Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/19/19 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    No. Space-time should not be comprised of anything like dough. It is not substance-like at all. The concept of space-time is just the recognition that the measurements of space and time are frame dependent and not absolute. The analogy is that in Newtonian physics, space and time are treated like North/South vs. East/West. In such a situation everyone, no matter what direction they are facing, all agree on these directions. Everyone, for example, agrees that town A is 40 miles North and 30 miles East of town B. However the Space-time manner of treating this is that each person uses his own sense of Left/Right and Front/Back. Thus one person facing one direction will say that town A is 30 miles to the left of and 40 miles in front of town B, while someone facing in another direction would say that town A is 50 miles directly to the right of town B. It makes no more sense to think of space-time as being "substance-like" than it would to think of Left/Right-Front/Back as being "substance like". Now I also realize that in GR, it is said that Space-time "curves" in the presence of mass. And to many people this implies space-time being a "structure or substance". This is not what this means. "Curvature" of space-time really just means that the geometry rules governing it are non-Euclidean. In other words, the rules of plane, Euclidean geometry just don't hold.
  2. 5 points
    Glad to be back had some RL issues which are done with now
  3. 5 points
    thethinkertank has been placed in the queue for spamming the forum with an impressive amount of nonsense.
  4. 4 points
  5. 4 points
    "Perhaps we can communicate with the aliens if they are aware of the EM spectrum." "We can develop the technology to capture what we need from space along the way to another system" "We can figure out new ways to communicate with alien cultures." "Aliens probably think differently." It's been a long time since I spoke any Hydrox. It's an older form of Oreo, where the middle is stressed before either end is considered.
  6. 4 points
    Allright I'll bite a little, but from what I have seen it is mostly a misunderstanding of how DNA works that makes you make these "assumptions". While I do think you have SOME understanding of biology, you seem to not know enough and thus say certain things are impossible. Reason 1: the genome does contain enough information. Well do you have any evidence for this; cell type specific transcription factors, cryptic transcription start sites, alternative polyadenylation, alternative splicing, post-transcriptional modifications, RNA secondary structures and post-translational modifications lead to a whole lot of diversity, can you give some actual evidence that there is not enough information within the genome or is this just what you believe? Reason 2: The genome only says how to build parts. If we don't have said fats, or essential vitamins or whatever, then the end products cannot be made, so you can definitely produce blueprints and use things which are not within the blueprints but come from somewhere else. I would like to say that a better analogy is that the genome encodes for tools with specific use-limitations which, when combined with the genome, lead to the production of both the factory and the end products. Reason 3: The genome does not determine which of its genes are used and when. Yes it does... epigenetic regulation is a result of the tools encoded by the genome, so indirectly the genome contains information for when parts of the genome are to be used. I don't get why you don't think this is the case, for instance CpG islands are encoded by the genome and DNA methylation enzymes, when guided by cell type specific adaptors and/or by lack of transcriptional activity, will methylate these CpG islands which leads to reduced transcription. All of these things are encoded by the genome, right? Reason 4: The genome cannot guide its products. There's plenty of signals both within the RNA and amino acids (look up nuclear localization signal) which direct proteins, alternatively see the Golgi (which is encoded by the genome) and there's evidence that parts of the DNA codes and/or binding factors/histones lead to chromatin localization within the nucleus (see CTCF and Lamina associated domains, and see super enhancers and transcription factories). Reason 5: No way of reaching the next level. Take a course in genetic embryology, look up hox genes. I don't want to go and explain all of of biological development but for instance, go look at sonic hedgehog and its influence in the formation of your hands and then tell us why this is not encoded by the genome. Reason 6: The limited role of developmental proteins. DamID now I have to explain developmental biology anyway; so lets say the genome has a developmental program to turn cell A into cells that proliferate outwards. This program is activated by a signalling protein and the cells will proliferate away from the source of the signalling protein, the further away they are, the less they proliferate. This is how your fingers can grow. Now you may think, why is it only in 1 direction, and there are other gradients with signals coming from closer to your body which signal the cells not to proliferate, and in between each source of the first developmental signal source are inhibitory sources, thereby the cells will only proliferate in the shape of a finger. This is a super simplified example, but just shows that this can all be done by the genome. Reason 7: Lack of construction endpoint. Don't get what you mean, the