Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/20/18 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    This is actually one of the few times there's a simple answer. Science describes god(s) as supernatural simply because they defy observation and prediction, two foundational tools of science. All of them. It's not an atheistic definition. Science describes what the natural world appears to be doing, and gods don't appear in the natural world. Pretty simple. By the way, one can be an atheist without rejecting anything. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the existence of a god if one decides to become observable. In that way, I think I'm actually much more open-minded than you.
  2. 5 points
    I'll let you know about a "rule of thumb" with regards to science and the scientific methodology. First and foremost, before you let your imagination run free, searching/looking for any new ideas that are not mainstream, please make an effort to get to know the mainstream product, and why it is mainstream and held as valid by most scientists...learn its predictions that have been shown to be valid...research the experiments that have supported its validity...check out all the observational data that support it. Then if you really and truly believe there is a serious fault with the particular incumbent model, start imagining why over so many years, the professionals and experts in that particular discipline, have not found this serious fault. You see that is the scientific method. Theories/models do not get established and then just rest on their laurels. They are conducting experiments everyday, testing the limits and accepted successes of the theories. Even long established theories are tested everyday...Even SR and GR are continually asked to live up to their deserved reputation. If you do that honestly, you will see why the chances of any Tom, Dick or Harry, coming to a forum open to all, to invalidate or propose some new model over-riding the incumbent is pretty close to zero. Best of luck anyway.
  3. 4 points
    Skepticism is only a bad thing when you sit on the fence and don't decide which explanation to trust most. You're testing and experimenting, so if you do it right you'll find evidence in support of the best explanation. Many people claim to be skeptics but simply remain incredulous all their lives. I don't want to take your thread off-topic, but it might help your perspective to make distinctions in your belief system. I've chosen to look at "belief" as the trustworthiness of the explanations you accept for various phenomena. Using the scientific method, we remove as much bias, faith, wishful thinking, and interference as we can, so the conclusions we come to are as trusted as we can make them. Faith always claims 100% accuracy. In science, theory is as strong as it gets, and even the most researched theories are constantly being updated as new evidence is discovered. I think when you talk about belief causing war, violence, and ignorance, you're talking about faith, not trusted science.
  4. 3 points
    This post was written in response to queries from Lasse and is part of an explanation that I promised to Moontanman in the thread "What is a God" presented by Sci-man. It is too large to post in that thread and slightly off the topic, so I started a new thread. This post is in no way an attempt to validate the "God" idea, nor is it an attempt to invalidate the "God" idea, it is simply an attempt to understand the "God" idea. Part 1 of I think that most of us have questioned the "God" concept at one time or other; I was raised Christian and started my questioning 50 years ago in my teens. Even people, who were not raised with a religion, are inundated with all kinds of information about "God" concepts from friends, family, social connections, and from the media, so we all have been exposed to information and disinformation on this subject. Religious people will often state something to the effect that "God" obviously exists because it would take a "God" to create existence -- which is a self-validating circular argument. Non-religious people will often state that "God" as explained can not possibly exist for various reasons -- which is not a much better argument, as it uses an admittedly invalid "God" concept to invalidate "God". Neither argument impresses me much. First let me state that I agree that a “God” can not possibly be on everyone’s side when there is a conflict, cannot possibly be responsible for the entire Universe and also have a personal relationship with each and every one of us; cannot possibly be everywhere and nowhere, and can not possibly wear the many faces that represent the various cultures that worship the different "God" concepts. There are so many things that we have been taught about “God” that are impossible, we often come to the conclusion that “God” can not possibly exist. I agree. Neither Buddha nor Jesus claimed to be a "God", and there is no benevolent being hovering above the Universe shining love down upon us. The “God” that we have been taught about can not exist. So “God” is not real, right? This is where the first problem comes in; I have determined that something is real if it is causal, if it can cause an effect -- which makes the “God” concept very real, as historically there has been a tremendous amount of effect. I have read the arguments that state that there is no evidence of any “God”, but this is nonsense. There is evidence all over the world that dates back millennia in the forms of temples, churches, altars, icons, symbols, totems, texts, scrolls, etc., and personal testimony. “God” concepts permeate our history and are part of almost every culture, society, and place where people gather. These concepts are often causal in taking down nations and building nations. That is a lot of evidence. It is so much evidence that archeologists will actively search for any reference to Religion and expect to find it when digging into ancient cultures. It is very rare to find an exception like the Piraha (if the Piraha is a valid exception). Many will say that the above is evidence of Religion, not of a "God", but all Religions study and teach about some "God" or "Gods"; the ideas are certainly related. Which is causal? Do Religions cause the idea of "God/s", or do "God/s" cause Religions to explain the idea? Again, I think we must look to the evidence. Almost all of recorded history makes references to "Gods", archeology actively seeks evidence of "Gods" in prerecorded history, and the Lionman statue is almost 40,000 years old, so