Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/29/17 in all areas

  1. 1 point
  2. 1 point
    With dogs the nature of the threat is different. Dogs can harm us but cannot be superior to us. Danger coming from AI, according to some, is that it can find exploits at rate humans cannot achieve. In other words, humans cannot outsmart AI, hence the potential threat. Of course, we are in the realm of sci-fi but we can imagine a number of applications when AI would be in charge, probably the most common is military, it could endanger humans. Here we are back to Asimov Laws and such, philosophy. Personally, I am optimistic and the sooner AI and robots will overtake mundane human tasks the better because then humans will have time and energy to devote to personal growth, social matters, families or politics for example. However, changes in our society will be enormous, I would say revolutionary, and revolutions tend to carry a certain degree of risk.
  3. 1 point
    Sorry, but it's far too late for that, imo. The priests have had the pulpit to themselves for quite a while now. Love, kindness, compassion have been replaced by money, power, control in the liturgy. Forget "Judge not lest ye be judged". It's OK to judge someone if you have a lot more money than they do. The Pope golfs a LOT.
  4. 1 point
    It has less to do with comfort and more to do with optimal outcomes. In a great majority of cases, capitalism works best. No disagreement there. Our bigger point of contention is you see capitalism as an absolute good that’s best in all situations, whereas I take a less extremist and more practical approach. I see areas where the market has historically and consistently failed so instead support more planned/structured approaches in those handful of cases. Agreed. The interesting thing is that this also applies in all economic models and ideologies. It’s not specific to capitalism nor is it specific to my point. Summarized: Stop doing dumb things. Let the data inform our choices instead of operating on faith. Don’t let capitalism become a religion.
  5. 1 point
    @Airbrush I've learned this a while ago from professor Laird Close. I don't know with certainty whether this percentage accounts for ALL stars in the Milky Way, because that would imply that all 100 billion stars, all of them, have already been studied, which seems rather unlikely to me. Moreover, the search for exoplanets would be over, which leads me to answer your last question about what percentage of stars have a habitable-mass planet: these small planets are very hard to detect, they're never detected directly but indirectly, because the slight wobble of a star indicates indirectly a massive Jupiter-like planet orbiting it, but an Earth-like planet doesn't effect its star that much. Maybe in the future we're able to use a different technique to detect Earth-like planets with Earth-like masses. @Strange I've followed your recommendation to visit the Cosmoquest forum. My question however somehow didn’t get through . I have no idea why, but I decided to move to another astronomy forum with the same question. There I've received a lot of response. First off, I have to admit that I was wrong! Well, I blindly quoted a professor who turned out to be wrong. The lecture I referred to was released in 2006. Dr. Filippenko was probably relying on old data that does not reflect the current best values. The metallicity of the Sun and population I stars has been revised downward in the past 10 years, and it could be that the mix of values was not properly vetted. About the changing of Sun’s magnetic orientation: it is expected that all stars do this. It's just hard to observe, but there is no proof whatsoever that our Sun is unique in this behaviour. About helioseismology, our sun that occilates every so much minutes: this also appears to be universal, that’s why it’s called ‘asteroseismology’. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive any examples of other stars who show this type of behaviour, but a little bit of research revealed Solar-like occillators, Cepheid variables, RR Lyrae variables and so on, all types of star occilation. About the unusualness of the heavy elements in our Sun and in the Solar System in general: our Sun does not have an unusually high abundance of heavy elements. It has an average composition for Population I stars. Older stars formed long before the Sun have fewer heavy metals, and stars younger than the Sun have more heavy metals than the Sun. The metallicity of the Sun has decreased over the last few decades, but our Sun has an average composition of heavy metals for stars that were formed near the same time. So, thanks for your comments, it lead me to find out more about the true nature of our universe!
  6. 1 point
    You need to think back to where you heard that from. Now it has been made clear to you that the US does not- by any sensible measure- have the very best healthcare on the planet you need to realise that what you were told is not true. And you now need to put those two facts together. The source that told you that the US has the best healthcare lied to you. So, unless you want to deliberately avoid the truth, you should stop listening to that source.
  7. 1 point
    The bizarre thing about this is, from what I have seen, not only do the insurance companies spend far more (per capita) than, say, the NHS but the US government also spends far more than the NHS per capita. So it is a double failure. The NHS is struggling but it works pretty well - and provides universal health care. So why does the supposedly more efficient capitalist/competitive system in the USA work so badly? I think because there are so many people opposed on principle to the idea of helping everyone, whatever their circumstances. It is the cult of individuality gone mad.
