Leaderboard

1) Using the standard definition of real numbers, you can't. If you think you have a definition or construction that will allow it, you will have to provide it; in doing so, you may have to demonstrate the properties you usually take for granted. 2) You defined (or claimed) "neighborhood of infinity" to mean numbers that can be expressed as "infinity hat minus a real number". That is not standard at all, and would break the usual real numbers. 3) You are discussing your own construction, which is not the usual complex numbers. No complex number (or real number) is of the form "infinity hat minus b".

Hello everyone, As a 28 year old elementary school teacher, I am currently in the works of an extensive school program that educates children not only in academics, but in global environmental issues and moral values as well. As it stands, if all information proves to be true, I believe that our planet is on a path to certain doom if certain environmental issues are not addressed and seriously handled. In hopes that we are not doomed by then, I plan on helping educate the younger generation of serious environmental issues that surrounds our planet in hopes that the next generation of human beings can help find a way to save our planet. I have done research from various articles found across the web, but am interested in any other resources or issues that need to be addressed. Here is a list of some of the issues I am including: Air Pollution Water Pollution Plastic Waste Garbage and Waste Disposal Overpopulation Natural Resource Depletion Global Warming Deforestation If you have any other ideas or topics that you think the students should know about, please feel free to post your thoughts. If you have any other resources about the severity of the issue, please post them here. I greatly appreciate and value the feedback from the members of the environmental science community and want to make sure that I am doing the students justice. Thank you!

What is existence? For example, we might say that a unicorn exists; therefore, in our understanding of the nature of existence; the unicorn has mass, has dimensions, has color. But unicorns do not exist (as far as we know), so they do not have mass, dimensions or color. However, consider a fictional universe. We might say that in... Harry Potter for example, unicorns exist (which they do) The unicorn would have mass, dimensions and color in the H.P.U. But does it exist? It exists as an idea, but can an idea contain physical properties? Please, discuss calmly.

Nice thought-provoking topic, Acreator. My own take on this would be that concepts -- on pain of denying their existence altogether -- must be instantiated somewhere in the brain. Supposing you're six years old and Dad takes you to the zoo. He points to the first kangaroo you've ever seen, "Look, son. That's a kangaroo". You have now added to your inventory of concepts that of a kangaroo, and presumably this would be reflected by certain changes in the neurostructure of your brain. Now, one common mistake we must be wary of is to confuse a representation with that which is represented. For example, surely we don't suppose the concept heaviness is itself heavy, or that the concept immortality is itself immortal? And by similar reasoning, the concept Bigfoot, say, is not itself Bigfoot, any more than a painting of Bigfoot is itself Bigfoot. Can we agree that paintings of Bigfoot exist? Well, there's bound to be a few out there somewhere, I suppose. Can we agree that Bigfoot exists? Well, maybe yes, maybe no; but I hope it's clear that this is quite a different question from that of whether paintings (cf. concepts) of Bigfoot exist. I'd say so, unless you're willing to bite the Cartesian bullet and deny that concepts are part of physical reality. But again, we must be wary not to confuse the physical properties of the concept with those of that which the concept represents.

IF something is still around when there are no observers then it can be said "to exist".

I have, both at school and on online forums. It is less noticeable in school but the teachers like to support one another, even if the others are complete nobs. They don't necessarily stifle the students because of it but they do like to overlook one another's transgressions and support nonetheless. But I have found it quite prevalent in online forums. You go to have a calm conversation about a subject and then some blowhard that's been there since Noah went to Las Vegas with Jesus and OD'd, comes along and starts throwing pointless facts at you that don't even pertain to the subject at hand. it is quite disturbing to find groups and individuals like this.

Never. But some clubs suffer from people wandering in off the street, refusing to read or follow the rules and then sh*tting on the carpets. The management, with the support of the regular members, then have to clear up after these delinquents and, in some cases, throw them out. Sadly, some of them keep coming back with a false moustache and a fake name. Does this sound familiar, “Reg”?

No. They admit she's telling the truth. They just don't care. They are voting to advance an agenda, victims be damned.

So low quality feed eaters have to be large. Like rabbits, I presume.

