Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/12/19 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Fake news! It was a perfect renewal! Absolutely perfect. In a world where even my fridge can give me reminders, I still managed to forget. Luckily Capn was able to social engineer his way through my answering service who sent a page out to me stating "CAPN REFSMMAT - RE: WEBSITE". They even listed a hospital he was calling from 😂. I wasn't on call today so when I heard my answering service text me I about lost my mind until I saw who it was.
  2. 2 points
    US special forces staged a raid near the Syria/Turkey border and flushed out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who then blew himself up with explosives when trapped. Apparently DNA confirmation of his identity is now possible 'in the field' and much quicker than the usual couple of weeks it takes for criminal cases. Obviously there is a need to be sure, as he has been 'reportedly' killed several times before. D Trump is either trying to draw attention from his escalating problems, or still trying to take wind from B Obama's sails ( the Osama bin-Laden takedown ), as apparently he posted a ( staged ) picture in the Situation Room from the wrong time; he was playing golf during the actual raid. Congratulations to American Special Forces and Intelligence Services. Also, our Allies in the area who supplied the intelligence; you know, those same people D Trump deserted and left to be slaughtered by the Turkish offensive two weeks ago.
  3. 2 points
    Why can't you see who giving you likes? Compared to some of the people on the forum, who actually know about science, my posts contain no substance whatsoever, yet I've got 22. I know there not important, I'm just curious.
  4. 2 points
    I wasn’t totally convinced at first, but I like Warren a lot. I’ve been tracking her for years, especially after the financial crisis and steps she took to fight back against banks in support of families like mine. I also like that her dream job was teaching special needs kids, and that’s what she did until getting fired for being pregnant. I think she’s genuine in her desire to help, understands the system better than most and is smart as hell, capable of getting it done, and isn’t in it just for reasons of avarice. Beyond that, I’m still waffling a bit about who my next choices are, and now that I live in Iowa I take it pretty seriously. Mayor Pete is impressive and smart, and I liked what I heard when I went to go meet him. He’s focused on the right things and surrounds himself with smart people, but I’m just not convinced he’s ready for the top slot (tho Trump has shown anyone can do it). I also met Michael Bennett and quite liked him. Super down to earth and well rounded. He’s a former school administrator and just a smart decent guy. He’s got a great collaborative demeanor, tons of respect across the aisle, and everyone who’s worked with him loves and respects him quite a bit regardless of party, but he’s just not inspiring people and that’s critical. He’s a bit milquetoast, TBH, and that won’t fare well in a cage match with Teflon Don. I was previously interested in Kamala and would love to watch her rhetorically punch Trump in the balls, but I get a sense of inauthenticity and heavy reliance on talking points from her that doesn’t sit well with me. She’s clearly a smart fighter, though, just still have no idea what she truly stands for / what her principles are. I’m a firm no on Beto, Tulsi, de Blasio, and the bulk of the others (can anyone say Mariam Williamson???), but do like Booker... just don’t think he can win. Would prefer him to be selected for a cabinet position addressing racial disparities in criminal justice and gun policy, etc. I’m also watching Andy Yang a bit like I would watch a lab grown experiment in a Petri dish, but to me he’s more of an interesting oddity than a serious contender (sorry, JCM... different strokes for different folks, and all). Anyway, we’re the first people on the planet here in Iowa who get to decide on this, so we can’t adjust our choice based on what other voters have chosen in other states... I can’t wait and see who’s popular or who gets traction, but instead need to be ready to make more of a raw and personal choice. I’ll need to stand in a room with my neighbors and with my kids on a cold winters night in February and choose my person for all to see. to defend my choice / try to convince others to join me and make the same choice when the caucuses occur. I’ll also be there to listen to others and will try to remain open to being convinced by them to move over to their candidate instead... All that said, no matter who wins the primary, I’ll most definitely be voting for that person in the general, whether they were my 1st choice or my 17th. This needs to be an election more about principles than purity. Peace ✌️
  5. 2 points
    Robert, It doesn't work that way. If you look at Raytheon's own material and specification for the ATFLIR, you will see that the entire front pod structure, including the external housing, rotates to track the object. It is literally *not possible* for this to be a "bug on the lens" scenario. That is an object out in external space that has been acquired by the tracking system. My own view, as I articulated above, is that it is an amorphous heat and light signature, which is why the system is struggling to get sufficient range data. I also replied to your point about it seeming to stay in the same position. What you are looking at is mainly artefactual IR flare from the object, imo, and the attitude adjustment is not sufficient to change this (think in terms of rotating your camera lens when there is a lens flare in the frame). Only later, when the object itself clearly rotates, do we see a sufficient change. Please understand that the tracking system could NOT acquire this object if it was attached to the system.
