Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/08/18 in all areas

  1. I do not understand what in the link you are referencing. The link is literally about the fact that it was not different. From the opening of the article: More over the result by group was basically indentical to 2016 yet neither Clinton or Trump were on the ballot and all the political issues have changed appreciably. If you are claiming the "moderate middle" is the key what numbers do you have to support it? By group everyone voted the same as last time. The Edison survey (previously linked) goes into to great detail breaking voters down by age, gender, race, education, religion, martial status, income, and etc. There were no substantial changes or surprises on Tuesday. That is statistically demonstratable. You seem married to an idea and aren't soberly looking at the cold dry numbers. I understand why one would feel differently. All over the media pundits are weighing in with their take on why voters did X, Y, Z. It creates a palpable sense that these matters are considerably more fluid than they actually are. The media is in the ratings business and not the accurate information business. Pundits say what they say for the sake of their audience. They play up on peoples bias's, desires, fears, hopes, and misconceptions.
    2 points
  2. "The 2018 Electorate Wasn’t All That Different. It Just Voted Differently." If you're going to claim that, don't cite an article that says the exact opposite thing in the title and then goes in to say that what you're saying is false. The article goes in to say the composition of the voters was roughly the same. I.E.1/4 this group 3/4 this group, etc. However, those groups did not simply vote the same way, they voted much differently. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen such a shift(in the multi millions) of votes.
    1 point
  3. Same as the article. Then why is the article titled "The 2018 Electorate was not all that different. They just voted differently." Clearly not identical to 2014...or it would have taken significantly different proportions of each to get the significantly different results they got. It certainly is...and also worth noting this did not happen in 2014...the different demographic groups (most of them) voting differently being the most likely reason...(not turnout that favoured both) If Trump is impeached and incarcerated I would expect he would continue to brag to the guards and inmates...so no surprise there... I would hope the Progressives and Conservatives would both lament the fact that they missed an opportunity to appeal more to the middle...as that may have been the difference given the (apparent, but according to the article) stalemate on turnout.
    1 point
  4. Of course I have. I know many people (including my own family) who are too poor to afford truly healthy food. In many of these cases (as with some of my friends) there are small budgeting changes that could be made if they wanted a healthy diet but they simply don't care about it. On the other hand, there are far too many people who want to eat healthily but simply can't afford to. This can potentially be fixed by what I'm about to suggest below. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/03/31/news/how-grow-veggies-edge-arctic-circle https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE92P0EX20130326 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/antarctica-greenhouse-dlr-german-aerospace-center-2017-9 As of 2014 there are 570 million farms on the planet. 90% of them are family-owned, and family-owned farms produce 80% of the world's crops. However, 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides are used every year to maintain these levels of production. This can change by implementing Sensei's idea, which is: It is already being done, and if the crops are tended to properly then there is no need for pesticides or pheromones whatsoever. Also, there is enough open land to build such skyscrapers without needing to use what the farmers are already growing on. Biopesticides are already being used, and they're currently being used more and more in conventional farming as well as organic farming. Sources: https://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/industrial-agriculture-and-small-scale-farming.html https://foodprint.org/issues/pesticides/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country https://blog.epa.gov/2015/02/02/farmers-shift-towards-virtually-non-toxic-alternatives-for-pest-control/ https://articles.extension.org/pages/29380/biopesticides-for-plant-disease-management-in-organic-farming You can remove pesticides from the earth. It's been done. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138589470500063X The pheromones don't make it onto the plants themselves. They're used in "pheromone traps" that are placed in or above the crop. If the pheromones were to reach the crop then it would be poisonous to humans if ingested, which I failed to communicate in my original statement. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedailystar.net/country/pheromone-trap-gaining-popularity-among-farmers-81030%3Famp http://14.139.158.107:8081/Technologies/trap.html http://ciks.org/old-site/sustainable.htm https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_G-102_11-Sep-25.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwizzLHBo8XeAhVHj1QKHX5ICqUQFjAJegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2pAsjRWkMSKv0kquYz6EhJ&cshid=1541696911577 This paper focuses on solutions for certain issues that threaten the long-term survival of our species. Immediate matters of life and death is a different beast, because 50 years of eating the right food and getting the right amount of exercise won't save your life if you become critically injured and need special attention. We wouldn't need so many of these drugs if we took care of our bodies before turning 50. Sure, there are always people who get sick/hurt and have no fault in the matter, but I know plenty of people in their 50s-80s who are in no pain whatsoever because they cared about themselves when they were younger and made it a habit to eat healthy food, get plenty of exercise, maintain proper posture, build and maintain a healthy immune system, etc. Prevention is the best cure. https://www.everydayhealth.com/hypertension/preventing.aspx https://medlineplus.gov/howtopreventhighbloodpressure.html https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/cancer-prevention/art-20044816 https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/dementia/dementia-prevention/ https://medlineplus.gov/howtopreventheartdisease.html https://www.iofbonehealth.org/preventing-osteoporosis Etc...