genome encodes for both a functional embryonic cell as well as functioning cells in adults, but we get a functional cell from our mother's egg cells. Just DNA alone would not produce anything, there needs to be a factory present already, which has been evolving for SOME time. Reason 8: Diversity from the same genome. Why don't you just learn about histone modifications, DNA modifications, post-transcriptional processing and cell-type specific transcription factors, or just take a course in epigenetics before saying this are impossible. Reason 9: Designed systems can’t repair themselves. Chaperone proteins can sometimes repair themselves, but regardless, your idea of cutting your finger and it"repairing itself" is just plain wrong. The cells die and new cells proliferate filling the gap. You seem very keen on explaining how things work but then you also fundamentally misunderstand certain things... Reason 10: Development is not construction. Construction of the plans to build things (and when to use them etc), construction of the tools and construction of the required materials is all done by the genome, but these tools then interact further with the genome to change things so that developmental progress is made. See all the other points for a more indepth explanation of this. Just learn some biology or at least give real reason why you believe what you believe. You just say "this isn't possible" but then there's soo much evidence that it is possible... -Dagl
  7. 4 points
    I'll clarify for him. For the reaction mass to produce an upward force on the rocket, it has to be accelerated downward relative to the rocket. In order to return that mass to the top of the rocket, any downward velocity the mass has relative to the rocket has to be stopped and reversed. This is an acceleration just as much as the one producing the upwards force on the rocket (acceleration is either change in speed, direction or both). This action will exert a force on the rocket opposite to that caused by accelerating the fuel downward. The end result of this force will be counter any upward movement by the rocket. This ends up with the net movement of the rocket as being zero. There is no way around this. There is no "clever" way to "fool" the rocket into having net movement by recirculating the fuel/reaction mass.
  8. 3 points
    This is yet another typical example of someone wanting to formulate a GUT with his personal model that has absolutely no idea what is involved in a GUT theory.... One of the most fundamental steps is the mathematics that offer a means of testing such a theory . A theory without mathematics that is based on simply verbal word play is utterly useless You cannot build a working circuit without being able to calculate the required resistance and capacitance to create an RC timing circuit. Nor can you predict how our universe will evolve in terms of expansion (which quite frankly required nearly every field in physics) nor can you make predictions of particle decay nor interactions You require mathematics for that.... This formula is far closer to a GUT than anything I have seen of your posts. [latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex] You have absolutely no idea how detailed this formula truly is in terms of all the tensors/matrices complex conjugates etc. If you ever hope to build a GUT then you had best be able to decipher this equation. At the very least recognize each term Just for the record you have three spatial dimensions time is seperate as an independent variable which is the mathematical definition of a dimension. Hence spacetime containing four independent quantities that can change value without affecting any of quantity
  9. 3 points
    Obviously you never met somebody who really is paranoid. Not just vague ideas of being followed, but acting according these feelings, in such a way that such a person cannot copy with daily life anymore. Example: colleague comes panicking into the office, hiding immediately under his desk, saying that those helicopters outside are chasing him. Because that does not help. The paranoid feelings overwhelm a person completely, so he cannot think rationally anymore. That's why also very intelligent people can become psychologically ill. Intelligence does not protect against psychological illness.
  10. 3 points
    There is no purpose or goal in evolution. The purpose of a star is not to fuse hydrogen. The purpose of a river is not to send water to the ocean. What we observe in nature is a consequence of physical laws, there is no purpose. The basis of evolution is not improvement, that is too vague and subjective. Evolution is simply that an animal that is suited to an environment will survive long enough to produce viable offspring and one that isn't will not produce offspring. It may be that 200,000 years in the future man will have a brain that is only half the size that it is today. That would be an 'improvement' because that trait of having a pea brain is best suited for the environment.
  11. 3 points
    We've recently had a few posts by newer members asking for advice and expert input on ideas they are unwilling to disclose publicly for reasons of IP protection. Staff feel that this goes against the spirit of this forum as a place for open discussion, and we have therefore updated the rules under Section 2 to include the following:
  12. 3 points
    Yes...The expansion of the universe affects light and this is observed by the lengthening of the wavelength or shift to the red end of the spectrum, and is known as "cosmological redshift" The actual trajectory is affected by spacetime curvature or warping by intervening objects.