  6. 1 point
    Here is the theory you require. Make sure you get you friction force acting in the correct direction (your dashed one in this case) Also the normal reaction (again dashed) is the force ating on the wheel. The other mg at P acts on the ground, not the wheel. The moment provided by the contact point P about the centre = tangential force due to friction x wheel radius. Note the frictional force is only equal to μmg when the wheel is on the point of slipping. At other times it is less than this. All this is detailed in the text.
  7. 1 point
    I'm with you on that. To me, extinction is the enemy, and if we can prevent it, it doesn't really matter how. Of course, you don't want to advance the extinction of one species, by trying to save another, so it has to be done carefully. But if you can keep the remaining species alive, until the human population gets under control, then that's a result.
  8. 1 point
    Accelerating protons, deuterium nuclei, tritium nuclei, or alpha particles to the speeds at which they fuse is equivalent to high temperature. Extremely high temperatures ! I thought you were considering COLD fusion.
  9. 1 point
    I think it is important to make a distinction between psychosis and schizophrenia. While I am not an expert in the precise definition, from what I understand psychosis is a condition when the patient has issue with identifying something as real or not. Psychosis can be a symptom of a mental illness, such as schizophrenia, but they have additional diagnostic symptoms. As such, psychotic episodes can be caused by a variety of sources, such as drugs or sleep deprivation. While under these episodes brain activity may be altered (which could be visible on MRIs) in these examples the brain is not damaged per se. However, conditions that can cause prolonged psychosis are a different matter. Schizophrenia, for example is associated with a reduction of grey matter and this loss appears to be progressive. As DrmDoc mentioned, the mechanism behind that is not clear. However, since psychosis can occur without damages, and are the result of altered activities (at leas in some cases), there is good reason to assume they are more likely the result. On the other hand, there was some evidence that early treatment of psychosis with antipsychotics may result in slower detoriation. It still unclear whether this is because prolonged psychosis can lead to additional damages, or whether antipsychotics deal with something that actually do the damage. As a whole it seems that the neurprotective hypothesis as well as the hypothesis that psychosis may result in neural damage does not have a lot of evidence to date.
  10. 1 point
    I would think the biggest difference is that ,whereas for an undergrad degree a Prof is teaching you about a subject so that you learn the basics, for a graduate degree you are learning about a subject independently ( you do have an 'advisor' ) and develop your own 'tools and skill set'. IOW a PhD candidate will independently research and learn, to become an expert in a specific subject.
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    In my dictionary "coward" is defined as "a person who lacks the courage to do dangerous or unpleasant things" For Baghdadi to bring 2 children into a dead-end cave and blow himself up is not cowardly. He was doing dangerous and unpleasant things EVERY DAY. Now I figured out Trump's repeated remark that Baghdadi fled "whimpering, crying, and screaming." Trump facing impeachment is figuratively "whimpering, crying, and screaming" every day in his tweets (blunt language with all caps with many exclamation points is screaming, always being the victim is whimpering and crying). He is projecting his own anxiety about impeachment on Baghdadi.