we are talking about a long old history of "Gods", which is too consistent to be considered coincidence. It is certainly not a fad. Faddish or cult type Religions either never take a good hold, or they die off in a few generations, so Religions that survive are filling a need, which is what causes them to survive. What is this need? Is it directed by a "God"? Or to explain a "God"? If we look at Religions, we find many different examples of "Gods", but we also find basic commonalities. We find that Religions explain life, death (including the supernatural), the nature of Nature, and morality; this is what they all study and teach about. Because life, death, Nature, and morality are very real, if these ideas are bundled together under the authority and auspices of a "God", then that makes the "God" concept very real. It would be reasonable to say that "God" represents the active aspects of life, death, Nature, and morality. This is where the "God of the Gaps" idea comes in as we attempt to "unbundle" these concepts. From the early "fertility Gods" through the various animal, sun, and human "Gods", and then on to the "invisible God", many ideas have evolved and changed as we evolved and our understanding grew, but the core concepts have never changed. Life, death, Nature, and morality have always existed from early man on, so these core issues caused a need to understand and justify the rightness of it all, causing "magical" ideas, which caused the "God" concepts which caused Religions to form to explain them. Religions did not cause the "God" concepts. It would be more accurate to say that Religions interpreted these concepts. There is an argument that Religions spread their concepts, thereby causing the "God" concepts, and I think this has some truth to it, but only some. We are always happy to borrow a better idea from our neighbor, so a Religion that has a better or more thorough theology, or appears to have a more powerful "God", could replace a less developed Religion. But just as there are igloos and wickiups, tents and palaces, teepees and townhouses, to satisfy the needs of shelter and safety, there would have been many different interpretations by Religions worldwide, to satisfy the needs of understanding life, death, Nature, and morality. So although I agree that Religions can and do spread, there would not have been a central cause where Religion created the "God" concept. There are a lot of things that are real, but do not actually exist, like freedom, or like math, which is very real in Nature, but did not actually exist until we invented numbers and symbols to represent the concepts. Many concepts are real, but do not actually exist; "God" is one of them. Although the idea is more complex than what I have stated above, this is my current understanding of how "God" is real, and yet does not exist. Gee
  5. 3 points
    I really wish you hadn't posted a link to that rag Here is a report from a slightly more reputable news source: http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20161010-driving-the-saltwater-sports-car And: https://www.theskepticsguide.org/salt-water-car-not-so-fast Here is the Wikipedia age on the technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NanoFlowcell Sounds rather implausible (and the "saltwater" claim of the Daily Scum is just stupid).
  6. 3 points
    I call it "The Parent Rap". Double entendres are cool!
  7. 3 points
    That link lists about 10 different sentences from various parts of the bible, so that brings us up to about 1.75 pages. Citation please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribe#Judaism https://scottmanning.com/content/process-of-copying-the-old-testament-by-jewish-scribes/ https://bible.org/seriespage/5-transmission Citation please http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222016000400037 "The Dead Sea Scrolls indeed are holding up to their reputation after more than 65 years of research, and we will have to see whether this can be said of the latest discovery in the Judaean desert. This study demonstrated that some scrolls correspond to a large extent with the MT - 1QIsaa is an appropriate example." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Biblical_significance "This was a significant discovery for Old Testament scholars who anticipated that the Dead Sea Scrolls would either affirm or repudiate the reliability of textual transmission from the original texts to the oldest Masoretic texts at hand. The discovery demonstrated the unusual accuracy of transmission over a thousand-year period, rendering it reasonable to believe that current Old Testament texts are reliable copies of the original works." http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah "The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery. "Through the activity of generations of sages (known as "Masoretes"), who faithfully preserved and transmitted the sacred words across centuries, an authoritative or Masoretic version of the Hebrew Bible gradually evolved, containing its definitive correct text, proper vocalization, and accentuation marks. The Aleppo Codex, transcribed by the scribe Solomon son of Buya'a and annotated by the scholar Aaron ben Asher in the 10th century CE in the Galilean city of Tiberias, is considered the finest extant example of this version." http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bible_isaiahscroll.html The major difference between the Aleppo Codex and the Dead Sea Scrolls is the addition of the vowel pointings (called nikkudot in Hebrew) in the Aleppo Codex to the Hebrew words. These pointings provide the vowel sounds that are not present in the Hebrew language and were probably inserted into the text to standardize the pronunciation of the Hebrew words in the text. The name ישראל (Israel) in a Dead Sea Scroll (left) and the Aleppo Codex (right) Archer, Gleason. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985. "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text." Here, you can sort them by date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#Papyrus_1–50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#Papyrus_51–100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri#Papyrus_101– Wouldn't subsequent text depend only on the idea that God created, rather than how he created it? Furthermore, one could say that the core and foundation is Jesus Christ. One doesn't even need to read the OT to become a Christian, nor do they need an understanding of the universe to apply christian principles to their lives. It was simply an answer to a question.
