Leaderboard

And yet I think that just assuming things to be right, even if they are not, is what prevents us from getting anywhere. Most projections assume that the population is likely going to stabilize beteen 9,6- 12.5 billion. Meanwhile you are assuming impossible numbers, use conspiracy theories to support your point. That, however, is not helpful in developing strategies. If you plan for a population that may never arrive, you are not planning for the right thing. Also, since you do not understand the connection between fertility and education (especially women's education), it means that you are missing out that in high-fertility countries increasing the standard of living and increasing women's education may be stabilize the world population at the lower end of the prediction. In other words, if one wants to make a proper risk assessment and develop appropriate strategies, the most important bit is getting familiar with the actual situation and look at mechanisms that are relevant to them. Bold assumptions without any evidence is helping no one.

That is because you do not understand the relationship between standard of living and children choice. First, try observation. Look at family sizes in industrialized countries. Then look at families with high educational standards. What is more common there. a family with 9 children or family with 2? Then take a look at less developed countries and look at family size there. This is a well-known phenomenon because in areas where children are important as labour and to secure generational stability (e.g. as labour and to care for parents) and with high infant mortality a higher birth rate is expected. Once other opportunities arises (social welfare system, broader job market etc.), and medicine improves (reduced infant mortality, availability of contraceptives) , folks start making decisions whether they want offspring or not. Especially when women become more educated and want to have careers, they decide to have fewer or no children. In other words, your model of population growth is too simplistic and takes only survival into account, but does not reflect reality.

This is NOT a definition of Humanism I'm familiar with. Humanists favor a focus on the observable universe, its inhabitants, and their behavior over supernatural beliefs and pursuits. Is this a translation issue? Thank goodness stifling scientific truths is like therapy for me. Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better.... You do pick up some interesting tidbits now and then though. Oh yeah, you're the one who spent so many pages obtusely arguing that spheres must have 3 dimensions when everybody kept telling you we were talking about the surface only. Shit like that will definitely get you locked down. Nobody has time for that. Nobody.

Declining are only countries/nations with ratio children per woman less than 2. Here you have links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate (check table with fertility rate per woman) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacement_rates (check world map on the right, colors indicate whether country has replacement or decline of population)

We don't get in anywhere? We spend most of our time? Again, how does it help to mischaracterize the situation? We do progress, we spend time improving, but a LOT of progress is stifled because so many people claim we aren't doing anything, and they ignore the good that IS being done in favor of complaining.

It hasn't declined. The rate of growth has slowed, but population continues to grow. I know. Math is like hard and stuff, but this one is pretty simple.

So what? Does that mean we can't work towards a better goal? We can set up the world like that if more people thought it was possible.

This is a bit broad as a question. You must keep in mind that there are elements of security, a similar but different focus on privacy, and then depending on the nature of your cloud or business there are also elements of compliance with certain international standards and laws. Even just within the concept of security, you have to consider encryption type, vulnerability to brute force or DDoS attacks, back doors in the code allowing entry or APIs that can extract info, spear phishing and Ops convincing users to click links or share passwords, and even whether or not there's a physical guard at the door of your server stacks or datacenter. There's also concepts of have disaster recovery plans and the ability to transfer to alternate systems in the event of hardware failures, or backup generators in the case of power outages, and how granular the different user permissions models are (admin god-like access versus limited oversight access to subcomponents versus read-only access), etc. Once you get into the topics of privacy and compliance, then things get even more squirrely with GDPR and other regulatory issues from one country to the next, so you really need to narrow your focus, IMO.

More seriously, you could look at some of those high profile cases and see what security lapses led to their information being leaked: weak passwords, human factors, system hacked, etc. You could also take a look at the website https://haveibeenpwned.com which tracks security breaches to get an idea of the scale of the problem. You could try contacting the guy who runs it and other security researchers (check their twitter accounts, for example) for information. There are a lot of Internet security people who have blogs and write about cloud security. A google search should find you several.

Hi MigL, Please send across their contact links so I can contact any or all of them. Cheers!

The paper I'm referring to is Einstein's 1905 work "Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?" In it he derives what happens if two photons are simultaneously emitted or absorbed in/from opposite directions (of course, he doesn't say "photons" because that terminology did not yet exist) and he concludes "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content" Since internal motion is part of the energy content of a body, it's included with the mass. KE is not, as it is quite explicitly dependent on the frame of reference. IOW, you can pick a frame where the body is at rest and thus KE = 0. You cannot pick a frame where a body has no vibrational KE (even in classical physics; in QM the notion disappears entirely since the ground state a an harmonic oscillator has nonzero energy) It's part of the energy content of a body, and thus contributes to the mass.

! Moderator Note This does not meet the standards of a scientific discussion per the rules of the Speculation forum. Do not bring this up again.

I do not know you sir or madam and neither did I intend to either directly or indirectly insult you. I noticed the quote by MP, which ended with "snuffed it", at the bottom of zapatos' most recent comments here and found it elaborately humorous. I perceived this quote as a cleaver diversion that was in no way a slight against you as you now imagine. So, geez, relax!

