Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/22/18 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Why DNA manipulation? Why not just cut the fore-arm and stick a whip in there. Army of darkness style. Also: what are you talking about? That's the most random question I ever heard. Did you imagine that there is a whip gene? And you get it into your bloodstream and become whip-man?
  2. 2 points
    I actually have your back on that last point. Einstein was told that hundreds of physicists disagreed with his theory. He said: "If my theory is wrong, it would only take one." I agree with you that it doesn't matter who agrees with whom. If the whole of established mathematics believes one thing, and you believe another, and you have a proof, then you are right and they are all wrong. So ... have you got a proof?
  3. 1 point
    I think we are talking about quite different scales here. I mean, I do not see autonomous deep sea habitats, either, for example. Shooting something to Mars is the easiest feat out of the whole thing. In a way that reflects partly sentiment. We have a whole planet that is relatively easily accessible to explore and preserve. Our whole lifetime is insufficient to explore the vastness of it. Compared to that sitting in an artificial habitat amidst rocks just seems so... boring. Like a highly exclusive travel to a spot for elites with really not that much to do, compared to a cheapo road trip which allows you to experience things. But again, I am a biologist, and I guess there are other folks who would prefer deep conversation with rocks.
  4. 1 point
    Probability and energy density are related. Whenever the energy arrives within a detector, in equal quanta of energy, then the number of quanta detected by any given detector, can be inferred, from the ratio of total energy detected, divided by the energy per quanta. This fact is independent of the nature of the quanta; the debate about particle vs. wave is irrelevant. All that matters is that the quanta have equal energy. Which is why the experiments are always designed to ensure that is the case.
  5. 1 point
    we are nothing but chemistry. i have spent a fair amount of time reading about nde's over the years. ive watched many of sam parnias videos, and some guy in england though have forgotten his name. these 2 are fairly regarded as doing the 2 largest studies into nde's. as they are both trauma doctors, "cardio resuscitation", they can get first hand experience of people that are near death. im sure they have probably had experience with people that are actually dead as well. i.e., they go from the trauma ward to the morgue. however, while im sure they have great knowledge in their own field, there is more going on then just what their field teaches them. sam, in one of his videos expressed that once the heart has stopped they are for all intents and purposes dead. however the brain can function for 6 minutes (mayby more) after the heart stops beating. he considers this irrelevant. he chooses to ignore the concept that the brain is still doing 'something' for those 6 minutes. the brain can do many wonderfull and crazy stuff while we're asleep, who knows what other stuff it can come up with when its sent into 'emergency stress mode'. as far as nde's being able to see or know things they couldnt possibly see/know, well people that are asleep can do that too. its called , the brain putting together pieces that we are not consciously aware of. nothing spooky, just the brain working behind the scenes. people "seeing" something in those 6 minutes while the heart has stopped but the brain is still functioning doesnt prove anything apart from HES NOT DEAD YET.
  6. 1 point
    You are missing the point. Just because a set is well-ordered does NOT mean it looks like a1, a2, a3, ... First, the a1, a2, a3, ... order is the usual order type of the natural numbers. There are a lot of other well-ordered set. Secondly, enumerating a1, a2, ... implies that your ordered set is countable. But a well-order of the reals is an uncountable well order. It starts as a1, a2, a3 ... but after the dots there's a lot more stuff. You said a while back that you don't want to learn about ordinals, but that's exactly the study that would clarify many of your misconceptions. A well order of an uncountable set can't be notated a1, a2 ... It BEGINS that way, but after the dots there are many more reals. If you diagonalize any countable list of reals, you'll find a real not on the list.