  8. 3 points
    Descartes thought that. But I would say, nobody else really does. I like that, at least as a good start... I think however I would reduce even more: 'Awareness of something, so something'. A few other viewpoints: Buddhism: the independent existence of 'I' is an illusion Hume: 'I' is just shorthand of the bundle of observations, thoughts, feelings (yes it is called 'bundle theory' of the ego) running in my head Dennett: The 'I' is a center of 'narrative gravity'. (He compares with the center of mass: on the surface of the earth it seems as if gravity comes from the center of the earth. But in fact it comes from the complete earth, not just from the center. So it seems there is an 'I' in here; but there is none really.) I even think there is not a real foundation of all knowledge. Depending on the area of knowledge, i.e. the kind of object of research, the foundations are different. Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum' is a philosopher's wet dream.
  9. 3 points
    Reported for (repeated!) trolling.
  10. 3 points
    You could turn it into a vacuum cleaner.
  11. 3 points
    That's due to a concept known as "escape velocity". It the velocity something would have to be moving in order never fall back to the object. For example, the escape velocity from the surface of the Earth is ~11 km/sec. If you were able to launch something from the surface of the Earth at that speed, and didn't have to worry about air resistance, it would never fall back to Earth. Escape velocity can be found by the formula Vesc = sqrt(2GM/d) Where G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the body, and d is the distance from the center of the body you are starting from. For comparison, the acceleration due to gravity, which at the surface of the Earth is ~9.8m/sec2, is found by a8= GM/d2 So for example, if you were starting from a point 1/2 again as far away from the center of the Earth than the surface is, the escape velocity from that point would be ~82% of that at the surface and would be ~9 km/sec. the acceleration due to gravity would fall to ~44% of the Earth surface value So what if you moved closer to the center of the Earth? That becomes a bit more complicated. As you move inward, more and more of the Earth's body is overhead and no longer contributes to the gravity you feel. So even though d is getting smaller, M decreases even faster. If we were to assume that the Earth was of uniform density, the acceleration due to gravity would steadily decrease to zero, while the escape velocity would continue to slowly increase until it reaches a value some bit less than twice that at the surface. But what if, instead of boring into the Earth, we jut kept compacting it into a smaller and smaller size. That way, we can get closer to its center, while still keeping all of its mass "under" us. Compacting the Earth by to 1/2 its radius raises the escape velocity by a factor of 1.414 and the surface gravity by a factor of 4. Compacting it to 1/10 it present radius raises the escape velocity by ~3.2 and surface gravity by 10. Decrease the radius to just under 9mm, and the escape velocity exceeds c, the speed of light. Meaning even light can't escape this small object, and we've created a black hole. But this has no effect on the gravity felt at other distances from the black hole. At the original Earth radius distance, the acceleration due to gravity is still 9.8m/s2 , and the escape velocity would still be ~11 km/sec. If the Earth was a thin hollow shell surrounding an Earth-mass black hole at its center, in terms of the gravity we experience on the surface, we would not notice a difference. A black hole does not need infinite mass to prevent the escape of light. And that's basically what a black hole is; a mass that is so compact that its surface is closer to its center than the distance at which the escape velocity for that mass equals c. (While we actually don't know what happens inside this radius (marked out by an imaginary surface of a sphere called the event horizon.) We also don't know of anything that will stop any object inside it from continuing to compact under the crushing local force of gravity until it becomes a mathematical point called a singularity. This is one of the, as of yet, unsolved questions in science. )
  12. 3 points
    I would strongly advice any readers of this to not open attachments from unknown and potentially hazardous sources. Doing so presents a substantial security risk. Post reported.
  13. 3 points
    Achilles has been suspended for 1 week for insulting behaviour and using the forum as a personal soap box.
  14. 3 points
    Forget about the concepts of "proof" and "incontrovertible". They DO NOT EXIST in science. Instead, we accept the explanations with the preponderance of evidence as our best current explanations. These are based on mathematical models, and are called theories. This is as good as it gets with science. And if you haven't found enough evidence to support the BBT, then I would suggest you haven't really looked at the BBT. Or you looked at it with the mistaken impression that it offered some kind of 100% solution. That's just not the way science works, and you'll constantly be disappointed and mislead if you keep looking at it this way.