  13. 1 point
    The lower value the better! michel123456 calculated it incorrectly, and you repeated it.. Because you have to calculate it using equation: number of positive votes * 100% / total number of posts = ratio of positives to total. The bigger the better. Janus and Arete have very high rank (they write less but more often get large number of upvotes). total number of posts / number of positive votes = how long have to wait for positive vote in posts. The lower the better. michel123456 has: 508 * 100% / 5857 = 8.6% ratio of positives to total by percentage (5857/508 = 8.67 means 1 positive vote per every ~9 posts). In your case it is much better: 2177 * 100% / 11357 = 19.2% ratio of positives to total by percentage (11357/2177 = 5.2 means 1 positive vote per every ~5 posts, which is very good result). Net crawlers are searching internet, and visiting web sites to check whether they changed. They could be counted in, if there was not implemented history of IPs (that would limit accidental recounting a lot for crawlers like Google/MSN/Yahoo, but not entirely because viruses and criminals use zombie networks). It's not 64000 the real life people who saw it.. They were computer network bots, I am afraid so..
  14. 1 point
    Changes in their angular momentum can be measured, but in QM this is not physical spinning. In e.g. hydrogen, you could flip the hyperfine state, which is the 1420 MHz transition. The only way to give the electron orbital angular momentum would be to have it jump from the 1S to the 2P level, which requires a 10.2 eV photon or from a collision (which is not something you see very much in a thermal system). But that doesn't involve any physical spinning of the atom. That notion is inconsistent with QM.
  15. 1 point
    Yes, I jumped to conclusions. I did not pay attention to the fact that x in the exponent is in the denominator. To these formulas it is still necessary to apply the normalization condition, calculate the coefficient c1 so that the field strength equals zero at infinity, and then compare Newton's law of gravity. And so, from them it is impossible to draw a conclusion, positive or negative mass at a gravitational field. And the gravitational field must have mass because there are gravitational waves. Waves are an oscillatory process, oscillations are impossible without inertia, and the measure of inertia is mass.
  16. 1 point
    Well, I see an arogant dismissal of the opinions you consider beneath you. I'll take that bet...
  17. 1 point
    I was trying to leave no doubt...and making fun of the fact that Trump bypassed the protocol of informing Pelosi prior to the raid...claiming security reasons.
  18. 1 point
    An object less than 1 tenth the mass of the Moon with a relative velocity of 50 km/sec would have about ~ 9e30 joules of KE, which is some 76 times the gravitational binding energy for the Moon. An extra-solar object would be moving at least 42 km/sec relative to the Sun at Earth orbit distance. At the right approach angle, a 50 km/sec relative velocity with respect to the Earth-Moon system is not unreasonable. The Gravitational sphere of influence( the distance at which its gravitational effect is significant compared to the Sun's) for a object 1/10 the mass of the Moon is actually quite a bit less than the Earth-Moon distance, so I don't see its hitting the Moon as having much of an effect on the Earth's orbit.
  19. 1 point
    'Networking' is wearing a mask and generally being agreeable in the hope that one day those parting phone numbers will benefit you.
  20. 1 point
    Somehow, He found his way into the ST universe also. (during the course of the cartoons featuring him, the colors of his outfit changed, this is one of the early color schemes)
  21. 1 point
    Just curious- it's not my field. I presume that much of the debt which that 8.2% of revenue is being paid on , is historical debt. Is it plausible that the money was borrowed in order to build and run hospitals, schools roads etc? If so, is it possible that the money saved/ earned by the state (depending how you look at it) by having a health better educated workforce with better infrastructure is more than 8.2% of revenue? If so, is it possible -even likely- that, had the previous governments borrowed more, and built, for example, better roads, they would now have more money today? That's kind of the point of most borrowing- you can invest it. Once you consider the notion of investment, it stops being simple addition and subtraction.
  22. 1 point
    Many Bugs Bunny cartoons began with Bugs popping popping out of the ground expecting to to be at some vacation spot, but instead finding himself at some other remote lcoation. This would result in him pulling out a map and quipping " I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque!" The background here, as noted by Phi for All, is a Litihum cracking station as depicted in the original Star trek series. Specifically, the one on Delta Vega, located at the edge of the galaxy (from the episode "Where No man Has Gone Before"). Risa is a planet from ST the Next Gen known as a prime place to go for R&R. Switching "Aldebaran" for "Albuguerque" was poetic license on my part. The 3D rendering of the station is based on the matte painting used for the episode.
