Leaderboard

You asked if karyotypes were sexes. Karyotype is simply a term for the arrangement of chromosomes within a eukaryotic cell. Variation in the karyotype of sex chromosomes results in sexes in sexually reproducing species. So no, Karyotype is not synonymous with sex. The author is assuming that sex is defined by karyotype - which is a little problematic. As alpha reductase syndrome is a good example of, a individual with this condition is karyotypically male, has undescended testes, but has female external genitalia. So does the karyotype, the gametes, or the phenotype define the sex of an individual? Personally I wouldn't define monsomal X and a "sex" per se, implying that Homo sapiens is a multi-sex species, but I would say that an individual with monosomal X (i.e. Turner's syndrome) falls outside the standard definitions of male and female. The article states that the individual will be chromosomally XY, have female external genitalia, and are usually raised as girls. I don't really care if the article uses the specific word "intersex". People with the condition have characteristics of both sexes - and are therefore intersex. Ergo, listed as an intersex condition by the Intersex Society of North America Honestly, I don't care if you support him one way or the other - I'm simply stating that biology doesn't - sex isn't binary or universally fixed at birth. Turner's syndrome (monosomal X) results in phenotypically female individuals - there's no Y chromosome to provide male genes. However, having a single copy of all of one's X linked genes is going to significantly alter the expression patterns of all of the genes on that chromosome, resulting in physiological abnormality. Also, the chromosomal imbalance during meiosis will result in reduced fertility.

This seems to be confusing the gender that a person identifies as with their sexual orientation.

Consider for a moment the magnitude of learning happening in parallel, among those watching from the sidelines whom you never see. The reward is bountiful, and often beyond our visible horizon.

Yes, it is strange thing at first but not once you realise that there is no rest state for a photon, so they are never at zero. The instant they exist they are travelling at c. It's important to note that they don''t exist at zero because they have become part of the absorbing electron. To clarify: they don't accelerate at all.

We account for radiation pressure due to photons in the FLRW equations, as mentioned its density falls off as a function of volume. The ratio its density reduces follows the relation to the scale factor of [latex]\rho\propto a^{-4}[/latex]. In the early universe the radiation pressure was sufficient to be the dominant contributor to expansion (this includes all particles whose momentum greatly exceeds its rest mass) such as neutrinos however as the volume increases they simply dilute to the point where they can no longer counter the gravitational terms. The next stage is matter dominant which is harder to explain how it can contribute to expansion but a simple explanation is that as matter starts to form structures its average density decreases so gravity has less of a hold in the regions away from the structure formations. The stage were at now is the Lambda dominant (DE or cosmological constant). see here for more details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

I agree. Your statement made me look at the beginning of the thread again. We didn't get all rules initially, a followup said: So there is no complete English translation given yet? Speculation: What happens if the correction only applies to Jack? So that the following initial statement Actually was supposed to be something like: "Jack only know the range of the digits; meaning he knows that a>=b>=c>=d and he knows a - d (a minus d). John only knows a+b+c+d. James knows a*b*c*d." In other words, is it possible that John and James do not know that a>=b>=c>=d? I haven't yet checked what difference this would make when trying to solve the problem. A maybe even more speculative question: But then they all act in another order: Jack says... James says... John says... Is that change of order the names intentional or was the names mixed up in translation? I haven't yet checked what difference this would make. Can we see the original question? (Even if it's in Turkish it might help at this point)

I gathered that, but it certainly gets to the heart of the matter. Decency and decorum isn't lost on the average American, but the sheer volume of rhetoric and propaganda undermining those things is epidemic. Although not a resource thing, it's a tragedy of the commons nonetheless.

Gabby Gifford's (Democrat) was also shot but I didn't mention her because that wasn't associated with the serial cycle of attacks I am referring to. Steve Scalise wasn't being regularly targeted by Democrats and left leaning media. After the attacks everyone immediately rejected the violence hands down without caveats or delay. You cannot pull up a single post I ever made pre or post the shooting where I ever said a single bad word about Steve Scalise. I doubt you can find a single negative post anyone on this forum ever made about Steve Scalise. You and I were literally exchanging posts about Booker and Holder when the bombing story broke. You were misrepresenting them (Booker and Holder) as promoting violence at the same time Cesar Sayoc was trying to murder them. Fast forward a few months and AOC has gotten a lot of attention from you of late and now we see her name on a kill list.These individuals are being targeted by right wing extremist via media and by their advocates in office. I am not blame you for what happened. Rather I am trying to encourage you to open your eyes and see that some of the media diet your ingesting and the views being promoting are toxic. Booker, AOC, and etc are people who hold politic beliefs you possibly disagree with. They are not malevolent figures in anyway. They do not promote violence, hatered, racism, or etc. The bomber in FL could have been classified as a one off but now here we are with another person who was looking to murder many of the same people. By name both went after Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and etc.

Because I sometimes behave like a dick and people misinterpret me very often.

