Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/20/18 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    So if I change the charge of one plate, somebody can measure an instantaneous change at the other plate. Wouldn't that be a violation of special relativity? @Menan You show that you do not understand entanglement. Let's go one step at a time. First a classical example. I have a bag of balls, they are all red or green. Without looking I pick two balls, and I put them in separate boxes. I keep one, and send the other far away. Then I open my box, and see it is a green ball. What can I conclude about the colour of the ball in the remote box? Right, nothing. And why? Because there was nothing special with my picks. It could have been two reds, two greens, or one red and green. Now I pick, looking of course, one red and one green, and put them in two separate boxes. So what I did here is 'entangle' the balls. Now I shuffle the two boxes, so that I do not know which one is which. If I open one, and see that it is red, I immediately know that the ball in the other box is green. And of course, this is independent on the distance. If I send the second box lightyears away, and only then open my box, I still know immediately what some alien sees when he opens his box. I know it because the observations are correlated. And the correlation already happened at the moment of my picks. That is the moment of entanglement. It is not when the boxes are opened. Now in quantum physics, there are processes where two particles pop out, which have e.g in one aspect always opposite values. Say the direction of spin. So if I measure the spin e.g. in a vertical direction, say it is 'up', then I immediately know that the other one will measure spin 'down', when also measured in the vertical direction. But as with the balls, the 'moment of entanglement' is when these particles popped into existence. But in quantum physics a few things are different: first, it is impossible to say which particle has which spin without measuring (it is as if I created the green and red balls, including their boxes, without knowing which ball is in which box). But as the two particles are entangled, if I measure both, the measurements will always be correlated. And there is nothing special with correlation: if I send one particle far away, and then measure my particle in the vertical direction, and the alien measures his particle in the same direction, I will always know what he measures: the opposite of my measurement. The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30o, 45o, 55.3977o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. But it still is correlation, not causation. As with the red and green balls, there is no direct causal relationship between my and the alien's observation. The causal relationship goes back to the moment of 'entanglement'. Everything afterwards is just correlation, and therefore cannot be used to transfer information. And because there is no causal relationship between my measurement of the spin of my particle, and the alien's measurement, I cannot use entanglement for sending information. And all this is very well understood by all quantum physicists, and is no secret at all.
  2. 6 points
    I am pleased to now add CharonY and Strange to the list of gullible fools wonderful people willing to sacrifice their time for the greater good here at SFN. Congratulations!
  3. 5 points
    Right, he is saying that the speed of light in both directions is the same with respect to any inertial frame as measured from that frame. So in the following example we have two observers. One standing along the tracks and the other traveling along the tracks in a railway car. Two flashes are emitted from two points along the tracks that are equal distance from the track observer. the light from these flashes arrive at the midpoint observer at the same moment as the railway observer is passing him. Thus both observers detect the light from the flashes at the same time. Like this: For the midpoint observer ( or anyone at rest with respect to the tracks) these flashes were emitted simultaneously, as shown by the expanding circles: However, for the railway car observer, events have to occur differently. He still detects the light from both flashes simultaneously, and they arrive when he is adjacent to the track observer. But unlike the track observer he has not remained halfway between the emission points the entire time. He is not an equal distance from the emission points when either of the flashes was emitted. But he must also measure the speed of light for each of the flashes as being the same relative to himself. But since the distances each of these flashes travel relative to him are not the same, in order for the light of the flashes to reach him simultaneously, they must have left at different times. And the sequence of the events for him occur like this: For the track observer, the flashes are emitted simultaneously, but for the railway observer they are not. This is the relativity of simultaneity: Events that are simultaneous in one inertial frame are not so according to another which in relative motion with respect to the first frame.
  4. 4 points
    ! Moderator Note Daedelus approached us to coordinate this with the Admins and Mods. We've helped out a member in need before, so please feel free to participate (or not). We wish Daedelus the best of luck in funding his treatments. Thanks to everyone for spending your time here, in reasoned dialogue and intellectual honesty. SFN members are fantastic!
  5. 4 points
    ! Moderator Note Menan was banned for breaking the rules, but for this sentence he should be banned from ever touching a computer again. This ignorance is willful.
  6. 4 points
    Yes, there ought to be a rule that you can leave those discussions, and just take part in the ones that interest you.
  7. 4 points
    I may be re-evaluating my 'fit' on this forum ( politics in particular ), but I still read occasionally, and can't stand lack of comprehension ( on both sides ). The confusion arises because Conjurer hasn't bothered to look up the difference between virtual particles and 'random particle pairs'. Virtual particles exist on 'borrowed' energy, in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle. As such, they are not like real particle pairs and when their time is up, they annihilate without resultant photons. Real particle/anti-particle pairs require the emission of photons in accordance with momentum and energy conservation laws on annihilation. When an event horizon removes one of the virtual particles from consideration, the other ( of the pair ) must by necessity, become real. The 'borrowed' energy that created the virtual particles, must still be repaid back to the vacuum, by the mechanism which 'stole' the virtual particle, the Black Hole itself. If you do the energy 'accounting', the BH ends up losing exactly one virtual particle equivalent of mass-energy, and the universe outside the event horizon gains one real particle. That is Hawking Radiation. Notice that there is no link to the Holographic Principle, other than the fact that the entropy of the BH is encoded on the surface of the event horizon, and this entropy is linked to temperature of the BH, and the resultant Hawking Radiation.