  7. 1 point
    He makes the claim that death is not an unpleasant experience, even if it was a painful or traumatic experience, except for those who committed suicide. He knows this how? Sounds like religious (specifically Christian) judgement on the sin of suicide. And then he's quite disingenuous about how he describes the time of death of a patient: often the cessation of a heart beat. The reality is usually half an hour after the nurse has bleeped some lazy doctor for the 3rd time, but now i'm ranting. But it is used for expected deaths. In unexpected deaths you commence CPR immediately because there's a chance the lights are still on i.e. they are still alive even though their hearts have stopped - a state of affairs that won't last long. Otherwise we'd have to say everyone who has had major heart surgery has died as the heart is deliberately stopped for some time (and put on a bypass machine). That's why no where uses the cessation of cardiac activity as the marker of death, but the cessation of neurological activity (apart from Japan i understand). Also find it quite funny when he says people can describe in some detail what doctors and nurses were doing. First those details are quite generic; 'someone put a cannula in my arm'. No shit. Second, the patient was there, even if in a moribund condition, so i'm not surprised if something slipped into their consciousness. Especially if CPR is being done effectively, getting blood to the brain, as the technique aims to. You may have experienced something similar while dreaming and music or a conversation slips into your dreams. Finally this type of research often asks patients about the experience up to days, even weeks, after the event. Plenty of time for the experience to be mentally repeated and unconsciously altered, as we all do with our memories. So yes, it appears this doctor is using the thin veneer of medical science to spout rubbish.
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
    The first thing is to confirm what thos numbers refer to are they volumes, masses or molar fractions or what? The second is more relevant to some of these possibilities than others What is the temperature?
  10. 1 point
    It seems to be the result of two factors; The reduction of pigment production, and the natural Hydrogen peroxide in your hair follicles which builds up over time and acts as a bleaching agent.
  11. 1 point
    Anyone can spot bollocks. It doesn't take any training at all. Actually it's believing it that takes years of very intense training.
  12. 1 point
    Am I? Studiot you are most definitely wrong about that. Since there are no infinitesimals in the real numbers, how could that possibly make sense? dx and dy are differential forms. They are not infinitesimals in the modern view. Nor were they ever. Nor did Newton think they were, although the historical evidence for that proposition can be argued. But mathematically, dy and dx are not infinitesimals. ps -- Sorry what? What is δ? I must be misunderstanding you. Off my game. (THAT WAS A JOKE!! FROM NOW ON I WILL CLEALY NOTE MY JOKES AS SUCH) Am I ? It would help if you quoted a complete statement. I most definitely said that dx and dy are not infinitesimals. What is your definition of an infinitesimal by the way? As to Newtons and his fluxions he published a book about them. The important point about making the distinction is that the dy and dx in [math]\frac{{dy}}{{dx}}[/math] are considered inseparable (In Mathematics) and maths teachers take great pains to emphasise this. Elementary teaching clearly states that [math]\frac{{dy}}{{dx}}[/math] should be considered as single object. This is partly why some authorities eschew that notation in favour of the f'(x) notation which is clearly not a ratio or fraction of anything. Treating them as separate entities is a Physicsy thing as I was accused of earlier. Differential forms are different again, and mostly used in Physics based subjects. On the other hand the infinitesimals have long been treated as separable, but they are out of fashion as I said, except with Engineers who have kept their flag flying through various changes of approach. The whole point about this subject I have consistently been making is there there are several approaches 'styles' if you wish, and that it is important to be consistent and not mix them up. I am perfectly happy to explain the whys and wherefores of all this, when you are ready.
  13. 1 point
    It's very relevant, since he uses the term perfection to describe the concept of the degree of adaptation to the environment. Darwin is using the word in a relative sense, and you have been using it in the absolute sense. So such a statement does not mean what you imply it would mean. Darwin might go so far as to say that such a binary statement isn't particularly illuminating, and explain why, at length.
  14. 1 point
    The laws vary greatly by state. There are 6 various ranging from felons permanently losing their right to vote to felons being about to vote from prison, Here. As a result the number of felons who cannot vote varies greatly by State. For example in Florida 1.7 million felons cannot vote. That is a significant number when one considers that in the 2016 election 9.1 million votes were cast in FL and just 110 thousand separated Trump and Clinton. Even if only a quarter of the 1.7 million felon who can't vote had been allowed to and chose to participate it would have had a dramatic impact. In Kentucky over a quarter of all African Americans cannot vote. In all 6 million people throughout the country cannot vote. Here is an overview of the 10 worst states, Here. Not surprisingly 7 of the 10 are southern states and 8 of the 10 are reliably Conservative states. Unfortunately too many people take for granted that the U.S. has a fair Democratic system. When something like 2016 happens despite evidence of corruption/illegality most people just accept that Clinton lost due to uninspired campaigning and too much baggage. Meanwhile Republicans systematically disenfranchise voters at every level they can to inch out victories. As noted above Trump won FL by 110 thousand votes yet 1.7 million people in FL weren't allowed to participate (21% of the African American community). In GA Trump won by 200 thousand votes and 250 thousand weren't allowed to vote. Republican are stealing elections, packing city and state legislatures, and further rigging the system to steal more elections. Meanwhile Democrats sit around and debate the likability of their Candidates. It is comically naive, willfully ignorant, and sometimes makes me feel like Democrats deserve to lose. Likability isn't going to get it done. At some point Democrats need to confront the tipping of the scales (voter suppression & voter disenfranchisement) that are giving away elections. FL gave the election to Bush back in 2000 and here we are 18 years later and Democrats still are fighting aggressively in FL to combat the problem. It is unforgivable. One can't win from losing!