  15. 3 points
    Guys, please at least read DanMP 's full post before you shoot it down. I know we had a lot of cranks that what to "prove" relativity is wrong but this is not that. Half of the comments are related to his first sentence. Please go over that.
  16. 3 points
    I don't think so. You can easily check this with your current configuration (without the tube blocked/sealed) if you put something that creates smoke (a cigar maybe) instead of that paper. The smoke would enter the tube in the center, along the rotation axis, where the air has a low presure, and exit near the walls, were the air/smoke is pushed by the centrifugal force (the rotation creates a vortex). Still, I recommend the wooden board I mentioned above, in order to block both air and electrostatic forces (if any). Gravity is not blocked by wood.
  17. 3 points
    The title says most of it, here is an inspiring extract Four years ago, Brian and his fellow students at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, came up with this low-cost, reusable device called Matibabu which detects malaria quickly without drawing blood. Although still in prototype stage, the society judges called his malaria testing machine "simply a game changer" in the fight against this deadly disease. Magnets and matiscope "Matibabu" means "treatment" in Swahili, and the machine uses magnets and a custom-made portable device called a matiscope. This shines a red beam of light on to the user's finger, detecting a substance called haemozoin crystals, the by-products of the malaria parasite. The makers believe Matibabu could transform the situation by speeding up testing times since it does not need to draw blood nor use invasive needles that children, in particular, can struggle with. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44484581
  18. 2 points
  19. 2 points
    I missed where iNow insulted your character. Perhaps you're being a bit thin-skinned for science? Expressing his opinion that certain of your behaviors makes you look foolish is hardly a personal insult. A character insult would be to call you a fool. His comments have been in the spirit of "Attack the idea, not the person" that we try to adhere to on these forums. I explained why there was nothing objectionable, and the mods here try not to make judgement calls on posts in threads we're involved in as a member. See how you changed iNow's words into a personal insult, and made it worse by using fake quote marks, like he really said that? He was commenting on your arguments and behavior, but you've made it personal. It's possible to do something foolish without being an overall fool, you know.
  20. 2 points
    OMG, you're on a science forum. Expect to have small mistakes/misconceptions corrected. When you're trying to persuade people, your argument is a path that should be kept clean. If someone takes the time to pick up a bit of litter, perhaps thanks is in order. Personally, I think misuse of quick labels by the media has kept many important issues muddled in the minds of many Americans. They allow people to generalize a topic that's increasingly complex and frustrating. Gun control isn't helped at all with this kind of treatment. We need to stop thinking in terms of black/white, red/blue, lib/con, right/left, because it seems to reduce us all to alive/dead.
  21. 2 points
    Gees has regularly shared here that they have MS and sometimes get deeply tired upon composing posts, especially long ones (which are fairly common for Gees). It’s not uncommon for Gees to go a few days before responding. It can be frustrating to others and interrupt the usual flow of discussions, but is also understandable. Carry on...
  22. 2 points
    Absolutely. Adding up thin shells to create the full sphere is actually a very common technique to access the volume, i.e. [math] V(r) = \int_0^r A(r) \, dr[/math] Well, picking up on the integration example: The average distance <r> of a particle from the center in a sphere of radius R is [math] <r> = \frac{1}{V(R)} \int_0^R \, r \cdot A(r) dr = \frac{1}{V(R)} \int_0^R \, r \cdot 4\pi r^2 dr = \frac{1}{\frac 43 \pi R^3} \left[ \pi r^4 \right]_0^R = \frac 34 R[/math] (modulo typos: Tex does not seem to work in preview mode ... EDIT: And apparently not in final mode. The result in the calculation above is <r> = 3/4 R). There is a general tendency that the higher the dimension, the more likely a random point in a sphere lies close to the surface. There is a famous statement in statistical physics that in a sphere with 10^23 dimension, effectively all points lie close to the surface. In all sensible definitions of volume and area I am aware of (at least in all finite-dimensional ones), volume has one more dimension of length than area. Hence, their quotient indeed has dimensions of length. I don't think the quotient itself has a direct meaning. But there are theorems like that a sphere is the shape that maximizes the V/A ratio for a fixed amount of V or A. I already commented on the dimensionality. But I still encourage you to just play around with other shapes: Cubes are the next simple thing, I believe.
  23. 2 points
    Happiness is a choice. It’s not always an easy choice, and there are often biological/psychopharmacological obstacles to making it, but it very much is a choice Giving to others and being charitable makes that choice easier. Finding ways to feel gratitude in each passing moment makes that choice easier. Regularly connecting with good people and friends makes that choice easier. Implementing a regular schedule of exercise and ritual of meditation makes that choice easier. Getting better sleep and having a healthy diet makes that choice easier. I hope you choose to find this post useful.