There is absolutely no reason at all for thinking that delaying this, or going public when she thinks an obvious wrong is happening, is any reason to think she is lying. That is a really offensive statement and one that shows you are totally detached from the real world. Or at least the one that most women live in. Oh, yeah, watching TV makes you a real expert.

You haven't defined how far you want to go back in asking what they evolved from. The answer would be very different depending on this. I am assuming you are after another species of ape. In any case these things are impossible to define. Because the evolutionary tree is always constantly branching, and fossil records are very patchy, it can never be said for sure if something is a true ancestor or just a 'cousin'. And as far as I know there are no (or very few) fossils of recent ancestors of gorillas. Every living thing shares an ancestor with humans including bacteria. Again, it just depends how far you go back. The most recent common ancestor is what you're after and our most recent ancestor with gorillas existed around 7 million years ago (cf Chimp - 6 million, orang utan - 14 million)

There's more than one type of average, and what you describe is not an "average" in QM. The integral of |psi|^2 gives you a probability, and integrating over all space gives an answer of one, by definition.

! Moderator Note It's pretty clear you aren't here to learn the way everyone else is, and would rather soapbox your misunderstandings. Please read the guidelines for posting before opening any more threads.

That is perfectly normal practice. What the OP means is that the average or mean (value) of a function over an interval (a, b) is given by [math]Av(f(x) = \frac{{\int_a^b {f(x)dx} }}{{b - a}}[/math] It is worth making the point that for waves symmetrical about the x axis this value is zero over a whole cycle, so we take the root mean square value instead. This is how the product of the function appears in the integral, except that for complex valued function squaring it will yield another complex value in general and we want a real valued answer. This is done by multiplying by the complex conjugate instead of itself.

Rather than castigate me for attempting to examine your particular brand of logic and philosophy, perhaps you should apply it to your own work. In your opening post you assterted the non existence of 'the scientific method', thereby in your own view removing any possibility of making a true (or false) statement about the method, however defined. So this entire thread is pointless and you are just prolonging it for the sake of argument. And it seems to be going round and round in circles, wandering further and further off topic. Therefore it must be time to drop the final curtain.

There have been several people who have brought this book up recently, in this context. And they all seem to have missed the point if it. One point being that the jury came to their inevitable verdict despite the evidence that was presented. That's a more salient parallel than the wrongful accusation. OK. Victim blaming is my red line. I'm out. Don't anyone bother quoting/responding to me. This stuff is making me ill. It's sickening.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-early-universe-fluid-quark-gluon-plasma.html The early universe was a fluid quark-gluon plasma: Scientists from the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and their colleagues from the international ALICE collaboration recently collided xenon nuclei, in order to gain new insights into the properties of the Quark-Gluon Plasma (the QGP) – the matter that the universe consisted of up to a microsecond after the Big Bang. The QGP, as the name suggests, is a special state consisting of the fundamental particles, the quarks, and the particles that bind the quarks together, the gluons. The result was obtained using the ALICE experiment at the 27 km long superconducting Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. The result is now published in Physics Letters B. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-early-universe-fluid-quark-gluon-plasma.html#jCp The above article and experiment would add even further validity of the BB and the universe evolving from a hot dense state. Is there any other scenario that maybe formulated from that experiment? extract: "This is a collaborative effort within the large international ALICE Collaboration, consisting of more than 1800 researchers from 41 countries and 178 institutes." You Zhou emphasised". Isn't it comforting knowing how science can and does bring communities, different ideologies together? The ISS is another great example of that.

Harry Potter is a boy wizard - True or False?

You have chosen an example using things that physically exist, and for which such certainty exists. But this is physics. What if this is applied to things that are somewhat less tangible? Is a concept part of reality? Like this. Unicorns can indeed be sexy, if we are talking about a concept stemming from a mythology. In fact, one could define such a creature as being sexy, since the concept is unfettered by the constraint of having to physically exist. And yet it is very useful. Thank you for confirming that truth and reality or not the same thing. He is entitled to his opinions. If it's truly unobservable then it is not measurable in any way. There's no way to test it. It's not part of science. It lies outside of the scientific methods. In my limited observation, there seems to be a strong correlation of "shut up and calculate" with experimentalists, and the opposite view with theorists (especially ones who ponder foundational issues) and insist that we must wrestle with these philosophical issues in order to do physics. But I have yet to have anyone tell me how the philosophical issues will help me align mirrors in my experiment.

