Leaderboard

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.

Complete and utter gibberish.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-core-error-underlies-belief-creationism.html Core thinking error underlies belief in creationism, conspiracy theories: study: August 20, 2018, Cell Press: It's not uncommon to hear someone espouse the idea that "everything happens for a reason" or that something that happened was "meant to be." Now, researchers reporting in Current Biology on August 20 have found that this kind of teleological thinking is linked to two seemingly unrelated beliefs: creationism, the belief that life on Earth was purposely created by a supernatural agent, and conspiracism, the tendency to explain historical or current events in terms of secret conspiracies or conspiracy theories. "We find a previously unnoticed common thread between believing in creationism and believing in conspiracy theories," says Sebastian Dieguez of the University of Fribourg. "Although very different at first glance, both these belief systems are associated with a single and powerful cognitive bias named teleological thinking, which entails the perception of final causes and overriding purpose in naturally occurring events and entities." more at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-core-error-underlies-belief-creationism.html ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30863-7?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982218308637%3Fshowall%3Dtrue Summary: Teleological thinking — the attribution of purpose and a final cause to natural events and entities — has long been identified as a cognitive hindrance to the acceptance of evolution, yet its association to beliefs other than creationism has not been investigated. Here, we show that conspiracism — the proneness to explain socio-historical events in terms of secret and malevolent conspiracies — is also associated to a teleological bias. Across three correlational studies (N > 2000), we found robust evidence of a teleological link between conspiracism and creationism, which was partly independent from religion, politics, age, education, agency detection, analytical thinking and perception of randomness. As a resilient ‘default’ component of early cognition, teleological thinking is thus associated with creationist as well as conspiracist beliefs, which both entail the distant and hidden involvement of a purposeful and final cause to explain complex worldly events.

Insteresting. I’m observing the conclusions drawn from this research all my life all around me. Too bad they didn’t include a cure.

A combination of two things, mainly: the various colors they reflect or emit (lots of physics here), and how your eyes work (lots of biology here).

In this case yes; the original field was uniform. Now the flux lines preferentially go through the long dimension of the shields instead of passing through inside or outside. The electromagnet or transformer core is not a magnet itself. It concentrates the flux lines from the windings so that the north/south pole is stronger. Flux lines that might have left the windings further away are now in the core. In a shield, flux lines that might have entered the interior are instead in the shield walls. edit: https://quickfield.com/advanced/mu-metal_shielding.htm This is a different geometry (transverse to the cylinder instead of aligned with it) but it shows field lines outside but nearby the shield bending toward it, for the lines entering, and bending away when leaving. The field inside is small.

It's more of a placeholder for the staff. We keep notes on all reported posts, and infractions we levy on our own. We have members who've tested lots of rules and gotten many points but are still here. On the other hand, if you keep breaking the same rule over and over, we're going to assume that will always be a problem for you, and you'll be banned. We normally suspend before we ban, to show the consequences of poor behavior. But we don't have a rigid system, and try to take context into account. Discussions lose their meaning if they aren't done right. The rules were designed to keep discussions interesting, meaningful, and civil.

That's going to generate a magnetic field, which will be enhanced in the shielding material. Outside, not really. Depending on the shapes and sizes involved, you might modify the dipole pattern emanating from the box. You use a core in a transformer to ensure a strong field is in both the primary and the secondary. It doesn't enhance anything outside. Here's what a the fields looks like when a cylindrical set of shields is placed in a uniform vertical field. The intensity follows the color spectrum (red is the most intense field, blue is least. There is a small field present in the innermost cylinder) IIRC the exterior field would be depicted as orange

Do you know how CaO is produced? Mostly from CaCO3... CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2..

Let me wish you far greater success in your gardening thread (and gardening) than I had in my recent one, which received no replies.. As regards preparing a somewhat neglected patch for cultivation, don't expect too much too quickly. Yes you should most definitely dig over the proposed cultivated area before winter. I don't know if you have hard winters since you are a white bear, but frost action kills off many pests and breaks up large clods. You mentioned ploughing. Yes rotovating can relieve much of the work of digging. You don't need to achieve what is called a fine tilth before winter, just large clods will do. Cut back vegetation from around your area, and keep it cut back. Existing vegetation will harbour a source of pests next year otherwise. It will take 2 or 3 years to clean the csoil under cultivation of weed seed, roots and pest spores and grubs. So for the first couple of years you can expect lots of attacks on your plants. Birds help with the cleaning. Next sping turn the soil over and break down the remianing clods to a finer consistency (tilth) It is often said that potatoes are a good cleaning crop because the continual turning over of the soil promotes cleaning. Something to also consider is the cost of horticultural produce in your shops. Grow stuff which is expensive to buy, because anything that is 'in season for you' will also be in season for local commercial growers so will be at its cheapest then. For instance I grow soft fruit, particularly soft fruit, (strawberries, raspberries, gooseberries, blueberries etc). These are financially worthwhile. But tomatoes for instance are at rock bottom prices when mine would be ready, if I grew them. Capsicums and courgettes are a profitable crop too.