  24. 2 points
    Oh JFCOAPS I wrote to you in a PM "You need to post summaries if you rely on links. Discussion must be possible without clicking the link." I gave you a link to the guidelines, and told you section 2, number 7, which reads (the most relevant section is bolded) "Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned." I also told you "And if you reply in the open thread by just pointing people to videos or papers, i.e. not actually discussing science in the thread, it too will be closed." And here you've gone and done it again. In your OP you mention some books and outline the tenets of a philosophy. There is no f**king science there to support the claim of the thread. There is a plagiarized mention (and yes, it's plagiarism, which is against the rules) of a drug study and having mystical experiences. And then the links, but since you had not discussed any science supporting your thesis, the links are against the bolded part of the rule I quoted above. You never explain how this philosophy and the drug provided evidence of the existence of God. As I pointed out to you before, people taking a drug and having some experience is science. But you did not entitle your post referencing the effects of psilocybin. You claimed evidence for the existence of God. Which you admitted was bogus in another thread — except that you did, in fact, do this very thing. You were also told not to bring this up again. That makes this soapboxing, another rules violation. (rule 2.8)
  25. 2 points
    And bringing it up in subsequent threads is against the rules. Tick tick, tick tick...
  26. 2 points
    Damn right, and I'll do it again, 'cause I am right so I gots to win. First we gonna rock, then we gonna roll Then we let it pop, go, let it go! X gon' give it to ya, he gon' give it to ya X gon' give it to ya, he gon' give it to ya
  27. 2 points
    And some!!! But when she walked in with a tit out and no idea which bus the baby was on, it evened out...
  28. 2 points
    We know that individual atoms are affected by the gravity of the earth. You can get atoms cold and gently toss them up, and they come back down. Or you just drop them. Slow atomic beams deflect under gravity. That's been demonstrated (I've done all of those things) Interact with gravity and interact with each other via gravity are two different things, though. Since you're probably at 30 or more orders of magnitude smaller for e.g. neutrons
  29. 2 points
    You have just posted strong evidence that so called "religious experiences" may be drug induced hallucinations. Another way to look at it is that the brain doesn't work properly when it's full of drugs. So it looks like religious experience is either what happens when the brain isn't working, or at least, it's something very much like it. That's evidence of a brain failure, rather than the existence of God, as the cause of religious experience. Other evidence also exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy#Link_with_religiosity
  30. 2 points
    Hello Sloth, I missed this question when you first posted it, but I see you have been back since. So here is an answer, if you are still interested. Let us start by by noting that by asking about a sphere we are moving into 3 dimensions. A force is a uniaxial (one dimensional) entity. So the correct question would be is in terms of the stess (pressure) required to compress a sphere. The answer to that is yes if you use the correct linear-elastic modulus. This is called the bulk modulus and usually given the symbol K. [math]{\rm{Bulk Modulus = K = }}\frac{{{\rm{Volume stress}}}}{{{\rm{Volume strain}}}} = \frac{{{\rm{Pressure}}}}{{\frac{{\Delta V}}{V}}}[/math] The reciprocal of the bulk modulus is called the compressibility. This finds much use in the theory of sound. The bulk modulus is not directly measurable. The Bridgman indirect method may be used for some solids. However coming on to another point and addressing quiet's post. (+1 for progress encouragement) In three dimensions the components in each dimension are not necessarily independent and may interact. This is most studied in soil mechanics where uniaxial, biaxial and triaxial tests are made on soil and rock samples. Finally forces come in two types. Body forces eg gravity and contact forces eg via a compression test machine. Placing a sphere in a compression test machine will not (cannot) generate an even stress distribution. There will be very high stresses, known as Hertzian stresses, at the points (there must be two) of contact in a uniaxial test.
  31. 2 points
    Yes the Domino computer delivers! I gave the Wiki link but here's a direct link to a 19 minute video of a 10,000 domino computer that they set up on the floor of a huge gym or warehouse. (Annoying Youtube ad precedes, you can dismiss it in 5 seconds)
  32. 2 points
    Which, as you have demonstrated, is not your strong point.
  33. 2 points
    You're reading about the wrong Dyson.
  34. 2 points
    The magnetic force is perpendicular to the velocity, and therefore does no work. The loss of energy comes from something else (hint: it's the radiation, caused by the acceleration) IOW you can't answer the question. And assertions require evidence, or some kind of model, for us to discuss them. It's your assertion. You are the one who needs to back it up. Since you persistently have not, we're done here.