  8. 4 points
    I apologize on behalf of Science that Dark Matter is not yet fully understood. By all means, feel free to not treat us seriously until we rectify this egregious situation. You would think that by now we would have everything figured out. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
  9. 4 points
    Why DNA manipulation? Why not just cut the fore-arm and stick a whip in there. Army of darkness style. Also: what are you talking about? That's the most random question I ever heard. Did you imagine that there is a whip gene? And you get it into your bloodstream and become whip-man?
  10. 4 points
    I am not a fan of general statements which imply parity between Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately here in the U.S. we only have 2 major parties and despite various attempts by many to pretend they are both puppets cut from the same cloth there are measurable differences on nearly all matters between the two. When it comes to electing women for example there are 23 women in the Senate and 17 of them are Democrat. There are 84 women in the House and 63 of them are Democrat. So of the 107 women elected to congress in the U.S. 75% of them are Democrats. There are 3 women on the Supreme Court and all 3 were nominated by Democrats. Democrats were the first to run a Women, Geraldine Ferraro, on a Presidental ticket as VP in 1984 and the first to make a women their nominee for President in 2016. Republicans may nominate a Female for President in my lifetime. I am not saying it is impossible but I think it's not currently in the cards. Meanwhile on the Democratic side I will be surprised if either Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, or even Oprah aren't on the ticket as the nominee or VP. 75% of elected women in Congress being Democrat is not a coincidental number.
  11. 3 points
    So, some of the things you mentioned that folks describe you (e.g. unmentorable, or getting accused of falsifying data) are quite significant red flags. But without knowing context, it is difficult to tell whether you got in some unfavourable situations or whether you contributed to them. The other part are unrealistic goals. As a PhD candidate it is not typical in biomedical research to expect publications within the first year, unless you finish up someone else's work. And even then the PI typically rewrites the whole thing, anyway. From the perspective of a mentor your description of the events mostly show that things happened and that you are upset with it. But it does not tell anything about your suitability for a science career (or any other career for that matter). From my perspective you have to deal with two things. The first is the emotional aspects, which Koti covered. The second is figuring out the tangibles that got you these evaluations. How was your relationship to your supervisor, what were the issues, how did you address them, were you dismissive... and so on.
  12. 3 points
    Interesting question. I think it is mostly about choice of words and I can't see it as a big problem - but is running climate models from the conditions current 100 years ago to see how well they "project/predict" climate changes only up to where we have real world data to compare to really prediction? Well, it does get called hindcasting to distinguish it from models that start with near-present known conditions to see what future conditions might be. Hindcasting is done to verify how well the models work given various inputs, such as including the known rise in things like GHG concentrations, solar input and occurrences of volcanic eruptions over the period. Or alternatively without the rising GHG to see how climate might have changed without them. Is it a prediction (or projection) if it only projects from further in the past up to when real world data runs out? I don't think calling it that is completely unreasonable, but it probably deserves clarification. _____________________________________ There are a lot of misunderstandings about climate model projections/predictions and, like claims of reasonable climate concerns being labelled alarmist, a lot of the claims about modelling getting it wrong originate in the counter-messaging by those opposed to climate action. The "pause/hiatus" controversy for example arose from mistaking - often on purpose and ignoring expert objections - the average of many model runs giving an 0.x degrees per year of warming as predicting that every year will be 0.x degrees warmer than the one before. Which is like saying because models of seasonal temperature changes based on Earth's axial tilt say that on average each Spring day will be warmer than the day before - and therefore, because we just had a string of cooler than that average days, the models are wrong and Summer won't be warmer than Spring. And then suggest it could be the start of a new ice age. Each individual model run actually show similar year to year variability that the real world does - ups and downs, pauses and accelerations, within the range of expected variability; that they do so is indicative of how well they work, not how badly. They just don't have those ups and downs in the same place each time. Which is why temperature trends look at averages over enough time that the expected variability doesn't mask underlying longer term changes. That variability from year to year averages out to a very wobbly line if the period averaged over is too short, such as with "The Pause" which showed less warming than the 0.x degrees per year - and large parts of that variability can be attributed to known climate processes. The largest would be ENSO - el Nino Southern Oscillation - which causes year to year temperature changes much larger than the underlying warming trend - take a ten year period and if there are more la Nina years than el Nino then global average temperatures will be lower, despite an underlying warming trend. The other way about and they will be higher and it could look like warming has speeded up - it takes about 20 years or more for averaging for them to see past the global average temperature swings ENSO induces. Climate scientists most often use 30 years to be sure and routinely point out that looking at shorter periods can be very misleading. Of all measures of global warming I think this one most directly shows actual gain of heat by Earth's climate system - and whilst it has year to year variability a much shorter period for averaging is needed to see past it. Ocean Heat Content shows no sign of an early 21st century Pause in warming (and is not explainable as ".. a consequence of growth of a city, and paving over of land.") -
  13. 3 points
    Hello everyone! It has been a while since I was active in the forum. Sure, I post a song here and there, but I just can't participate like I used to. I'm still having problems with my left hip even though I had a hip replacement back in April, 2017. Since then, I lost my job and medical insurance because I simply can't sit and write code for hours on end due to the extreme pain in my left hip. I lost my job as a software engineer in the middle of being treated by my doctor and they want a $500 deposit to continue treating me. Unfortunately, I don't have any income, I'm unable to work, and I've blown through my savings on living expenses and doctor bills. Most likely, I will need a revision done on my hip replacement to fix whatever is wrong so that I can go back to work and be a productive member of society. So, I'm reaching out to the community and asking for your help! The following link is to my GoFundMe campaign. I've attached photos of how my surgeries went so you will understand how much pain I'm actually experiencing. It's ok if you can't donate. You can help me out tremendously just by sharing this link! Every little bit helps!!! https://www.gofundme.com/clevelandraymond Thank you all so much! I truly appreciate anything you can do. Not only does your efforts mean the world to me, but also to my family as well.
