘bulge out’ - this happens, for example, when two BH approach one another and merge. No, because spacetime inside the horizon is empty (assuming no in-falling material), so there’s nothing there to experience stresses. Schwarzschild spacetime is always spherically symmetric. If it doesn’t have this symmetry, then it will be a different kind of geometry. Yes. No, it wouldn’t be spherical, and thus it wouldn’t be a Schwarzschild BH any longer. Schwarzschild geometry requires spherical symmetry.
    2 points
  27. I worked for DuPont, the Cape Fear site, we made Dacron polyester, the way fibers can be manipulated on the manufacturing level is mind bending. And physics is a big part of it. But we made clear polyester all the way up to what we called "dull" fibers that were so full of titanium dioxide they looked like double white or something, hard to really describe, but the properties of the polyester determined how it would take dye and feel when you wore it. We had a large lab and engineering section and we made experimental fibers some of which were silk like to fibers that looked like aluminum foil threads. Polyester is made from plastic that is stretched and otherwise manipulated to resemble other fibers. Dacron is just one of many fibers bother natural and artificial. I have a small video that shows parts of the process, it can be amazingly complicated, but it's on tape and I am not supposed to share it anyway.
    2 points
  28. 2 points
  29. Why? Why can't it arrive a bit later? The air can sort itself out later by swirling about. It's not like having two queues of people going through customs barriers where the couples need to meet up afterwards. The "it goes faster over the curved surface so.... Bernoulli... it generates lift" explanation is clearly wrong. You can fly stunt planes upside down indefinitely. At the very least, you need to consider this as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coandă_effect
    2 points
  30. Oh I think the monarchy will last. It would take a revolution to get rid of it and we're not going to do that unless we get a really bad monarch at some point. As for the role of the monarchy, the more I look at recent US politics the more value I see in separating the roles of head of state and head of government. Many republics in fact do this, not just the (fairly numerous) monarchies of Europe. Even a merely ceremonial head of state provides an alternative centre of power to the that of the government: power based on national psychology and personal loyalty. That division of power is a good thing in my view. We can (and often do) despise the various heads of government and the political factions that come and go under our democratic process, but the king or queen sits above all that and can provide continuity and a focus of unity for the country. When I contemplate the Trump years in the USA, I think our constitutional monarchy may not be such a bad system after all. The challenge Charles III faces is modernising the monarchy in a way that enables it to continue to command respect and loyalty from British citizens. I think he may be quite a good king, but he won't have long to make his mark, as he's already in his 70s.
    2 points
  31. In her last public photo she looked just like anybody's grandma, I thought, like, finally she'd done away with her usual deportment and facial control. She was just herself... a smiling old lady. A fitting final image.
    2 points
  32. Not robbery, certainly, as you don't seem to have offered anything of value. What I would suggest is radically altering your style of communication: cut out all this useless verbiage and circumlocution, and learn how to summarise ideas succinctly. Doing this may be challenging, but the process will help you get your own thoughts and ideas in order. Get to the point quickly, and stick to it. At the moment you seem to be in a huge muddle. My experience is that people that use a lot of words generally are less insightful, and produce work of less value, than those who are able to express themselves in a concise and focused way. I find, myself, that trying to set down my ideas concisely in print is a good way to make sure I have thought the subject through properly. The other thing you can usefully do is control your ego. You have failed lamentably to express your ideas clearly on this forum, and when people's patience wears thin, you assume it is we who are the idiots, rather than you, and resort to insults. We will draw our own conclusions from that. Nobody owes you a hearing. It is you that needs to convince others that you have something worthwhile to say and show that you can have a civil discussion about it. Unless you are happy to talk only to yourself, of course.
    2 points
  33. Seeing that skin is chemically speaking a highly complex system, with many hundreds of chemical species, I think it is quite likely that a few atoms or molecules may detach and adhere to the surface of whatever we touch. Also, the water and oil in skin secretions may well dissolve a few atoms or molecules of the object we touch and transfer them to the surface of our skin. The surfaces of substances tend to be less chemically stable than the interior, due to the atoms being incompletely surrounded and thus having unsatisfied valences. So adsorption on surfaces is quite common. But as @StringJunkysays, penetration to any significant depth, i.e. more than a few atomic radii in, is likely to be zero or close to it, except in particular cases.