  35. 2 points
    Why do you think the universe is perfect? And why do you think it could have come about by “random actions” ? (And actions by whom?) Please show your working (as they used to say at school) It isn’t. As long as you have evidence for that pattern. We don’t know anything of the sort.
  36. 2 points
    That’s assuming that “I” is identical to consciousness or awareness...which is another assumption I’d be extremely sceptical of this particular assumption, actually...when I was a kid, my concept of “I” was very much different than it is today, yet I was aware of things in the same way that I am today. So equating “I” with the agent of awareness is something I’d put a huge question mark over. Also, when one actually stops the philosophising, trains the mind into a more phenomenological mode, and then starts to investigate where that agent/observer/knower really is, one very quickly realises that it is in fact nowhere to be found. There is nothing permanent and independent that you can point your “inner finger” at and say: “That there, that’s me.” There is only a whole bunch of memories, views, habit patterns, processes, and tendencies, none of which is separate from the context in which they originated, and all of which are just impersonal natural processes. The “I” is really nothing more than a view the mind takes on in order to make sense of these objects and their interrelationships. It’s not so much an illusion, as it is a case of mistaken identity - the “I” is just a vast and very complicated network of cause-and-effect relationships in space and time. These are completely impersonal, natural phenomena. It’s a bit like putting a candle in front of a rock, so that a shadow is cast. We can search for the “owner of the shadow” until the cows come home, but at the end of the day there is no one and nothing who “owns” it - it’s just light, and the absence of it. The same with “I” - there’s just a body interacting with the environment in various ways, and the mind pulling all of this together into a more or less coherent view of my body, my thoughts, my perceptions etc etc. But in reality these are all just impersonal process, and the “I” is nowhere to be found. That view is real, but it is also empty, since the object it refers to does not exist. It’s just a mental fabrication. Yes, but what question does this statement answer, really? We can only ever be aware of the contents of our own minds, i.e. mental objects of various kinds, including the end products of the processes of perception. Hence, the above is only to say that when there is awareness of something, there is mind - which is a rather trivial statement from a human perspective, albeit perhaps more interesting from a more general point of view. Then of course, there is also the question of whether or not the inherent subject-object duality in the notion of ordinary “awareness” is fundamental and irreducible, or in itself an empty illusion of some kind. Just because we sense our experience as being dualistic, does not mean that this duality is actually a fundamental feature of awareness itself.
  37. 2 points
    I suggest starting from C/C++. You can read this website: http://www.cplusplus.com/ In ANSI C there is really just a couple built-in functions/statements (e.g. for(), while(), do{} while; return; etc. etc.) Majority of functions(/procedures/methods) are in special libraries (stdio, stdlib, etc. etc.) They're described f.e. on this website: http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/ C/C++ is also described on MSDN (shortcut from Microsoft Developer Network) https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh875057.aspx While programming in C/C++ you will often (everyday?) have to search for Windows specific functions. Google "[name of function] msdn" to find article about function.
  38. 2 points
    Ambitious, but infinite speed is not possible as far as I know. Yes, the fact that it is never going to work as as means of delivering evidence of some unknown aspect of physics is strikingly similar.
  39. 2 points
  40. 2 points
    You said you didn't trust it. So don't blame me. I challenged you to solve certain problems without it, and rely on momentum, which you "trust completely" You could have agreed with me, but you didn't — you accepted the challenge. That depends on what you mean by spring-loaded momentum storage. Momentum is conserved when there is no net external force on a system. One does not "store" momentum. Yes. As long as the net external force is zero, momentum will be conserved. Elasticity determines whether KE is conserved, because KE is, in general, not a conserved quantity. Yes, you do. You need to apply conservation of KE. So isn't it rather silly to have accepted a challenge where you claim you don't? I don't want you to. I want you to drop your silly notion that energy is "corrupt" Stop pretending that this limitation comes from me. You are the one claiming that you don't want to use the concept. All you have to do is realize you were wrong.
  41. 2 points
    A bloke escapes from prison where he has been for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money, beer and guns and finds a young Australian couple in bed. He orders the bloke out of bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the girl to the bed he gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then goes into the bathroom.While the man is in the bathroom, the husband tells the wife: "Listen, this guy's an escaped inmate, look at his clothes! He probably spent lots of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years... I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain. Do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is probably dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us. Be strong, honey. I love you." To which the wife responds: "He wasn't kissing my neck. He was whispering in my ear. He told me he was gay, thought you were cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey, I love you too!!"
  42. 2 points
    If an organism can make a choice, it's conscious. It's just by degree and sophistication that separates different hierarchies of organisms; it's not a present/not present phenomenon. from what I've read, this ability goes down to worms albeit extremely primitively. This is interesting about ants: If ants have the possible ability of self-recognition, it would seem reasonable to surmise they have some level of consciousness imo. It is only "uniquely human" if we define it by criteria which only humans can attain.