Unlike the religious fanatics you appear to have a soft spot for, and once again, science to its credit is not based on proof, faith or any mythical obscure book as guidance. Science if it does not have it right in some area, will end up in time getting it right, in the future. But just in case like another one once conttinually pushed, if by right you mean truth or reality, then once again you are certainly wrong and have a poor picture of what science and scientific theories and models are about. Theories and models are based on experimental and observational evidence...whether that model or theory is this truth or reality is of no great concern, as long as the theory or model continues to make successful predictions and continued aligning with observation..eg: GR and its prediction of gravitational waves which we all know now has been verified, at least five times from last count. You claimed they have evidence as good as the scientific evidence. Please support your statement. And again, no evasion on my part at least. The scientific method stands and will continue to stand...at least the basic support foundations that I listed.

I'm here to learn science and boost my understanding of concepts I'm not totally familiar with. Again the scientific methodology does not need me defending it...it stands as the best methodology we have and successful. Your attempt to simplify and y apply non existent supposed guidelines is in error as I outlined in my first post. The error in your claim and the professionals you claim that support that opinion is not as clear cut or precise as you would like the forum to believe. The motivations of those arguing against a Scientific Method is I believe to be faulty and philosophical in nature. Here are a few of the real life characters in that show the myth in the philosophical claim that the scientific method does not exist.......Aristotle, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and a hundred others that could be named. https://www.thoughtco.com/oversimplification-and-exaggeration-fallacies-3968441 Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies:

Single,? invariant? so called? If real, ? You seem to want to apply strict unnecessary guidelines to what is generally accepted. From my own lay persons perspective, I see the scientific method as the "foundation" to science, with various paths based on that foundation. Understandable then why you seem rather indecisive and doubtful. What is that foundation? [1] ask a question: [2] Research: [3] Formulate an hypothesis: [4] Test said hypothesis: [5] Collect, study and research results: [6] Publish and promote continued tests, observations, experiments. Perhaps because of your rather strict uneccessary guidelines. Perhaps you are too sensitive to criticism of your rather inflexible guidelines? And of course it is a fact that many times this and other science forums are confronted with over zealous religious fanatics. Again one could interpret that as over sensitive to any and all criticism of your opinion based on inflexible guidelines. On Einstein's quote, firstly I don't agree he is denying the existence of the scientific method, and secondly it is easy to take quotes out of context. Although obviously they may all go about it in various different paths, the foundation of the scientific method I'm sure would underpin all results. I could agree with that. Science and the scientific method in my opinion is simply the application of logic, based on current knowledge. Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. Thomas Henry Huxley. Great stuff! Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know. Bertrand Russell Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists...Richard Feynman

We'll find out if it cra

Many institutions are plagued by what is commonly referred to as an "Old Boy Network" wherein the top brass engage in a program of mutual protection and self-interest; overlooking -- perhaps even encouraging -- each other's transgressions at the expense of stifling merit and creativity in the lower ranks. Have you had any first hand experience of this? Discuss.

That said, while I don't agree with blaming the victim for the delay (or never coming forward), I don't see piling on the negatives on Mistermack. Trump has already said and tweated much worse. According to a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, a little over half of Republicans said they would consider voting for a political candidate who had been accused of sexual harassment by multiple people if they agreed with them on the issues. Conversely, 81 percent of Democrats say they would “definitely not vote for” the candidate. https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-reproductive-health-midterms-trump-kavanaugh/ So...they thus claim over half of the Republicans would consider voting for Trump...pretty solid limb they are crawling out on

Seem the Majority of Republicans are either dismissive of the seriousness of sexual assualt or rank get what they want above any sort of moral principle.