Enough said...

Suppose one creates artificial gravity in a rotating space craft, is it possible to show that geometry aboard the craft has been curved? For instance if there were different decks representing different gravity levels and students (on different decks) were to be doing regular (Euclidean) geometry lessons on graph paper with gridlines that they had made themselves, would the otherwise identical drawings appear the same when they were compared side by side at a later date? Would it be possible to say ,by looking at the drawings on which deck the drawings had been made? Or would perhaps the drawings need to be animated for this to be possible?

I don't think it obvious, irrelevant or silly, i think it qualifies your true position, so i can deduce from this you think all the elementary particles in the universe exist at the same time. Is this not one universal time? And that's true in relativity as well wiki-relativity of simultaneity In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame. I don't think the Dr Who character is that bad, i totally disagree he wouldn't be anywhere or anywhen, like all of us he would exist here and now, can you qualify yourself being anywhere or any when else?

Ok this is way too long but what the hell. Hope you find a nugget of wisdom in here. If you reply, no point replying paragraph-by-paragraph since that will make it even longer. Bottom line let's figure out how to define G. Your exposition is seriously stuck there. And at my end I'll make another run at your paper now that you've explained the prime products. > Great critique! I didn't design the proof with any sort of programing language in mind. However, I typically think in that sort of nested fashion. I have to say I was charmed by the idea. Almost like indenting a block of code. Theorem 1: blah blah blah Lemma 1.1: such and so Proof: blah blah Proof: blah blah blah blah. It really makes perfect sense. Unless you want to use the same lemma more than once I guess. For what it's worth, math isn't written this way so it's better to do things the standard way. By the way as I go I'm making stylistic remarks. One of the problems you're having is that you don't yet know how to write a clear mathematical argument. I'm doing my best to engage with your ideas and mentally filling in the blanks in your notation. But at some point the notation gets so garbled that it expresses no idea at all. You have something in your head, but I assure you that you have NOT expressed the idea in your paper. Reading ahead, at the end of your post you write: "I don't believe your questions yet disprove that this isn't the solution to the collatz conjecture." I quite agree. It's perfectly possible that you have a valid proof in your head. I can only tell you that you have not committed one to paper. And that more importantly, it's not that your ideas are clearly wrong. It's that they are so unintelligible as to be, in the famous words of Wolfgang Pauli, "Not even wrong!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong I hope you will take these comments in the spirit of sharp but constructive criticism. You need to make an effort to write a much clearer and cleaner mathematical exposition. Not on my account, I'm just some guy on the Internet. But your paper says it's been sent to the Journal of Number Theory. How are they expected to react when they skim down the page and see that (P_i)^(n_i) is "prime by definition?" Your case is lost at that moment. So for your own interest in promoting your proof to the world, I urge you to rewrite your paper. Define every term and variable, use consistent notation throughout, and pretend you're some hapless journal editor who has a pile of papers from established mathematicans, and another pile from people he's never heard and who don't have Ph.D.'s in math. The papers in that latter file will get very short shrift. Bad exposition will get you roundfiled very quickly. So. Onward. Looking forward, I did understand your clarififaction of the prime products, and I'll make another run at your paper with that understanding. But at some point I'm going to run out of steam. I really think you need to go to version two on this paper. What you have isn't enough to express an actual mathematical idea, no matter what is in your head. Which as far as anyone knows, is a valid proof of Collatz that will make you famous tomorrow morning. I can't disprove the possibility; for the simple reason that your argument as written is incomprehensible. > " On line 21 you have Lemma 1, an extremely trivial result for which you supply a proof. " -Though the result is obvious and trivial, I think it is worth mentioning since it is the underlying concept to why adding 1 to a prime causes the resulting primes contained in the composite number to be less. You're pointing out that if p is a prime, then p+1 is divisible only by primes strictly smaller than p. And that if you factor out all the 2's, then every remaining prime factor of p+1 is greater than 2. This is perfectly true. It's so trivial as to not require proof. The fact that you wrote it out as a lemma and then laboriously proved it is a credibility point against you. Someone reads that and thinks, "This person believes