  23. 1 point
    I’m trying to understand this? If c were a constant that would mean that if you change the medium of empty space to say glass? Water? Etc? C would be unchanging, but the medium is set at empty space by Einstein (generally referred as a vacuum). This is a condition, so long as the condition doesn’t change c is like a constant but it requires the condition to remain so. Under the condition set by Einstein ( empty space) c becomes invariant without regard to how you move through this empty space. Yes, it may seem at odds to what you might expect ( not obvious), but the observation conforms to Newton’s first law of motion at all times as it should. When light passes a large source of gravity it is effected. The confusion comes when it is argued that under the influence of the gravity source c remains c which would violate Newton’s first law Yes, c is c invariantly, but only under the condition set by Einstein ( empty space). Change the condition then there is no reason to suggest that c doesn’t change. To suggest that c (the number) remains the number even as it passes through water would make that number a constant. It isn’t. c (the number) gets smaller as light passes through water. This does not violate Newton’s first law, or Einstein’s invariance of c in a vacuum condition. I’m thinking this through l can’t see where I might be confused 🤷‍♂️. Rhetorically, maybe? Somewhat long winded to the point of confusion? Yeah, I tend to reach that point. Seemingly effortlessly😒, but i don’t think I am confusing the word invariant with constant. Note, to clear up one paragraph when light passes near a large gravity source I’m assuming the presence of that source violates the condition set by Einstein of empty space. Assuming that a vacuum requires a condition of no effect. I’m assuming there is a hardware problem cause this and the Janus post didn’t show up until after I had replied to stranges post which was considerably after all the post were made? I would have preferred to have responded to this post first. What?
  24. 1 point
    My maths is equivolent to yours, but it won't work because "so in our universe, we would have only one half of the loop.." that's like trying to dig half a hole or trying to make half a sandwhich.
  25. 1 point
    I don't think the insect theory works... the object is in the center of the view because the camera has a pursuit system that detects objects and centers it.. (the two lines right next to the object are indicator of that system state) .. At the beginning the lines are bigger because the object is not in it, so the detection area is big. Once the system catch the object, it puts it in the center. In other videos you see the pilots trying to "catch" the object, meaning they orient the camera to it until the pursuit system takes control and start to automatically orient the view to maintain the object right in the center of the image. Personally, I thought these object could simply be light plastic objects carried by the wind.. a simple plastic bag could fly as fast as the wind.. and we don't know the distance and the scale of the objects. I also suppose in some specific conditions a very steady wind could carry and sustain a light object flying straight near the surface for a relatively long period.
  26. 1 point
    This reminds me of a quote that has stuck with me for years... "Was it really a bad day, or was it a bad 5 minutes that you milked all day?" I love the perspective it brings, and I liked it because it reminded me how much power I have over my responses to things. Regardless, I hope whatever's been troubling you is subsiding and is of minimal long-term impact to you and yours. I'm also sure you and swansont would be laughing in no time F2F over beers. Cheers.
  27. 1 point
    A second used to de defined as 1/86400 of one mean solar day. But with the ever increasing need for accuracy and the knowledge that the Earth's rotation rate was not constant, this was changed to a set fraction of the tropical year (at the start of a particular epoch). This was finally changed to today's definition of "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K). This particular number of periods was chosen so that the duration of the second exactly matched that of the one based on the tropical year. This was a more practical standard as you can't very well go back in time to check the accuracy of your clock against the length of the tropical year in 1900, but you can check it against the radiation emitted by a caesium-133 atom.
  28. 1 point
    It’s rather telling that you assumed I was referring to you
  29. 1 point
    We are not in agreement because you said "there is no spirituality" which is obviously false. As I say, one could refer to a dictionary.
