Leaderboard

Here is an "official" answer: "Many lay people in Russia think of Ukrainian as a mere dialect of Russian, and a substandard one at that. Linguists, on the other hand, treat Ukrainian as a separate language." Pereltsvaig, Asya. Languages of the World (p. 37) Also, "most speakers of Ukrainian have no problem understanding Russian, but the average Russian – who has not been exposed to much Ukrainian – might understand only bits and pieces of their interlocutor’s Ukrainian speech." Pereltsvaig, Asya. Languages of the World (p. 7) Being fluent in Russian, I cannot understand Ukrainian except for the "bits and pieces."

Please stop, guys.

In the very recent textbook from the University of Pennsylvania, Physical Models of Living Systems: Probability, Simulation, Dynamics by Philip Nelson, November 2021, there is a little section in the introduction for students, which I have attached below. My questions for the discussions are: Do you agree with these limitations of computers? Are they temporary or fundamental?

I think the definition of "therefore" is presenting real problems too. Too many misunderstandings backed by faith rather than evidence or reason. Throw enough doubts around about abiogenesis and evolution amongst people who know little about either and even the most outlandish hypothesis - a supernatural being did it - can sound reasonable. It doesn't work with people with even a basic understanding of biology and evolution.

I suspect he does not care. It's not like the International Criminal Court is going to dispatch their International Police Force to go pick him up for incarceration. Should I apologize for not immediately understanding?

! Moderator Note We're not going to do this

Other than Clarence Thomas and a small handful of black Republicans and far right activists, I can't think of any. Sure, the powerful do tend to kick down, but that's an issue with power, not race. Plenty of rich and powerful white people shit on other white people so I haven't a clue why you would point it out for just black people unless you're a closet bigot.

I was misled by Titanic on Kate Winslet's hair. She looked absolutely stunning as a redhead, but is in fact a natural blonde. And I sense that we have departed from evolutionary biology and quietly moved on to the hotties section of the forum. 😛

I will note that in the supreme court discussion you brought up the notion of some people being "race traitors". Which is not something that was under discussion at all in the thread. It's a dubious idea and you didn't do anything to support it with actual facts and data. It's off-topic for that thread, so it's a hijack, and unsupported, so contrary to the ideals of a science discussion site. It's something that adds to your reputation as one who engages in trolling. It's something that can easily be viewed as an attempt at provoking a contentious discussion. It certainly does not endear you to people who want to engage in discussion without such distractions. Just something to consider.

You have demonstrated quite deep thinking about how thing work in several of your threads, rather than just accepting simplified models that you have been offered. I did wonder if your question was prompted by having been given the usual very short explanation about dipoles aligning. People often imagine the atoms and molecules with fixed magnets or dipoles and wonder how these can turn to alignment when the atom or molecule is fixed in space in a solid type material. In order to understand this we need to realise that nothing physical actually turns, when the electric field is applied. What happens is the electrion cloud changes shape. If you would like to pursue this here is the beginning for a single atom. In the absence of an external field the electron cloud is distributed evenly about the (outer parts of) the atom. This is a time averaged evenness and may be regarded as either an even density or that the electron spends on average the same amount of time at each point. I have tried to show this by making the shading as even as I can. When an external electric field is applied the electrons experience an attraction to the more positive end of the field. This increases the density on the + side and decreases it on the - side, or if you prefer increases the time the electron spends on the + side and decreases it on the - side. This immediately generates a small field opposing the externally applied one and the atom is now polarised. This simple idea can be developed a long way towards explaining the effects for molecules and much more. Do you wish to continue ?

Because I have had some interest in the question of rationality of a belief in religion (by an atheist). I have a big ZERO interest in your struggles with life.

You mean ε as in the formula for refractive index n=√(εᵣμᵣ) ? What happens is that the bonding electrons couple to the radiation, which can be thought of as a sort of forced resonance oscillation, in which the forcing is due to the oscillating electric vector of the radiation. This has the effect of changing the phase velocity of the light. It is a result of the material being polarisable by the light. The degree to which this occurs depends on the frequency of the light, making the refractive index different for different frequencies of radiation. This is what is called "dispersion" and is why a prism (or a raindrop) can split white light into the colours of the rainbow. What is interesting to me, from the point of view of physical chemistry, is that the polarisability and the change in phase velocity become greater and greater, as the frequency gets closer and closer to an absorption frequency for the material. At the absorption frequency itself, you have the limiting case, in which the material becomes effectively infinitely polarisable, the phase velocity becomes zero - and the material is then opaque and absorbs the light. In the case of silica (glass) there is an absorption band is in the UV, which occurs where the electrons in the Si-O bonds jump to a different, higher energy, molecular orbital. (There is another absorption band in the IR, which is due to excitation of a collective mode of vibration of the bonds in the crystal structure.) So what is happening with refraction is that the light undergoes a kind of temporary pseudo-absorption and re-emission process as it passes through. It is not a real absorption however. It's more as if the light finds itself walking on a spongy, bouncy trampoline, which slows it down. (The real model for this process requires a lot of QM maths involving perturbation theory, which I once knew at university but have long since forgotten.)

