Leaderboard

You know what they need to invent? A button on the tv that makes the remote beep so you can find it.

The DNA of life on Earth naturally stores its information in just four key chemicals — guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine, commonly referred to as G, C, A and T, respectively. Now scientists have doubled this number of life’s building blocks, creating for the first time a synthetic, eight-letter genetic language that seems to store and transcribe information just like natural DNA. "Synthetic DNA seems to behave like the natural variety, suggesting that chemicals beyond nature’s four familiar bases could support life on Earth" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00650-8

Has it, though? If one extreme is responsible for 5 acts of violence, and another extreme is responsible for 5,000 acts of violence, is it really accurate to describe them as equally dangerous? We can agree all violence and extremism is problematic. No worries there, but seems disingenuous to suggest an equivalence which (to me at least) rings false.

First step is to see a doctor. You might be clinically depressed or something along that line. Talking to a bunch of amateurs here who are only here to learn and chat wont help you.

Its almost time to have a refreshing beer and celebrate... It's Mueller time !

Surface temperatures - rising. Ocean heat content - rising. Global sea levels - rising. Sea ice extent - reducing. Glaciers - retreating. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet loss - accelerating. Of all the expected and measured indicators of global warming, storms and storm damage are amongst the most uncertain (and widely acknowledged as uncertain) - so starting there looks less like the overwhelming hit that proves global warming to be a scam than a distraction from the surface temperatures, Ocean Heat Content, Sea Levels and changes to land and sea ice. Or from the radiative properties of atmospheric gases for that matter. We get pseudonymous pseudo-experts much like you dropping in here, convinced of your own certainty - I could debate the points you make but I don't think you will give my responses any real consideration - you appear so filled misinformation I don't expect there is room for real information. The US and other nation's intelligence services can pick out guarded exchanges between would be terrorists but can't find evidence of a global conspiracy amongst tens of thousands of climate and related scientists, who mostly don't use encryption and do their work mostly on government run computer networks? A conspiracy with a burden of costs of trillions $US that successive conservative governments utterly failed to unearth? When all the work climate science does involves open record keeping and open publication and open scrutiny, secrecy is impossible and no grand conspiracy can be sustained. Whether commissioned by left governments or right, the expert advice keeps coming back the same; not because it is a conspiracy to produce the desired results but because it is not. Rather, they keep saying the same things because they are true. the climate problem is about responsibility and accountability (for the unaccounted consequences and costs of excess fossil fuel burning) - qualities that are not just compatible with Free Enterprise, Democracy and The Rule of Law, they are essential ingredients. Nations entering knowingly into agreements for mutual benefit - or avoiding mutual harms - does not undermine sovereignty. The best options we have for dealing with this unprecedented global problem involve innovative entrepreneurship - capitalist entrepreneurship - and opportunity for profit in the process; attempting to make this about socialism versus capitalism is not unusual, but it is wrong, from both directions. If the Climate "movement" appears to lean left that is because those who lean right keep refusing to join and participate.

Yes. He one time said we should speak out with passion against letting a guy with multiple credible rape claims from having a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. That's different from what’s being discussed here in this thread. Time to move off this point. Here are some of Trumps calls for violence. It’s 4 months old so the list today has only grown. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-trump-comments-perceived-encouraging-violence/story?id=48415766 I haven’t shared them all. There were too many. Regardless, it’s beyond time to move off the Booker narrative, and I couldn’t care less who started it. You’re not in kindergarten.

No problem for the learning of the OP here is a relevant paper on how the CMB is being probed for inflationary models. As per inflation article, this is one of the primary questions that originally led to thee concept of seeking inflation. The question is How come the universe is so uniform in mass and temperature distribution. This is the Horizon problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem here is a quick detail on the flatness problem http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s12.htm Ok so lets break this down and speed up the process. I will run through a quick step by step history of our universe. First we start at [latex]10^{-43} seconds[/latex] we have infinities occurring in our mathematics prior to this, (mathematical singularity conditions) Now so I don't have to describe all the processes involved here is a quick breakdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe study this link, I will add to this link that the Higgs field is what provides the mass term to the gauge bosons of the strong and weak field (this is what leads to the Higg's field inflationary model) where inflation is a result of adding the mass terms to the quarks/leptons, W+ and W- bosons. In essence inflation is a phase transition of the electroweak symmetry breaking process. (according to Higg's inflation). Here is a secret, to understand how the universe expands and has evolved the process deeply involves our thermodynamic laws. Our universe history is largely based upon thermodynamic processes as they pertain to each particle contributor. Hence we have equations of state for groups of particles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) (needless to say I am being quick in this explanation I could literally go on for hours and hours on what I have learned about the processes prior to the CMB) I don't want to overly confuse you at this stage.)

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.

...or you can use your smartphone as Remote Controller.. ps. "Peel Smart Remote" demands extraordinary amount of unnecessary for this functionality security privileges.. so I disabled this app..

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)

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.

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.

Residence time in the atmosphere. It has nothing to with aging molecules. What, precisely, is the connection between the two? Can you finish the thought here? You’ve stated a fact but not explained why you think it’s relevant.

Unfamiliar with a curveball, I take it.

