Leaderboard

You have a lot to learn my young padawan, the real answer is "it makes your arse look great".

I agree. They shouldn't be. Like music and reason shouldn't be enemies. Because they are completely separate things. The problem comes when people insist that their faith means that reason must be wrong (e.g. Creationists etc).

Finished it!

Whenever discussing stars we also need to take into consideration all the other "stuff" that formed in addition to the star. I have no doubt that the first Population III stars would have had planets, asteroids, comets, and everything else we find in solar systems. However, it has been suggested that these first stars would have been massive, anywhere from 100 to 1,000 solar masses. If that is true then these first stars would have had very short lives indeed. Perhaps just a few million years. While that may be sufficient time to produce the first 26 elements on the Periodic Table, it is far too short a time for life to develop. At best life would just be getting started, only to be wiped out by the resulting hypernova when the Pop III star dies. I think life has its best shot beginning with Pop II stars. The metal-poor stars in the halo of our Milky Way, for example, have been dated to 12+ billion years. Since we only have one example to go by, it is rather difficult to say with any certainty how long it takes to evolve beyond primordial life. I would imagine that it very much depends on the conditions. On Earth it took just over 700 million years before life first appeared, and then another 3.3+ billion years before we get to the Cambrian. That is a long time for a planet to remain relatively stable. Too long for any star with greater than just a couple of solar masses. Given that Pop. III stars would have been short lived, the Pop. II stars would have formed shortly after the Pop. III stars. Certainly within the first billion years after the Big Bang. Therefore, I would not rule out the possibility of life being 12.8+ billion years old. Source: The Formation of First Stars. I. The Primordial Star-forming Cloud - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 564, Number 1, 2002 (free preprint)

I was wondering when scientist figured out when oxygen took a place in evolution. When did they know that oxygen was a byproduct before it was essential for life. At what time did they figure out that oxygen came later?

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-alma-most-distant-oxygen-universe.html Astronomers find evidence for stars forming just 250 million years after Big Bang May 16, 2018, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Not long after the Big Bang, the first generations of stars began altering the chemical make-up of primitive galaxies, slowly enriching the interstellar medium with basic elements such as oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Finding the earliest traces of these common elements would shed important light on the chemical evolution of galaxies, including our own. New observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) reveal the faint, telltale signature of oxygen coming from a galaxy at a record-setting distance of 13.28 billion light-years from Earth, meaning we are observing this object it as it appeared when the universe was only 500 million years old, or less than 4 percent its current age. For such a young galaxy, known as MACS1149-JD1, to contain detectable traces of oxygen, it must have begun forging stars even earlier: a scant 250 million years after the Big Bang. This is exceptionally early in the history of the universe and suggests that rich chemical environments evolved quickly. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-alma-most-distant-oxygen-universe.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0117-z The onset of star formation 250 million years after the Big Bang: Abstract: A fundamental quest of modern astronomy is to locate the earliest galaxies and study how they influenced the intergalactic medium a few hundred million years after the Big Bang1,2,3. The abundance of star-forming galaxies is known to decline4,5 from redshifts of about 6 to 10, but a key question is the extent of star formation at even earlier times, corresponding to the period when the first galaxies might have emerged. Here we report spectroscopic observations of MACS1149-JD16, a gravitationally lensed galaxy observed when the Universe was less than four per cent of its present age. We detect an emission line of doubly ionized oxygen at a redshift of 9.1096 ± 0.0006, with an uncertainty of one standard deviation. This precisely determined redshift indicates that the red rest-frame optical colour arises from a dominant stellar component that formed about 250 million years after the Big Bang, corresponding to a redshift of about 15. Our results indicate that it may be possible to detect such early episodes of star formation in similar galaxies with future telescopes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Hmm, interesting in as much as would or could it be suggested that extrapolating the evidence for early star and element formation, one could reasonably suggest that life via abiogenesis may have also arisen early? Obviously not life on Earth but an early form of universal life and abiogenesis. Perhaps the foundation of another discussion/debate in another more appropriate forum?

