Leaderboard

Kobe Bryant, the star Laker who retired less than 2 years ago, his daughter, and 7 others were killed this morning when Kobe's chopper crashed in Calabasas CA. I go bike trail riding at Malibu State Park, which is about a mile from where his chopper crashed. Kobe was the kind of athlete that is likeable, a real nice guy, besides being poetry in motion. See you later Kobe! He's been immortalized in video.

We only spambanned them because the robot left out, "Don't forget to drizzle some on your huevos tomorrow for breakfast!" This is why we still need people.

Swansont is correct. If we look at gravitational time dilation as the loss of energy of an EM reference signal as it travels up a gravitational well, then an EM signal ( light clock ) would lose energy travelling in the direction of acceleration, and gain when travelling opposite the direction of acceleration. By gain/loss of energy I mean increased/decreased frequency and/or shortened/lengthened wavelength. IOW the equivalence principle holds.

Is the resentment mostly because it's about cashy-money instead of something else? As iNow pointed out, you wouldn't resent someone who got better medical treatment than you did because of advancements in knowledge. We may grumble but we understand it when a friend gets more features when he buys the same car we bought 3 years ago. But people's attitudes change a lot when money is involved.

Looks like some of our spammers are using bots to generate the text. This example amused me

But you’d be able to tell the difference between gravity and an acceleration if there was no difference. The question to answer, I think, is how do you compare the clocks? Show what happens to the signal.

She was seen by him and Giuliani as an obstacle to their scheme of extorting Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden before military aid was released. She’s been a career diplomat for 30 years for administrations in both parties, and wasn’t one to go along with questionable behavior. So, they had her removed so they could pressure Ukraine in the way they did. trump says he didn’t pressure anyone to have her removed Now, one of these indicted guys named Lez Parnev is saying all of this happened with Trumps explicit direction. Trump kept saying he’s never even met Parnev so Parnev began releasing some of the hundreds of selfies he’d taken with Trump. Trumk said, “nah, well I take pictures with people all of the time. Doesn’t mean I know them,” so Parnev released a video of them having a 90 minute conversation together. As part of that conversation, we see Trump telling Parnev to take her out and get her out of there a year ago, and largely because she wasn’t going to be a sycophant to him nor would she help facilitate the quote unquote Ukrainian drug deal. He said he had nothing to do with the ambassador. He did. He said he’d never met Parnev, but selfies (and now this video) prove otherwise. Meanwhile, Trump continues to ask (in essence): “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?”

one can buy these - Google “Galton board” I have one in my office.

I would say that due to miniature imperfections in the balls, the dropping mechanism and the pins. If we look at the first pin, there will be small fluctuations in force and angle of the drop so that it is 50/50 percent change for the ball to go left or right. If the imperfections are small enough the left or right path is not predictable for a single ball. Any small imperfections add up along the balls' path making each pin more or less a 50/50 chance. If there would be too much imperfection the odds would be off, for instance if the machine always would drop the ball too far to the left or right. One should try to build the drop with good* precision. This explanation assumes that the machine is built to be random. If not, there are numerous options. The pins could be spinning or vibrating, There could be an airflow behind the glass front. And lots of others. So far we have discussed one ball. Over a large number of balls the average outcome is very predicable. Unless machine is constructed to be non-random a large numbers of balls will approximate a normal distribution**. This means that there will be more balls in the centre slots than at the edges. After dropping hundreds of balls in the wall machine the piles would look similar to this: Does this answer your question? From here we could discuss the math and its implications on the game setup. Or mechanical aspects of the machine. There are also Some notes: That requires that the machine is built as vacuum chamber. We can assume the machine is built that way. There could be a random generator connected to the drop mechanism allowing it to change the force by some small amount, but not enough to be visible. *) If the precision were 100% perfect all the balls could possibly land exactly head on the first pin, bounce up and down and finally come at rest there. The machine needs (and will always have) some tiny imperfections. **) Example machine and the math is discussed in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_machine edit: x-post with @Strange. And no, we did not plan to create identical answers