Do you need a hand moving those goalposts, they look heavy. Waves contain energy. That energy can be transmitted to something that absorbs the wave. In some cases, there is sufficient energy to change the shape of the molecule, this can then affect its chemical behaviour. Ultimately, this leads to the release of a neurotransmitter that allows a signal to be sent to the brain. And so on. But, really, you should take an organised course of study rather than trying to pick up bits of information piecemeal and then trying to fit them together.

Since we've gone on a political theme for a few posts, let me see if I can make this one work as a non visually: What does Obama mean when he says he wants to bring change for Americans? Hand him a dollar and see what you get back.

This is the same exact type of bull shit false equivalence you have a habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of. That isn't what he said, and your repeated pathetic attempts to lie about what he says is disgusting. We can have a perfectly normal discussion without you constantly accusing him of trying to censor you, creating false equivalences, making up false narratives, derailing the thread, making a mountain out of a molehill, and making bogus assertions. To quote you:

Do you have anything to add to this discussion besides repeatedly attacking J.C. MacSwell and flipping out on him for everything he says? FTFY

I suppose it's germane to the discussion in one sense though, that any excuse will be made to distract from the underlying issue. It's the age old tactic of making an molehill of a mountain by making an a mountain of a molehill.

Oh bullshit. In pretty much every thread you'll default to an underhanded tactic to toss out the "leftist tactic" or other nonsense to dismiss other's comments when YOU were the one that brought them up in the first place. The irony in your assertion is off the scale. We are two pages into this and you've effectively derailed this into yet another one of your off topic claims and projections.

You're a sockpuppet of who now?

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.

Perhaps reality is the position of the photon when the universe splits and so virtuality would be the position of the same photon as the universe splits Perhaps the splitting of the universe, when the universe splits and as the universe splits need to be further considered within a temporal context Perhaps the splitting of the universe can be considered as the splitting of spacetime into absolute space and absolute time Perhaps as the universe splits space can be considered within the temporal condition of 'a moment in time' which has duration and so the position of the photon is virtual and the photon is a wave Perhaps when the universe splits time can be considered within the spatial condition of 'an instant of time' which has no duration and so the position of the same photon is real and the photon is a particle Perhaps when and as cohere to give now, which is the present or that reality in accordance with the relative temporal consistency of their relationship as well as the fundementals of this reality, which include wave-particle duality

I could not come up with any simpler to compare with The value I use is constant as speed of light , and I only say G is 11.8% of and that can be calculated from countless lab experiments.Besides that can be calculated via "mass point of gravitation (computer integral) To be honest I don't think you have studied my work very much , since I have to say same things over and over. Correction of what errors ? If I had nothing new to say I wouldn't need to discuss anything . Newtons book is not part of the bible .No offend That is a long known fact. It is only on internet that it is simplified away . Is so much easier to leave out minor "exceptions" especially when they have only empiric explanations. How is G measured at distance?

Disregard that single storm, or year. There is a gross inconsistency in the pattern, contradicting the Climate Change Narrative. Moreover, you can google the global warming scam/fraud or climate change scam/fraud, and get thousands of hits from books, papers, videos, and presentations to congress by very knowledgeable scientists of every stripe. This would not be possible if it were remotely as "factual" as claimed to be. Truth never lost ground by enquiry. - William Penn, Some Fruits of Solitude

Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born Margaret Mead, Anthropologist https://21sci-tech.com/Articles 2007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf You ASSUME. Any time I make a statement inimical to Al Gore and Company, I am instantly challenged to produce sources and references. Why don't you do just that, in the form of peer-reviewed papers which document the fatalities being exclusively attributable to storm route.

Do I have to explain it to you? 1. Al Gore has become a billionaire crying "global warming". He now rides around the world in a private jet, badmouthing "fossil fuel" which he burns by the tens of thousands of gallons. 2. Researchers who pocket government grants and contributions from brainwashed "environmentalists." 3. Fake News. The more inaccurate the story, the better it sells. 4. Sierra Club, National Geographic, and all the other Leftist organizations preach climate change in every issue and sell world tours in every issue. How about a $95,000 per person around the world tour by private jet? National Geographic. Hypocrisy on a massive scale. These are all rich and powerful people who use far more fossil fuel than the average schlep, which they DEMAND cut back his use of. Moreover, the socialists want to use this to transfer wealth from America to third world countries.

Almost all of the Universe is missing ///Nobody knows what dark matter or dark energy is. ========================== Science of the Gaps Don't worry. Science will figure it all out, you betcha. It's the God of the Gaps that is so laughable, not Science of the Gaps. That's sophisticated and very technical.

No. Ten oz brought it up. He felt the need to claim I had misrepresented it. I hadn't. No.

Discussion is impossible. Points may be made, but if they do not genuflect to the fraud, they are mocked, dismissed, ridiculed, and utterly ignored. The Weather Channel offered its list of Top 10 Weather Years. Curious to watch and see if it conformed to the Global Warming Fraud (Climate Change) Narrative, I took notes. Worst weather years on record in America were 1995, 2011, 1816, 2012, 1992, 1993, 2005, 1935, 2017, and worst of all, 2013. The storm of the century was March 12, 1993. $5.5 billion damage. This contradicts the claim that climate change is making hurricanes and tornadoes more violent and more frequent. The Great Drought of 1935 needs some explaining as well, but will never get a fair hearing due to the bias in favor of billions of federal research dollars coming down the pipeline.