  14. 3 points
    Neither of those are true. I often wonder why people think their god approves of them lying like this. Arguably true. Depending on the definition of "abstract", "concept", "existence", "physical", etc. But utterly, painfully, irrelevant. The existence of mathematics does not prove gods exist. Some people who developed science believed in various gods and some didn't. And, again, it is completely irrelevant if they did. What does "confident in atheism" mean? There are still people who don't believe in gods, so yes there is still atheism.
  15. 3 points
    Just because forest fires have always existed does not mean humans are unable to start them, as well... yet this is the type of argument you're making... that humans are unable to start a forest fire. Strange is right. This is childish. Nobody disagrees the climate has always changed. What matters is the primary forcing agent, which human activity clearly is in modern times.
  16. 3 points
    Please refer to my very recent reply to studiot
  17. 3 points
    I wanted to post this comic somewhere as it is insightful about both science communication and quantum theory. This thread will do! http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3
  18. 3 points
    No, I just didn't feel it necessary to duplicate literature which already exists because you're too lazy to click a link, but I'll play: Here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00182388 Is an investigation of the genus Neisseria - which includes the pathogens N. meningitidis and N. gonorrhoeae as well as a number of non-pathogenic commensal species. Both pathogens have been observed in the clinic to be penicillin resistant. By reconstructing the phylogeny ("Darwin tree" if you insist) we can determine that the resistance genes are mosaic genes resultant of ectopic recombination rather than vertical transfer, and horizontal exchange with commensal species is a probable route for inheritance of resistance in pathogenic species. TlDr: by Making a Darwin tree of a genus of bacteria, we can show that they share and recombine genes that encode antibiotic resistance, and come up with better management plans for controlling the spread of drug resistance in those pathogens.
  19. 3 points
    Tell that to the farmers struggling under tariffs. Except, we are. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Niger, not to mention cyber and the cold wars being stoked with China and Iran Except the opioid epidemic, poverty, rampant inequality, and if you want our crumbling infrastructure. Busted v Philip Randolf Institute. Benisek v Lamone. Gill v Whitford. Jennings v Rodriquez. Jesner v Arab Bank. The list goes on. Just because you’re unaware of them doesn’t mean they’re unimportant or indecisive. Except, you know... the attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the 18 bombs mailed to democratic leaders, and the countless many other acts committed by white nationalists in the US. How are you unaware of the hundreds of protests and marches which have taken place in 2018 alone? That’s just the first paragraph. I’d reply to the other four, but at this point it really feels like a Gish gallop Except the very first sentence in the next paragraph. Can’t let that go. 1944. 1968. 1952 1951 1945 1943 1929 Shall I keep reading and correcting you?
  20. 3 points
    Nonsense. They are completely different things, intended to solve completely different problems and with completely different properties. You should perhaps find out what their definitions are before spouting off like this and making yourself look silly. Of course it is. Do you think scientists just got bored one day and said, "hey why don't we pretend the expansion is accelerating; that'll be a laugh". The Big Bang model is nothing like an explosion. That is not what the evidence shows. Three guys got a Nobel Prize for this. Did you miss it? That "spring" noise you heard was my irony meter breaking.
