Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/06/19 in all areas

2 points! Moderator Note You need to seek professional help in your area. We aren't equipped (no online resource is) to deal with your problem, and since we care we MUST insist you get together with a mental health professional in person to discuss the next steps in getting you back on your personal path. I hope you'll understand and seek help. Feel free to stop by and join in science discussions, but no more threads asking for opinions on medical matters. Thread closed.

2 points

1 pointI see that you’re incredibly unfamiliar with this topic. Thought I could help share some of what I’ve learned or hopefully learn things from you in the process. Thanks for comfirming that won’t be happening. Again, this depends completely on which jobs and which machines you’re describing.

1 pointDon't worry, you are most likely normal for a fourteen year old. You are at an important stage in your life where you are trying to define who you are and what you want from life and people. It can be quite a lonely time while you figure all this out, along with all the new feelings and awareness that you didn't have before this period. Be aware that your friends, that are around your age, will be going through the same issues too... you are not alone. Just take your time and work though your thoughts. This time of uncertainty will ease as you pass through this process of maturation. Hang on in there. If you do really feel stuck and can't handle it, seek your doctor out.

1 pointThe way I see it, machines don't buy goods or services. While machines can and will take over many kinds of job, the owners of those machines/robots will still need a market to sell whatever those jobs do, to. e.g. say car manufacturing is totally taken over by robots. Great for the profitability of the car factories. But, if "everyone" has lost their job to a machine, who buys those cars? (Yeah, a bad and only partly worked through example.) So there'll be a rebalancing, if things go that way. Either people will find other kinds of jobs, or there's going to be a serious change in the way society works  more redistribution of wealth (taxation > social benefits) and jobs (job sharing). Stuff like that. (I remember doing a school project when I was 12 (1982). It was about the "future" as posited by some "futurist". Apparently when machines eventually do all that work we would all get more leisure time. We'd all be working just 3 days a week and spending the rest of the time at the tennis club or something. I doubt it will ever be quite like that in reality, but there will be changes.)

1 pointIt depends on how many siblings you have. My eldest brother moved away to live on college campus. My second eldest brother joined the Navy. There was space for me in the basement until age 27, when I found a job with 1.5 hours commute by bus each way. I moved because I found a room closer to my job. It was in a big house with members of a Hindu cult called Ananda Marga, which was an adventure. There was a resident yogi. After a few months I married one of the cult members so she could get a green card, and we are still together 37 years later.

1 pointI cannot improve upon perfection, so there's just the one personality for me.

1 pointThis is a science forum primarily for discussions regarding science and other topics of interest. You are treating this place like a chatroom for adolescent boys. You have been given a lot of leeway as you are new here, but I'm afraid if you don't get in the swing of things, you won't be long for this site.

1 pointThat might apply to some people, but personally I prefer discussions.

1 pointPosting single line question after question on the forum is spammy, low effort and annoying. Try researching a topic yourself and offering some discussion instead of expecting others to do all the work for you.

1 pointI think you can but you should phrase it different. This is a science forum so your OP should start a discussion concerning the scientific study of suicide. Suicide is for example not limited to humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide

1 pointNo, you are not right. Massive objects cannot attain the speed of light. A stone in the sand also has the earth pushing up on it. The net acceleration is zero, as the two forces cancel. Gravity keeps us "glued" to the earth's surface. Your opinion is based on (and limited by) ignorance. You would be well served by studying physics first. You will never understand why you are wrong without it.

1 pointSome further thoughts. With monkeys, typewriters and letters we are talking the statistics of a discrete variable of integers, not the statistics of real numbers. String Junky, in suitable circumstances. But you would have a problem ordering the monkeys. An infinite amount of monkeys would produce enough letters for every sequence (ie an infinite amount of letters), if they all typed one letter apiece. This would obviously include the finite set comprising the complete works of Shakespeare. But how would you know which set of monkeys to choose from, before they started typing? You would have to discard an infinite amount of typing to be left with a finite set. There is one other interesting thing about infinity that comes up here. One of the basic (and original) identifiers of infinity was that the 'part contains the whole'. So one monkey, typing an infinite amount of characters, would not only type out the complete works of Shakespeare, She would also type out all the (infinite) characters of Pi. Remember the sequence of Pi never repeats. The issue of how long in time this would take is an irrelevant red herring.

1 pointIf each of infinitely many monkeys types a random sequence of \(n\) letters, then with probability 1, every possible sequence of length \(n\) will be typed by infinitely many of them.

1 pointWe can't change the press if nothing else, free speech means we are stuck with it. We can change education. We can teach kids to recognise dross when they see it.

