Leaderboard

That is not what I said, but I agree that I have been very brief and QM is a huge subject. Take a look at these four pages from Atkins book and see how you get on. At the end of page 44 and into page 45 he makes the important point that the quantisation arises as a result of the boundary conditions imposed on a classical equation. As to the issue of 'operators' Heisenbeg's Principle arises from the same inequality as Cauchy-Schwarz or the triangle inequality when considering the product of two distributed (spread out ) properties.

Of course. I make distinctions between liberals, who have views I support, leftists, who have good intentions but go too far in trying to make things what they consider fair, and extreme leftists that have some pretty distorted views and rhetoric. They make generalized statements about "white men" and call you racist and misogynist if you don't agree. That is why I said extreme leftists, to make myself clear. "Here we go again, blame the victim; rather than investigate the accusation" could be a statement that anyone makes, but dimreepr directed it at Raider, who neither blamed the victim or advocated against further investigation. That's borrowing rhetoric from the extreme left, plain and simple. And you called me out for pointing that out, yet give dimreepr a pass on it, while claiming I'm being unnecessarily dividing and partisan... For what it is worth, I don't believe anyone here is on the extreme left, but there is an awful lot of support for that rhetoric at times.

I often do discuss such nuances in fiction: was the last thing in Pandora's box hope or deceptive expectation? was Smeagol smiling as he fell into Mount Doom ? whether the dark side really is stronger than the light side (Yoda never really answers that question). Fiction has much to offer us without being literally true. The Bible is one of the best collections of fiction and deserves its place amongst literary great works. As Hemingway put it: 'All good books have one thing in common - they are truer than if they really happened and after you are finished reading one you will feel that all that happened to you and afterwards it all belongs to you: the good and the bad, the ecstasy, the remorse and sorrow, the people and the places and how the weather was.'

Can we please discuss Scientific evidence and proofs, not legal or spiritual (in the whisky sense) or any other sense.? For example take a typical schoolboy experiment to 'proove' Hooke's Law where he does some measurements and draws a graph and then says I have obtained a straight line through the origin so I have prooved Hooke's Law. Has he?

A LED proper connection to two cells in series should include a resistor also in series to limit the current. Lacking current limitation, the thermal properties of the LED can increase the current demand as the LED warms up with elapsed time on. The batteries can also change their internal resistance with temperature with the elapsed time on. As the cells deplete, the current should decrease as the battery voltage gets lower in time. The time can be many hours, depending on the capability and charge state of the battery. Unequal state of charge for each cell can also cause unusual readings.

Can we please focus on the misconduct part? I really enjoy reading your point of view on this subject and less about politics. This whole page has nothing to do with the topic. For example I would like to discuss the crazy amount of "fake news" or baseless assumptions that I come across in the media related to this subject. Media is quoting religious groups opinions on the matter like it's evidence. I can't say what really happened but when media puts up baseless speculations as evidence just to sell papers...it makes me sad For example: Stuff like this makes me so disappointed at what the modern reader is interested in.

How? To ask if JK Rowlings is real is to ask if the Harry Potter books are true? How so? - I'd have to agree with TenOz here:

Stalin caused death of over 4-8 millions of Ukrainians... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor If I would be moderator, you would be banned in the "blink of an eye".. as it's too obvious you're simply Russian agent..

Amen.

Really DrP ? Do a side by side comparison with any other major power of the world. How well does Russia ( the subject of this discussion ) stack up against the US ? How concerned are her neighbors ? Or China. How do Tibetians, Japanese and Taiwanese feel about them ? Us Canadians aren't stressed at all about having the most powerful military in the world, next door. Americans have pulled your 'arse' out of the fire a couple of times already; and are ready and willing to do it again. ( even with a dumbass as their leader )

"Walking Directions From the Shire to Mordor in Google Maps. If you go to Google Maps, click “Get Directions,” select walking, and search for directions from The Shire to Mordor, this amusing Lord of the Rings Easter egg from Google will caution you that “One does not simply walk into Mordor." (But that's from Google, not me.) It's an interesting exercise to think that a person may or may not be convinced that Mordor does or does not exist unless he or she follows that map. And if the map doesn't take him or her to Mordor, he or she may believe that the map is wrong, and try Internet Explorer.