  13. 3 points
    I appreciate you've though deeply about this issue - however this is incorrect. Regulatory genes can, for example, encode silencing mRNA which is used for post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. RNA secondary structure can act to alter gene expression. Somatic V(D)J  recombination of existing genes is critical for adaptive immune function. There is an entire field of Developmental Genetics which deals with the mechanisms for differential expression during development - and the vast majority are genetically determined. Ultimately, the genome does a lot more than simply encode proteins, and much of its less obvious function is newly and incompletely understood - the term "junk DNA" was coined in 1972 to describe the 98% of the human genome that does not encode proteins. It wasn't until the 1990's that we started to unravel the function of non-coding DNA, but it does a lot more than we originally thought and were are still in the process of determining its function.
  14. 3 points
    I think you are just seeing the same issue from different perspectives. The DNA encodes required proteins (though again, it does not encode the required metabolites, such as nucleotides, amino acids etc, though it does encode the machinery involved in acquiring and synthesizing it), but it requires the presence of a fully functional cell background (with the machinery in place) to produce them. This is the chicken or egg problem as as without everything already provided by the cell (or having an incompatible cellular set up) the program will stall. Likewise, not providing required nutrient will inhibit the production of said machinery. I.e. if you nitrogen (or phosphate) limitation, translation/transcription will not proceed and it does not matter that the genome has all the information to produce all the proteins required for nitrogen/phosphate uptake. Plus there is increasing awareness that the cellular content plays an important role in the trajectory of cells, which might play an important role in asymmetric cellular aging. I.e. depending on what cellular component each daughter cell inherits (as the content is not necessarily divided perfectly equally), they may have different growth trajectories. So despite the fact that both cells inherit the same DNA, one may remain highly active, whereas the other one gets all the crap and heads to apoptosis. So yes, the basic genetic material is without doubt present and inherited within the DNA. However, its expression and the translation into a given phenotype is highly dependent on the intracellular (and extracellular) content.
  15. 3 points
    I am wondering a bit why DanielBoyd got so many negatives on his OP. I think some people read it as another Intelligent Design posting, but it isn't. But as OP in a new thread, it is a bit long. Flying over it can lead to some wrong conclusions. But of course DanielBoyd is also to blame for this, given the title of the thread, and the, in my opinion, superfluous mentioning of entropy and its provocative title. For me it is clear that the DNA does not, and cannot, contain all information to build or even identify an organism (except of course by just comparing DNA of known organisms). It needs the complete apparatus of the living cell that the DNA can fulfill its function. A viewpoint one can use is that of a message and its interpretation. A message can only be interpreted by a correct interpreter. AFAIK the cellular 'interpreter' of DNA is not 'neutral'. Even if we had the complete DNA of some dinosaur, we will not be able to reconstruct how it looked like, because how the information is interpreted depends on what the dinosaur cell did with it. (So the Jurassic Park idea, to exchange frog DNA with dinosaur-DNA and so let grow a dinosaur, will not work, because the frog-egg has not the correct environment for the DNA to produce a dinosaur.) So I agree with DanielBoyd that DNA contains the design of an organism is not correct, even if DNA of course has a strong influence on what the organism will look like. It is more like a list of ingredients of a recipe. And of course there are all kind of feedback loops in the mechanism, where proteins synthesized according to a gen, has impact on what the cell does (directly or indirectly), and so possibly also on what genes will be read later on.
  16. 2 points
    This one. A few important things to note... The expansion of space only happens at very large scales. At the level of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, gravity stops things moving apart. The surface of a balloon comparison only works if you consider the just the surface of the balloon being a 2D analogy for 3D space. This also explains how a finite universe can have no boundary: the surface of the balloon (or the Earth) has a finite area, but has no edge. Dark energy is an extra factor that causes the rate of expansion to increase (this started about 4 billions years ago, I think) The speed at which things move apart is related to how far apart they are. This is nothing special, it is just because expansion is a scaling effect. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. (We can see galaxies that are receding faster than light.) We observe that (distant) galaxies are moving away.