It seems almost engineered that these men reject intellectual arguments, don't care about being healthy or educated, and generally vote for those who actually make it harder for the working class to get by. They support the butcher with his thumb on the scale who has been pushing inferior meats cut way past the bone for years, just because the other butchers try to serve everyone fairly. It's a long con that has been very successful for the worst extremist capitalists. They've removed most of the help a government can provide, and then they made the People afraid of the government. Very handy when POTUS needs to remove the FBI's credibility.

Yes, you can. (neodymium glass is famous for it) But it's unlikely that they do. Those glasses are worse than useless for two reasons. They could fool people into thinking they were "safe" and also, because they will attenuate visible light, the pupil of the eye will open up to compensate making it more likely that you will get the beam in your eye.

I think that is sort of what I was trying to say. I suppose trying to get someone else to accept the "evidence" is exactly the same as getting them to accept the faith in the first place. The two go hand in hand. Two sides of the same coin.

Evidence based explanations for god didn’t work out very well for you last time you tried (you got banned till Christmas) so now you’re trying to use philosophy to convince yourself of the necessity of a creator. Philosophy is o lot more flexible than evidence based science so you might actually last a little longer this time with your inevitable god rants but make no mistake, you will fail as long as you will not provide viable, comfirmed evidence for your religious stance, good luck though.

Not fully time lapse, but I did take (and post for friends and family) a long set of images from raw wood, through process, to finished product. Thx, mate. Super pleased with how strong and sturdy it came out. Little things like the trunnels holding my blind tenons into the mortises also make me smile. One last shot, this one with the leaf extensions in:

I think there's an issue here where people say faith when they mean trust, and the meanings are different. One can trust science and trust a doctor, rather than have faith in them.

Some scientists think they have solved the mystery https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/ "Even with a power of just a couple of Watts, the EM-drive generates thrust in the expected direction (e.g., the torsion bar twists in the right direction). If you reverse the direction of the thruster, the balance swings back the other way: the thrust is reversed. Unfortunately, the EM drive also generates the thrust when the thruster is directed so that it cannot produce a torque on the balance (e.g., the null test also produces thrust). And likewise, that “thrust” reverses when you reverse the direction of the thruster. The best part is that the results are the same when the attenuator is put into the circuit. In this case, there is basically no radiation in the microwave cavity, yet the WTF-thruster thrusts on. So, where does the force come from? The Earth’s magnetic field, most likely. The cables that carry the current to the microwave amplifier run along the arm of the torsion bar. Although the cable is shielded, it is not perfect (because the researchers did not have enough mu metal). The current in the cable experiences a force due to the Earth’s magnetic field that is precisely perpendicular to the torsion bar."

Roughly inverse to the scale factor [latex] T\propto\frac{1}{a}[/latex] keep in mind its an approximation its more accurate to use Bose and Fermi Dirac statistics but far more complex as one has to account for each particle species. However its considered readonably accurate scale factor is a dimensionless value comparing radius then to radius now [latex]a=\frac{r}{\dot{r}}[/latex]

Not a bad summary +1 though I would probably describe unsmoothness as anistropic.

He and his team have decided not to attack the facts, but to attack the fact finders. He knows the legal challenge is secondary to the political one. I feel confident Mueller already has evidence of criminal activity from Trump and his cronies, lots of it, too. He got help from Russia, probably from the Saudis, and his campaign “officials” actively sought it. His campaign manager changed the republican platform to help Russia. China invested in his properties to get help on trade. The gratf and corruption is there, but the president is the head of the justice department. Can the justice department indict or convict the individual with the authority to prevent them from doing so? Can the courts intervene, or does the constitution keep those powers separate? This is the constitutional “crisis” people are referring to, but none of it matters. I don’t think Mueller will indict him. I think he’ll hand a very well supported, extremely solid evidence based report to Congress so THEY can act. This isn’t a legal issue, IMO. It’s a political one, and that’s part of the reason the midterm elections later this year in November are so critical. Who has power in Congress will ultimately dictate who has control of the Oval Office and accompanying executive powers.

