Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/12/19 in all areas

  1. Okay so it's been about 15 years since I decided I couldn't be bothered to code an entire online game. For those of you who don't know (which I guess is the majority of you who haven't been stalking me) I've spent the past 5+ years publishing the Armada Wars universe as fiction. After four books the characters are in their stride, events are dire, and it's starting to get really fun. At some point I may well come full circle and - if the fan base gets big enough - look at game dev again. Also... one million necromancy points
    4 points
  2. Last time I checked, that was a hot hydrogen atom, rather than a neutron.
    1 point
  3. Einstein's reply was something along the lines of, "if they had a point, it would only need one author." Can we get back to science now?
    1 point
  4. I suspect that the answer to "Does society tend to flourish better when it's patriarchal or matriarchal?" is "no".
    1 point
  5. I'm senile, he's soft, I Don't Know is on third. You're coming out of left field, so you must be Why. We've come a long way from the days when you'd just have someone sanctioned for lipping off to a mod. Nowadays, we let these threads go on so we can gather compromising intel on the offenders and sell it.
    1 point
  6. Haven't you always been senile? Or am I thinking of Phi for All. Okay maybe I'm going senile.
    1 point
  7. Start with the triangle inequality. It is the easist to understand. Basically it says that any side of any triangle is shorter than the sum of the other two sides added together. Of course if you are willing to call the second figure a triangle it gives the condition for equality. This seems so obvious it should be trivial but the meaning runs deeper and pops up in suprisingly numerous guises. It is further to go from A to C via B than to go directly. Now imagine AC, AB and BC are vectors. The resultant of two vectors always has smaller magnitude than the sum of the magnitudes of its components, except in the second case, when they are equal. Does this make sense? Please explain to me how your measurement changed the measureand in my example where you sit and wait, doing nothing at all (no measuring) until the light arrives, by which time the event you are measuring is over.
    1 point
  8. The molecular part? OK, now you have to explain what you mean by subjective, because the dictionary definition (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions) can't possibly be correct. This is physics. There are no personal feelings in any physics phenomena. Do you mean relative, as in it depends on which observer makes the measurement? You keep citing the "law of middle" as if this were an actual law. But it's what you are trying to demonstrate here. It's circular reasoning to use it as if it were true, unless you are using it to make predictions for testing purposes. So are definitions of words, but you have not been using definitions that everyone else is using. It's is making this discussion very difficult, trying to decipher your non-standard use of terminology.
    1 point
  9. Is pedophilia necessarily wrong? Yes.
    1 point
  10. It’s probably easier for them to dehumanize us when we dehumanize them. We can’t say we’re better than they are if we don’t also act better. Many terrorists have felt alone and cutoff from the world for much of their lives. They've been isolated and felt deficient empathy toward them from others for years, and that’s a huge part of what drives them into terrorist recruiters hands in the first place. They’ve often felt that terror cells were the only group that would accept them. The terror group WAS the way out. Then, they realize it wasn’t. They realize the reality doesn’t live up to the marketing videos; that they fell victim to the hype. That’s when it’s good for us and becomes a huge opportunity for us to win in a much bigger way... hearts and minds. We can obviously still prosecute crimes and we have a justice system that does an excellent job at it, but we have to start by letting them back. That’s a gating factor. By remembering they’re humans who made mistakes in their past and can still grow and improve in their present and future, and by finding ways to bring them home and adjudicate their wrongdoings like we would any other human, we win. By reminding ourselves NOT to dehumanize them, we win. We’re able to both lead by example AND remind others who may be considering joining a terror group tomorrow why our principles are actually worth fighting for (instead of against). That’s how we win. We don’t abandon our principles in response to terrorism. We instead must bolster and stand firmly behind them. We must convince others through our own choices just how fundamental, crucial, and important these principles are. We demonstrate through our actions that we support these principles so fiercely that we also apply them equally to both our actual and to our perceived enemies. We stand up on principle. That’s how we win.
    1 point
  11. Maybe you have new equations, maybe you are reinventing the wheel. It's funny how the same subject doesn't appear for ages and then crops up in several places at once. Just like London buses. I have already mentioned to someone else today that you have to be careful when applying relativity via the lorenz factor to electric effects because total charge itself is lorenz invariant, but charge density is not. So the distribution of charge appears different in different frames of reference. This effect arises because charge density or distribution depends upon a measurement of distance in the frame of assessment. And, of course, distance is frame depenendent ie not lorenz invariant. The total charge is the same in all frames because the return current path is often outside the system boundary, perhaps at infinity.
    1 point
  12. So that's what "Small government" means...
    1 point
  13. All good points. There's something else we might want to do in addition to giving people a way back. We might want to avoid driving them down that route in the first place. ISIS thinks the West is "Evil" and massively biassed against people who are not white + Christian. One of our senior politicians just flouted international law in order to stop a British citizen returning home (presumably to trial) and this led- fairly predictably- to the death of a newborn baby. Perhaps we should stop writing ISIS' propaganda for them.