  21. 3 points
    I’ve assumed nothing about your views, so this is little more than a red herring and/or strawman (funny given the actual thread topic). You said repeatedly Fox and CNN are equivalent, essentially two sides of one coin. Ten Oz pointed out why he felt this was a ludicrous position, provided paragraphs of examples and details as to why, and asked you to provide similar examples which support your position. Your suggestion of equivalence has been challenged. The onus now falls to you to support your claim or retract it. You instead evaded this direct ask and provided no (maybe 1-ish?) similar examples despite repeated requests. Even now you ultimately evaded once more and chose to act all self righteous and put upon in your reply to me above as if I insulted your mother or called your baby ugly. Here’s the thing... you can’t provide examples of equivalence because they’re not equivalent in the way you’ve suggested. Prove me wrong. Please! Like Ten Oz, I don't have cable and haven't watched CNN in a few years. Your claim was pro-Democrat, not anti-trump. This was already clarified before. If we accept your logic that anti-trump means pro-democrat, then we land in the absurd conclusion that folks at the National Review and the Koch brothers are pro-Democrat. Calling this absurd is being kind.
  22. 3 points
    Two boys are playing in a park in a very Democrat neighbourhood, when one is attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy takes his stick, wedges it down the dogs collar and twists,breaking the dogs neck. A CNN reporter who was strolling by sees the incident,and rushes over to interview the boy. "Young Democrat Saves Friend From Vicious Animal," he starts writing in his notebook. "But I'm not a Democrat" the little hero replied. "Sorry, since we are in this area, I just assumed you were into politics." said the reporter and starts again. "Young Boy Rescues Friend From Horrific Attack" he continued writing in his notebook. "But I am into politics, I'm a Republican." the boy said. The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes, "Little GOP Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet!" (adapted from http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?/topic/6048-some-good-ole-leaf-jokes/) Interchange Republican/Democrat and Fox News/CNN to suit and you have the state of politics and news in the U.S. right now.
  23. 3 points
    Good question. Out of curiosity I tried to read the linked article and found this: I'm by no means an expert in semi conductor physics but I believe the above makes it very clear why scientists are not interested.
  24. 2 points
    I followed the discussion a little, but did not participate because of 2 reasons: - one very practical: I am not very versed in the philosophy of language, and going into 'deep thought mode' when my daily business already needs that capacity also, it becomes a little bit too much. I simple do not have the time - the discussion about these topics have shown (inductive reasoning?) that they become emotional very soon. Which maybe funny for people who both, in different ways, believe to be rational. I have not very much hope to alleviate the tension a bit, but at least I can give it a try. Reg clearly stated a few times that he does not question the results of science. What is discussed here, as far as I can see, is the self-understanding of science, not science itself. And that is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. But of course, one has to know what the daily praxis of science is. If one wants to reflect on 'how science works', or the even more philosophical question 'why science works' one needs to know when scientists accept new theories, why other theories are rejected, why and how scientists err, etc etc. Until now, I did not see that Reg is principally wrong in his philosophical musings. What I see is a lot of misunderstandings. I am still not quite clear what Zosimus' position is: when he says that 'science is wrong' and scientific theories do not play an important role in the development of technology, I think he is clearly wrong. Just to conclude from that it happens that (technical useful) discoveries are made without any theory does not question the relationship between praxis and theory completely (e.g superconductivity was completely unexpected, and the theory came much later). I just want to add that the problems of the relationship between language and reality are notoriously difficult, and a simple 'we know that science works' is not very clarifying in trying to understand how it is possible that science works.
  25. 2 points
    Maintaining a plasma is an extremely difficult operation. It has to be kept in shape with phenomenally powerful magnets, and the hotter it gets, the more unstable it gets. It's very impressive that they kept it going for ten seconds. We have a Tokamak in Oxford called JET and there's one in the USA called TFTR. They are all research Tokamaks, they are nowhere near sustainability. The JET and TFTR found that as energies and densities of the plasma increased, stability got worse, and couldn't be improved with machines of their size. That's what led to the ITER project. Interestingly, JET have recorded temperatures of 200 million C, according to this : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27138087 and they did set the record for Q . To break even on energy in/out you need Q of 1 and they managed 0.67. The break even point is a bit misleading. You need five to ten times energy in/out ratio to be economic, because the energy in is expensive electricity, and the energy out is low value heat. Some of the problems to be overcome to enable a continuous run are stability at higher energies, materials for shielding and heat collection that can withstand the constant bombardment from neutrons, and robots to remotely handle materials in a harsh environment. I'm amazed that with the joint effort being made, the budged is less than twenty billion, for something that's potentially world changing. Bill Gates could have funded ITER three times over. I think I read somewhere that the USA spends more on pet grooming, than it does on fusion research. It shows how seriously government actually take climate change. ITER is pin money to them. There are other approaches to fusion being followed, using high-powered lasers to heat pellets of fuel, but they don't seem to be as optimistic about those at present. I'd like to see the money going into ITER and it's successor DEMO doubled or trebled, to speed it along. There must be a profit in it at the end, looking at what the world spends on electricity, and how it's forecast to rise.
  26. 2 points
    Vaccinations are, by definition, much more about populations and can't afford to be selfish and subjective. Are you serious with this?! If people can't trust doctors because of your bullshit fear and ignorance program, how many will die because they didn't seek medical help? You're using Misleading Vividness as a fallacious argument regarding children, when the real damage is being done by you and others like you, killing children every day with your vaccination hoaxes.