Black holes are highly confusing even to the sharpest scientific minds, so I won't go and claim that I know all about them. I recently read an article in my google feed claiming that two mathematicians have disproved the cosmic censorship, but at the same time let GR and Penrose of the hook because SpaceTime inside a Black Hole was not continuous and therefore could not be described by GR (alone). As to what Black Holes are made of: How the hell should I know? Because of the unsmootheness of SpaceTime inside a Black Hole, it might very well be possible that fermions can't exist in a black hole. But there is no reason to assume that MUST be the case, because, well, we can't exactly reproduce unsmoothe Spacetime to observe it. We would have to be incredibly lucky to observe a naked singularity, which *might* exist somewhere in the universe. The reason why we believe that we need GUT to understand what goes on inside Black Holes is because the energy ought to be so densely packed - even if it's not a true singularity - that there would be a state of matter equivalent to the time before the first Planck Time of the universe elapsed, all forces joined in perfect symmetry. I think it's a pretty good approach, but Black Holes aren't symmetrical. They preserve Angular Momentum and Charge, so there's a chance that fermions do continue to exist beyond the Event Horizon, without the force merge. Black Holes clearly ARE objects, albeit very obscure objects. They even have a temperature: Hawking radiation is a radiation with a thermal distribution. The more massive a Black Hole is, the colder it gets (but their accretion disks tend to be hotter). I also read something about more massive Black Holes, while they have a larger Event Horizon, actually being smaller than less massive Black Holes. The more confined the mass inside them is, the more uncertain the momentum of the particles inside them, and because momentum has more degrees of freedom than location, this results in a higher energy on average per particle - hence more mass. This seems to contradict the prior statement of more massive Black Holes being cooler than less massive ones, but we can only measure the temperature at the Event Horizon, which still is bigger for more massive Black Holes, thus radiating over a much larger area. Also this at least would infer that there are particles inside the Black Hole with individual mass and momentum, though they could be purely virtual particles - emphasis on could. Now that I've condensed a few things of what we don't know about Black Holes, I think I'll go to bed. My head hurts...

theta theta/10º theta/45º theta/180º etc. I don't think you are going to get an 'aha moment' from looking at things wrongly, which is what you always do. Radians have nothing to do with astronomy. It is a natural unit, based on the value of pi. There is nothing redundant about it; it has exactly the same amount of information as using the arbitrary (man-made) units of degrees. No. It is just more of your ignorant nonsense. Written in your usual infantile way. Why not take a year or two out to do an introductory course in mathematics? And then one on communication skills. Then you might be able to contribute something sensible to the forum.

Actually, filing a patent is relatively cheap. If your only objective is to prevent anyone else getting a patent, then filing your own application and then abandoning it is a good way of putting the prior art on record.

Raider5678 has been suspended for six months at his own request, in order to pursue employment and educational opportunities in a less tempting and more focused manner. We wish him all the luck in the world, and hope to see him back in time for the holidays.

I've watched a lot of these videos on YouTube. My recommendation is to focus on the intensity of the emotions, love or hate. The time duration varies a lot. Some people have seen it as little as a month, while others have taken 170 days. In this case, longer might be better. I mean, if the rice became moldy in one day in your setup, then one day of sending loving emotions to the rice may not have much effect. Also, the idea is to wait for one of the jars of rice to change by a noticeable amount. I'm curious what's the general plan if the experiment doesn't show the same results as found by dozens of YouTubers? Give up, or ask someone who's had good results to perform the experiment for you?

No it's not what the argument say. If a thing has a property then the property of that thing can't be explain by itself. For example you see an ant. Why that is the property of an ant? Having long antenna and bites. You can't explain the property in the ant itself. The universe can't escape from this analogy. Our universe has a property. Why the universe has this property? You can't answer it in the universe itself. What proof do you want? Philosophical or empirical? Why you said there are missing arguments?