  17. 2 points
    Have we ruled out trolling as the cause of the problem? Anyway, it seems that nearly everything can change- everything except Farid's mind.
  18. 2 points
    At times like these I wish I knew Latin.
  19. 2 points
    This is important information, that you really need to tell your doctor. He will know what to do.
  20. 2 points
    There are three issues that need to be addressed in this whole thing: 1. Conservation of momentum. I thought you had got this, but it appears not. 2. Generating a directional pulse (And, related to that, whether it is even possible to have a directional magnetic pulse) 3. Whether a magnetic pulse would be more efficient than electric or electromagnetic. So ... 1. So, I thought you had got the whole "conservation of momentum" thing. This makes me doubt it. The fact that two wires in the system have a force between them or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether you generate a pulse heading in one direction, which will impart momentum to the rest of the system in the opposite direction. So, if your pair of wires radiates symmetrically (which it will, even if not spherically symmetrical) then this is equivalent to throwing rocks in all directions. It doesn't matter if half the rocks are bounced off trampolines, nor does it matter if there are forces between the wires that generate the magnetic field. 2. The reason the grenade outside the craft will push it is because some of the blast will hit the craft and either be absorbed or reflected; this will impart momentum to the craft. In an alternative view where the grenade is still attached to the craft and explodes, then momentum is imparted to the craft because most of the blast material goes away from the craft and a small amount is blocked/shadows by the craft; resulting in a net momentum of debris in one direction, hence imparting momentum to the craft in the opposite direction. You could also do this with the grenade in the craft by allowing the blast to only escape in one direction. Kind of like a ... rocket. Now, you need to arrange for your electromagnetic pulse to be similarly directed. For example, one wire/coil generating pulses and a reflective surface (perhaps a parabolic reflector) behind it. This will ensure you get an asymmetric impulse which will therefore impart momentum to the craft. (This would be like a light sail pushed by a laser on the craft.) You cannot achieve this with two wires. 3. If we assume the same level of efficiency for whatever system you make, then there is no reason that a magnetic pulse will be more efficient than an electric or electromagnetic pulse. This is because of another conservation law: energy. If you put, say, 1 joule into generating a magnetic pulse and one joule into an electromagnetic pulse (if these things are even different, once you start talking about radiating the energy) then the pulse contains one joule. The energy carried by the pulse, and therefore the momentum carried by the pulse, is the same in both cases. Magntism is not magic. It won't give you free energy or extra momentum.
  21. 2 points
    Here's something with a little meat on the bone that adds a bit of weight to the underlying point our OP is trying (and struggling) to describe: https://neurosciencenews.com/meaningless-psychiatric-diagnosis-14434/
  22. 2 points
    There are a couple of wrong assumptions regarding genomic differences, but before that, a basic mistake is that your calculation assumes a genomic transition from human to chimpanzee DNA. However, the distance that you should calculate is that from either of them to their common ancestor, which diverged ca. 6 MYA ago. Another fundamental issue is that genome re-arrangements are not based on single nucleotide exchanges alone. Quite a lot of larger scale changes are based on duplications as well as deletions, predominantly in intergenetic regions. You will note that the genome size is actually different and if you align the whole genomes of the two species you will find sizeable gaps in either of them. So depending on how you actually count those gaps (and/or perform the alignment) you will find similarities between human and chimpanzees as low as ca. 80%. If we focus on actual genes, that shoots up close to 99%.
  23. 2 points
    Certainly not parallel universes. But if it provides evidence of mirror matter then it is possible (but not certain) that there could be large scale structures equivalent to stars and galaxies, made up of mirror matter. This would exist in our universe but not be directly detectable. That could be described as a "parallel universe" but it requires a bit of journalistic license. There is a good overview of mirror matter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter
  24. 2 points
    By constructing it, using the axioms of set theory.
  25. 2 points
    Strange already explained it, but the opening post sounds an awful lot like an irreducible complexity argument, and the factual errors, lack of citation and flawed analogies are archetypical of such arguments. To clarify, I'm not accusing you of religious motivation - but the opening post sure looks an awful lot like the standard lead up to a creationist pitch, which might explain some of the reaction you're getting.