    2 points
  34. My bullshit detector has smoke pouring out of it. DeSantis is a Trump clone, playing to the Trump base. The rest of this post is somewhat redundant given what Phi just posted. I'll add it, anyway. CRT was an area of study at some colleges, it's not taught in primary schools. DeSantis concocted a bogeyman, in order to suppress intellectual freedom and muzzle teachers, and discourage covering darker aspects of our history. Learning real history, IOW. CRT does not teach anyone that a child is a loser or evil - do you have one shred of evidence such a thing happened in any public school? BLM demonstrations were mostly peaceful, included people of all ethnicities, and were legitimate First Amendment protests of police brutality, racial profiling and murder of unarmed suspects. Incidents of violence were often found to be false flag operations by outside provocateurs. The Don't Say Gay law was theater for homophobes and nervous RW evangelicals, purporting to fix another nonexistent problem. Are we quite sure, if an admin checks your IP address, it will be in Europe or overseas? I'll show you mine, if you show yours.
    2 points
  35. Based on this silly protracted lead in, there is approximately zero chance the rest will be worth anyone's attention.
    2 points
  36. It’s called tuning. Like music. When the President speaks, it’s akin to dropping a very large rock into the water. There will be waves outward in all directions, sound waves and others… waves amplified along the way by transmission hubs who then toss their own new (though decidedly smaller) rocks into their own newer / local waters. It’s musical when any one of us speaks, but it’s downright orchestral when people who have enormous reach speak… especially US Presidents… including the less benevolent ones. It’s a wave they’re creating when dropping that rock. A tidal wave. A pressure wave pushing outward into everyone’s own inward pressure points. So, yes. They “tuned” the speech. Like a guitar or violin, or a piano in a grand hall. The speech was “tuned” … thankfully… BEFORE it was broadcast out into space through the largest megaphone the world had ever seen until recent years… a US President speaking (I temper this since recent years are different with new attention shifting power centers forming, like influencers on social media, but even bigger than that and more algorithmic). Thankfully… the speech WAS tuned before it was played through speakers large and small, mechanical and humanical, to people with minds both large and small… below every curve of the atmosphere itself and across every corner and cranny of earth herself. Anyway, if it’s not called tuning then it should be, and I’m glad they tuned it before delivering it. IMO, that shows they respect their audience, whoever that may be.
    2 points
  37. If a photon is a material point, how do you explain the paradox of partial reflection of light by a thin layer of glass? From QED, the Strange Theory of Light and Matter, by R. P. Feynman. If a photon is a material point, how does this bouncing point, reflecting/not reflecting on the first limit surface of the glass layer react to the existence of a second layer, farther within, so as to reflect/not reflect on the previous surface? Quantum mechanics explains this easily. Unfortunately, physics takes more than the recitation of mantras, no matter how many words from topology or other branches of maths you use in your incantations. You might as well say that everything's made of two elements: mumbo and jumbo.
    2 points
  38. Visualization of the fossil fuels we use.
    2 points
  39. He used to say stuff like that all the time! Me: "For every dollar's worth of product I sell, I make a dime and you make ninety cents." Him: "You think I get to keep all that?! I have expenses I have to meet." Me: "It's no different for me. I don't get to keep the whole dime." Him: "My expenses are far greater." Me: "Yes, probably about nine to ten times greater, the same as your compensation." And like mistermack, nothing could persuade the man that his perspective was faulty and skewed in the extreme towards himself as the business owner. There's always something a resource owner will prioritize over employees who turn those resources into profit, and traditionally that's one reason we need strong unions.
    2 points
  40. Reminds me of the “I built this with no help” business-folk. You didn’t happen to work for Craig T Nelson, by chance ?
    2 points
  41. You read my mind. I was thinking of the Amur tiger. Korean researcher Sooyong Park spent months in the Siberian and Chinese forests, eating rice, nuts and salt, and removing all traces of his own poo, hiding in a hole underground for years to film them. Yet we have extensive footage of these animals and their family life. And they had been seen and captured before. Also, bigfoot must be the only primate species in like 55 million years that's not highly social, curious, extremely boisterous. Isn't that peculiar? And lastly, we're aware of the existence of a ancient species of ape (the Denisovans) thanks to a tiny fragment of a phalanx from the pinky of one hand, including sequences of their DNA. And we can't obtain definite proof of the existence of a big hulking ape who inhabits the Earth now?