Unfortunately your not going to find any papers that are in LQC that describes any of your axioms. I don't read a single accurate statement in the above. LQC deals with particle states these states involve both the particle like and wavelike nature of waveparticle duality. LQC follows the tenets of GR. Spacetime isn't created, the volume of spacetime may increase but this does not mean spacetime is created. Mass does influence spacetime curvature, however even under GR curvature really means the geodesic curvature terms of freefall paths such as the worldline (null geodesic) of photons. All advanced theories must be reducible to classical Newton laws this includes LQC and GR. In physics mathematics describe nature we use it to make testable predictions of interactions and other measurable dynamics (observables) under LQC. http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 Here is an introduction to LQC by Abhay Ashtekar However you will find this more useful as it details the principle formulas. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/research-centres-and-groups/theoretical-physics/msc/dissertations/2012/Suvi-Leena-Lehtinen-Dissertation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiY0KW7ksXkAhWJoJ4KHYa-C384ChAWMAh6BAgEEAE&usg=AOvVaw1qZeQiG6QPxgz5HCAIqDc8 Sorry for the long link on my phone atm.

You need to write a book about what TV shows you're watching. Or post this in What Are You Watching?

The velocity is constantly changing and so the ball has any specific velocity for 0 seconds. (I disagree with the last part. The ball may have the same speed twice (for zero seconds each time) but will never have the same velocity.)

A comet moving at that speed "coming out of sun" as it were would have to be on the outbound leg of a narrow elliptical orbit, that extends past Earth orbit. We hardly would have missed it on its inbound leg. We would have watched it, and calculated its outbound leg. While this might not give a perfect solution, we would know approximately where to look for it as it rounded the Sun and found it again fairly easily.

20 miles/sec The sun is 93 million miles away 4.65 million seconds to get from the sun to us. That more than 7 weeks. 14 weeks from the earth’s orbit distance on the other side (ignoring speed changes from gravity) The earth moves more than a quarter of its orbit in that time. Meaning the comet can’t “hide” We would see it. It’s not moving fast enough. The greater danger is an asteroid (not shedding mass and creating a tail) coming at us from the other side. Dark, hard to spot, and not much parallax.

Nothing will change because the problem happens tomorrow; and however relevant, history is, it won't happen tomorrow...

You're right we need action, not foolish words with no basis in reality; that just helps the Donald's of this world. We don't need to lie, or make stuff up, the shit is on the doorstep and a golf club won't help. IOW we need sensible/workable idea's that we can all get behind.

The speculation is the repelling photonic field would open a portal, or gateway to a different place. Wait for it, as my speculation conserved, please first check out this video. Please take a look at 2:45. The craft applied a technique known to computer science as a buffer attack on space time. We all thought that space time is supposed to constrict, but through a space time expansion mechanism we could apply a buffer attack and teleport some distance away. Keep in mind the craft is a radio wave antenna that generates light waves, or photons of zero mass and energy that could expand the space time. Photon exhibit a anti-gravitational property in nature. We would ask ourselves, is space time bent, or is light(photons) capable of bending space time. And if that does hold true than the repel in charges of a conflicting photonic field should theoretically expand the space time in nature, opening up a portal. Keep in mind a portal is just a continuous supply of photonic field or photons. I think my co-worker came up with the charge repel idea, likewise, a strong attraction force should potentially constrict space time and create a black hole. Earth has been a potential mix of different technologies over the years. Likewise, someone came up with this idea. Personally, I think the charge repel idea is cooler. P.S. Last one is a movie clip from Hellboy. Then it is simple. You put two electromagnets next to each other and heave them repel and charge it with very high current. And you could open a portal.

Spheres have 3 dimensions - so does a piece of paper - according to some if you walk in a circle forever that represents infinity - it doesn't. Oh - so logic doesn't matter on this site - I get it.

When or if you learn that Einstein was wrong about time and gravity, then you will begin to understand the Universe.

I must refuse, on grounds of plaigarism. The only person I'd share my credit with for no reason is swansont, because he seems an unnaturally intelligent scientist who was born in the wrong era (if this was 1945 he would be in the history books for discovering something great like relativity) How do I know? Ah. And even if I did go about sharing my credit, it would only be if swansont agreed to help me with the technical points in my theory. Say for instance I've discovered for the first time ever that 2+2=4, but only a mathematics phD can explain WHY it is so. So I collaborate with the mathematician. In this case, the finding of the exact shape of a 4D graph, pioneered by yours truly and swansont. What do you say swansont?

And this is why we don’t get in anywhere because we spend most of our time trying to prove other ppl wrong than focusing on the global problems. Lmao Charon Y has us going back and forth helped anyone apart from increase ur hart rate.have u even looked at my link. I looked at strangers . as ppl we best learn from mistakes.im a person who is happy when proven wrong because then I at least have the right answer If someone disagrees with my comments please tell me why and I’m the words of someone else please give me proof at least a link

Einsteins theories are not evidence - he was a moron, like most of the people on this site.

If your intention was to insult me, you could be a man enough to say that openly what you got, and not hide behind the others, and behind abbreviations.