  26. 2 points
    If you would replace "does not exist" by "it is not true science"... i.e. "Psychiatry Is Not True Science, because [your reasoning here, about inability of scientific verification of person mental illness]".. your statement would have more sense and many more people could agree with it. If there is no reliability of source data, it's no different from reading from tea leaves, or numerology. Some people claim to find something/future in tea bags or leaves etc. Which is obviously false. I agree, there is needed MRI and other highly advanced scientific tools to check somebody hyper or lack of brain activity in certain regions of the brain and comparison with "normal"/"average" working brain (with lack of "reference brain" there must be used "average brain activity"). Medicament used to increase activity of brain if it's too low, other medicament to decrease too high activity (e.g. "psychoactive drugs"). Actually reactions of medicament on the brain, or reactions of hormones, or psychoactive drugs etc. etc. is quite well scientifically documented. There are routinely performed tests on animals, also apes, how they react on lack of, or abundance of certain drugs, and brain activities. You're now talking like people who are asking "when there will be cure for cancer?!".. i.e. it's lack of understanding, and putting everything to one single bag called "mental illness" or "cancer". Each person cancer is completely different from other person cancer. Each person has completely different mutation than other person (apart from obvious mistakes like transfusion or transplantation of organ from person with cancer to the new host etc.). There is nothing common in breast cancer of one women and other women, except placement of the cancer. Don't put them to one bag. Every case is unique. In one case it could be long term lack of chemicals required for normal brain work (improper diet missing essential compounds). In other case it could be attack of known or unknown parasites, fungi, microbes, which interfere with nervous system. In yet another case it could be genetic mutation. etc. etc. f.e. there are fungi which are attacking nervous system of animal like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis and ant is starting behaving abnormally.. Reaction of human nervous system on presence of parasites is not yet fully understood. Especially for unknown parasites. Lack of high level technology equipment in psychiatric hospitals don't help. There used to be cases when somebody had tumor in the brain, and psychiatrists claimed they have some mental illness..
  27. 2 points
    You mean aside from the extensive discussion of regulatory function. Most of the eukaryotic genome does not encode amino acids. The original post failed spectacularly because it was riddled with factual errors and stank of religiously motivated creationist tropes.
  28. 2 points
    Asimov used to talk about someone approached him and said they had a great idea for a story; if Asimov would write it, they could split the money 50:50. Asimov said, "tell you what, you write the story and keep all the money." Ideas are easy. Execution is hard.
  29. 2 points
    Carl Sagan once argued about the improbability of aliens having visited Earth. He cited two main reasons: 1. the vast distances aliens would have to travel to get to Earth would be an almost insurmountable obstacle 2. the vast amount of time that separates civilizations during their rise and fall would make it unlikely that any intelligent civilizations would exist simultaneously On the other hand, Sagan has argued that he believes alien life is inevitable due to the vast numbers of planets and star systems that exist in the universe; he just doesn't think that intelligent beings have visited Earth, for the aforementioned reasons. I propose a counter argument. First, to agree with Sagan's general view of extraterrestrial life, the vast number of stars in our own galaxy alone makes it likely that some form of life does exist. These star systems undoubtedly contain billions of viable exoplanets. Even in our own solar system, planets such as Mars have been found to have water, and Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, is thought to have subterranean frozen seas. Is our own planet special? Probably not. Second, Sagan's point that civilizations would exist at different intervals, divorced from one another over eons of time, assumes one thing: that all intelligent civilizations would behave like Earth's. That is, all civilizations would rise and fall, as those on Earth do, and would eventually end in extinction within a relatively short time. But what if this isn't the case? What if other intelligent species establish equilibrium or harmony on their planet and can exist indefinitely, through the wise marshaling of resources and lack of egoistic competition? Why should we assume that all intelligent civilizations behave as haphazardly and ignorantly as human civilization does? Continuing this idea, if another species did reach evolutionary equilibrium, where it continued to progress technologically (and perhaps biologically also) but without inter-species conflict or discord, then that species could theoretically