  27. 2 points
    A few words on the dispute over "appeal to authority"... It seems to me there's nothing fallacious in appealing to an authority or authorities on matters where they are indeed authoritative. It's something we all do when we consult a doctor for medical advice, a civil engineer for proposals to strengthen a bridge, a theologian on matters of scripture, or a biologist on biology. These people are experts, far more knowledgeable than the layperson, and their thoughts or suggestions have to be given due consideration. What would be fallacious, of course, is to make the inference from "she's an expert" to "she must be right". But surely few of us do this. Equally obviously, to cite a team of elderly shoemakers, say, as an authority on questions pertaining to subatomic physics would be... well, a load of old cobblers. Then again, surely none of us are this gormless. Far more pernicious, I find, is when people who are authorities in a particular area drift into a closely related area where their "expertise" is no longer nonpareil, indeed may even be little more worthy of belief than the layperson. The danger here is that -- unlike cobblers pontificating on Hilbert spaces -- they will be mistakenly held to be authorities on the subject matter in question by those who know no better. With respect to our own particular concerns here, two culprits who leap immediately to mind are Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. Presumably the two of them are indeed competent to speak on their respective bailiwicks. The problem, though, is that they have this nasty habit of speaking authoritatively on what I will call "metascientific" matters. That is, not the nitty-gritty of any particular scientific domain or theory, but rather, science as a whole: questions about science, as opposed to scientific questions. The kinds of metascientific questions I have in mind include those pertaining to the nature of science, evidence, confirmation, falsification, theories, demarcation, progress, scientific reasoning, explanation, truth, knowledge, scientific realism & antirealism, and so forth. Now, there are people who devote careers to examining the kinds of questions I've alluded to above: they include philosophers, historians and sociologists of science. These are the authorities in this case. I'm never quite sure whether Dawkins et al are just blissfully ignorant of the fact that such experts exist, or else know this but are too contemptuous to deem their research worthy. It's always hard for me to convince others of this, but Dawkins, Krauss, deGrasse Tyson, and others like them are not authorities on metascientific issues. Quite the contrary, these men -- if I may be blunt -- are little more than utterly clueless on such matters. I assume that Zosimus groans and squirms as much as I do listening to these men as one screaming absurdity is proclaimed after another, one long-discredited doctrine after the next upheld in succession, one false assertion piled upon another glaring inaccuracy or hyperbole. As I said, it's rare that anyone is convinced by my saying this, though I'm perfectly willing to put my $$$ where my gaping maw is. Perhaps in another thread someone might post a Youtube video or something for purposes of analysis. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you'd be as well listening to those cobblers on matters metascientific. Probably cheaper, too. P.S. I must express how gratifying it is to see several new additions to the thread (Zosimus, et pet, coffeesippin), all of whom enjoy a healthy negative reputation count -- generally an indicator around here that some heinous critical thinking has been perpetrated.
  28. 2 points
    It is because the climate system is susceptible to change that adding lots of CO2 is such a dangerous thing to do - it would take a climate that is unchanging to be unchangeable. It is the vehicle with bad steering that is most likely to run off the road and crash. Olin - The consistent expert advice - three decades of every institution that studies climate and every expert report governments have gotten on it is that this is a serious problem. Why should I set that aside and believe that you know better than they do? That the consequences of AGW can and will seriously impact human activities and prosperity. Not that it takes a genius to figure that destabilising something as fundamental as our planet's climate system is very unwise and - given that persistent expert advice - dangerously irresponsible. I don't ask or expect anyone to take what environmental advocacy groups are saying on trust, but I do expect them to take what the world's leading science advisory bodies, like the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society say about it very seriously. These organisations draw on the world's most accomplished and respected experts. My personal experience - of about 0.5 C of global average warming as experienced in this location - is that vegetation has been effected; perennial weeds that were kept in check by hard frosts are becoming rampant with warmer winters, leading to more work and more costs to deal with them. Bushfires are a real problem here - and that is not new. What is happening is that the 'fire danger season' is, on average, starting earlier and finishing later and the opportunities for 'controlled' fires to reduce fuel loads ahead of the high risk periods are becoming shorter with increasing risk of escaping containment, requiring more vigilance, labour and equipment. Fires could, by picking the right conditions, be expected to go out overnight as dew added a natural fire retardant - but less cool nights, less dew and more fires that don't go out on their own. More work, more expense, more risk.This means less of that hazard reduction is getting done and the consequences in the hot, high risk periods is intensified. That is with a mere 0.5 degrees of global average temperature change; the prospect of 3 to 6 degrees is something I find terrifying. Regions like this could become so unsafe that people cannot live here permanently without an added expense of fire resistant construction and endless vigilance. The appropriate perspective is needed - looking at too short periods, where normal variability appears to overwhelm gradual changes is a common way to get misled. So is looking at too long periods, where historic climate changes of great magnitude can make what is happening now appear inconsequential. Both blurr the reality and make it hard to see that gradual changes accumulate and will have serious consequences with dangerous economic and security implications.