The volume of the observable universe is 4×1080 m3 so that means 10,000 photons per cubic meter, on average That would include radio waves, microwaves, IR, visible, UV, etc. That gives us a flux of 3 x 1012 photons m-2sec-1 If we assume an average energy of 1 eV, then we have 3 x 1012 eV m-2sec-1 That's what we would get from a 5 microWatt monochromatic source, if we were about a meter away. That's not very much energy. And space is big, so as StringJunky said, many of them are still out there, moving around.

So the attack does not fit the narrative of the discussion, because the narrative excludes those who have not been egged on by the political rhetoric and media generation/amplification. Not because it was an attack on republicans. IOW, there are always a few nutjobs out there. This isn't a discussion of them.

Like almost any biological categorization, there are numerous exceptions to the general rule that there are two genders, and karyotypic variation (yes, that's the correct term) of the sex chromosomes is only one of them. Other examples of biological intersex include alpha reductase deficiency syndrome, androgen insensitivity syndrome, swyer syndrome, etc. And this isn't even touching on possible epigenetic causes of transgenderism, and what we don't know about their potential. In short, Ben Shaprio is comprehensively factually incorrect on the topic.

I am certain she wont be welcomed back to the UK in the way the prodical son was welcomed by his father. So you think that the consensus of the British public are going to welcome her back like a prodical son with celebrations and feasting that she has returned home? I won't accuse you of being deluded - we will wait and see what happens. Diddums. So - IF she makes it back then she can face the law. Until then I will loose very little sleep over it.

It appears that the original text was formulated in Turkish language. Depending on the quality of the translation, it may not be safe to rely on any assumptions about the meaning of "range" or whether Jack indicates that he knows at least one of the digits. The phrase "Jack should be just found it" could make one suspicious.

Reedited.. On his screen-shot sideNavBox is ID not class.. CSS qualifier for IDs would be #sideNavBox Okay. Let's try this instead: #sideNavBox span.menu-item { background-color: red; } or span.menu-item { background-color: red; } This class mentioned in the first post ("menu-item-text") is nowhere on his screen-shot. But there is class with name "menu-item"..

It definitely is a classification one can make, using XX or XY to determine biological sex, which then does lead into the problem that these syndroms exist. However in my opinion it is important to understand the function of these chromosomes. In short: Every human requires 1 X chromosome, when you have more than 1, the other becomes inactivated (X-inactivation), with the exception of some very specific regions (Pseudoautosomal regions). Having a Y chromosome is what makes someone have the male phenotype (of course there are some mutations, particularly to testosterone-signalling genes) which can lead to a female phenotype even with a Y chromosome. Thus having XXY or XXXY still in most ways makes you a (albeit with some functional problems) male. Gender is from what I understand the psychological sexual identity; so basically what sex they most identify with. I hope I didn't make any mistakes, if you disagree or think I am wrong, I am happy to learn! -Dagl

I think you have just shown that you can't have a meaningful debate about an idea unless you understand it.

You can put a donkey in a box ( stall ), thereby fixing its position and momentum. If you try that with an electron, sometimes you find it outside the box. If the box is too small, fixing its position too tightly, the electron can have enough momentum ( and energy ) to overcome the potential 'wall' of the box. This is experimentally verified, and commonly known as tunneling. The HUP can be derived mathematically; i.e. it is completely unrelated to the methods used for measurements.

One of the primary reasons I endeavour to be an informative and accurate as possible in my responses. +1

I have seen threads with much more plausible conjectures get dismissed and closed down in just a few posts. Yet this nonsense about atmospheric phenomena being related to anti-gravity and elementary particles is ongoing, and in its second page. Must be no gravity or elementary particles in the vacuum of space, then. This isn't PEE, it's CRAP !

Much of this statement applies to me as well except I don't work on clocks lol. I just watch them for the next break . Seriously though I too will assist anyone willing to learn, but when they start stating its this way with no knowledge of the topic they are discussing it gets rather annoying. My wife often hears me screaming "How can he be that &*&*&*". One wonders why I assist on forums, however I've had some modicum of success in that I currently know of 7 previously assertive layman posters I've struggled with in the past who later decided to actively pursue their studies and are now working in the physics profession. Seeing someone learn from your efforts is the reward

You must be referring to my simulation thread. Yes I came off a bit too confident on that one. My bad.

A world full of almost impossible people. Profound science, that. It is not remotely true that "any thing" (sic) can happen. Not remotely true. I won't go into the reasons except to point out that this is the perpetual excuse of materialists. Call it Science of the Gaps. As to backgrounds and expertise, how much training and expertise did Orville and Wilbur Wright have in aeronautical engineering? "

*sigh* Again, it's not the faulty details themselves that get a thread locked, it's the unreasonable adherence to them in the face of contrary evidence. EVERYONE involved in the threads is trying to teach, but only some are willing to learn. It's a shame that all this comes off as "trigger-happy moderation" instead of the attempt to enhance science discussion it's meant to be. Breaks the heart.

I think the subject is wider than that.