this needs proof. There is no way they proved Collatz." Just leave it out. > " On line 28 immediately following your end-of-proof square, it says, "Proof" and then begins a long involved proof ... of something, we cannot tell what. " - This is the proof of the G(p) = p +1, but I believe you figured that out. I truly thank you for reading my post in its entirety instead of snapping back line by line. I wish everyone would do that everywhere. I'm often guilty myself. > " Also please clearly define what G is. You say G(p) = p + 1 and then you want to iterate it, but clearly you CAN'T ITERATE THIS because p + 1 is not prime in general. " -I think a note here that explains why we can still apply the function to a composite number would work. The reason why we can iterate G(p) on any integer is because every integer is either prime or a composite of primes. The latter needs a little bit of work, but we can extract a prime out such that we have a number + a prime. Like stated above, E.G. 7*3 = (3-1)*7+ 7 Every time I ask you what G is, you respond with a convoluted paragraph and you never define G. You still have not defined G. Regarding notation, I think I have the right to expect you to know and follow the standard notation for functions taught at the high school level everywhere in the world. OUTPUT = f(INPUT). If you say f inputs a prime, and p is prime, then f is not defined for p+1. Like I say I'm willing to cut you a lot of notational slack in order to understand your idea. But on this we really have a problem. G(p) = p + 1 has the same meaning for every math student and physical scientist in the world. G(7) = 8, G(8) = 9. Someone earlier mentioned that you may be in need of the concept of a recurrence relation. This is a way of defining a function of the sort you have. For example here is how we can define the factorial function: f(0) = 1 f(n) = n x f(n-1) You can see that if you plug in 1 for n, then 2, and so forth, you always come down to the "base of the recursion" of n = 0, and the computation terminates. The idea is intimately related to how loops and recursion work in programming languages, and also the principle of mathematical induction in number theory. You might have a go at defining G in this manner. The paragraph you wrote is simply a massive red flag for anyone honestly trying to read your paper. You say G is defined on primes, and then you define G(Gp)) by waving your hands at the prime factors of p+1, but you never actually tell us how G is defined. I really hope you will take this to heart because you simply have not defined G and until you do, your paper can never get anywhere. > " You've explained this by saying that G is NOT actually the function p+1, but is rather your "prime reduction function" or some such, which you never actually seem to define. " -G(p) = p+1 is what I called the prime reducing function. I truly do get that you call G the prime reducting function. In fact I've figured that much out. What I don't know is how G is defined. And in particular, why you repeatedly say G inputs only primes, then immediately claim to compute G(G(p)). That's a logical contradiction. Another HALT instruction for the poor reader of your paper. > "I'll add that G^n(p) = p + 1 hardly solves the problem, since the right hand side is entirely independent of n. " -I suppose a better way to write that would be G^n (p) = 2^m , since after n iterations you get a 2^m number. I mean you're really only adding 1 a number of times until you reach a 2^n. its rather trivial if you think about it like that. G^n (p) = 2^m? Well the right side is not only independed of n, it's now indepent of p as well. So it's a constant function. G^3(47) = 2^m, and G^154(p) = 2^m. G^anything(p) = 2^m. And you didn't say what m is!! I simply have to draw a line. You either know how to use function notation, or else we need to talk about that before we talk about anything else. I can cut you a lot of slack on notation but not on this. What you wrote is meaningless and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with high school math past algebra I. That is not a good look for someone claiming to have solved a famous open problem. Again I hope I'm not piling on. I'm being emphatic in the hopes of being helpful. Your notation is killing your argument because it makes no sense. > "On line 29 you say that if p is prime, then p+1 can be factored as 2^q x product((P_i)^n_i). But if p + 1 happens to be a power of 2, such as 7 + 1 = 8 = 2^3, then none of the other primes P_1, P_2, etc., exist. I'm not sure if this is relevant to your argument but you should definitely handle this case. " -Fair enough, but if p+1 happens to be a power of 2 then the problem is done. We're only trying to create a string of 2's, so then we can divide by 2 however many times to get 1. We only do this because that is part of the collatz cojecture. Yes perfectly well agreed, once we get to a power of 2 we're done. Yet what you originally wrote was wrong as stated. You need to explicitly call out this case so that we know you're paying attention to your own work! > " On line 30 you have a flat out error though. You say that (P_k)^n_k < P. This is of course false. You have indeed proved that P_k < P, but that inequality does not hold for some arbitrary integer POWER of P_k. " -You are both correct and wrong. I shouldn't have written the notation with arbitrary powers of P_k, I should have written it as a fully expanded string of powers. 