  29. 2 points
    I'm with Carrock as to the "final answer". You may well keep going back until you find a gap in science. It's well acknowledged by all that we don't have all of the answers, and it's probable that some things ARE going to turn out unknowable. But to imagine that "there must be a creator" is an answer is just wishful thinking. It's no answer at all. You've just moved the mystery along a bit, to an imaginary being. If a gigantic god appeared in the sky tomorrow, and said in an almighty voice " I did it all !! " you still wouldn't be any the wiser, unless you found out what caused HIM, and what caused THAT. etc etc. Religious "philosophers" claim that there must be an "uncaused" cause to start it all off. But that's a nonsense. If you can have an uncaused cause, then you can have an uncaused Universe. It's no answer at all. Just the good old God-of-the-gaps, shoved in to put something in place of a mystery. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Just shove it in there. People have been doing it for thousands or even millions of years.
  30. 2 points
    There is no measurement or observation that indicates that it is that thin. While that would be a requirement for the solar sail hypothesis to valid, this does not mean that it actually is that that thin. There nothing about the measurements we have made of it that indicates that it is made from so thin a material. You got the argument backwards. It is "IF the probe were a light sail then it would need to be very thin", not "It is very thin, so it could be a light sail".
  31. 2 points
    Incorrect. g ( gravitational force) is zero at the center, but the Specific(per unit mass) Gravitational potential is -3GM/2R where M is the mass of the planet, and R is its radius. At the surface of the planet (or any point above it) the Specific Gravitational potential is -GM/r where r is the distance from the center of the planet ( on the surface r=R) Specific Gravitational Potential Energy tells us how much energy it would take to move a unit mass from one point in the field to another. It takes energy to lift a mass from the center of the Earth to the surface, just like it takes energy to lift the same unit mass from the surface of the Earth to a point above it. It is the difference in potential gravitational energy is responsible for gravitational time dilation, not the difference in g. An easy way to demonstrate this is to calculate the gravitational time dilation factor for the surface of the Earth vs the surface of a planet with twice the radius and 4 times the mass of the Earth. You will get two different answers even though the value of g will be the same at the surface of both planets. A clock at the center of the Earth is at a lower potential than one on the surface and thus will run slower than one on the surface, even though it feels 0g compared to the surface clock at 1g.
  32. 2 points
    I do not understand what in the link you are referencing. The link is literally about the fact that it was not different. From the opening of the article: More over the result by group was basically indentical to 2016 yet neither Clinton or Trump were on the ballot and all the political issues have changed appreciably. If you are claiming the "moderate middle" is the key what numbers do you have to support it? By group everyone voted the same as last time. The Edison survey (previously linked) goes into to great detail breaking voters down by age, gender, race, education, religion, martial status, income, and etc. There were no substantial changes or surprises on Tuesday. That is statistically demonstratable. You seem married to an idea and aren't soberly looking at the cold dry numbers. I understand why one would feel differently. All over the media pundits are weighing in with their take on why voters did X, Y, Z. It creates a palpable sense that these matters are considerably more fluid than they actually are. The media is in the ratings business and not the accurate information business. Pundits say what they say for the sake of their audience. They play up on peoples bias's, desires, fears, hopes, and misconceptions.
  33. 2 points
    I have some more (hopefully helpful) thoughts about this post but meanwhile can you say what is in conflict with this presentation of a light clock? No bastard triangles are needed. I did ask if you are applying your analysis to the wrong thing and I ask again as you did not answer. The point is that we should be comparing the second (unit of time) as measured by each observer, as each will observe a different number of units, but it is the relative length of those units that is being transformed (dilated). So to A, B's units will appear dilated (longer) so the square root factor being less than 1 is on the bottom of the fraction in the transformation from his units to B's. This is the usual formula. However when A considers the transformation from B's units to his the square root factor will appear on the top (Einsteins formula) as he need to shorten B's apparently longer units to match his own.
  34. 2 points
    You still don't get it. In 2008 Democratic Congressional candidates won 13 million more votes than Republicans. 65 million votes for Democrats to just 52 million for Republicans yet Republicans only lost 21 seats. Here Two years later in 2010 Republicans got 6 million more votes (45 million to 39 million) and Democrats lost 63 seats. Here Think about that. It took a 13 million vote advantage to earn Dems just 21 seats but then only 6 million for Republicans to earn 63. For every million more votes Dems earned they picked up less than half a seat while Republicans earned over 10 seats. It isn't merely about who is in control of the Congress it is about peoples votes mattering and people believing they are fairly represented. If Republicans are getting more representation per vote the system is broken. Even when Democrats win by huge margins they don't receive the representation they deserve. That is the current state of Gerrymandering. Democrats must win by tens of millions just to earn meager increases in representation.