Yes. In the case of the polarisation in glass induced by EM radiation, we have to be talking about induced dipoles, i.e. in the electron distribution. One would not want to give the impression that light is able to alter the arrangement of the Si (δ+) and O (δ-) atoms in the crystal structure. But I do feel it would help to know what the context is for the poster's question. It could be to do with reflection, or with refractive index, or perhaps something else.

Some materials are polar - they have a charge distribution, even though they are neutral. There's no net effect if they are randomly oriented, but in a field, they tend to align. And most atoms will become dipoles (induced dipole) in the presence of an electric field. This charge distribution will affect the net electric field inside a material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment

Nicole Kidman carries red hair well . Unusually, she has no freckles.

No. Unlike you I have taken the trouble to find out some of the things researchers have discovered about memory. You don't have to take my word for it. That would be a bad idea. Just do some study yourself, using reliable sources.

This is certainly misinformation being pushed on us by you. There are two FB posts mentioned in this Wikipedia article, and one is allegedly fake. The translation doesn't mention "Russians" (but you know that better than I do), but instead it calls out the "inhumans" (or the perpetrators of observed attrocities). It can't be "murder", because this is a war, no matter what Putin says. Russia has been using foreign troops known for their inhumane approach to warfare. Given the overall hatchet-job look of that Wiki (more scandals space than bio space), I'd say this is more Russian propaganda. What makes it even more insulting is trying to hide obvious genocide (bombing maternity hospitals and train stations full of fleeing families) with your manufactured version. Fuck you, Putin!

The first statement says, "In order to understand what death is, we must ask ourselves ...: what is death?" Do I need to read the rest of this long post?

Nothing like this has been found in connection with schizophrenia AFAIK: Scientists identify overgrowth of key brain s | EurekAlert!

Here are some references: https://chaos.if.uj.edu.pl/~karol/geometry.htm https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.07612.pdf https://www.reed.edu/physics/faculty/wheeler/documents/Quantum Mechanics/Miscellaneous Essays/Angular Momentum, Spin/D2. Majorana.pdf Notation differs a little from source to source, and approaches may differ a bit (the second one is based on coherent states). If anything else fails, do as I do: Test it for low-dimensional cases. See that it works. Consider the general case. Make sure it makes sense. Try to build up a recurrence... Maybe take it on faith for a while until you get to a satisfactory proof. Please, tell me if the references helped.

I am not sure if you have any kind of bias towards wikipedia, the public encyclopedia, but here's documented the "evidence" you are asking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome If this is recognized by science as a "syndrome" without further care it's possibly true, would you contact the author of the article saying that you do not have any kind of occur to what's written there and therefore asking for censure. Is that enough evidence to show you that there have been indeed cases, in which the science apparently has also a proper definition for them? Also since you are looking for evidence, do you have any against-evidence regarding your claim? I mean, since you are looking for evidence you likely know what scientifically heppens to the death I would assume, am I correct? Therefore not coherent with what science (medicine) says in the matter, especially when it comes to consciousness - but that's another topic. Please answer me this logical question: if science is sure about how/when death actually begins after someone stops emitting the life signs, why would be there still a time range before someone can be actually exhumed as for the final deal? Thank you.

I would too! People are treated like little creampuffs of innocence but they are not. Lots of people deserve to suffer greatly. Most people are really casual about having a "torture all the innocents" mentality and it's not a thing of saveth make If they're going to feed on the injustice of the government not punishing them, you know... *Mad scientist laugh* Maybe a bit of "justice" will toughen them up for the next time they're keeping secrets Besides, you never know how many magic spells you'll break but you can always assume that it's going to be lots and lots

The supreme court has an excuse Which is that they need to reflect the demographics of the people that they are representing There are probably plenty of qualified people that they could choose But of course most expect that the administration wants to choose the one that's a good political move I would think that maybe they picked her out of genuine interest in goodwill and the common good since that occured to me for the first time since I don't remember lel However I've noticed that a lot of black people that are elected to high positions of power Kind of tend to stab their own race in the back And race is used to win free votes in the first place It's ironic Maybe they don't want to seem biased or overly liberal when they're some historic first But they wind up seeming like race traitors to a lot of folks Then they go back to their usual thing, undermining the whole white republican mental well being thing in ways that are normally subliminal I myself saw an interview over the news with this woman and she was being grilled on whether or not she would treat different religions fairly And she seemed to dislike religion a lot in general which the interviewer disregarded, he was not a very religious person either (he told her a bunch of trivia about his church habits and beliefs on camera) I don't know much else about her though It's usually the people around me that cause problems in my life anyway The only things that politics generally change are what people argue about and what people pretend to believe during said arguments It's probably really unhealthy to let some person on a TV screen drive you to such a dark & hateful state of mind anyway Still, I see things a certain way