3^3 should be 3*3*3... We are attempting to handle individual primes, one at a time. Not some grouping of primes in a shorthand notation. " You compound the error on lines 31-32 by saying that (P_k)^n_k is prime. In fact you say it is "prime by definition." Of course for n_i > 1 it is not prime, it's a power of P_k. Right? " - I believe the prior answer to your prior question also solves this question. by definition of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic each P_k is prime. Ok I accept your explanation. It's on me now to reinterpret your paper with this new understanding of what you are trying to say. On your part, have you considered rewriting the paper from scratch in the light of some of these comments from me and others? > " ppps -- No, you don't have an argument left. On line 32 you apply the "prime reducing function" to a list of POWERS of primes, VERY FEW OF WHICH are prime in the general case. Your proof is busted right there. " - I believe rewriting the composite number as a series of primes with a power of 1 solves your question here. Very similar to the above two questions. Yes I agree. However, that's why I originally mentioned the following point ... > " I'll also mention that line 33 doesn't follow from anything that came before EVEN IF we allow that prime powers are prime (which of course they are not)! And what is the 'x' on the right side of line 33? " - Wrong notation here. In my mind "x" was the first prime we punched into the problem. so it should have been written as "p" not "x" Line 33 is supposed to show that for each iteration of G(p), the resulting primes are less than p and also less than the last iteration of G(p). What I saw was that you established your facts about the non-2 prime factors of p+1, then waved your hands that since each factor is prime you can recurse your way down to your conclusion. But I did not see a proof, just a vague intution that there's a recursion to be had. Without a clear definintion of G, probably a recursive one, you won't have a proof. That's why I mentioned that. I anticipated that even if I ALLOWED that p^n is a prime (!!!!) your argument STILL doesn't work. You glossed over every bit of detail you'd need to make your case. > E.G for the first iteration, let our p = 5 . G(5) = 6 rewrite 6 as 2*3, then rewrite it as (2-1)*3+3. (again the purpose of the rewrite is to show that we can get a prime number to apply G(p) to. So G(5) = 3 + 3 Then the next iteration is G(3) = 4 . so G(5) = G(3) + G(3) (there are two iterations here, since there are two 3's we're reducing) So after 3 iterations we reach a 2^n number and we are done with G(p). So 2 < 3 <5 I still don't get it. Let's nail down what G is, maybe we can figure out the proper recursive definition needed to make the rest of this work. "... we can get a prime number to apply G(p) to." Oh my. G(p) is the value of the function G at the input value p. It's not some other function. Or is G(p) some other function? That's legal too, functions can output other functions, for example the differntiation operator in calculus. High school function notation, please! I don't mean to be impolite but I need to ask this. Are you misusing function notation because you don't know it? Or because you aren't familiar with the recursive definition of G you'd need to give and are hoping we'll understand what you mean? If the latter, let's fix that. If the former, let's talk about function notation before we do anything else. > Note: I don't believe your questions yet disprove that this isn't the solution to the collatz conjecture. I have certainly proved that your exposition doesn't prove Collatz, since it's not a mathematical argument at all. On the other hand, I don't know what's in your head, and can't definitively say you haven't proved Collatz. If the latter, once you rewrite your paper and become world famous, maybe you'll give me credit for helping you fix your notation! > They do help enormously to clarify the logical jumps I made. Good to know. Now I don't feel so bad being so critical. I'm curious to understand your idea and your exposition is in the way so I'm trying to help you clarify the exposition. > In a simple sense, adding 1 to a number an arbitrary number of times such that you get a 2^m number is exceptionally trivial and intuitive. (Off topic) It's nothing of the sort. It's very deep. Suppose I give you the Peano axioms that say whenever you have p you can make p+1. I define addition as repeated "plus-one"-ing, multiplication as repeated addition, and exponentiation as repeted multiplication. I give you X = 2^2^2^2^2^2^2^2 where the operations bind right to left, so that this is a very very big number. If all you have is the plus-one operation, how do you know when you're reached X? It's a deep question. > of course if I add 1 enough times I will encounter an integer that is a power of 2. But this result is why the collatz conjecture itself converges to 1. Well that's a handwavy argument that doesn't convince me.

