Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/31/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    ! Moderator Note I think the thread has run its course as we full full-circled at least a half-dozen times. Closed.
  2. 1 point
    I think that should be If IsEmpty(Range("F29")) Because "F29" is a string and never empty!
  3. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note Not consistent with our rules about speculations
  4. 1 point
    We don't know. They may have always been there. Locally, conservation laws. On cosmological scales, the conservation of energy is more complex so it is not obvious that energy is conserved in the same way.
  5. 1 point
    And therein lies the problem, most of us don't know the language, we just get the synopsis...
  6. 1 point
    Who are most disordered, those that think they understand "the standard model" or those that think they understand the bible
  7. 1 point
    I'd like to think it wasn't a mental disorder... I do wonder sometimes though. It says 'typical of'... presumably you can be deluded without the mental disorder? This - exactly. Reality and rational argument contradicts.... but the belief is(was) still there.
  8. 1 point
    And if I don't but still believe? Which bit of "it" is about it?
  9. 1 point
    The problem is assuming that someone who believes something you don't is delusional or ignorant. Very few people actually understand "the standard model" and if nothing else this site highlights that as a fact, sorry high probability. But we all have to live together and whilst I get your zealous pursuit of enlightenment (given your local circumstances) banging your head against a wall is more likely to lead to endarkenment, at least for you.
  10. 1 point
    I worked for 27 years at ICI of Australia, 10 of those mainly in the section we called the "cell room" where we manufactured Sodium Hydroxide [NaOH] and Chlorine[Cl] The process involved cells around 100 ft long and 3ft wide and 8in deep. Mercury [Hg] was used as a catylist in the process. The Hg was always as much as possible, kept covered with water, and the factory/warehouse where this was taken place, had industrial fans continually blowing all the time to get rid of the Hg that did happen to evaporate under the hottish conditions where this took place. Also all workers were urine tested once a month, and if personal readings reached a scale 20% below that which was recommended by the WHO, he was immediatley removed from that section into another area of production... In recent times and well after my departure, this method of Cl production was ceased in favour of another method. There was also some ground contamination in that region after something like 40 years of using Hg. That ground now has all been monitored/sifted/removed and other precautions taken at the bequest of the NSW government and at costs to ICI of Australia now known as ORICA. https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/epa/botany-mercury-independent-review-final-report-160718.pdf?la=en&hash=2A679A3429138 https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/working-together/community-engagement/community-news/orica-botany-bay-incident/orica-botany
  11. -1 points
    I should have stuck to my original argument at the very start. You people got me side tracked; its all your fault. I started with: consider the subset of the reals S = ((0,1), <), < the usual order. If R is well ordered there must be a number a in S such that a ≤* x where x is any number in S and <* is the well ordering. Now if we delete a from S we have {a}\S = {x: x ∈ S and a <* x, a ≠ x}. BUT, we can plainly tell {a}\S contains no <* minimum number! We claimed <* well orders R, but clearly {a}\S ⊂ R and it has no least element which contradicts our assumption <* WOs R. NOTE: if <* is an order relation on R it applies to all elements in R; therefore, if <* is the order chosen for S it also applies to {a}\S. You can't pick a different order relation to give you what you want for every set you're considering. We defined {a}\S using <* and its claimed here that WO guarantees {a}\S has a minimum and the AC guarantees it. But, we can't find it! I don't have to show S exists; its already the same numbers of the interval (0,1) with we started with; its just reordered by our supposed <* order relation. I'll get to your latest questions, but the above is the most straightforward proof. PLEASE NOTE: All I need to do is show there is one set that no matter which order you choose no least element (minimum) can be found. wtf seems to think I need to prove the opposite (apparently) that all subsets have no minimum; hence, he keeps bringing up natural and rational numbers.
  12. -1 points
    https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/delusion?s=t First example: Misconception, misbelief, Other words that struck my fancy.: Deception, fantasy, chicanery, Self deception. I would think it's just another attempt to obfuscate this thread and draw it away from religious belief. If you believe that smacking your finger with a hammer will feel good you are delusional but not in the religious sense. I can demonstrate with your finger and a hammer how delusional you are. If you believe in god and give your money because then you think god wants your pastor or church to be rich then you are delusional in the religious sense and there is no way to demonstrate god is real much less want you to donate money to him.
  13. -1 points
    Again, you post a meaningless obfuscation of the OT....
  14. -1 points
    No shit Sherlock.
  15. -5 points
    Do you have a paypal account? Ever think of renting out your brain? I would need you to read my grunts, pretend that you think it's possible, and write an equation smart enough to pacify another physicist just as angry as you to new ideas. Here's the hypothesis: The QM/Spacetime Divide Spacetime = classical/relativity QM = waves Our singularity (big bang) initiated in an existing Quantum Field of virtual particles. If everything in the beginning was waves, does it help explain the insane expansion rate right after the singularity? Spacetime didn't exist until after inflation? ..maybe when the singularly became large enough to be observed? Was the very first observable event the creation of Spacetime? This is about the half of QM that physicists don't like to talk about, when an object in superposition can only be described as math waves. The question of what matter is while in that state has chewed away at me for years. I think I found the answer; Quantum objects literally swap to waves when disconnected from Spacetime. Yes, that's right, I'm saying QM floats above the fabric of Spacetime. Observation grants quantum objects partial/temporary Spacetime. An unspecified/unknown number of chemically bounded atoms are always anchored to Spacetime. (user studiot claims it's to do with the level of complexity) When we zoom into a large object, those atoms bonded together are not going to display quantum weirdness. If we separated a single atom from that object, it is suddenly too small to inhibit Spacetime. I knew it was losing a dimension of some type and originally assumed a 3D object was turning into 2D (something without depth is invisible to us) ..but then the math said it actually retains its 3D (u/racinreaver). It dawned on me that objects without Spacetime are also invisible to us. I then looked at the uncertainty principle and realized that the particle was not completely inhabiting Spacetime. If my hypothesis is correct, something should be strange about time for quantum objects ..and it is. Maybe something in superposition doesn't age. They won't ever find quantum gravity. I like to think doing an experiment that shows the Uncertainty Principle also shows a dimension not fully realized (wave isn't fully collapsed ..or doesn't fully possess the full dimension of Spacetime.) We are looking in the wrong place to quantize time and gravity. We should be able to find the QM/Spacetime divide by sending larger and larger groups of bonded atoms into an Uncertainty principle experiment, when groups with momentum stop being fuzzy, we will have our number. This will probably give new insights into virtual particles, dark energy, dark matter, and the big bang. It seems replicating my theory is the best approach to making a quantum computer: https://phys.org/news/2019-05-continuum.html