Good question. This is an example of "chaos theory" (popularly known as the butterfly effect) in action. This tells us that very tiny changes in initial conditions can lead to very different outcomes, even in completely deterministic systems like the wall. If every ball were perfectly spherical and perfectly smooth, and if every one were exactly the same mass and dropped at exactly the same position and exactly the same speed, and there were absolutely no outside influences (vibration, changes in temperature, noise, etc.) then they should follow the path every time. But none of those things are true. The balls are not perfect, they are not completely identical, they will drop from very slightly different positions at very slightly different speeds, etc. So they will bounce off the first pin at very slightly different angles. Then with each subsequent bounce the difference is magnified (because any tiny change in the angle the ball hits a pin will cause a larger deviation in the direction it bounces off). More here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/13/chaos-theory-the-butterfly-effect-and-the-computer-glitch-that-started-it-all/#7f140cc069f6 Unless there was a vacuum behind the glass, there will still be air resistance. But there won't be effects from external air movement (competitors blowing at it!) Incidentally, the original design of this thing is well over 100 years old and was designed to demonstrate a different mathematical principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_machine

There are a number of misconceptions there, some of which have been addressed in this thread but let's visit them one more time. No one is disputing the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. How does this follow from men being physically stronger? Or is it a separate statement? Or it could be cultural conditioning with nothing to do with neurobiology. Why do you keep skipping over this possibility? Map reading isn't a defining characteristic of the sexes. But again, no one is disputing that there are biological differences between them. What we are asking of you is to try to disentangle those innate biological differences from cultural conditioning. That should be the starting point for any imagining of what a matriarchal society would look like. Do you acknowledge that there are some purely cultural differences between the sexes - it seems you just assume every difference can only be purely biological. We know this isn't true, and you've been given links throughout this thread if you want to follow this up. No one's asking you to do that (or imagine that). How do you know this? You've just assumed it's true. Provide some evidence to back it up. We don't have any societies that raise girls with boys toys so unfortunately it's not straight forward. I gave 3 types of evidence i would look for. There's probably more: for instance, there must be studies on child playing styles and toy preferences between the sexes. Have you tried to look for any of them? But we do have historical examples of some of the more matriarchal societies being famously warrior-like. Again, why do you keep ignoring this? I've only been talking in averages. There have been thousands of female rulers throughout human history across the globe, enough to give us the idea that they aren't so different to male rulers. There are also plenty of gay rulers, including Philip II, one of the greatest Greek (Macedonian) rulers and quite probably his son, one of the greatest rulers in recorded history: Alexander the Great. In the Greek and Roman golden ages, these weren't exceptions. Just to give an idea of the sort of things i was hoping you might submit as evidence i found this study. Turns out female rulers engaged in more wars than men. If you can't or don't want to answer these questions and points then i agree it's probably best to lock the thread.

I think a closer analogy is: Doc: I'm afraid you have COPD. Patient: Smokers lung? What do I do about it? Doc: Let's start with stopping smoking. Patient: OK doc... how do I do that?

In my case, it’s mostly all the craft beer

According to current views, the Universe was created as a result of the explosion of an original singularity of infinitely small size and infinitely high density. This event, called the Big Bang, was to take place 13.7 billion years ago, as determined by the assumed expansion rate of the Universe, adopted by astronomers. The result of the Big Bang is also to be mysterious, undetectable dark matter (non-barionic) , which matter alleged to be the cause of the uniform velocity of stars in the disks of spiral galaxies. A computational analysis of the above issues presented in the Sagitarius BR program, available at the link: url deleted undermines both the occurrence of dark matter in galaxies and the reality of the expansion of the Universe.

Frame of escaping traveler and frame of arriving the same traveler have slower time relative each other than relative to home frame. Therefore traveled clock shows less time than home clock at meeting.

Based on SR, a fast-moving object with a rest mass will become a black hole for an external observer, even if the relativistic increase in mass is not taken into account. It should only become a black hole by relativistically reducing its size when it becomes smaller than the Schwarzschild radius for its invariant mass. It can be explained by the action of a spin field (analogous to a magnetic field for gravity). If two moving charged particles interact, the Coulomb force decreases by a factor of K, where K=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), due to the fact that the Coulomb force is partially compensated by the Lorentz force. In the gravitational interaction formula, this factor K will enter once in the numerator, due to the relativistic increase in mass, the second time in the denominator, due to the action of the spin field, and as a result, it will decrease F=G*m1*m2*K/r^2K=G*m1*m2/r^2