We know that time is not fluid-like and most are leaning towards it not being broken into fragments that could exist independently. We also know some fundamental properties of time like that it has an arrow - it runs one direction with events occuring one after another and never the other way around. An egg never goes back into its shell when you do scrambled eggs. There are various theories trying to explain what time is fundamentally, in physics time is explained simply by "what the clocks read" and that is enough for most purposes in physics. The question whether time has some fundamental properties is still open, we just don't know. We do know exactly how it behaves in most circumstances but we don't know if it had a beginning and we don't know if it will have an end. Time in physics is very much similar to gravity as for the level of our knowledge about it - we do know a great deal about both but we cannot say we know how they both work on the most fundamental level.

No, I remember history books stating the Nazis had lost the war. They lost territory as a result; what would they keep ? I'm not sure where you're from, but who were the original ( or at least previous ) peoples who lived there ? Should you leave and give back the land ? I live in North America,. Do I have to leave and give back the land to the native Indians ? Do all non-aboriginal Australians have to leave ? Do all white Africans have to leave ? Why are you applying this bizarre 'morality' only to Israel ? I don't think you're anti-Semite, because intelligent/educated people are not. And I respect your opinion, because Israel does do some things which are distasteful ( and don't help their cause ), but to liken them to the second coming of Attila the Hun is hyperbole. Especially considering the character of the neighbors they have to defend againts.

To get back to the point, does anyone consider my posts antisemitic? Because that's what the activists are pushing for. If they get their way, people who argue like me will be excluded from the Labour Party, and those already members will be forced out. That's the whole objective of the organised clamour against "antisemitism" in the Labour Party. To me it's obvious. It's nothing to do with antisemitism. It's about shutting up criticism.

Actually it's easy part. When application is connecting to the server, it negotiates encryption method. So if person is under "legal surveillance" (which the real judge approved! After seeing the real evidences which make crime plausible to happen, not "one big stamp" (quote from "Snowden" movie) ), server set up weak encryption, or none at all, and everything can be caught and decoded.. User is not even aware whether encryption is hard, weak or none.. I am against any type of electronic surveillance. There is no proof that somebody said or wrote words which were delivered through Internet. Anybody can pretend anybody. e.g. I could hack in Swansont, Phi for All, String Junky etc. etc. accounts on this forum, wrote anything on forum, and nobody would notice it's not message from the real member of forum. What is worth such "evidence in the case".. ? Almost nothing. But it's treated as very hard evidence right now! Anybody (hacker, programmer, ex-girlfriend, ex-boyfriend, ex-wife, ex-husband, co-worker in office etc. etc.) could pretend, and wrote something compromising (e.g. utilizing moment of distraction of the device owner).. Smartphone localization? It proves that smartphone was in that location, not owner personally of the device! One could "borrow" smartphone (or even make duplicate of SIM!), then commit crime, and return smartphone to owner who will have no idea about the case...

That depends on what you mean by "supports". I agree that they have legitimate grounds for complaint about the way in which Israel illegally grabs land and slaughters children. I can see how they feel that they have no viable alternative apart from resorting to violence- to match that leveled against them. Is that "support" or a simple recognition of the position in which they find themselves? That's a remarkably stupid assertion to make about someone who is a life-long pacifist.

What I don’t understand is people looking at obviously uselees ways of finding energy when there are virtually infinite (st least for practical reasons) sources of energy like solar and hydrogen right at our fingertips to use.

Here's the thing: you need to be precise, and use the proper definitions in order to be understood. If you want to change the acceleration of an object, that's what you say. You don't talk about changing g. If you have two objects on a pulley, changing the mass could change the direction of the acceleration. It's all described by the equations. Since you tend to use radial coordinates, no. r is always positive, and v is always positive. You can talk about the sign of the change in either of these, which could be positive or negative. Polarity isn't the correct terminology here. And neither is fall vs ascension. Having zero acceleration does not mean that the object is stationary, and acceleration downward does not mean that the object is moving downward.