  35. 2 points
    The "Climate has always been changing" argument actually has it backwards; like the vehicle with bad steering that is more likely to run off the road and crash, it is a climate system that is susceptible to change that is most at risk of change from things humans do. The planet is warming - multiple different measures and indicators all show it. And - " There are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. " (The US National Academy of Sciences). The nasty bit of personal slander has no place in these discussions; if you have evidence of serious criminal behaviour, you should inform the police. If not, it is your behaviour that looks criminal. Fake accusations from behind the safety of internet anonymity - I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted by moderators. I recommend the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences for non-partisan expert assessment; making sense of complex science for policy makers and public is their job. Their exemplary reputations are earned. The people they draw upon are not incompetent or biased. Or part of a conspiracy or driven by any political agenda apart from that of pursuing excellence in science for the benefit of humanity. I see the science getting it mostly right. I see real world consequences of climate change in the landscape around me - weeds that had previously been kept in check by heavy frosts becoming rampant because there are fewer frosts, bushfire hazard reduction made more difficult by warmer winters and the fire hazard 'season' coming earlier and finishing later - that's with about half a degree C of average warming (of personally experienced change in this location). 3 to 6 degrees is terrifying to contemplate. Sure, if your region is mostly cold, rarely hot, that might not seem so terrifying, but most of the world's (too large) population lives in places that get very hot, where a few degrees can make the barely bearable conditions unbearable. People ordinarily have a right to believe what they like, but if they hold positions of trust and responsibility ignoring or rejecting expert advice can be negligence. Should lives and fortunes be harmed, that can become criminal neglegence.
  36. 2 points
    As Strange already noticed, there is no faster than light 'communication' involved. What is the case is that those experimenters showed you can derive which colour balls are at the remote side, by measuring the colour of the balls on their own side. Of course it is more complicated than that in this experiment, but it is the basic principle. But here is a thought for you: if those experimenters do not understand entanglement, why then were they able to do this? And also, there are already more technologies based on entanglement. How could these technologies be developed when nobody understands entanglement? No: the mathematics of entanglement is clear and unambiguous. The only problem for us is to picture how the correlation in QM can be stronger than classically possible. No. What you have in your pocketsess is a fact that I cannot derive from theory: it needs an observation. Obviously you do not understand the difference between simple observations and established (in the case of entanglement) scientific theories. And I don't know everything about the beginning of time. But I do know a little which cosmological theories are more or less established, and which ones are still (very) hypothetical. There is no problem that the time between the measurements can be infinitesimal small. Compare with the red/green balls: how short can the time be between me opening my box, and the alien opening his box, and we still see that the measurements are correlated? Again you suppose that there is causation between my measurement and that of the alien, but there isn't. There is only correlation. And this does not violate physics at all: that entanglement should exist was first derived theoretically (Bell's theorem). But in those days technology was not developed enough to really test this. Only one or two decades later, the experiments were done, and they succeeded: these experiments proved, that the understanding of the theoretical physicists was correct. And now you say that nobody understands entanglement? Entanglement is a very clear case where first there was the theoretical prediction, i.e. the understanding, and then the confirmation by experiment.
  37. 2 points
    When the left gets extreme, people get healthcare. When the right gets extreme, people get shot. Claims of equivalence are absurd, as are those making them.
  38. 2 points
    I don't watch CNN; I just read BBC, Reuters and Japan Times daily. I'm getting increasing disenchanted with the BBC though because it has some pretty obvious agendas, which it seeks to promote with quite unseemly enthusiasm. I like neutrality.
  39. 2 points
    The modern rendition of the tree of common descent would be the phylogenetic tree. There are extensive practical uses of phylogenetic trees and theory. Some examples include epidemiology and outbreak tracking, conservation biology, forensic investigation and drug discovery to name a few. The foundation for modern phylogenetic inference is coalescent theory. Using coalescent theory, we can generate predictions as to how traits or DNA/RNA sequences should have changed if the assumption that they arose from a common ancestor is true. Contemporary genetic sequences and physical characteristics can be evaluated to determine if they meet the predictions of common descent under the coalescent. Huge quantities of genetic, phenotypic, biogeographic, etc data have been tested under a wide range of models, and to date, the vast majority supports common ancestry of most of the tree of life, with the caveat of some uncertainty of branching and wtf viruses came from.
  40. 2 points
    We're going further off-topic. It was addressed here. We're not talking about individual votes. We're talking about votes in aggregate. That's important. Given this... If folks were truly independent in the way(s) being suggested by you and others, then that aggregation would noticeably change from one election to the next. The outcome and vote tallies would show far more dynamism since the candidate running would consistently act as the key deciding factor, not the party they've identified with. If folks were truly independent in the way(s) being suggested, we'd logically see far less friction in the numbers and far more voters readily dancing back and forth from one side to the other. It just doesn't, happen though. I'll readily stipulate it's not conclusive, but neither is evidence that smoking causes cancer or humans climate change. Certainty simply can't be your metric on this. The evidence in favor is overwhelming and it easily supports the position Ten Oz and I are putting forth. You're clearly welcome to disagree, but I'd hope you find contradictory data to support that disagreement (as opposed to just going with your gut and dismissing us out of hand).