    1 point
  5. Second bold: I am not disputing that. The difference was in 2014 (not last time)despite the (first bold) demographic spread being essentially the same in 2014. That is the point of the article you quoted: (I am bolding within the link) http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/the-2018-electorate-wasnt-all-that-different-from-2014s.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part Despite the similar demographic spread...different result in 2018 from 2014. (not just overall but within most groups) The inference (not proof) is that it is from the difference in how people voted...not just from who showed up to vote (turnout) I think you are missing the intent of the article you linked. It does not agree with your perception. This does not mean you are wrong but you both can't be right...they readily admit that their stance is not certain...just that the exit polls tend to point in that direction...unless turnout within the groups was the key...which seems unlikely. As per the title of the article: "The 2018 Electorate Wasn’t All That Different. It Just Voted Differently." (from 2014)
    1 point
  6. It is tempting to think so. But then you would be assuming a kind of `continuity property' that is not true for cardinalities: it is not true that \( \lim_{n\to \infty} 2^n = 2^\infty,\) where you can replace \(\infty\) by \(\aleph_0\) if you feel like it. It is not a coincidence that the \(\infty\) symbol is used in such limits and not \(\aleph_0\). Indeed, you can clearly count all the endpoints as you proceed. An endpoint never gets destroyed once it has been created. At the stage when it gets created, you assign a unique number between \(2^{n-1}+1\) and \(2^n\) to it, so that all endpoints that are created at that stage get their own number, which they keep forever after. Every endpoint gets created at some stage, hence each gets a number, and all get different numbers.
    1 point
  7. Because "they" understand a hell of a lot more about physics than you do, perhaps. I don't understand the response of getting irked when people tell you some things about physics that you don't know, (and since it's advanced physics, probably have not been exposed to at all). Is this your reaction in class to new material? Getting steamed up at the teacher/professor? We do experiments, and develop theories. As far as we can tell, there is nothing "inside" a quark. This falls into the "not even wrong" category. Baryons don't get "broken apart" and the issue isn't the stability of the quarks. Quarks can't get separated — they are always combined with at least one other quark (unlike other particles, the binding gets stronger as you pull quarks apart. Eventually you add enough energy to form a quark/antiquark pair, which is known as a meson) Since you can't get a free quark, "not remain(ing) stable" is simply a non-issue.
    1 point
  8. As in it takes the same gullible prick who thinks Bigfoot is real to think that there was no collusion? I agree
    1 point
  9. This is what he meant....It is certainly evidence...evidence of an afterlife or in the supernatural and anyone that didn't think so, was not being reasonable. That's what he said, and that is what he meant.You would have to be naive to deny what he meant to my question. Yes, lets! Agreed, so what exactly! No arguments from me. But it also reveals an agenda with regards to the subject matter. Again, I agree. But again also, it points to some baggage with relation to the thread topic.
    1 point
  10. 'Kavanaugh's Revenge': Every Democratic senator in a competitive midterm race who voted against Brett Kavanaugh lost http://uk.businessinsider.com/democratic-senators-who-voted-against-brett-kavanaugh-lost-close-reelection-races-2018-11
    1 point
  11. Because they're like, you know, natural, man
    1 point
  12. I have some more (hopefully helpful) thoughts about this post but meanwhile can you say what is in conflict with this presentation of a light clock? No bastard triangles are needed. I did ask if you are applying your analysis to the wrong thing and I ask again as you did not answer. The point is that we should be comparing the second (unit of time) as measured by each observer, as each will observe a different number of units, but it is the relative length of those units that is being transformed (dilated). So to A, B's units will appear dilated (longer) so the square root factor being less than 1 is on the bottom of the fraction in the transformation from his units to B's. This is the usual formula. However when A considers the transformation from B's units to his the square root factor will appear on the top (Einsteins formula) as he need to shorten B's apparently longer units to match his own.