I don't. Tyson has his reputation, that's about it. If he said nothing, people would find it troubling. If he said what he did, people like you would find it troubling. There is virtually nothing he could have done in his situation where people wouldn't find it troubling and say it makes him look guilty. I don't see how it's diminishing his accuser's voice. Do we not need evidence? He pointed out there is no evidence, and that people should have evidence of something happening before assuming he's guilty. Do you really intend to imply that if you were in the situation of someone accusing you of things and they didn't have evidence, that you would never bring up the idea that maybe your accusers should have to have evidence? Is that seriously what you'd do? Firstly, I don't get what you do by just jumping into discussions, saying some line, and then stopping there. Where did I blame the victim? Very simply I said he changed his position. He could be guilty, he could be innocent. Either way, he changed his position. If that's what you consider victim blaming I think you really need to reevaluate your definition. In terms of a response that can actually mean things, rather then him expressing his personal view on the situation disappointing you, he did welcome an investigation. Welcoming an investigation, while not automatically proving you're innocent, is, in my opinion, the right thing to do, and didn't disappoint me.

OK. Let's speculate. They flirt. He invites her up to his apartment. Despite having a boyfriend, she is intrigued enough to go. She turns him down. He is disappointed, but accepts it. She feels a little guilty, as she should, but also blames him (he would certainly be to blame as well in this fictitious scenario, especially being married) The whole thing is in the category of "none of our business", unless you are his wife or have reason to believe he tried to coerce her with regard to her job. This, at it's worst based on our understanding at this time, is insignificant in comparison to the drug and rape accusation. If anything, it tells us he understands no means no, at least with regard to this accuser. The logic is in the category of: All males are pigs Tyson is a male Tyson must be a pig Tyson should start by apologizing for being a pig, before any attempt to defend himself further

In my observations, only those who want to break the rules complain about the moderation here. Most find it refreshing that we maintain a civil tone compared to most forums, and most don't mind a bit more rigor in their science discussions. The only types of discussion that might be discouraged are the ones designed to break the rules (like mentioning religion in a mainstream thread). Right, because the police only deal with murderers and gruesome crimes. Great argument. I was asked to be a moderator by the site owners. They gave us some rules to enforce. That you question this seems disingenuous. It's not a for-profit site. It makes enough on Google ads to pay for the services. Other advertising is against the rules. I was going to go over your other points, but forget that. I'll tell you straight, coffeesippin. You don't know science as well as you think. I know that from personal experience. And that would be perfectly fine if you didn't have such a chip on your shoulder about it, or insist that you're right when everyone else in a thread is trying to show where you're wrong. Then you bring up your religion every chance you get, which nobody here is very interested in (science discussion site). You argue off-topic about these things, you get testy when corrected, and you're just cantankerous in general (which I get the feeling you enjoy, since you do it so much). Part of what you may not understand is how many of your posts get reported by the membership. Do you really think the staff has the time to hover over your every word? People report your posts, and that creates an electronic trail of procedure we need to implement to take care of the report. The mods aren't out to get you, but the membership obviously has a problem with your style. You generate a TON of non-science discussion that is a complete waste of time. Why did you come to a science discussion site just to bitch and moan about the rules you agreed to when you signed up?

There is good evidence Paul existed. His writings are known and early copies still exist today Here. It seems you are asking a larger question than whether or not Paul existed. Paul existing is not equal to everything Paul is credited of writing being true.

I didn't give you the -1, BeeCee. But if we gave people a chance and were not so quick to assume the worst, some of those newbies might stick around. We were all newbies at one time, and I know I asked silly questions.