  41. 2 points
    People are fantastically imaginative. And there are good reasons for thinking the moon is spherical (the phases, for example). So examples of early moon landings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landings_in_fiction The trouble is that the Einstein Field Equations are complex and non-linear. So the known solutions involve very simplified cases. A Schwarzschild black hole (perhaps one of the most commonly used solutions) assumes an eternal, unchanging spherical mass in an empty universe. Given how far apart things are in the real universe, this is still a good approximation. More complex situations, such as a pair of orbiting black holes, require massive simulations to find out what happens. Actually, he patented a refrigerator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator Janus is describing the effects of special relativity. If it weren't for special relativity, and therefore quantum field theory, you wouldn't have the computer you are positing this on.
  42. 2 points
    *gloves falls at an acceleration imperceptibly different than g, even after accounting for air resistance*
  43. 2 points
    Unfortunately most people are the same. Humans are very like sheep. They like to be led and told what to think. I think you're on the wrong forum.
  44. 2 points
    THis show is just BS. IF and it is a BIG IF there was some spek of truth in what the show portrays it would be lost in the pile of conjecture that the idiots, yes idiots spout. In several episodes they state that the people depicted what they saw litterally and sometimes depicted the bloody aliens as an interpretation. The episode that really takes the top prize is the one featuring alien flying mansions with gardens related to India. I believe that life is abundant in the universe. I don't believe that an alien race can bypass the laws of physics. I dont believe that the laws of physics can be overcome. And I don't believe that an alien race would build monuments to themselves and then just bugger off. I am a rerptile and I claim my seventy-odd virgins on a planet in the beta centauri system. I've got as much proof as the spiky-haired geek.
  45. 2 points
    No. The observer effect is about how our measurements affect what we are trying to measure. It can apply to almost anything (for example, putting a voltmeter across a circuit changes the behaviour of the circuit). It can also apply to a single measurement, while the uncertainty principle relates two measurements. The uncertainty principle is about the limits to how accurately we can know something, even with perfect measurements: "The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[18] The uncertainty principle in its standard form describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.[19] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) I'm not sure that is a useful example. After all, particles have momentum (and waves have position). But it does, perhaps, relate to the fact that the uncertainty principle is based on Fourier transforms between the two things being measured. And not sure why this is in Philosophy as it is purely a matter of physics.
  46. 2 points
    It's the same knowledge- but looked at from the other side. If I know " don't mix a with b because it blows up" then I know that, if I want to blow something up, I mix a with b. (And if you happen to live in a country where you can buy explosives at the supermarket...)
  47. 2 points
    With all due respect, Strange, that may not be a given. Any entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again", obviously would not be restrained by the physical rules or laws of our/this Universe. That being the case, we honestly could not conceive of or even imagine what the total all encompassing extent of those abilities might allow that entity to effect upon our/this Universe. I am fairly certain that it was Arthur C. Clarke that stated : "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." So, no Strange, that need not necessarily be a given. An entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again" might just also have the ability to make it run exactly the same. Maybe even over and over, repeatedly...
  48. 2 points
    But ... you said you weren't talking about scientific truth ... now you are saying it is scientific truth ... But now you are saying it isn't scientific truth ... ? I think you need to clarify what you are saying. (And using different colours, sizes and block caps doesn't help clarify it.)
  49. 2 points
    Voting is more than just an individual right. It is not intended exclusively for self interest (part of the reason we have constitutional democracy, not just majority rule). When you disenfranchise someone by taking away their voting right it is a very small part of their overall punishment, but the accumulation of this disenfranchisement is, or most certainly can be, punishing a group that extends to be much greater than the incarcerated themselves.
  50. 2 points
    we are nothing but chemistry. i have spent a fair amount of time reading about nde's over the years. ive watched many of sam parnias videos, and some guy in england though have forgotten his name. these 2 are fairly regarded as doing the 2 largest studies into nde's. as they are both trauma doctors, "cardio resuscitation", they can get first hand experience of people that are near death. im sure they have probably had experience with people that are actually dead as well. i.e., they go from the trauma ward to the morgue. however, while im sure they have great knowledge in their own field, there is more going on then just what their field teaches them. sam, in one of his videos expressed that once the heart has stopped they are for all intents and purposes dead. however the brain can function for 6 minutes (mayby more) after the heart stops beating. he considers this irrelevant. he chooses to ignore the concept that the brain is still doing 'something' for those 6 minutes. the brain can do many wonderfull and crazy stuff while we're asleep, who knows what other stuff it can come up with when its sent into 'emergency stress mode'. as far as nde's being able to see or know things they couldnt possibly see/know, well people that are asleep can do that too. its called , the brain putting together pieces that we are not consciously aware of. nothing spooky, just the brain working behind the scenes. people "seeing" something in those 6 minutes while the heart has stopped but the brain is still functioning doesnt prove anything apart from HES NOT DEAD YET.