Leaderboard

So what I do not understand is, who these ominous SJWs are. The closest I can think of are usually young students who want to engage in the issue of social justice, but have only incomplete understanding of the complexity. Those that actually work in the field tend to have a very nuanced view on these matters. Rather, due to the partisanship in the US political system the voting outcome is much less fluid than in many European countries (or Canada), I presume. So regardless of the actual candidate a sizable portion will vote according to party affiliation. According to study by the Cato institute the largest group are these staunch conservative voters which have a strong nativist view. They tend to be older male with moderate levels of education, but are often found in the upper middle class. A second group, which they call American Preservationists, are conomically progressive, but have an even stricter view of America as an ethnostate (i.e. white Christian country). While less loyal to the party, they strongly see economy as a zero-sum game, in which any proportion directed to minorities are being taken away from them. They may actually be upset by the ominous view of SJWs who want to take away their share. These group of voters are traditionally from the lowest income group and have the lowest educational attainment. The big issue here in my mind is really the level of education and the ability to come to common grounds, not necessarily in politics, but in reality. E.g. are immigrants really threatening the economic safety of white folks? Do policies really benefit non-white disproportionately? Of course data does not suggest either, but certain folks strongly feel that way and are therefore the ideal target for the type identity politics as conducted by the Bannon and his ilk. The bigger point, though is that even among Trump voters there are significant disparities in worldviews and motivation. In that regard the "clever" bit was his ability to rally those folks to vote for him.

It's generally unsuccessful trying to use reason and facts to argue someone out of a position at which they arrived using neither.

When i've seen this point raised before it usually stems from someone not realising slavery has a history much longer than the trans-atlantic slave trade. Which is odd as many of them are Christians and there's a whole bit in the old testament about the Jewish being slaves in Egypt, but whatever. When they learn this they somehow think it mitigates the African slave trade. Similar thing happens when they learn many African slaves were sold to Europeans by better off Africans. Is this what the OP is driving at? Neither of these facts make slavery more acceptable, and if before you though slavery was something only Europeans did then you need some history lessons. And let's not forget that modern day slavery is a thing - even countries like the UK are still of full of slaves.

It has been said that if an observer is in a state of acceleration, he can use physics to know it & determine the acceleration. For example, if you were born on a spaceship going to a distant star, and if this spaceship is accelerating say 1g, the young astronaut, after reading books of physics, can make experiments that will tell him that he is in a state of acceleration. He will also be capable to determine the direction of acceleration. Say that the astronaut is indeed measuring that he is accelerated. The value is 1g. He immediately understands that he is traveling aboard a spaceship, accelerating. Now the strange thing is that the direction of the acceleration is not towards a distant star. No, things are not that simple. The direction of the acceleration is radial: it goes from the outside to the inside. As a result, the astronaut infers that this radial acceleration is not caused by any kind of motion through space (how could that be?) The astronaut decides that this acceleration is caused by another phenomena: mass. ... We are the astronauts. Why don't we focus back on the original question :how could that be? Is it impossible to describe a situation where the geometry of space is changing under acceleration? A situation in which the observer would be able to measure a radial centered acceleration?

I came across this jus now, I have no idea if this is relevant in any way (either than DrP's evolution state) or if it's on the server side or on my side but I might as well share. @DrP's status is "Molecule" in the main thread view but it shows "Beacon of Hope" in his profile view:

Interesting thought. All religious texts contain knowledge/science from the time they were written, freezing that knowledge.

That is such a broken chain of reasoning! You link to a jobsite for jobs in economics, and claim SOME teachers of economics make a living teaching, and you think that, plus Trump's income means he's smarter than the teachers. Your argument tries fallaciously to equate the achievements of "some" with "all", and your extreme reach to this conclusion is invalid. I've been far more successful in terms of money than many of the teachers in my life, but I would NEVER claim to be smarter than they are/were. What an absurd idea! And why would you come to a science discussion site and disrespect people who read?! Book worms are using their time more wisely than you, sir!

Phew. Not just me then.

I think that Liberal is not a subset of Conservative (since they have pretty nearly opposite meanings). Essentially, I can't see what the diagram is trying to say. Famously, Trump started with " a small loan of a million dollars" from his father. I'm not sure when, but lets assume it was his 21st birthday about 1967. If he had invested it in the stock market then by 1990 he would have had roughly 2 million. (based on this) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average If he had invested in real estate he'd have had about 7 million (based on this data) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ynrQyoAUzgM/UKvzBPEFGMI/AAAAAAAABg4/yLQ6jXe0q3w/s1600/U.S.+Housing+Price+Index+Since+1900.jpg Instead, he was so "smart" he had converted it into nothing- he was bankrupt. Let's hope he does better with the US economy.

Anything is possible when you put your mind (or lack of it) to it.

Given the number of people he's fired, I think he's confusing real life with reality TV, or maybe he thinks bankrupting a casino wasn't funny enough.

What does this have to do with politics? There have always been slaves of all races and colours. What did you want to discuss? The history of slavery in different countries? I'm surprised you haven't mentioned ancient China...

Isn't that, at least partly, the point of being a professor? At least they have read a book. There is some doubt about Trump's reading ability. And why is reading a book a bad thing? But I guess if you are a Trump supporter, education is not considered a good thing. He started with a lot of money. He has been bankrupt six times. It is not clear that he is a good businessman, despite his claims.