  15. 1 point
    Like this bloke? and another..... Yeah yeah OK, I go back before the seventies!
  16. 1 point
    Whether Musk, or Lansdorp or NASA or anyone else is dreaming or not, we will put a man on Mars....colonies, I'm not sure when, but again, given the time... And no I'm not dreaming, political climate and economical conditions do and will change. Your concerns are real, at least some of them, but you are completely forgetting the human need to do what, and go where we have not gone before. Even if science is able to halt any potential devastating effects of climate change and change general attitudes in looking after this planet, we still will undertake all those difficult things that will quench our search for adventure, improve and add to our science, and knowledge, and spread our seed beyond Earth.
  17. 1 point
    Musk is dreaming - the timeline he has proposed won't work. With technologies within his/our reach, a Mars colony is not going to be viable. I don't know when or even if we will put people on Mars. It would be a notable achievement but not necessarily something that leads to where you think it will go. I see nothing inevitable in Mars colonies nor any great loss if we don't end up with them; when all is said and done it's a wasteland and the opportunities there are greatly exaggerated. The potential for being a viable backup planet in case Earth is rendered uninhabited is, with the real technologies within reach, unreachable. The threshold size for true self-reliance under such conditions is, I think, going to be that of a substantial nation, population and economy. I think that can only be an emergent outcome from a long history of being a successful - economically successful - outpost. If it isn't economically successful as part of the Earth economy it will fail to thrive and self-reliance will not occur - to become one more ghost town in one more place that began with high hopes.Terraforming Mars is just fantasy. Maybe we will get good at living in wastelands - but I think our technology will have to be extraordinary to be able to have a productive, advanced economy and society somewhere as desolate and unforgiving as Mars. That level of capability would make space habitats possible, in which case, why Mars at all? I think you saying the political and economic concerns are temporary and will change is one more example of wishful thinking - hype - and does not address the practical concerns I have raised with Musk's Mars ambitions - from the proposal to run things on solar when months long, planet wide dust storms are a regular occurrence to how such a colony, that can't even engage in return physical trade, pays for the continuing supplies they will require, they go unanswered.
  18. 1 point
    Humans are just one of the countless lifeforms on earth. If we have afterlife then an oak tree and a mosquito also have afterlife?
  19. 1 point
    My impression is that "Reg" uses jargon he picked up in the first year of philosophy course (failed) to hide a rather shallow understanding. He may consider that opinion to be "abusive" but so be it.
  20. 1 point
    I am not a fan of general statements which imply parity between Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately here in the U.S. we only have 2 major parties and despite various attempts by many to pretend they are both puppets cut from the same cloth there are measurable differences on nearly all matters between the two. When it comes to electing women for example there are 23 women in the Senate and 17 of them are Democrat. There are 84 women in the House and 63 of them are Democrat. So of the 107 women elected to congress in the U.S. 75% of them are Democrats. There are 3 women on the Supreme Court and all 3 were nominated by Democrats. Democrats were the first to run a Women, Geraldine Ferraro, on a Presidental ticket as VP in 1984 and the first to make a women their nominee for President in 2016. Republicans may nominate a Female for President in my lifetime. I am not saying it is impossible but I think it's not currently in the cards. Meanwhile on the Democratic side I will be surprised if either Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, or even Oprah aren't on the ticket as the nominee or VP. 75% of elected women in Congress being Democrat is not a coincidental number.