Was it not you who just recently said that we shouldn't degrade conversation with silliness?

That is just some of what he said. Here in the full post. I already mentioned a few things that bothered me about his remarks. Here are some additional things: Here Tyson reminds us (the reader) he is a celebrity by referencing the flattering chore of taking pics with thousands of people. He then goes on to point out that the women waited nine years to come forward and basically blames her for the whole things be saying what he "would" have done "had" she reacted differently. Tyson acknowledges the women notified him that she felt he was inappropriate and even resigned over the matter. Tyson claims to be sorry yet prefaces the encounter be stating she freely chose to come in and he had even mentioned another place she could go. Tyson finishes by noting that they had hugged. It comes across to me as obtuse. I quoted the whole portion here because there is a lot of shade tossed around. Tyson opens by pointing out how difficult Grad school is and how hard he worked. He then references have several girlfriends. Saying one of them he was intimate with a few times but there was no chemistry. After that Tyson begins tossing shade. First he recalls seeing her pregnant "with who I think was the father by her side". To me Tyson is trying to imply it may not have been the father and muddy the water. Tyson then states she had dropped out of school. Another meaningless detail. He follows by saying he "nonetheless" wished her well. By using "nonetheless" Tyson is saying that in-spite of her being a pregnant drop out accompanied by who knows who he was still nice to her. Ugly stuff. Next Tyson mentions his fame "visibility level" to imply motive then proceeds to basically call her stupid writing about stuff he saw on her blog. Tyson doesn't need to be on social media doing this. He could have made far simplier remarks via a publicists. Instead he took to the more proactive platform of FaceBook. I think this sort of response is beneath him.

Good point, Swanson .. and you must be especially familiar with the Swan Dive. And some springboard divers dive up into the air before doing summersaults and twists and entering feet or head first. Here's one .. "A sudden movement in a specified direction. ‘she made a dive for the fridge to quench her thirst." Maybe we could all meet in a little dive for the same purpose. Although Phi seems to have a cozy living room.

I didn't want to say that, Strange.

It's interesting that they've changed their strategy. Prior to Trump launching missiles at them, during Trump's term alone, they had used chemical attacks 8 times, all relatively open compared to this. Since then, there was silence until now, where suddenly the rebels are accused of using the chemical weapons instead. The dynamics have changed. Regardless guys, let's focus on the real monster in the middle east, Israel. They received 68 human rights condemnations from the UN Human Rights Council. Syria received 20.

Belarus is not terribly stressed by Russia's presence. Kazakhstan and China aren't either Finland probably isn't either. A big % of Ukrainians probably aren't either - in USSR times Ukrainians and Russians (except Western Ukrainians) were considered practically one nation (like English and Scottish people), milions of people moved between Russian and Ukrainian SSR without any issue and they still do - for a matter of fact, 4 out of 8 leaders of USSR were ethnic Ukrainians.

I may say, yes and no. The southeastern part of Ukraine was deprived of any sort of political representation after a violent coup that forced a democratically elected president to flee the country at the threat of death and brought a government that is completely unacceptable to people in those regions of Ukraine - in Donbass over 90% of people speak Russian as their main language, they do not want to be forced to speak Ukrainian and worship Western Ukrainian ww2 Nazi collaborators like Bandera and Shukhevych.. So they started a rebellion and Russia was forced to intervene - otherwise it would be a treason of its own people. An analogous situation would be if the French speaking part of Canada tried to violently impose its identity over the rest of the country. If the Anglo-Candians then rose in revolt, wouldn't it be legitimate for US to intervene militarilu?

Like seriously? If the aforementioned far-right Quebecois violently took power in Canada, declared French to be sole official language, banned all English langage media and declared Anglo-Canadians to be invaders who oppressed the true (French) Canadians for centuries - then an armed revolt in multiple regions of Canada would be certain. And in that case, US will have full right to intervene in Canada in order to protect its brethren people.