  30. 1 point
    Maths is not simply about having a formula and substituting values into it. Trying to learn lots of formulae is likely to lead you into difficulty in the long run. Understanding what you are doing is far better. Note: I am just about to apologise to another member in another thread for not reading his post properly and therefore not understanding and thus saying something silly and using the wrong formula.
  31. 1 point
    No I didn't. Here is an explanation of why dark matter doesn't form structures: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-100-why-doesn-t-dark-matter-form-black-holes-c5b6d90b1883
  32. 1 point
    If it disobeys mathematical laws and doesnt disobey physics laws it still is correct
  33. 1 point
    Where have we hunted invasive species to extinction? I know we've removed invasive species from the place they've invaded, but that is hardly the same as hunting them to "extinction". Typically invasive species are removed from an ecosystem because their lack of natural predators in their new environment allows them to do undue harm to the existing and/or desirable ecosystem.
  34. 1 point
    I thought it was something everyone can do. Now I feel weird(er)...
  35. 1 point
  36. 0 points
    Nobody cares. That’s not what this thread is about
  37. 0 points
    Citation needed. No one said there was. And yet you reject information from someone who does.
  38. 0 points
    The only conclusion one can make from your contribution to this thread is, it's you that's deluded? The rest of us have access to a dictionary...
  39. -1 points
    And the admins wonder why this site is dead, while Quora & Researchgate are exploding in growth. Maybe they'll figure it out one day. SMH
  40. -1 points
    How about we interpret it to mean that "we do not understand how this works or which country built it, but it is clear from the G-forces that it is an unmanned craft." Correct. So here is your choice. 1. It is something built by humans and is more advanced than what humans have previously built (we've seen humans build more advanced things millions of times), or... 2. it was built by aliens (we've seen aliens build exactly zero things, and in fact have no evidence of alien life anywhere in the universe.) "Common sense" does not tell you that option two is the simplest explanation.
  41. -1 points
    Hi all, Anyone still reads here? I opened a new thread with some new proves to my claim: https://www.metabunk.org/robert-”gimbal-bug”-theory.t10960 See my last messages there. Best regards.
  42. -1 points
    Somewhere around 1 x 10-18g in a vacuum is a new constant. The diffraction gets too small to identify fringes. It's a natural size for the object to be physical and to never be in superposition. Uncollapsed(stateless | unphysical | virtual) Quantum Waves + State(Matter Field or wave collapse or decoherence) + zero Diffraction showing fringes = Physical Matter (Real) If an object is too large to display fringes, it is automatically physical. The question now is if auto-physical objects have a physical state or maybe being naturally physical doesn't require it. Do I need to claim there is a physical state in the first place for even quantum sized objects if it is the same thing as: wave collapse, decoherence, and zero diffraction? There has to be something that causes a particle to be physical or not before it even starts moving. If it is to only be a wave in flight, duality doesn't apply. But if physical, duality is allowed. Maybe I need a different term for "physical state". If I started using "Real" instead of "physical state" would that get physicists off my back about mass meaning a physical property? GR deals with what is Real. Wave Collapse, Decoherence, and Zero Diffraction cause something to be Real. We just need GR to handle duality for Unification. GR for reality QM wave function for unreal (only probabilities) Does this mean Diffraction is directly related to Superposition? It is curious to me that spacetime limits the speed of light and gravity to the same speed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/24/this-is-why-the-speed-of-gravity-must-equal-the-speed-of-light/#737e30e62fc0 The "unobserved" isn't real/physical and therefore not involved with spacetime. It doesn't have gravitons. Unobserved/Unreal quantum waves do not follow the laws set by spacetime. Maybe it would help if I explained what is happening in three famous quantum experiments. The Double Slit, Delay Choice Quantum Eraser, Which Way Quantum Eraser. The Double Slit Layered, Unobserved quantum fields begin to combine to assemble a new particle. The Dimension of the Unreal is able to know if the physical state of the particle will be requested in it's path. Something we know is capable of doing a state change is called a detector. But there are other more natural means of causing it. A particle with a physical state going through a double slit will only go through one slit. An