    1 point
  14. +1 but it still makes me want to fly over for a few Guinesses to slap that nonsense out of you
    1 point
  15. I understand the desire for retribution and punishment. I feel it myself and it’s powerful. It crowds out my reason and logic. When I give sufficient space to my logic and reason, however, it’s clear that we need to be cautious around how we frame these issues. Specifically: Our main objective is to limit terrorism and to shrink their ranks. In that context, we need to encourage more of them to leave these terrorist organizations, to walk away and return to society as a productive member who has matured beyond their previous errors. To meet our goal, we need to provide MORE off ramps for people to leave terrorist networks and we need to provide MORE paths away from their mistaken choices of the past. It seems obvious to me that within any terrorist groups, there are sure to be members who don’t want to be there, who quickly realized they made a horrible mistake and who want to leave. By revoking citizenship and preventing thoughtful cautious methods of reintegration, we show them only that they’re stuck, that there is no hand reaching back when they reach out for help, and there’s no reason to abandon the cause... There are no alternatives so best to keep doing what they’re doing. This approach of making exit from terrorist organizations harder is shortsighted. It’s an obvious mistake. Let’s be authentic with our desire for revenge and retribution, let’s appreciate it for being valid and justified, but let’s also be wise enough to choose the better long-term path of having MORE options for these people to walk away from their mistaken decision, not fewer.
    1 point
  16. It might help to bear in mind that Heisenberg is a special case or subset of a much larger class of inequalities of the format [math]AB \ge \Upsilon [/math] Where [math]\Upsilon [/math] is some constant. In particular the units/dimensions of the constant, upsilon, needs to be consistent with the units of A and B. The use of Planck's constant enables this in Heisenberg. Other constants appear in the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the triangle inequality, which are more general examples of the same principle.
    1 point
  17. My copy of the New Testament has numerous references to slaves and slavery, and usually admonishes them to obey their masters with fear and trembling. Ephesians 6:5-8 and Colossians 3:22-24 are the first two that come up.
    1 point
  18. Because the book was written by people, trying to codify and justify their behavior?
    1 point
  19. Ha ha. I guess scientists that disagree with inflation should not be allowed to drive.
    0 points
  20. ! Moderator Note No, we are not going to have a discussion wherein anyone is defending pedophilia.
    0 points
  21. Yes but those values only exist when you measure them, you can't invent those values. HUP is only visible when you measure a particle And measurements are subject to the observer effect. The hup is a constraint. If phenomena did not change when measured/observed then there wouldn't be a constraint. When you measure the momentum of a particle then you alter it's energy, you change the phenomenon….But if there was no observer effect then you could measure the momentum without altering its energy and without changing the phenomenon. If there was no measurement/observer effect then particles don't know they are measured and you could measure momentum and position as precise as possible. Without measurement/observer effect, measuring doesn't alter the particle so you can repeat the measurements.
    -1 points
  22. Q. Why do so many newbies with obvious hypotheticals, as opposed to tried and tested mainstream models, have so much trouble discerning the difference? A. This is the difference. All of science is based on irreducible hypotheticals, the original inductive beginning of a theory or model by which we attempt to derive deductions. If these latter remain consistent the theory gains support, else we need to revise or abandon hypotheses. Mainstream hypotheses are like fashion or worse until science becomes technology. How much of Mainstream qualifies. What happened to phlogiston, or absolute time and space? Where was Hubble's evidence for Bigbangium, and why didn't Einstein propose the same when it was he who informed Hubble that the universe was expanding? The hypothesis was contrary to both theories of relativity, and still is, besides spitting out anomalies that caused CHANGES IN MAINSTREAM for decades! How much of science is actually applied in known technology across all fields? So why laud Mainstream when wisdom is justified by her children, and the folly is in your faces. Yet we worship a God that uses the credence of a small fraction to claim universal infallibility while lemmings march on. Q. Proposals without evidence are a dime a dozen. What evidence, observational or experimental, do you have to support your hypothetical claim against the tried and tested mainstream theory/model? A. As detailed, the pot calls the kettle black, with three fingers pointing back at itself! A spring cleaning of the entire hypothetical basis of all branches of science is required, where technology has yet to verify political/economic influence. This general swipe of snow and mist is by its nature unanswerable. I must restrict myself to specific questions with apologies. Q. Then you need an alternative explanation for all the evidence that the nucleus also contains neutrons. A. Why not propose that the nucleus consists of protons and mu mesons? Insufficient mass for electrons in the nucleus was contradicted by the Mainstream adoption of the evidence from Enola Gay to the world - a little too loud to (continue to) ignore. Relativistic electrons have the mass, and therefore carry the mass-energy. Q. 1. Electric charge has positive and negative charges (and equivalently for magnetic fields). Gravity doesn't. A. 1. I claim (with the same evidence used for Hubble’s famous hypothesis that Mainstream implicitly accepts) that an expanding universe says otherwise – that matter and antimatter repel. This voids the need for Dark Matter to supply the missing force. We might use the name for antimatter. Q. 2. Electromagnetic forces both attract and repel. Gravity doesn't. A. 2, See A. 1 Q. 3. Electromagnetism can be easily screened. Gravity can't. A. 4. For those who haven't heard the bomb (1945) yet - all force is one force - electric fields. Disturbances in the force are a result of the acceleration of charged particles. Magnetic force is a result of space contraction creating an imbalance in the fluxes from moving charges relative to the (observer protons) stationary charges. The mathematics reveals that (as suspected by Maxwell) the permeability constant (u) equals the reciprocal of the product of the permittivity constant (e) with the speed of light (c) squared. Electromagnetism is a very loose term and incorrect if I am right. We may need to rename light (in any inertial frame) as electro-magnetic-gravitational energy. Q. 4. Electromagnetism can be explained by a simple force with an inverse square law. Gravity can't. A. 4. This is incorrect: F = G.m1.m2/r^2 looks much like F = 4.Pi.e.q1.q2/r^2. The difference is (present Mainstream) that m, unlike q, is only positive. I CONTEST THIS HYPOTHESIS, and have done so since I learned about antimatter in 1969. Einstein died in 1955. Antimatter (beyond positrons) was discovered in 1956, when the existence of the second material particle - the antiproton - became manifest to the scientific community. Without this Einstein was unaware that the universe consisted of both types of matter. Mainstream has voided this with 'evidence' of asymmetric matter-antimatter reactions to prop up Big Bang once again. The evidence seems very flimsy to me, considering the evidence of the exact opposite in so many ways. But antimatter balancing matter universally (materialisation from gamma rays indicates conservation of charge and mass by zero sum) was necessary to complete his Unified Field Theory. My proposal actually explains Einstein’s hypothesised gravitational and inertial mass equivalence principle, as well as the implied rest mass-energy equivalence as absolute potential energy in the gravitational fields of the universe. Q. 5. Etc. (This idiotic idea comes up with such tedious frequency, that I should really keep a list of these somewhere instead of typing it out every time...) A. 5. This is not Platonic dialogue. Must be Aristotelian. I have no doubt that you have and cherish pat rhetoric for argument without reason. There is no umpire in a chess game, if you wish to test your logic objectively. Q. "The importance of contesting this conjecture is that General Relativity deals with the effects of relative acceleration in the production of imbalanced fluxes due to relative space contraction." What!? A. Clearly the replies from Nelson's schoolyard bullies are "biff, biff, biff". Politicians in the making? Relying on rhetoric, not well verse in topics, any idea what you're talking about? (plagiarising Cyndi Lauper's "You Don't Know". She probably understands Magnetism better than some.) Let's keep it logical and scientific, and a little less hypocritical, political and emotional, and keep the board level so the pieces don’t disappear. Science seeks Truth, necessary for Justice, if you cherish your Freedom and trust in your God by whatever definition. In the wrong hands it is our mutual extinction.
    -3 points
  23. For instance, in a forum that gets less attention on here, "the lounge", this topic has gotten 2 more views even though it was posted thirty minutes later than my other topic in speculations. Why? Because, like homosexuality, which I find gross, pedophilia (which I think is natural because children are cuter and should or aught to trigger a protective and therefore attractive instinct in adults) is shamed. Why? Because people are stupid, a, and because b, people are pedophiles, and are jealous of pedophiles. In fact, when I was a child, I recall being more attracted to adults than other children. If being a pedophile were so punishable, than how could that be the case? I think the Gestapo are pedophiles, because the Vatican are pedophiles, and therefore explicitly condemn the slave class from fornicating with children.
    -4 points
  24. Say this pedophile, as revolting as he may be, doesn't cause the child physical pain, opting instead to just caress her or something. Should he really spend a veritable eternity getting raped up the ass for this. You see this is one of the reasons I think the Illuminati of the German Police Force should been dismantled and disarmed and shamed. Other than the fact that most children don't mind getting rubbed down enough to report it, the majority of child molesters claim they don't harm children physically. According to the FBI, only one out of ten cases of child sexual abuse is reported to law enforcement. So all a child has to do is fight back and most pedophiles, will not persist to the point where they have to cause them harm. If the child is really emotionally uncomfortable, they will back. So children aren't even uncomfortable with being rubbed most of the time they like it! Law and Order GREATLY condemns specifically pedophilia, as does South Park, misrepresenting pedophiles as unintelligent, or unattractive. Which is no different from Stereotyping.
    -4 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.