exist indefinitely - for hundreds of millions of years, (barring the lack of some existential catastrophe like a meteor strike). Further, if the species was continuing to develop technological as human do, then their capability for traversing the vast distances of space would exponentially increase also. With each passing milenia of stable progress an intelligent alien species would be more equipped to traverse the galaxy. It has taken human beings roughly 250,000 - 300,000 years to progress from a nomadic state to that of (limited) space explorers, but what would our technology look like if we steadily progressed without self inflicted anihilation for another 250,000 years? So the idea that an intelligent species could only exist for a short time is an assumption I don't think is 100% true. And IF that species is able to progressively develop their technology over eons without interruption, then who is to say that the vast distances of space would be any barrier? Additionally, how many star systems are there in our galaxy alone? Dr. Sten Odenwald, astronomer for NASA, writes in the Huffington Post that there are between 100 billion and 1 trillion stars in the Milky Way. At least 100 billions star systems, right in our own galactic neighborhood. Finally, there is the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion year old, and has been inhabitable (with breathable air, water, and a viable food source) for 650 million years. Given these time frames, an alien species could definitely have evolved enough to venture out to explore its neighboring star systems and could have visited Earth already. So, while I agree with Sagan's view that alien life is more or less inevitable, I don't think that vast time or distance necessarily negate the possibility of aliens having visited Earth. Thoughts?
  30. 2 points
  31. 2 points
    You need to be more specific. What do you mean by "not respecting different races and cultures"? I don't know where you live, but in a secular democracy where individual liberty is paramount we don't imprison people for not respecting other races/cultures. The concept of disrespect is entirely subjective and within the ego of the offended. And in the West we don't trample individual liberty for the sake of someone else's wounded ego.
  32. 2 points
    Lens? Biased lens? AYFKM? Discrimination based on gender is pretty objectively defined. There’s no biased here. Women were treated one way, men were treated another way. That’s not a subjective assessment.
  33. 2 points
    There are issues with the idea of multiple temporal (time) dimensions. There are no* models or theories that rely on more than one temporal dimension and no experiment* have hinted >1 temporal dimension. There are are also papers** stating that >1 temporal dimension leads to unstable atoms. I think the idea of >1 temporal dimension affects physics on an even more fundamental level than required for a new explanation of the result of the dual slit experiment. In the context of the above you will have to provide some detailed instructions what to look for to confirm your idea. When running a dual slit experiment using regular equipment the scientist will confirm current models. What should the scientist look for, and what calculations are required, to show support for your idea? The logic is not clear. If I would be prepared to run an experiment I would need to know what to measure to confirm your predictions about additional time dimensions. There will be inference pattern when firing one particle at a time, and no hitting of a "front wall". See for instance single electron experiment at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617474/ or http://l-esperimento-piu-bello-della-fisica.bo.imm.cnr.it/english/whatisabout.html. So how can that be a "key"? What have been overlooked? *) that is, no mainstream theory, model or experiment that I am aware of. I have not rigorously researched this. **) From https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf, dashed square added, highlights the OPs statement about 3+3 dimensions: Slightly OT: If you want to read a more philosophical article about the single electron experiment: http://l-esperimento-piu-bello-della-fisica.bo.imm.cnr.it/Resources/The scientific sublime - physicsworld.com.pdf
  34. 2 points
    Because that's why people don't respect those that do...
  35. 2 points
    Full ack. With 'authority' comes responsibility. In this case, to show where somebody is wrong. If the person in question does not react on that, then OK, leave him/her with his/hers ideas. So this is pretty useless: This neither advances discussion, nor teaches anybody anything. 'Citation please' can be useful when somebody claims that 'science has shown that...' followed by a crackpot idea. But I do not think the OP did that. He pretty clearly shows his ideas, and the experts between us can look if these ideas match present science, and when not, can show this (with citations, if necessary). Citations are necessary when we do not agree on the facts; on theories, i.e. interpretations of facts, we must discuss. Above has nothing to do with any advancement in insight from anybody, but only about 'winning a discussion'.