Trump started by being given a large sum of money by his Father. By some estimates, his current wealth is no greater than if he had simply stuck that money in a bank account. The idea that he's a great businessman is a myth. One thing he is good at, is self promotion.

Seven. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet Not really. There's a significant drop-off at the ends of the visible spectrum https://www.intechopen.com/books/advanced-catalytic-materials-photocatalysis-and-other-current-trends/first-transition-metal-oxocomplex-surface-modified-titanium-iv-oxide-for-solar-environmental-purific Because the eye has different color receptors, as was explained.

Yours is fixed too.

Newton defined seven colours (you forgot indigo), but chose that number because seven is a special number. It is otherwise completely arbitrary. We can only detect three colours (range of colour to be more correct), and perceive combinations of those as all the other colours. If we see yellow light, our red and green detectors get triggered, which our brain translates to "yellow" . When we simultaneously detect green and red light, the same detectors get triggered and our brain translates to "yellow". We cannot differentiate between those two situations. The same happens with white light, but instead all three of our detectors get triggered. There are many ways to do this with different spectra. We exploit the fact that we only have three detectors by putting only red, green and blue lights in any screen, as combinations of those can produce (almost) any colour we can perceive.

I was in kindergarten when this question was asked.

Science is a discipline in continued progress. As Strange has said, this is a discovery, although other interpretations may be possible, the likelyhood is that they are correct. If in the future, evidence turns up showing that they are/were mistaken, the new model will then be accepted. The interpretations are obviously from credentialed professional cosmologists and scientists in general, through the proper channels and via the scientific methodology. That is far removed from adhoc, unevidenced and unprofessional ideas and claims from any Joe Blow with access to a public forum. Nice article...thanks. So far on my times on science forums, that 99.9% is far closer to 100% in actual fact. But your point is well made.

Flourescent lights work by using the phosphor coating on the inside of the tube to emit the wnanted light. Different phosphors give different spectra.

Make America Grammatical Again!

! Moderator Note Since you have not provided any reasoning or evidence to support this claim, it is indistinguishable from trolling. You need to do better.

Theres really not many things less relevant than this but I thought that bringing this up may help with some other SFN database issues that might come up. Looks like deleting your status triggered the apropriate DB behaviour so its a lesson for the future - if something doesn’t work, just delete it

It is just math. e.g. 20/2/2 = 10/2 = 5 20/2^2 = 20/4 = 5

You've gotten into a frequency range where you are interacting with materials. Lots of rotational state features.

Apart from what micro-oganisms are encapsulated in the soap that are washed away, assuming no antibactericide in it, they stay put on your skin and carry on doing what they do... protecting you. Plain water can't remove oils very well and soap has a detergent action to emulsify them. Washing with soap will temporarily reduce the population of the normal skin flora (bacteria and other little critters) but not eradicate them... you wouldn't want to. If you could eradicate them all, then you have lost your physical barrier that keeps out the pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms and will give them an opportunity to wreak havoc on your body. The organisms that normally inhabit our body are as essential to our well-being as we are to them.

The "he" referred to here is you, so now I am the one that doesn't understand. Would you like to explain?

Anger, like Fear, releases a Stress hormone called Cortisol, the Long term effects of elevated cortisol levels are indeed detrimental to us, both physically and mentally. a quick search found this: "It cooperates with epinephrine (adrenaline) to create memories of short-term emotional events; this is the proposed mechanism for storage of flash bulb memories, and may originate as a means to remember what to avoid in the future. However, long-term exposure to cortisol results in damage to cells in the hippocampus. This damage results in impaired learning." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol

1.) is it because I am new to this site that I cannot read the Post in this discussion where "Strange" has said : " As Strange has said, this is a discovery, although other interpretations may be possible, the likelyhood is that they are correct. If in the future, evidence turns up showing that they are/were mistaken, the new model will then be accepted." In my Browser, I can only Read Three(3) Posts from "Strange" : 1.) says "I saw this too. Very interesting. I was going to post about it but you beat me to it!" ; 2.) says "Nothing to apologise for and no reason to have the post deleted. It is an interesting news story." and "There is nothing speculative in this post. (Which is why it has been moved to Science News. Because it is news. About science.)" ; 3.) says "No need to apologise. The "Speculations" section of the forum is for people to present their own "personal" theories for an informal review and feedback. (99.9% of the time it is full of nonsense.)" and "If you are not actively advocating a speculative theory or hypothesis it is OK to post it in the appropriate part of the forum (New, Physics, etc) for discussion." so again, may I ask, am I unable to view the Post in this discussion where "Strange" has said : " As Strange has said, this is a discovery, although other interpretations may be possible, the likelyhood is that they are correct. If in the future, evidence turns up showing that they are/were mistaken, the new model will then be accepted.", because I am new to this site? or is it a problem with my Browser? or is there another discussion about this article that I am either not able to view, or simply unaware of?

Trump the Great, he will receive this title in history.

What a joke, "he is clearly not smart in terms of academic standards.", lol Some Economics Professors are only able to make money by teaching Economics . They are only able to read book. Trump made a lot of money, he is far smart than those book worms.