  43. 2 points
  44. 2 points
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-45023403/what-boils-at-196c-and-could-help-cut-pollution BBC short video which claims that the pollution from the refrigeration system in lorries is greated that the pollution from the lorry engine itself. This system replaces that refrigeration system with aone based on compression liquid nitrogen that has zero pollution, though overall its pollution must also depend on the pollution from the energy source to the liqufication plant. Sorry I don't know how to embed this. If anyone can do that or tell me how I would be grateful.
  45. 2 points
    They need to be constructively occupied. If they are doing something destructive, divert their attention to something that is interesting to them but constructive. A destructive child is generally a bored child. I think at that age you've got to guide them in their activities quite a bit. I don't think it's reasonable, at that age, to expect them to play peacefully on their own for long... they've got the attention span of a gnat. For that reason, disciplinary measures, being stern are a bit fruitless. They've still got a lot of 'baby' in them and need pretty much constant, proactive attention to keep them stimulated positively. Between 18 months and 3 years is probably the most demanding and testing time. The strongest measure I would use is to have a place for them to 'time out' where you are still in sight or just in the next room. A few minutes on the 'naughty step' or 'naughty chair' might be useful. "When you''ve calmed down, you can come in here again"... or something like that. Be calmly consistent. They like routine and predictability. Never show bad temper. All stuff you don't want to hear.
  46. 2 points
    It showed that there was no detectable ether. The "aether wind" it was looking would have been the result of the Earth moving with respect to the aether. Of course, there would have been no wind if the Earth was at rest with respect to the aether. However, the Earth orbits the Sun in a circle, and thus it would only be possible for it to be at rest with respect to the aether at one particular time of the year. Since the experiment gives the same result no matter what time of the year it is performed, this is not an option. As to accuracy, it was accurate enough to detect the expected motion with respect to the aether, if it existed. But the accuracy of the original experiment is moot as it has been repeated since to much higher degrees of accuracy without giving any different results. I know that there are some out there that seem to think that if they could just find some flaw in the original M&M experiment, the whole of Relativity would come crashing down to its foundations. This simply is not the case. Relativity is supported by so many various and independent experiments and observations that it is far too late to put that particular genie back into its bottle. For instance, It has been suggested that Mendel "fudged" some the result for his Pea breeding experiments, as they were just a bit too perfect. But even if he had, it wouldn't have changed the validity of the Laws of genetics he discovered.
  47. 2 points
    Let's see, the Moon makes 1 rotation every 27.25 days and has a radius of 1738 km. This puts the speed at it's equator at 4.64 m/sec or ~10 mph. 1/100th that of the speed at the Earth's equator, so gravity on the surface of the Moon should be 1/100 of that of the Earths. But it isn't, it is 1/6th of that. So let's try another track. Venus is pretty close to the same size as the Earth (6052 km radius vs. Earth's 6378 km) it is just slightly less dense. But it also rotates very slowly. taking 243 days to make one rotation. This give the surface speed at the equator of 4 mph. Even slower than the Moon's. Yet it has a surface gravity of 90% of the Earth's. It also has a thick atmosphere, but if it is the speed of the planet that holds the atmosphere to the planet, Venus shouldn't be able to hold on to it atmosphere. But now I guess you are going to argue that its Venus' thick atmosphere that gives it its higher gravity. But then we get back to the Moon which still has a much higher gravity than your idea would predict, and yet has no atmosphere. You seem to keep bouncing around as what you claim causes gravity, changing the cause depending on the situation. In reality, all you've ever offered is a bunch of hand-waving. No actual predictions as to what your hypothesis would predict what should happen under certain given conditions. For example, here's a simple one: exactly how much difference would there be in the weight of a 130 lb person if the Earth had no atmosphere? Since you have of yet offered no numbers, I'll assume you have no idea. Compare this to the present model of gravity. One that we understand so well that we can launch a spacecraft have it pass by a moving planet at just the right speed distance and angle so that that planet's gravity changes its speed and direction in just the right way so that it passes by a second moving planet in just the right way such that the spacecraft's speed and direction is altered in just the right way to reach a third planet, and then after this flyby reach yet a forth planet. Without being able to predict with very high precision exactly how that craft responds to gravity along its entire trip. And that requires a very accurate model for gravity. And yet you expect us to take seriously a bunch of vague suppositions made by someone who couldn't even work out how Newton's Laws of motion applied to the atmosphere at the Equator.