And as folks have repeatedly told you, the way the system is set up it does not make any sense for a woman to do so. Hardly any of the accusations, even if done timely and with physical evidence, result in conviction. At the same time the accusers gets scrutinized, shamed, shunned, blocked in their careers and otherwise abused for what? Doing the right thing that no one cares about? There is a reason why many women, even if they report straight away, eventually withdraw. Not because they were not truthful, but rather because it puts an enormous stress on them without a real chance for justice. Under these conditions the rational decision is not to report. It is easy sitting on the high horse and tell everyone to do the right thing if oneself does not have to deal with consequences. Note that this is perhaps even worse for men who get raped, as the whole masculinity thing increases the likelihood that they are not believed. While lower in total, it is not surprising that the rate of non-reporting is higher in men.

@swansont @Ten oz Perhaps you guys should take a step back and review these statements for a little bit. Zero weight should be given to someone saying they are innocent. Let's say X accuses Z of a crime. You're giving Z zero weight unless they can prove they are innocent(You didn't technically specify this, but I'm taking the liberty to assume it's in there). If that were the case, X can simply come up with a crime to accuse Z of that Z cannot possibly defend against. So, let's say X was to come up with an ideal accusation. Something that happened decades ago Something that Z will be devastated over unless he can prove himself innocent. Something that Z cannot prove himself innocent of. Well, now you're faced with a problem. How do you come up with something that Z can't prove himself innocent of? Typically evidence is based on 4 things: Who, What, Where, When. If you cannot prove to me at least 3/4 of those things, I don't personally consider it evidence. "Why" doesn't matter. Simply saying someone had the motivation to do something isn't evidence. "How" is typically included in the general overview of those 4. So X, in coming up with the crime, accuses Z: Z(Who) almost raped me decades ago(What). I don't know when(When). I don't know (Where). Z is now in the position of defending himself. He can't prove himself innocent by saying where he was because they don't know where(Where). He can't prove himself innocent by saying what he was doing at the time because they don't know when.(When). He can't prove himself innocent of what happened because the thing that happened yields no physical evidence(What). The only evidence he can tackle is who. However, the only way he can do that is by saying: I didn't do it. If you give Z zero weight unless he can prove himself innocent, you're guaranteeing there is no way he can defend himself. When I was a young man I read a book once called "To Kill a Mockingbird". I know a lot of you younger generations no longer read this book because it's either considered boring, or it's considered racist by schools. However, I highly encourage you to read this. It's a truly amazing story. Inside the book, you see what happens when the burden of proof is laid at the feet of the accused, and not the accuser. You can tell all you like that simply requiring the innocent to prove their innocence against accusations won't hurt anyone, but it can. And it will. Now taking this statement into consideration, it becomes all too much like "To Kill a Mockingbird". Now you're saying Z, because he belongs to a certain group, is held to a different standard than another. Inside of "To Kill a Mockingbird" the man who is accused of sexual assault belongs to one such group, and as a result, he's required to provide evidence, while his accuser, is not. An innocent man is executed because of it. What you are saying is that those who don't agree with your political views should be required to provide evidence simply to prove themselves innocent, while those who agree with your views are not required to, because their word should be taken. This reminds me of my time in Cuba, literally decades ago, where my friend was arrested based on an accusation by a communist. (In Cuba, if you belong to the communist party you are a card carrying communist.) My friend was not a card carrying communist, and as such, the burden of proof was thrown at his feet to say he was innocent. He couldn't do such a thing, and he went to prison as a result. I left Cuba years later, and I have no desire to return to an area where political views decide your innocence. So please @Ten oz, do not advocate that America become such a place. I, and millions of others, suffered under what you're proposing. And I know you're not doing it out of hate, but sometimes even the best of intentions can lead to the worst of situations. You guys are both intelligent young men. Use the past and look into history. Learn from my generation's mistakes. The world cannot afford to make the same ones again.

Stop making sense. It's lost on conservatives. They are scorched earth all in on this issue. Trump deferred to the Federalist Society, which tends to favor judges who take conservative stances on abortion rights and other social issues. Members of the Federalist Society have presented oral arguments in every single abortion case that has been before the Supreme Court since 1992. The society shares strong ties with political advocacy groups within the Christian family values movement.