  21. 1 point
    Yes, but the more pressing issue is winning and reversing the Republican damage. I think her consolation is that history will write the truth about the Republicans and the way she was treated by them.
  22. 1 point
    You'll have to know that the DNA was mostly degraded in tissue samples and there was just enough stuff there (or more precisely, DNA quality was low) to allow the amplification of certain markers from initial isolates (or gut contents). It was not trivial to get sufficient high-quality material together to do decent sequencing. As a general rule in plaeogenetics, one starts of with grams of ground bone material to get out sufficient DNA as compared to the minuscule amount of fresh preparations. Of course, if only sufficient material for PCR is needed, keeping it dry and cool would be sufficient. Freezing is a possibility, but I would not add water. During the time needed for freezing and thawing you will have more degradation in an aqueous environment. For PCR probably not a big issue, but overall not helping. If you want to use a buffer, a higher pH solution with EDTA in DNAse free water would be a way.
  23. 1 point
    113, It would help to know if you are starting calculus at high school or restudying the subject more deeply at university? It may seem silly and obvious to say that when you start something you have to start somewhere. The way calculus was developed and the way we learn it is not the way it is formally collected together and written down in textbooks. So when you start (or restart study) there is much they don't tell you at first. This is not due to any malevolent intent, it is simply to make the presentation understandable. One of the reasons that differentiation is presented in the form it now appears is because there are many types of differentiation. You are studying the functions of a single real variable. The modern form can be extended to differention of Vectors (and tensors if you have heard of them) for instance. The idea is that we make a (small) change to the variable concerned and compare the result in the function of that variable to the starting point. With a single real variable there is only one sort of change that can be made, so implementation of the modern formula looks a bit over the top. But coming on to more advanced forms of differentiation, the 'derivative' is not even a single function but a matrix (called a Jacobian) or other multidimensional entity. On a historical note. Newton was basically a Physicist, who needed to invent most of the Maths he needed. He came to calculus of functions from the calculus (there are several calculi) of finite differences, which he invented. There are many formulae in this calculus which bear his name. He was doing this because he was interested in producing (interpolating) tables of values he needed and he was one of the pioneers of this subject. With the completion of most tables and the advent of computers, Finite Difference methods are not taught so commonly today. Leibnitz was primarily a mathematician, studying and developing the 'analysis' of his day. So he came to calculus directly from the theory of functions as it then existed as graphs drawn on paper.
  24. -1 points
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman (I love this site)
  25. -1 points
    Yes, this is what I have sensed through our conversations, I think you want me to accept that, and that is the key, you want me to believe, that we don't know answers when I do. I think my time on here for the minute is coming to a close, but I want to leave you with this. The consequence of my theory is that the universe is eternal, spatially infinte, immortal, this is the paradigm shift. It is going to have a profound effect on the world because this theory is going to unite people around the world in joy at the simple beauty of the truth of science. And to celebrate this unity I am going to suggest the introduction of a new global calender. This calender will have new names for the days of the week and the months of the year and everyone, regardless of what language they speak will use the same words for the days and months, so in a very small way we are all speaking the same language. And the year, that will go back to year one and instead of saying its 2018 years since the birth of Christ we will say it is 1 year since the dawn of eternity. I have thought about this alot, the world is going to become a profoundly different place, religion I am afraid doesn't have much of a place. Can you imagine that (remembeing that imagination is more important that knowledge), no more Mondays because Monday is now called something else?
  26. -1 points
    I hope that one day salt is truly understood.
  27. -1 points
    After watching a few minutes of Arse Talk with Sam Pernia, you have to notice what a bullshitter the man is. Yes, the brain can survive death, and even consciousness can survive death, AS DEFINED BY HIM. Only trouble is that his definition of death is pure bollocks. Where he gets with that bullshit I really don't know. Cons a few gullible people? That's not hard. Publicity? I hope it chokes him.