    1 point
  13. While spontaneous fission is always occurring and in turn producing some induced fission reactions, This isn't enough to cause a chain reaction if you don't have enough uranium 235 contained in a small enough region. For pure U 235, this requires a sphere 52 kg in mass. With a smaller amount, too many of the produced neutrons make their way out of the sphere without encountering a nucleus.1 If you break the 52 kg into small pieces and separate them this has the same effect, it allows for more neutrons to escape without inducing a reaction. Bring the pieces suddenly together and you have a critical mass that will produce your nuclear explosion. 2 1 you can get away with using less if you surround the uranium with a neutron reflector which bounces the neutrons back through the mass, giving them another chance to interact with a nucleus. 2 This presents its own problems. As the pieces are brought closer together, the rate of induced fission events increases. This creates an increasing energy output from the Uranium. If they aren't brought together properly, or fast enough, this release of energy can be enough to blow the pieces apart from each other before they can get close enough to form that fully critical mass and produce the explosive fission event. The bomb will fizzle out. This type of bomb has to be designed properly so that the critical mass is formed before the individual pieces are blown apart again. It's not a matter of keeping the bomb from exploding, it's getting it to explode properly.
    1 point
  14. The lab observer sees the energy as E1. No energy is "lost". If one looks at the recoil of the detector, it will be consistent with an energy E1 and a momentum E1/c. To predict what energy the detector sees, the observer has to transform into the detector's frame. The energy is different, with no expectation that it will be the same. If one analyzes the interaction in the detector's frame, it will be a photon of energy E2, and momentum E2/c. This is no different than analyzing any collision, even in Newtonian physics. The energy and momentum of the objects is frame dependent. There is no energy "lost" in going from one frame to another.
    1 point
  15. The important point here is that energy, like velocity, is observer dependent. So, for example, if you fire a cannonball from a cannon it will have a massive amount of kinetic energy. But if you are flying next to the cannonball at the same speed, then you will say it has zero kinetic energy. Similarly for a photon, the energy you measure depends on your state of motion relative to the source. (This is a bit different from the Doppler effect with classical objects because the speed of the photons doesn't change, but its frequency, momentum and energy do.)
    1 point
  16. Less of a difference in opinion and more of a difference in perspective though. You insist on a purely subjective view referencing things Lemon and Coumo said that you don't like. Surely you understand that your feelings about what CNN pundits say is subjective and not tangible. Meanwhile others in this thread have posted facts regarding ratings, political affiliations, partnership, and etc which exist regardless of ones subjective interpretation of them. At no point have I singled out a Cable News pundit and criticized their individual comments as you have been doing with CNN. I have focused on provable facts about the organizations and not on my own subjective media tastes.
    1 point
  17. There was definitely collusion with the Russians by the Clinton campaign - eg the Steele Dossier, but I am not sure what the Russians are supposed to have done for Trump. It seems more like a case of trying to wish something into existence. Sorry, but if there was a Bigfoot he would have been found by now. Same with the 'collusion'.