And perhaps to emphasize again, it is only relevant one it hits the courts. Before that investigators will at one point or another consider credibility of the accused, accuser and victim as well as gather evidence under the presumption that a crime might have happened. If investigators do not believe that accusations are credible, it is unlikely that a proper investigation will be started nor will it end up with a prosecutor. At one point or another the investigator has to work with the hypothesis of possible guilt in order to develop an investigative strategy and use the evidence that turns up to strengthen or weaken the case. But anyway, as expected it seems that sufficient votes are in to push Kavanaugh through, Flake and Collins have declared that they are going to vote "yes". So there will likely a majority or a tie (which Pence can break). Edit: Manchin (D) also went "yes" so it is really done deal. With regard to OP, this is what happens in most cases when there are allegations of this sort. Nothing. Yet it is interesting that despite the likelihood of that outcome some folks fear the specter of women running around accusing folks and ruining their lives. It just seems so disconnected from the frequency of what actually is happening.

I have a feeling Kavanaugh will get his revenge once he's confirmed. This process is bound to sway his decision on matters that he might have wavered on. On the subject of his accuser, I still can't believe the easy ride she got when being quizzed. She waited 36 years, saying nothing, and only said something when he looked like being nominated. She should have been vigorously tested on that. Not just to be fair to Kavanaugh, but to be fair to the PROCESS of selecting the judges, which she might very well be attempting to corrupt. To me, her tactics stink. She's a psychology professor, but she took a lie detector test. What that tells me, is that it's the public perception that was her motive, from the start. She would know perfectly well the zero value of the result, and how polygraphs "work", and how to beat them. The result either way is meaningless. And she's lied about them as well, when asked if she has ever given advice on them. (according to a former boyfriend).

I agree that the rules you have proposed lead to the implication that infinity is a real number but I am not willing to concede that these rules are part of the definition of a real number. For that, you would need to present some third party source which say the rules you posed are part of the definition of real numbers rather than merely some properties which can be derived by only considering real numbers in the neighborhood of the origin. Until you do, I will stick with the definition in my real analysis book. If you have such a book it is probably in yours too: real numbers are cuts in the real number line. I just tried to google it and Wolfram doesn't define real numbers but I found the same definition on Wikipedia. I can post the link to Wikipedia if you want. Since you seem to have a brain and are not trolling me like user name "stupid idiot," what is your opinion on an implication that infinity is a real number?

The thing is, objectivley, a hole is an abstract idea. Even in our language, what we call a hole is not an entity, it is the place where an entity once was. So a hole cannot have temperature or color because it is not an entity in and of itself. However if you look at it as science, you can say that a hole, unless in vacuum, has the temperature of the air around it, and it's color would be that of the gas in it (Assuming that the hole is on Earth).

DNA Declares Death of Darwin DNA Declare Divine Design

A reference for my opinion? Yes, me.

Again, you're making a blanket statement. The realist would wholeheartedly endorse what you just said. The anti-realist, on the other hand, would likely balk.

Yea it does, because all of the motion in the present is caused by an uncaused event in the past. It can't be an accident that the universe has an orderly distinction between the past and future.

The program Sagitarius BR is for many years available on the Internet and also on this forum has already been cited several times. The program is save and has many users. The program Sagitarius BR (made in Excel) is very useful, because in an interesting, interactive way presents selected calculations in the field of astronomy. The program does not contain speculations only legible, easy to verify the real calculations.

There can not be scientific answer to how space and time were created in an instant. Yes there is. The past only exists to the observer that exists in the present. It is only possible to have the creation of space-time occur in the past because the observer is observing the event in the present.

The Supreme Court, silly. Oh wait, that's been stacked. Have fun with your new constitutional crisis. After this vote, the next vote will be to relegate all women to incubators for the state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade Lucky girls to have such a compassionate conservative government controlling their personal lives, especially in the light they're not to be believed.

On Jupiter there is not the same condition like on the sun. Hydrogen needs a very high temperature and pressure to do fusion reaction. A comet also don't have that energy. Regarding the produce of organic material it need the condition like on our planet. And some spirit of god.