  36. 2 points
    Headset and computer jack must be compatible. You need first to find out what you have :
  37. 2 points
    True, but at least later you added some arguments, regardless though I think that if we can't bother to answer at least somewhat in detail, we should rather not say anything. At first I was like; "Ugh this guy... is just wrong, but its soo much effort to go over everything" but then I realized that it doesn't help anyone if I do that and also kind of defeats the purpose of a forum on which things are debated. -Dagl
  38. 2 points
    While I presume it is pointed towards the OP, this kind of response is extremely unhelpful. He will obviously retort with; "well what part of what I said is wrong & you are just using your authority to say something without even bothering to state any arguments". I agree that the OP should do a lot more research before stating something, but I feel like this just invites him to go on a tangent how people won't actually debate his arguments.
  39. 2 points
    Let me try, John... Once again, someone who doesn't understand that nobody wants to read a 'wall of text' on an internet forum, has posted one.
  40. 2 points
    We ALWAYS run the risk that some folks may not get to throw in their 2 cents when we close a thread. In the Tyson thread, the OP was over-emphasizing Tyson's stance from a debate where he was asked to pick a side to defend, and when this was pointed out it made no difference to his agenda. I'm sorry to be blunt, but when I'm moderating, I really could care less about any of you individuals posting to any individual thread. It doesn't even enter into my mind when I see the opening poster unveil a shit-stirring agenda, or post fallacious arguments over and over, or any one of a hundred things people do to get their threads closed. You getting a chance to comment isn't a factor. My job is to enforce the rules. Contact the Admins if you feel I should be replaced. As far as religion goes, It's against the rules to bring it up in mainstream sections. Should this be changed? Or should we be like other science forums and drop religious discussions altogether? I don't think discussing religion is analogous with unfalsifiable science subjects. When people start posting 30,000+ versions of the many worlds theory, each insisting they have the only true explanation, I may change my mind. What makes it interesting, MigL? It seems like an excuse to criticize and accuse others of being thin-skinned, while holding yourself up as scientifically virtuous. And since you also state that you'll never start a religious thread, it also seems like more shit-stirring. It's not even something you're interested in. Senseless?! I'm not paid enough to deal with your condemnations. Just because you didn't get to comment doesn't give you the right to bash my reasoning skills. It's great that you can judge us based on partial information. I'm probably too senseless to do that.
  41. 2 points
    Wow. I can see this conversation is going to go nowhere.
  42. 2 points
    It seems the cudgel got passed next to you. Let’s focus on the topic please. Current Plan: Study reparations more. Full stop. It’s too murky and turbocharged of a topic to do it without a foundation of facts. More facts are needed. Stop being a bunch of bed wetters and study it, and stop standing in the way of those trying.
  43. 2 points
    The whole premises of this thread is based on the 2016 Asimov debate, where the conclusion, of us being simulated, ended up way below 50%. In that debate Tyson was acting as a host, and only commented on the statements made. He was being funny and tried to entertain the audience. We need people like him in science, if we want the public to engage. And we do!
  44. 2 points
    Reasoning like this is painful to see. Your critical thinking skills are a dumpster fire. I don't mean to offend, and I'm not attacking you personally. Your arguments are silly and you're ignorant about a LOT of science that you openly criticize. Sorry. Really very sorry.
  45. 2 points
    Reparations is a corner stone of our civil legal system. If you steal from someone, you make amends. If you slander a restaurant and they lose business because of it, you are required to pay them damages. Wrongful death? Reparations. Fell off a faulty ladder and can't work? Ladder manufacturer pays. And it doesn't matter if the faulty ladder was an ignorant mistake or done maliciously. Is it you position that none of these reparations should be made either? If not, then why aren't blacks also entitled to reparations for harm they've suffered?
  46. 2 points
  47. 2 points
    It's only peripherally supportive of extraterrestrials, like saying sonar evidence that could be whales is really aliens. It's much more likely to be whales. Similarly, it's much more likely that these UFOs have an earthly origin. Some country testing unusual aircraft. Ignorance and fear. When you mix them, as you have, it produces stupidity, hate, and unreasonableness. Critical thought on vacation, if you will.
  48. 2 points
    Was just about to post this but Stringy beat me to it:
  49. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note As this thread appears to have descended into incoherent nonsense, it is closed.
  50. 2 points
    Thank you for the clarification. I now understand why this would be an issues in terms of momentum conservation.