Okay the work 'box' is not quite accurate because a box has three dimensions while the mod notification 'boxes' have only two physical dimensions, plus the effect dimension. In this post I'm just trying to be helpful, not antagonistic. The effect of the BIG BOLD STARKLY AGGRESSIVE THREATENING EXCLAMATION MARK ARMED moderator notification boxes might be too intimidating and discouraging to discussion. Some mods will like that effect, as one mod told me mods are like police enforcing laws. I don't think that's a good comparison, as police deal with murderers and people committing other gruesome crimes too terrible to mention. The people here are not, hopefully, murderers etc. We are people trying to enjoy conversation and ideas in an increasingly hostile and threatening world. Of course the boxes were designed to make sure they were seen, but I think the tone and amount of activity of this forum could be dramatically enhanced by a less overbearing approach, perhaps colour the thick black borders of the boxes pastel? That would not only get attention, it would feel far less threatening than the thick black borders. It's almost as if a big monster were hovering over a child roaring and gnashing its teeth like a parent. Most of us here have learned respect or we wouldn't be interested in science. Adults aren't children who can't make choices, we can go away freely, though sadly, from a place we hope to learn from and find enjoyment in, to share new ideas, but discerning adults as well as discerning children may be driven away, diminishing the activity of the forum, and making it less valuable to advertisers, harming any business model the forum might hope to promote. Also, some mods discourage involvement by their very numerous subtle insults, that activity spilling over into the non-mod population, encouraging them to be obnoxious. This forum as a retreat from the increasing brutality of the world would attract far more activity. I have yet to see insults directed towards mods from the non-mod side of this forum, but plenty from the mod side. If advertising revenue is not important to the forum, I suppose population here is totally unimportant, but that shouldn't need to be a consideration in how people are treated here, either from the mods or non-mods.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been accused of sex misconduct by 3 women . Tyson denies any wrong doing. I personally find Tyson's response troubling. In a social media post captioned with a photo of 2 faceless figures pointing at each other Tyson wrote of the damage which can be done to a reputation when one is accused, referenced the need for evidence, and questioned why anyone would believe him. Tyson is a very intelligent person. I think the image he used purposely invokes the spirit of he said vs she said to imply the whole situation is a nonstarter of sorts. Tyson further diminished his accusers voices by talking about the need for evidence. Then ends the post with what I consider to be a bit of sarcasm by asking why he as the accused should be believed. Questions designed to position himself as the real victim here. I am disappointed by his response. Has anyone been following this story? I placed this in politics because Tyson referenced himself as a public servant and most of the other similar discussions regarding sexual misconduct have been political.

iNow a sock puppet of BeeCee? I said dive in, not jump in. But you're partially correct, I will rewrite the example. If I dive into the great unfrozen ocean which at the point of dive is deeper than one foot, with the ocean surface calm and unwavering in depth, my head uncovered from any waterproof membrane or watertight construction, my head not covered by any waterproof substance, my head not above a temperature which will instantly convert the entire ocean to steam driven away from the head by certain principles of physics as well as instantly turning mud of sand at the bottom of the ocean into dry land .. will my head get wet? Will I have to prove the definition of wet versus dry? Is the water heavy or light? Will the universe explode in the Great Rip, saving me from drowning or broken neck, in the moment I make the dive but before my head enters the ocean? Yes .. so many important considerations. Yes, even I am aware that incomplete evidence can be considered proof by science and law, even circumstantial evidence like two posters having the totally identical characterizations whether naughty or nice, yet are they truly sock puppets? What does the jury say? HO HO HO WE THE JURY don't really care, few others would as well. I can put either on ignore, or ignore the either, depending on necessity.

Any answer that I would give would offend the climate nazies that burn any book, article or internet post that does not agree with Hitlers climate change agenda. That said do the nazies that ban all opinions different than their own really care about the truth?