unreal, quantum wave will go through both slits and display interference/fringes on a final panel. The final panel does cause a wave collapse but does not give the particle a physical state while in flight. Delay Choice Quantum Eraser Shows us the entire path of the particle is known before it starts moving. Entangled particles hold the same state while in flight. When the first particle hits it's final panel in a shorten path, it knows if its entangled brother will ever be physical or not in its path. Which Way Quantum Eraser Something very interesting happens when you cause two state changes in the path of a particle before it hits a final panel. If a particle knows (the unreal dimension) two state changes are going to occur, it goes back to being unreal quantum waves. When you see fringes appear on the final panel, it is because the quantum waves when through polarizers at the slits and the additional polarizer at unreal quantum waves. QFT assumes spacetime is involved ..it's not. It uses points (x, y, z) Cartesian coordinates. They are assuming those points are in spacetime. There isn't anything saying it has to be locations from spacetime. Spacetime is fine for points in space when the object in question is observed/has a physical state. Unobserved quantum fields do not need spacetime to function. You never get anything faster than light ..when spacetime is involved. Observation/state change, gets spacetime involved. You are not considering speeds from unobserved objects. If what I'm describing isn't spacetime ..it would be something completely new/undiscovered. A property of nature. I have no doubt something is going on here and it's the key to the theory of everything. Higgs is lie because particles are not assigned mass by some random particle they decided to name the higgs boson. The higgs field is just spacetime and the matter field. Particles are real when they are given a physical state.
  43. -1 points
    more than 9000 posts! Do you work sometime? The alternative is easy. NOT BLIND REVIEW! But it looks nobody wants it. Wonder why ahahahahaha
  44. -2 points
  45. -2 points
    If it is then you, this site, and those like you are in trouble. I pray i get to see you, and the species of.... Die. No more human beings.... Ever. People in space will evolve and no longer be human... crunch the numbers ;) There will be no peace as long as where told we can't build the tower of Babel.... 1 gram of NH4NO3 Vs 1gram of C6H12O6
  46. -2 points
    What am I supposed to think? This is just more hand waving. If you can't be specific, and just keep coming out with this kind of vague rubbish, you inevitably invite that kind of suspicion. When people know what they're talking about, they generally get straight to the point. And that's how selective breeding works.
  47. -2 points
    If you cant review fast, then don't review. We don't need arrogant people like you. We need good, honest and responsible reviewers. From your words I can understand that you are none of them. Your words means that you have no idea of what a researchers work is. It looks like you are one of this arrogant (which most of the tiime is goes with ignorant) person that sit all the time at his desk thinking that he's the greatest in the world. If you cannot understand that reviewing other peoples work MUST BE a priority, then don't do it. Please make a favor to all of us and DON'T REVIEW!!!
  48. -3 points
    I gave my argument and posted a link but you broke your contract, your word Strange you agreed it would be allowable if there is an argument to back it. Screenshots have been taken of both threads. I disagree that an idea cannot be copyright that's basically all that can be copyrighted. I would advise you to reinsert the link as soon as you can because I am fairly sure you have no idea just how much trouble you have asked for with your "clever" little trick to dishonestly get privy to the information. Now that you have it you cannot give it back you are stuck with it so best go back and reinstate the link in line with your contract/agreement. I'm helping you here by giving you the option to save your forum and possibly everything else you own. Of that I am certain (I am actually very highly qualified in international law) while for you, you will now have an uncertainty every minute that passes. Serves you right, cheats always get caught sooner or later and you just got caught straight away. Do the right thing and reinsert the link before it's too late that's my advice (Dont even try to delete it, too late for that) Because if you don't you WILL regret it and that is a certainty. I have no wish for your demise, it's in your hands but you better think and act fast....very very fast because if your site is quoted with my equation without reference to me and my site then you and yours are XXXXed (rhymes with tucked).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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