Link removed

It is stupid to believe in DNA gene theory .Since chemical evolution is a fairly tale. It is against mathematics and against statistics and second law of thermodynamics.

This thread should be moved to the silly section. I can't believe you wrote that !! I think this whole thing is doing damage to women, but not in the way that's being trumpeted. By sending out the message that it's ok to wait 36 years to complain, you are doing genuine victims real harm. The truth is, for anyone out of the public limelight, they should be going straight to the police as fast as humanly possible. REAL rapists would just LOVE people to not report it straight away, because in the real world, it multiplies their chances of getting away with it many times over. It also means, if women out there follow her lead and don't report it straight away, that the rapist is still out there, roaming free, probably raping again and again. This Dr. Ford, if her story is true, let a man that she knew was a would-be rapist carry on his evil way, presumably doing the same thing over and over, all because she didn't report it. Not very public spirited of her. His wicked ways could have been nipped in the bud 36 years ago, if she's telling the truth. The safety of other potential victims doesn't seem to be something she ever cared about. The message ought to be, "report it straight away, if not for yourself, for the sake of other innocent victims".

Nah, you are wrong.

Obviously in the lovely sweet "real world" that you live in, women never make false claims of sexual assault, and dirty tricks are never used in politics. It must be great in there. Back in the real world, one of the two is lying. That seems to have escaped your notice. Either she's lying or he is. So your above statement is ridiculous. You're effectively saying it's really offensive to prefer his version. I find it ludicrous, the way the senators are performing cartwheels so as not to actually say she's lying. "I'm sure something happened to Prof. Ford, but don't believe it was Kavanaugh". The world has gone PC bonkers. They are all VOTING that she's a liar, but they're not prepared to say it out loud. It's like the Emperor's suit of clothes.

Firstly, I've made it clear that I don't believe Ford is a victim. Taking into account the timing, delay and obvious motive of her accusation, to me she's not a victim, she's a liar. As far as genuine victims go, I'm not blaming them, I'm pointing out the real-life consequences of not reporting rapes, or delaying reporting for long periods. Like it or not, a rape not reported often means another and another. I've seen enough FBI files programs, and the like, to spot the pattern. A woman gets attacked, doesn't report it, and ends up feeling terribly guilty when more women get raped and murdered, which she could have helped to prevent. But it's too late then. This is what wiki says about the Yorkshire Ripper's very first attack : "Sutcliffe said he had followed a prostitute into a garage and hit her over the head with a stone in a sock. According to his statement, Sutcliffe said, "I got out of the car, went across the road and hit her. The force of the impact tore the toe off the sock and whatever was in it came out. I went back to the car and got in it".[9] Police visited his home the next day, as the woman he had attacked had noted Birdsall's vehicle registration plate. Sutcliffe admitted he had hit her, but claimed it was with his hand. The police told him he was "very lucky" as the woman did not want anything more to do with the incident – she was a known prostitute, and her husband was serving a jail term for assault.[9]" Sutcliff was eventually convicted of murdering 13 women, and attempting to murder 7 others. I'm saying that the MESSAGE should be to report it immediately. And all of the downside of not reporting it should be made abundantly clear to all. It's up to the individual what they actually do. But people should be aware of the consequences of not reporting. Not live in this imaginary ideal world where the world turns cartwheels at every accusation that comes 36 years too late. People who are not in the limelight will get a nasty shock, if they think that they can do what Ford did, and get taken seriously. Professor Ford took 36 years, and then imagined that the world would treat her as if she was reporting something from last week. She seems to EXPECT that the world should drop everything, and treat her allegations as true. You can't have it both ways. Report it and get taken seriously. Don't report it, and trot it out just before your target is up for the big job, and you risk NOT being believed. As I said before, actions have consequences. Her actions led to the present consequences. In the tiny chance that she IS telling the truth, if she had followed what I'm advising 36 years ago, he probably wouldn't be getting the job now. So if it's all true, she's effectively helped him on his way.

Why reply so quick then? Leave it till 2054, you might be feeling better. If you think 36 years is reasonable.