Glass is a bit different as to why it is quickly cooled to harden. When glass is cooled rapidly the outside hardens first and then the inside of the glass cools and contracts. This puts the surface of the glass into compression. Glass breaks under tension, not compression, so the glass is much tougher. Since there is so much stress in the tempered glass, when it does break it goes into a gazzilion (technical term) pieces. Gorilla glass (think cell phones) is hard because large ions are exchanged for smaller ions in the glass and it again puts the glass surface in compression. If you are familiar with Corelle brand dishes they are so strong because they are made with a glass laminate process and the inner laminate has a higher CTE so when the glass cools after the lamination step the inner glass shrinks more and places the surface in compression. Tempered glass is not permanently hard, if the glass is taken up to the glass transition temperature the stresses will be relieved and the hardness will drop back to 'normal'. I work for a glass/ceramic company and my wife is a glass technologist - could you tell?

You say this is a problem for materialism and I assume you include naturalism as well. The problem I see is that your comment boils down to an argument from incredulity. It is not an abductive argument because you are appealing to the supernatural. Something that has no evidence in its favour (making it the least likely answer) but is also an unfalsifiable proposition. Magic / miracles can account for anything. More importantly it merely pushes the question back one step. If complexity requires design, then why does not this intelligent author require a creator? By positing without justification that this creator (that usually aligns with one's ancient holy texts) doesn't require creation, or is eternal, then your argument runs foul of Occam's Razor by introducing an unnecessary extra assumption. Nature itself only need be eternal, and we know at least that nature exists.

4 nuns arrive at the Pearly Gates of Heaven. St. Peter is there to meet them with a bowl of Holy Water. St. Peter goes up to the first nun and says, "Have you ever touched a penis?" The first nun responds, "Yes I have. I have touched a penis with the tip of my finger." St. Peter holds out the bowl and says, "Dip your finger in this Holy Water, and be free to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." The first nun gladly follows the instruction and proceeds to enter Heaven. St. Peter goes to the second nun and again asks, "Have you ever touched a penis?" The second nun replies hesitantly, "Yes. I have touched a penis with my whole hand." St. Peter smiles and says, "Do not despair, simply dip your whole hand into the Holy Water and enter the Kingdom of Heaven." The second nun quickly does as she is told and gladly steps forth into Heaven. At this point the fourth nun cuts in front of the third nun and says, "Listen, I better go next because I'm not gurgling that shit after she sticks her ass in it."

So you were talking to Ten Oz? He was the only person who said anything prior to me.

I’m not talking about a flow of matter from a less empty region to a more empty region. I know that is what I was describing earlier, but I’m trying to get away from that idea now. What I am imagining is this. Before the BB there were many particles, or “singularities”, that were clustered together. These particles accelerated away from one another in a uniform expansion. At the same as time that occurred, the matter within those particles expanded in uniform so that there was no empty or more empty space. These expanding particles would all be a part of the same universe. What we consider “our universe” is the matter that expanded from our singularity. What I’m suggesting is that we are not the only uniformly expanding particle in the universe. The space always remains full. The contents from the “singularities” expand in uniform so that the added space remains consistently full. Pure speculation Sorry about the font size it was an accident

No. There is free speech. They're not there calling for death. Just because there are a bunch of idiots who try to blame the media for their actions, doesn't mean it's so. Everyone has individual responsibility for what they do. A Republican party office was burned to the ground. A Republican senator was beaten half to death in his yard. A Republican Congressional candidate was attacked by a man with a switchblade. There have been over 550 recorded physical attacks on Republicans* in the last year. But it's one side. *This is only counting ones where the motive was that they were Republicans. A random robbery against a republican doesn't count, for example. Does liberal-leaning media have the same responsibility? MSNBC's host declared Trump worse than Osama Bin Laden. We killed Osama Bin Laden, in case you didn't know. Or celeberties asking "Where's John Wilkes Booth when you need him?" But I'm sure she was just referencing peaceful protest there.

Oh, so if Democrats denounce the violence, then they're all good. ALright. Republicans have denounced almost every single attack, including the one where pipe bombs were sent. So they're all good. Glad we can agree, so let's move on. People have been calling Trump "Hitler" and "Worse than Osama Bin Laden." Do you think people spreading those stories are unaware of the connection? If people calling AOC are actually trying to call for her to be killed, then so are the people calling Trump Hitler and Osama Bin Laden. Therefore, the whole lot of them should be thrown in jail. However, that doesn't fit your narrative. It's only one-sided where Republicans are advocating violence against Democrats. Pointing to "other sides" in direct response to a statement "It's only their side, not ours" is pointing out the hypocrisy that is there. The key to solving the underlying problem of those inciting violence is to acknowledge the problem exists, instead of denying it where it's not in your favor. I agree, a lot of what these people are saying is wrong. I haven't said it wasn't. I don't think anybody here is. But the fact that it's supposedly one side is utterly false, and I will point it out. Ah. One example was incorrect. Clearly, all 550 of them were just whataboutism.