    0 points
  18. Prometheus; You were a nurse. Right? How many years did you have to train in order to be a nurse? Then how many years did you have to work and gain experience before you were a good nurse? Do you honestly believe that you could write a post to me that would enable me to understand the job of nursing? If that were the case, people would not have to train for that job. I can not give you an understanding of consciousness in this post. People have trained and worked for entire lifetimes and still do not have a complete understanding. I don't know what you think I could teach you, but if your request was sincere, I would think that you would have asked about what you should study. I can tell you this: Stop thinking of consciousness as the brain -- consciousness is essentially communication. Back in the day, people assumed that consciousness meant the brain or language, because that was how we communicated. We now know that every cell in our bodies, every cell in every body, communicates as long as it is still alive. It communicates, not through language, but through chemistry. Once you understand that, then you would have to learn about mind, the divisions of mind, how the rational conscious mind works, and how the unconscious instinctive mind works, and how Jung's collective consciousness works. Then if you did some serious studying on the concept of "self" and the mind-numbing considerations of how that works with emotion and bonding, you would be in a position to maybe work on the idea of NDE's in some kind of intelligent fashion. This would be a lot better than superstitious notions of afterlife or the supernatural. I did review it again, and again,, and again. It is time for you to review it again from the top of that page, but this time look for specific things. Did Endercreeper01 actually type the word, supernatural? If not, then who did? How did the word seem to come from Endercreeper01? What you will find is that it is inferred that Endocreeper01 stated something about the supernatural. In law, this is what we call "leading the witness". This is where you put something into the question that infers or implies an idea or fact that causes a misrepresentation of the answer. This is the reason why you get an attorney to come with you when you answer questions, so that no one uses this trick on you. I worked in law too long to be fooled by this kind of nonsense. Following are the specific quotes that irritated me: "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." and "So yes, it appears this doctor is using the thin veneer of medical science to spout rubbish." Not only are the above statements untrue, they are also a slur on the character of the doctor. Now if you stated that this doctor's license was revoked, that might be evidence. Or if you stated that multiple people have sued him for malpractice, that might be evidence. Or if you could show that he had been repeatedly dismissed from various positions, that might be evidence. You did not provide any evidence and only used insult, innuendo, and gossip to rebut his statements. Gossip is not evidence, and if you can't tell the difference, then you are not talking Science or Philosophy. I doubt that it was deliberate on your part. For myself, I am probably too damned demanding. In the study of consciousness, it is just too easy to mistake what is true, as it is a very elusive study fraught with biases, assumptions, speculations, and a huge history of misrepresentation, whether religious or otherwise. Because I have studied this for so long, I have developed a rather sinister view of anything that misrepresents truth. I apologize. I am sure she will survive it. If you look 5 or 6 years back in the forum history, you will find that some branches of Science were better represented in this forum years ago than they are now. I personally know of two scientists, who used to be members here, but are now moderators in other Science forums. There are probably more, and I do not want to lose any more scientists -- especially the really good ones. CharonY does not agree with my interpretation of consciousness, but she has too much professional integrity to try to manipulate the data in order to try to prove me wrong. I have a very high respect for a scientist with professional integrity. You are still talking about the brain. Gee Strange; This is a fine example of "scab picking philosophy" where you ask a question that has no real relevance to NDE's, then I try to answer the question, then you dispute that, and so on, and so on, until no one can remember the topic. Do you see how this works? Well, Strange, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe something else activates DNA, hormones, and pheromones. Please provide information on the other things that activate DNA, hormones, and pheromones. Gee Dimreepr; If you look at the second emoticon, it comes up as "unsure" when I hover my mouse over it. When someone says they are "unsure" of something, that often means that they would like more information. If I interpreted that incorrectly, I apologize. It was not my intent to be condescending, it was my intent to be clear in my explanation. Please remember that although the post was to you, many other people may read it, so I tried to make it clear to anyone, who might read it no matter their level of training or experience. Gee Strange; No. A belief in "God" is not supernatural. You could review the first post in my thread, Understanding the "God" Concept, for more information, but consider that what most people call the supernatural is actually just natural phenomenon mixed with the unconscious aspect of mind. Nothing to worry about. Gee
    -1 points
  19. Then why are there virtual particles? Why do you think they are claimed to exist from scientific experimentation? What possible use do you think they can have? How do you think they could even be relevant to anything? Do believe they all just sit together in their own separate system independent of everything and anything? What possible influence do you think a virtual particle could ever have? A quark screw is a device used to open a wine bottle. How could we even know what is inside of a quark then or the fundamental forces that govern it then? Quarks do not even remain stable once a baryon is broken apart... How am I supposed to believe anything you say you know about quantum physics after this comment? It is explained in Sean Carroll's new book, Particle at the End of the Universe. Is English not your first language? Others are found indirectly, but the emission of light is the final outcome in which all particles are calculated to exist in the nuclear reaction. Random particle pairs are not included in the calculations involved in the nuclear reaction, so their added energy is just ignored. Then it can be ignored in all other parts of quantum physics. It is like background noise that is filtered out. This was my point exactly! It looks like we agreed on something. Why are you even mentioning this? Did you make the mistake of thinking I was wrong about this when you agree with it? Why do you think Stephan Hawking even used random particle pairs to show conservation of information for black holes even to begin with? Then why would they think a random particle pair collision occurred to begin with, and it was not a unicorn and a faerie smashed together to make pixie dust?
    -1 points
  20. No, I just share my imagination with present and future humans.
    -1 points
×
×
  • 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.