Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/18/19 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    My son holding my grand daughter!
  2. 2 points
    That's kind of the definition of UFO.
  3. 1 point
    And she's so damn cute!!
  4. 1 point
    Congratulations! I’m sure her grandpa will spoil her for years to come
  5. 1 point
    Awesome! Congratulations!
  6. 1 point
    That's sweet. Congratulations to the entire your family!
  7. 1 point
    First of all, you have to consider what happens when you "bump into" everyday matter. The interaction between you and that matter is all done via electromagnetic fields. The electromagnetic fields in the matter interact with the electromagnetic fields of the matter which you are made of. So the "solidness" any object is just due to this electromagnetic interaction. This electromagnetic interaction is also responsible for the objects interaction with light or any other frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum. They are reason they glow when hot or absorb, reflect, or scatter electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter, by its very nature, does not interact with light in this manner. It is completely lacking in electromagnetic interaction ( like the aforementioned neutrino). Thus it also would not participate in the type of "bumping into" interaction everyday matter does, and thus passes right through you pretty much like you weren't there.
  8. 1 point
    No you would not. In fact dark matter is passing through you all the time (although the density of dark matter around the Earth is very low). Just like neutrinos. It would be invisible, because it doesn't interact with light.
  9. 1 point
    Well being weakly interactive it would behave much like neutrinos in so far as a neutrino can pass through a light year of solid lead without an interaction. Assuming DM is right hand neutrinos
  10. 1 point
    There are multiple lines of evidence for the existence of effects caused by something we label "dark matter". These include the orbital speeds within galaxies, the speeds of orbits with galaxy clusters, gravitational lensing, the spectrum of the CMB, the formation of large scale structures in the universe, and probably more. Nearly all of this evidence points to dark matter being a form of matter which does not interact electromagnetically. So, similar to neutrinos but it must be more massive because the distribution shows it to be moving more slowly. Not "see" it because it doesn't;t interact with light. I guess the question means will we ever have a more "direct" detection of the particles that make it up? Probably. It took over a decade to detect neutrinos "directly" before they were first detected. Obviously, it is harder to detect dark matter particles (otherwise we would have known what they were, perhaps even before observing the effects). It is rather inevitable that each new type of particle is going to be harder to detect. I don't know what that means. Neptune was a "wildcard thrown in to a mathematical equation to make the equation work". The same could be said of electrons, photons, gravity, energy ... Physics is described in terms of equations. When we discover new things, they are are included in those equations. That would be true whether dark matter is a modification to gravity or some form of matter. So the question doesn't really make sense.
  11. 1 point
    Gentlemen, Thank you for time spent answering my question. Mark
  12. 1 point
    Its a social construct, thus the question of whether there is any in war boils down to what the culture of the considered side is like, or both in some cases. But generally i doubt its something that manifests in all societies. On the other hand there may be analogous of glory in other cultures that are just very similiar to the western concept. Maybe you could be more specific, things are just very open ended otherwise.
  13. -1 points
    That is basically what you are doing if you take a summation or an integral. Then an area can be finite even though the line is infinitely long. Then you can get a finite answer. The line of the equation of the average of all probabilistic events approach the X-axis as the values get closer to infinity. That makes sense, because there would be an extremely low value of a probability of any specific outcome. Then the average of all those would be close to zero. Then the law of large numbers states that the average outcomes should be close to the expected value. You should be able to find the probability of a single event from all of the random outcomes. Then that shouldn't be close to zero. It is because summations are an obsolete form of mathematics. We might as well be hitting people over the head with clubs and living in caves or something. They would both have their benefits and problems. I already told you like 50 times that it didn't matter to me if it only applied to one specific example that can only use integers. It would just be much easier to not even worry about that. You are just making it more complicated than it really needs to be to find ANY answer or example where it could work. I still haven't seen anyone able to do it, and they would never be able to get away with it if they did. They would have to incorporate some way to weight probabilities to get closer to a desired outcome. Then they would not be able to, because then that would mean they commuted the gamblers fallacy. The more times and event occurs, any outcome just becomes less likely to occur. You do not end up with an average of the base, starting probability.
  14. -1 points
    Who is to say what range we should be looking in? It was incredibly hard to read, because you didn't use latex format. Then you didn't define the variables you used in a way I could understand. I said at the start of the thread, I just started teaching 7th grade probabilities. I never had to take probabilities in my past, because I was told that this proof never existed. Then apparently the Common Core Standards have introduced it into the curriculum, despite that from my knowledge.
  15. -1 points
    Human beings can innovate constantly. Animal innovation is limited.
×
×
  • 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.