(D_i)d) (hE)? As you claim this, my starting assumption has to be that it is not true. But, even if he did, so what? That is not the modern definition. No they don't. No it hasn't. But even if it had been, it wouldn't matter because the two definitions are equivalent. And note: "watt" not "Watt". (Details mater in science, which is why you are doomed to failure.) And you do realise watts are a unit of power, not energy? There is no law of conservation of power. Ignorant nd incoherent gibberish. Nonsense. Not knowing what dark energy is does not mean we don't know anything about energy. That is like saying that because we don't know what dark matter is we don't know anything about chemistry or physics. That isn't what you said. You can't pretend to be correct by lying. But if you are so proud of you ignorance of cosmology, I suggest you start a thread to show it off, rather than polluting this one with even more irrelevant and ignorant ramblings. I really don't know why you post on a science site: you are almost totally ignorant, you are unwilling to learn (because you believe your ignorant guesses trump years of theoretical and experimental science) and you have a very poor opinion of scientists. Perhaps you should find a more appropriate forum. Perhaps one about sewage engineering. Emmy Noether was a woman. And of course you don't know about her, I wouldn't expect you to. You would need to study science, which you are unwilling to do. You prefer to just make up random nonsense.

Perhaps we should aim for simply answering questions and increasing understanding without the observations about a person's relative ignorance on a particular subject.

Train has schedule to depart at a certain time and then uses image recognition to ensure no passengers are too near the train prior to departing. That said I don't see them automated anytime soon not because it isn't possible but because people are unpredictable and it is safer to have a train driver and security than not have them.

Adding heat from the exhaust would result in used fuels mixing with unused fuels. This will replenish the used fuels, as they cool, and then there will be homeostasis. Very good idea! This will result in getting more fuel out of the engine, and, reusing old fuel. To make it even more useful, you could 'condense' the used fuel to create a permanent fuel cell, like a rechargeable battery, yes? Be careful, there might be too much density build up, but I cannot see that going on for a while, but, it will heat up the engine as it purrs along...

Ten Oz, I suggest you read the descriptions of Trump in the media and from the 'celebrities' if you want to know what smears I mean. Or are you saying that this is the first you have heard of Trump being smeared, insulted etc? You neglected to mention in your employment stats that there was a major adjustment by Obama in the way that the stats were measure when part time employment was lumped in with full time employment and given equal weight. ie a fudge. In any case the fact remains that employment really is up despite the claims that Trump would trash the economy. I have to admit to an error earlier. The Democrats did actually manage 100% black employment a while ago before their scheme was destroyed by a republican president (Abe Lincoln) You are desperate to play down Trumps success in DPRK. I guess it is all you can do. The fact is that Kim is already in ful control of DPRK and any progress we make there is a lot more than was achived by any previous administration. You seem to think that none of the problems you list even existed prior to 2016. Airbrush, As you well know Trump gets plenty of abuse. Why would you try to deny it? ODonnel calls him a traitor a racist and a pig so he responds in kind. What is the problem? You don't like it when someone pays back?? Misrepresented? One example from above - he was a self made bilionaire before he inherited anything. So why the need to misrepresent that fact? YOu have just done it again with your point 4. Trump was worth a billion when his dad died and left him 200M. You just cannot deal with the fact that someone you hate (despite not being able to tell us why) is also someone who is successful. So you seem to be saying that Trump is building on the 'success' of Obama? So what exactly did Obama do to create this 'success'? Was it by making energy more expensive? Was it all the extra government workers? Was it be making healthcare more expensive? Banning gas fracking? Giving money to Iran? What was it?? Fake news? What area? General? OK, the 'news' that Trump dumped all the carp food in the pond in Japan. That was memorable because apart from being false it showed that even the most trivial and unimportant detail is still going to be misrepresented by the media simply because they see that as their job. SO they have no credibility when it comes to more important stuff like the whole 'Russian Collusion' fiction. Two years and still not a shred of evidence! Once again John is desperate to convince himself of the inheritance story. Trump was loaned a million dollars and he turned it into a billion before his dad died. Putting it in a bank would NOT have delivered that return. Trump has not been bankrupt so that is another popular misrepresentation. Five of his businesses have failed. That is what happens sometimes. Given that he has started about 400 that is not a bad rate. In any case the smear is all that matters to you. The fact that you can tell me that a self made billionaire is not a financial success is just ridiculous and goes back to what I said earlier - some people are so deranged that they cannot accept simple facts. Trump is a billionaire and he did it himself, no matter how much you wish it were not so! The family of servicemen asked him to intervene. The fact that you have to misrepresent that is just beyond lame. And finally you try and tell us that the economy is doing nothing. Well, if it makes you happy to convince yourself then keep clinging to it.