  48. 2 points
    I notice several respondants assert that targeted ads save the recipient (target) time, that might be so in some cases. But I am now having to waste my time filtering and deleting at least 50 Emails per day of targeted advertising. Most is this is downright counterproductive since it merely repeats what I have just bought. How many copies of War & Peace does a bear need or want? At Sensei's comment in particular about perfume. Many these days do online shopping and have their supermarket 'weekly run' delivered. They may well include perfume, and presumably know what they ordering. So there is nothing wrong with buying your perfume online per se. However I do object if the supermarket company then harvests the data that I bought something and sees it as an additional income stream thus moving from the business of selling supermarket products to the business of selling supermarket customers to other businesses. Particularly if it does it on the sly without first seeking my express permission.
  49. 2 points
    Do you know how CaO is produced? Mostly from CaCO3... CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2..
  50. 2 points
    Distribution is still restricted there, from what I understand. Nonetheless I think part of the discussion seems to be based on the assumption that certain drugs are fundamentally (biologically) harmful than others. Thus, legislation is or should address that as a means to protect public health. The counter-argument do this are that evidence point to criminalizing drug abuse does not ameliorate the situation. Moreover, as the discussion with soft and hard drugs has been shown, it is not based on medical effects, either. Specifically alcohol seems to be seen as harmless (and ironically is a prime example how abolitionist movements did not work). Yet if scaled systematically it is on par with lots of other drugs typically seen as "hard" in common parlance. This does not come to a surprise to folks who work on physiological effects on drugs. Likewise, the dangers of tobacco are vastly underestimated, simply because we are used to it.' There have been efforts to use multiple criteria (which include harm to individual and harm to society) and according to one of the most cited study in the UK (Nutt et al. 2010 Lancet). The most damaging drug overall was alcohol, scoring higher than heroin or Crack cocaine. Of course one could surmise that the societal effects were driven by availability, but even on the harm to the individual user scale alcohol scores just behind Heroin, Crack Cocaine and metaphetamine. Drugs scoring lower than alcohol on the individual scale included cocaine and amphetamine. Tobacco scored close to cocaine and amphetamines. Tobaccos is a special case as it is generally not associated with overdose situations. However, if we include the increase in lung cancer, it suddenly becomes on of the deadlier drugs. Sure, it is less dramatic but lethal nonetheless. If we look deeper into the type of harm, alcohol and tobacco are drugs with some of the highest drug specific damages. When we look into drug specific mortality (which excludes e.g. violence), alcohol scores lower than heroin but higher than (crack) cocaine, methamphetamine etc. Especially the comparison between crack cocaine and cocaine is interesting. On the biological side, there is little difference in the damage they do bodily (mortality and damage are very similar). But on the overall damage scale crack cocaine causes more damage on the individual as well as societal level. A part of these different outcomes is based on the different policies surrounding those drugs, which, in my mind indicates that the additional punishment for crack cocaine is net harmful.In other words, the perception of what is considered a relatively safe drug (tobacco, alcohol) with actual medical data is quite different. Pretty much the only clear overlap are probably mushrooms. Of course, one could weigh different parts of the equation differently. E.g. focusing more on withdrawal, or availability of treatment options and so on. However, it does show our given perception not data driven but based on certain narratives that we built ourselves surrounding certain drugs. I found this argument, as well as your earlier approach to playing devil's advocate highly problematic as you tend to leave out so much nuance as to make the argument worthless. I have addressed what the difference between "feel good" and addiction or compulsive behaviour and that those require different approaches. Heroin itself was, for several reasons perhaps not the best example John could have picked. But what is clear is that alcohol is far from a safe drug. Yet we deal with it in a certain way that we find acceptable. It is certainly not based on the objective harm done to the individual. However, as a parent the answer should clearly be: don't give alcohol to them or any other drugs. If that is not possible than disapprove of dosages that can cause short or long-term damage. Clearly we do that for certain drugs. But for others we seem to be fine(ish) with the toll on public health. What you are advocating here, MigL is a full-on emotional response and I do not consider that a good foundation for policy-making. While I am far from being an expert in this area, it seems pretty clear to me that punishing users has almost only negative effects. The Portugal model (personal use is allowed, there is support to kick addiction, distribution and production is still prohibited) is not perfect and does not really eliminate drug abuse. However, it has also not lead to a surge of addiction. More importantly, indicators associated with drug addiction have improved. While certainly not perfect, it certainly seems a bit better than the decade old punishment route, which just made matters worse. @Koti, some of the references regarding cannabis and tobacco: Budney et al. 2008, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment; Vandrey et al. 2008 Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Also note as per your earlier comment: there are no perfect policies. Every policy ever made is an empirical experiment. However, holding fast on wrong assumptions or not implementing changes once it becomes evident that they do more harm then good makes bad policies.