1 pointIt's a popularized fable to give people a feel for the mathematical infinite. Sort of like Hilbert's hotel, which is an infinite hotel that can nevertheless accommodate infinitely many new guests without having to displace anyone. Sort of like a rubber sheet with gridlines drawn on it, and a bowling ball in the center pulling the sheet down, showing how mass distorts space to create gravity. Of course the question is ... what pulls the bowling ball down? So these stories should not be taken for science; but rather, as sciencey fables.

1 pointGreat article, thanks. Yes that's a really interesting point. We're so much more familiar with the everyday rationals, even though they are the great outliers in the reals. That's another interesting thing about the normal numbers. The normal numbers are real numbers whose decimal representation has every finite string a statistically equal number of times. It's been proven that almost all (all but a set of measure zero) real numbers are normal. However, very few real numbers have been proven normal. When people speculate that "Pi contains the names of all the people you will ever know," which is a meme that was floating around a while back, they're assuming that pi is a normal number. But in fact that's an open problem. Nobody has any idea if pi is normal. [Edit  as with Shakespeare and the monkeys, that requires pi to be a disjunctive number, a point many online are confused about. I didn't want to add to that confusion. If all we need is for every finite sequence to appear at least once, that's disjunctive].

1 pointThe bolded part? The measure of the rationals in the reals is zero. If you "throw a dart at the real line," or randomly pick a real number out of a hat, the probability that the number you pick is rational is zero. Yet you might get lucky and pick a rational. In infinite probability theory, probability zero doesn't mean an event is impossible; and probability 1 doesn't mean that it's certain. As a (perhaps) intuitively visualizable example, suppose I flip a fair coin infinitely many times. The probability that they're all heads is zero. Yet there's no reason why they couldn't all be heads. It's just really really unlikely. As unlikely as the sequence of coin flips representing a rational number in binary [with a binary point in front of the sequence so that it represents some real number in the unit interval].

1 pointI think the question to be ill defined. What do you mean by change? Consider the following situation. A man possesses 7 white shirts, 7 black ties, seven pairs of black trousers, seven pairs of black socks and seven pairs of black shoes. Every day he washes and changes his set of clothes but he always looks the same. Is there any change of appearance?

1 pointI couldn't resist another attempt... how about writing symbols on the back of paper and use backlight? Could work with the right combination of paper thickness, light and ink. Quick experiment, using office paper, ball pen and flashlight from behind paper. Flashlight off: Flashlight on:

1 point

1 point

1 pointSo looking at the image below, it appears that Galagidae have recognizable soles, but Cynocephalidae do not : and when we look at a primate phylogeny, we see the split between these two groups is around 65 million years ago: So soles originated about 65 million years ago, give or take. You meant soles as in soles of the feet, right?

0 pointsit is sad. but it is modern day eugenics(except volunteering is out of stupidity(i mean you would rather your child die then take what you believe with no evidence causes autism)). edit: just thought to add I am doing better than the majority of kids at my school and I am even doing science out of school and I have autism I mean it is not that bad.

1 pointsAlright, this will be my my final ‘say’. It is true that without Math, scientists will not be able to describe the ‘physics’ of how things work, both in nature and in the universe. Math is a tool to guide Science. However, I find it well suited for the Mathematicians, in the first place, to develop or to discover, a higher math that will change our view of the world we live in. Euclidean Geometry is good for a static, flat world. NonEuclidean geometry that involves curved spaces for a static, spacetime world as described by Einstein, is another form of geometry. I am wondering now, how the geometry will look like, if circles get bigger and bigger and points move in a spiral path, in an expanding, flat world, which how our universe is being described by science, nowadays? Or how complicated, it would be, in a 3D expanding world? My curiosity is even led me to think that if Endy0816 said (On 3/3/2019 at 2:34 pm),“ You only feel the force when you accelerate, changing velocities. If you reach and then remain at 120 mph or even 100,000,00 mph you won’t feel it”, then if the earth able to increase its speed through acceleration, buy time to adjust on that speed and accelerated again and adjusted repeatedly, then a massive object like an earth could possibly, reach the speed of light, on a certain given length of time. Somehow, it will contradict Einstein’s view that no ‘massive object could reach the speed of light', am I right? Same as if F= ma, as force is somewhat related to motion (due to the ‘a’ refer to acceleration) how come we define g as a force accelerating at 9.8 meters per second square if we find a stone standing still in a sand? We learned the speeds of the Earth’s rotation and revolution, Sun’s direction and speed its traveling based on how we ‘relate’ things to a certain reference and the momentum that keep the things on earth glued together on the surface of the earth, still conform to that type of math we’re applying. My math is not that advanced nor my science knowledge is so limited but as I run my imagination, there are still a lot of questions going on. Yes, maybe there are still pieces of puzzle that we not yet discovering and to what it strongly leading me, as a personal opinion, “Scientists should give up the idea that gravity is a force like a magnet attracting everything on its surface” or else, matters, space and time will remain 'illusions'.