    2 points
  42. In addition, consider the snow leopard. Lives the remote, high altitude areas of the Himalayas - considerably more remote than the West Virginia woods. Stealthy AF, near perfect camouflage, super low abundance, solitary. Formally described in 1930. Lots of crystal clear photos. Tens of physical museum specimens. A sequenced genome. Over 160 you can go see, live, with your own eyes in a zoo. Bigfoot is supposedly bigger, lives in a much more fragmented and densely populated locality, and yet none of the above evidence exists.
    2 points
  43. OK. One guy says "Unions do [some action]." I point out unions don't do [some of the actions they are widely said to do]. You say that means I don't think that unions do [ some third thing], even though I pretty much said that they do. Fundamentally, Unions choose member, they don't choose employers. So, no, they don't target the government as a "cash cow" because- guess what- the government doesn't pay unions. Unions will target angry workers. If governments want to make life difficult for unions, all they have to do is treat their staff well.
    2 points
  44. They gave it up when they joined the site. From section 5 of the rules everyone agrees to: “By posting content on ScienceForums.net, you agree to grant ScienceForums.net usage rights to that content within the confines of the site, and other members the right to quote and respond to that content”
    2 points
  45. The other, much more common, form of self harm is the one where management give too much money to themselves and the shareholders. This obviously undermines the company. For the good of the companies, the workers have to prevent this. They do so via unions and, if needs be, strikes. It is sometimes necessary to remind managers that, without the workforce, nothing happens. That's a fine argument, right up until you realise that the people profiteering from work are generally wealthy enough to avoid paying taxes. Do you understand that the majority of the public actually support better pay for public sector workers? https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/uk-public-support-for-nursing-staff-going-on-strike-builds-210722 You say that as if it's somehow a problem. Many people are not good negotiators and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf. Do you see this; Many people are not good negotiators doctors and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf. in the same light? A union will do well if the people they represent do well. Bankrupting an employer will not meet that goal. The idea that unions are unaware of that is absurd. They are- as you point out, seeking to maximise commercial advantage.
    2 points
  46. What your proposal seeks to do is increase the contact area between brine and the lower couple of hundred feet of the atmosphere in order for it to approach equilibrium at 100% RH more rapidly. My point is that nature already does this quite effectively. The missing step is getting heat into the system. This is required to both increase the water holding capacity of the airstream and reduce its density sufficiently to allow it to rise. The amount of heat the sun is putting into the ocean to try and do this is measured in Terawatts. And in the cases we have mentioned that isn't enough to overcome the local conditions which are dominated by cold ocean currents. How many TW do you propose adding to this equation? Have you ever heard the phrase 'latent heat of vapourisation'? Have you any idea what it means?
    2 points
  47. Well, to me that looks a typical distraction. Instead of negotiating for higher wages, just limit immigration? Hey here is a bad situation, let's not address it, but instead blame something else. Meanwhile, the effects of immigration on the UK labor market have been relatively small and mostly affect the segment of wages that are occupied by immigrants in the first place. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/ In 2021 about 240k work visa were approved (which seems a bit of a far cry from the claim of unrestricted immigration, especially compared to, say, Canada). Even assuming that all of those are unskilled workers the impact on salaries would be miniscule. And this is under the most favourable assumption. Also, I thought the discussion is about essential workers. Also based on the OP, are you assuming that essential work is only (or mostly) done by unskilled and predominant immigrant workers? Because other groups appear to benefit salary-wise from immigration.
    2 points
  48. Not heat capacity but Latent Heat of Vaporisation of water, i.e. the heat absorbed in turning liquid water into vapour. This is very high for water, due mainly to the need to break hydrogen bonding between water molecules as they break away from the liquid.
    2 points
  49. I use evaporation a lot when the weather gets uncomfortably hot. A/C isn't worth installing in the UK, but you do get a few days or weeks of discomfort in the summer. I wear very little, and spray myself now and then with water, or have a wipe over with a damp towel. It's super-effective, and no effort or cost. It's the evaporation that works for quite a while, much longer than the cold of the water.
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.