Because the Earth is curved and the orbiting object is falling towards it. I mean, really. Sheesh. Your ignorance is absolutely staggering. Unbelievable. I know people who propose their own "personal theories" are usually relatively uneducated but you don't know ANYTHING. You know NOTHING. I cannot believe how little you know. How did you manage to learn so little in school? http://www.astronautix.com/n/newtonsorbitalcannon.html Puhlease try and learn the sort of basic physics that schoolboys know before going round trying to say that all of modern physics is wrong. Your attitude is just delusional. No one will take you seriously when you base your ludicrous assertions on total ignorance. I suppose learning is hard work and making stuff up is easy, but it is just pathetic to watch. Please stop it: You are embarrassing yourself and disappointing the rest of us.

Sorry John, but that doesn't make sense to me from that perspective. I haven't (really) noticed when the moon fell down onto the earth, & crashed. Significantly the moon earth distance varies a bit, but radially to say "fall" as in "down", isn't that relatively out of the question in radial coordinates? Does that mean a helicopter, hovering at constant height is falling (too)? I'm talking about the observed phenomena of decent to the earth's surface. Are clouds (that are hanging in the air) falling? Yes, sometimes. (I'm not perfect.)

You can always just move on and let others choose to observe and comprehend without your inappropriate remarks. To say something is gibberish or trash is implying that everything has to pass and abide by your level of understanding for it to Merit an appropriate and constructive response. Its very primitive.

Yes I must admit it was difficult (getting stuffed with too much info, that conflicts). Sorry, but the paradoxes stand out (to me). How then is it falling? It does not fall (wrt radial coordinates; instead (it falls) only wrt cartisian x,y,z coordinates, because it curves.) Your (radial) perspective is inconsistent. Radius r, & height h do NOT change when weightless.

Why not?

I'm exclusively discussing vertically. i.e. radius r. No bout adout it in x & y. Quite right. Again x,y,z. To summarize, I don't find a delta r wrt time; I only find delta x & delta y wrt time. You'll need a different strategy to convince otherwise for the radial coordinate system. I cannot lie to myself & believe it. Sorry it won't work until you guys start making sense on that point, so it's better to drop the radial theme til then.

I didn't say oscillating the speed. I referred to the vibration (up-and-down) of the metal apparatus on a metal table. You can see it vibrating and I wasn't referring to varying the speed. But thank you for telling me that the sides may have something to do with it, maybe so (the hidden part). I doubt it, because the shape of the regularly spaced tabs that are welded and curved to shape like a fan (when the apparatus is vibrating like hell, again not referring to speed but vibration like that football game that vibrates and causes the players to move randomly). The bird crap tabs shaped like tabs when the apparatus is vibrating is an up-down repeating and regular oscillation from the vibration and those tabs convert to circles side-by-side when vibrated (just look at the f****** video and you can see the conversion to circles in the back from regularly spaced tabs to circles just look at the f****** video). Putting circular raised solder blobs on your rotating metallic cylinder in the back on the metal rotating cylinder, would "bump" the air up-and-down as well as those "bump" impact air along the rotating cylinder surface with now bumps on it. But you also need the curved metal repeating bird drop weld in the back which you already have. The vibration causes them to close over a neighbor forming a train of continuous circles side-by-side whereas without vibration they were only regularly spaced curved lines with distinct spacing (having circles, which have nothing to do with the blobs of solder in the shape of tiny half spheres placed on the cylinder surface, now causes repeating tubes of air parallel to each other in a circle along the cylinder and the tubes of air exit which is what is drawing the air in just like a fan along those tubed, like you said you found something new). Putting the apparatus on a nonvibrating surface and doing what I told you to do, which is putting circular or half sphere blobs in some pattern on the cylinder wheel does the same thing the vibration does so you don't need to vibrate it any more. Sorry if I burst your bubble. By the way, this reminds me of the Enigma machine or similar machines that were cryptographic and makes me wonder if the raised circular blobs (which you don't have but I'm saying put on the cylinder surface so you don't have to vibrate it) on the rotating cylinder might have some other application.

This is the most ABSOLUTE APPROPRIATE LOGICAL EFFECTIVE WAY TO APPROACH ANY PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS OR in essence HIGHER PHYSICS. Infinite Levels of Observation and Perception.