  8. 1 point
    Science looks for what, where, when, and how. Philosophy looks for why.
  9. 1 point
    Dream on...2014 numbers:
  10. 1 point
    The thing to keep in mind is that none of the three clocks are in an inertial frame of reference. They all are in rotating frames. Each with a different angular velocity with respect to the non-rotating Earth centered frame. If you examine this scenario from that inertial frame, then it is clear that if the clocks are all synced when they start off, they will all be out of sync when they pass each other again. And if this in true in the non-inertial frame, it is true in all the frames. The respective time dilation each clock measures for the other clocks will only be symmetrical at the moment that the clocks are passing each other. The clocks, each in their own rotating frame, are each undergoing different accelerations, and when they are at different points of their paths, their acceleration vectors are all pointing in different directions. The rate at which any given clock will determine another clock as ticking will depend on its own rotational acceleration and the relative position of the other clock respective position to the acceleration vector. At different moments during the clock's separation, they will measure the other clocks as sometime ticking slower and sometimes ticking faster. The accumulative time difference will be the sum of all those different tick rates and when they meet up again, all three clocks will agree on their respective time readings.
  11. 1 point
    Let me make a few points that at times I have made before in my time on this forum. Of course being an amateur and non scientist you can chose to treat my points with whatever contempt you think they deserve. [1] This is a science forum. [2] All incumbent scientific theories start out as speculation or hypothetical in nature. [3] As evidence builds up supporting a particular theory, and as it is successfuly making correct predictions, it grows in certainty. [4] All incumbent scientific theories are being continually put to the test everyday. [5] Any person that believes he has some alternative to an incumbent theory, needs to "run the gauntlet" just as any incumbent theory has also run the gauntlet. [6] While science forums such as this are great discussion platforms, no incumbent model will ever be invalidated on any forum, and no alternative hypothetical, will ever displace that incumbent model. [7] There is a professional proper peer review system where any possible alternative hypothetical can be examined, researched, and either dismissed or accepted. [8] Any accepted model will of course need to explain and model existing observations better then the incumbent model, and/or explain further any limitation of that incumbent model. [9] Forums such as this are in the public domain and therefor open to any and all manner of kooks, cranks, and any number of variety ailments such as "delusions of grandeur" "tall poppy syndrome" "excess baggage and agendas" including god botherers, that will do whatever is needed to further their personal anti science campaign, as in the main, science has removed their necessity for any deity or god. [10] On most occasions this conglomeration of anti science brigade will have been banned on one or more science forums elsewhere.
  12. 1 point
    PRO AI will eliminate jobs. AI will be uncontrollable AI will be smarter than people CON AI will eliminate jobs. AI will be uncontrollable AI will be smarter than people Many properties of AI have the potential to be either good or bad, and they will have a mind of their own, which means there is little we can know or assume about their future intentions. It seems probable that it will be developed. I think it will be the right thing to do because the human race is doing many things to destroy the environment and themselves. I doubt AI will do worse than humanity, but that is a personal opinion and others will have different opinions. .
  13. 1 point
    We know that the density of the earth and moon are different. If gravity depended on density rather than mass, the force exerted by the earth on the moon would be different than that of the moon on the earth. (We already have plenty of evidence that the density of an object is not a factor). A density model fails. We've sent satellites to other worlds using Newton's law, based on mass, and it works. Your propsal using density doesn't work. ! Moderator Note seeing as you have only reiterated your claim, without model or evidence, this is closed. Do not reintroduce the topic .
  14. 1 point
  15. -1 points
    at its very center a black hole is very cold, the surroundings of the black hole are very hot because of there close proximity from what ive come to under stand from childhood is everything that is light, is hot i.e a light bulb or a fire, and saying that there is no cold ( to us as humans ) is astonishing, we feel the cold everyday even sometimes on a hot day, if there is no cold how come there is ice at the north and south poles and also in space, which is also water. Even mathematics explains my theory look at the fibanarchi numbers (i don't know how to spell it) every diagram explains the structure of heat and its storage system even humans maintain heat ( 37 degrees Celsius ) core body temperature.
  16. -1 points
  17. -1 points
    Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.
  18. -2 points
    First we need to drain the swamp Dems and Reps. You should understand that polarization is a very old strategy,... We have the very best healthcare on the planet!
  19. -4 points