  28. -1 points
    Yes moving in relationship to whatever its near. When a semi passes you at a light or intersection you can feel it move you or the vehicle your in. The draft is as it passes it attract in the same direction as its traveling. Like the total direction of travel of the surface of the planet is moving and everything on it. The imperfections of the surface of earth like mountains and canyons and everything thats not smooth is moving in relation to space at around 1000. If your moving with it you wont feel the difference. Yes Venus doesn't have a giant magnetic field. The makeup of all the elements of that planet and it atmosphere or gases that moves around it. If it has lower gravity it has less of a magnetic effect depending on the elements. So just by the solar winds alone is leaving electrons behind on planet which is the static charges. Now with said static charges as the elements that are charged move they generate a magnetic field in the right conditions. Speed, size, and type of elements involved. So maybe it is magnetosphere that I'm thinking of. The movement like when in static electricity is generated. When the matter separate's there is enough positive charge strength to attract electrons from weaker matter structurally leaving it on the other matter involved. This is movement that creates magnetism at a level observable and measurable from the moving away action like drafting for example.
  29. -2 points
    Itoero; At least you have the sense to realize that this is about life -- not just about humans. +1 That is encouraging as many members do not seem able to comprehend the idea that all life is conscious, or aware, of some things and to some degree. But I think you have asked the wrong question. The first question should be can some form of consciousness exist without the benefit of a physical body? If so, what form would that consciousness take? How could it maintain itself? How long could it exist without a body before it breaks down? There are "theories" that there is a mental reality that mirrors physical reality (Dualism) and this is what people refer to as the "afterlife", but I don't see how it is possible, how it would work, how it would maintain itself, much less how it would adapt, evolve, grow, etc. My studies of consciousness indicate that awareness can not happen without space and time, and that awareness needs matter to focus consciousness. So I don't see how an afterlife that is devoid of matter is possible. Of course, I could be wrong. Gee Dimreepr; You don't know what consciousness is, but you know where it comes from? Does that seem rational to you? Because to me it seems a lot like the thousand year old debate of Monism v Dualism where no one knew what consciousness was, but everyone wanted to argue about where it came from. Irrational. If you look at my answer to Strange, it might answer some of your questions. Gee Strange; Do you know what perceive means? It means aware. If you perceive your body from anything but a first-person perspective, then your awareness, your consciousness, is outside of and separate from your body. This is a difficult subject to comprehend without coming to some very bad and invalid conclusions. There was a time when it took a mind like Plato's in order to absorb and understand this concept, but with the help of technology, I think I can explain it in a way that most people can understand. Consider that consciousness is essentially communication -- whether it is internal or external, it is all communication. So think of your cell phone as the body/brain and think of the telephone call as consciousness. Your voice leaves you, goes into the phone, then bounces off of satellites and multiple connections until it arrives in my phone, where it seems that you are inside my phone. Although the connection from your phone to mine seems almost instantaneous, there is actually a time when your voice is bouncing around in various places outside of the two phones. Most people would name this interim "bouncing around" time as spirituality and any recognition of it would be called a spirit, ghost, out-of-body experience, etc. So if your phone breaks, or the body/brain dies, then the communication (consciousness) would stop. But this does not explain how the communication (consciousness) moves outside of the phones, it does not explain what that communication essentially is or how it works outside of the phones, it does not explain "spirituality", and it does not give a time frame for how long it takes for the communication to break down and no longer exist in a usable or recognizable form. There are still too many questions that do not have answers. Although this comparison works for understanding, please note that I have no idea of how cell phones work, how their communication moves from one phone to another, or what it actually is. I know that consciousness works through chemistry, emotion, and bonding. It is also interesting to note that most reports of spirits, ghosts, etc., are made by people who deal with death on a first hand basis, like EMS people, surgeons, Hospice workers, or the immediate family of the deceased. And most of these claims are close to the time of death. This does not prove an afterlife, what it does do is show that the breakdown of consciousness is not instantaneous. Death scares the hell out of most of us, and turns many of us into idiots when it is discussed. So although there is a lot more to this very complex topic, I doubt the idiots and the 'click-it squad' will let me discuss it, so I will stop here. Don't make this request again. You know perfectly well that Religions would state that death does not stop consciousness, and you know that Science would deny that. You would want a "citation" from Science, and since Science does not actually study death or consciousness, that is a rather foolish request. Gee Mistermack; So you think his definition of death is "pure bollocks"? Why is that? Do you have some special medical knowledge that I am unaware of, as I saw nothing in your profile that suggested you are expert or even trained in this subject. Gee
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.