Leaderboard

I actually checked the Yang website where he proposes to reduce tuition fees, and it seems that for the most part he is barking up the wrong tree. He wants universities to reduce administrative positions, but quite a few studies indicate that while it contributes to cost, it is not the main driver and also it is not clear how he wants to force unis to restructure that way. He wants to collect additional data and somehow link tuition fees with salary outcomes, but it is absolute not clear how that is going to work. University costs are distinct from the salary potential of graduates so one would need to change uni from a teaching/research environment to vocational training system mostly run by sessionals. There a few other points which do not make sense whatsoever (wants presidents to discuss job prospects with alumni- why?). As such it is not clear how that is supposed to increase teaching quality at the same time. And the biggest missing bit is that there is no serious element of federal funding (other than investing in innovative and growing schools??), which is actually one important driver of tuition costs. That section is a bit symptomatic why I have some issues with Yang on certain topics- it reminds me too much of a techbro sales pitch- it propose relatively easy solutions often targeting superficial issues, but failing to actually address the issues it promises to solve.

That part is local to each precinct. Everyone walks in (to a gym, school cafeteria, conference room, whatever is booked for that area) and goes to the table with the sign for the person they want to support. Folks are talking to each other and trying to convince undecideds and others to join their candidates group. Then they hand out a preference card and everyone is asked to write the name of their first preference on the card (along with their own name to validate against voter roles). They do a quick count of how many people are in each group and announce which groups are viable to move on to round 2 within the room and which didn’t make the cut in the room / precinct. This is based on needing 15% or more of the total people in the room who showed up. Folks standing with viable candidates had to stay where they were, but those supporting a candidate who didn’t make the cut in round 1 (in that room/precinct) then have to go choose one of the candidates who did. More talking and negotiating and trying to convince people to join their team. Then they announce its time to commit, ask those who had to move around to write the name of their 2nd choice on the back of the card, then count the groups again. That’s the final count and from there the available delegates for that precinct get allotted (or a coin is tossed for any ties and after that then delegates get allotted). The local precinct captain then reports the results up to the state party heads. That’s what the app was for, but the results were inconsistent and here we are still waiting for numbers... but we all know how candidates did in our local precincts. Reporting suggests there were also a few ties btw Warren and Klobuchar where Klobuchar won the coin toss. Similar with Bernie and Biden in some spots. They already are. You should see the social media accounts of my local state senator where every few minutes is another “derp derp dems dumb derp derp” comment and talk of “this is why we can’t trust them with our healthcare!” and “poor snowflakes need a hug cuz can’t caucus right” etc.

I am unsure of the cause but suspect it is more likely after a day of strenuous physical activity. It probably happens once every month or two. When I was married, I would struggle to speak (yell) to get the attention of my partner. Now I try to move an arm or sit up and succeed after what seems like eternity. Often there is sense of a threatening intruder leading to panic, but it has happened where the paralysis occurred without threat and I experienced an enjoyable state of relaxation. But that is very rare. I agree with nevim, it's hideous. My first experience was about the age of 14. I dreamt there was a demon in the room; I could "see" a ghostly white figure reflecting on the wall. I believed for a long time after that I was "possessed". Years later I learned that sleep paralysis is a common experience.

AFAIK python does not make a copy of objects so TempList and List points to the same object. Operations on TempList affects the objects and List points to the same object. This operation: TempList = List[:] Creates a clone of the list so there are two independent objects in memory. When using primitive types such as integers or booleans python will make a copy. This behaveour of ”values” vs ”references” may differ from language to language. https://docs.python.org/3/faq/programming.html#how-do-i-copy-an-object-in-python

Lol. The app that precinct captains used to report the numbers was not aggregating data correctly... so... they went to the backup option of calling in the results by phone. However, there almost 1,700 precincts and there were only about 10 people answering the phones (much lower than in past years since that was just supposed to be a backup plan and the app would've gotten this done within minutes if working correctly). Most people calling in their numbers were on hold for hours, and many just hung up to go to sleep and try again in the morning. I'm still blown away there was a coin flip at mine and that a whole bunch of Pete supporters had to go home with little more than an empty feeling in their stomachs since Biden won the flip. Early indicators are that it's Bernie, Pete, Warren, then Biden... but that's total speculation based on numbers shared directly by campaigns. Hopefully we'll know more in a few hours. Yeah, and the results/outcomes often suck pretty badly, too!

I'm guessing it occurs when you wake up suddenly from a bad dream before the chemicals that relax your muscles have dissipated.

The formation your trying to describe is Helictites. The common accepted theory is capillary forces for the unusual formation. Calcite deposits don't form quickly nor is it a process of scouring. Water dissolves limestone. The resulting claim enriched water then distributes with the calcium.

Not totally off. No guarantees, but if you can focus on wiggling your fingertips, toes and deliberately moving your eyes; you may regain your sense of control. Last time I found the sleep paralysis to be oddly peaceful once I knew what was happening. It isn't definitely isn't uncommon. Wiki has a good page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

I understand that. The brain turns circuits off so we don't physically react to dream scenes. The usual scenario though is that I'm trying to wake up but my dream state convinces me there is a threat in my room (intruder) and I can't turn the circuits back on, so panic sets in. And I have definitely experienced dreaming that I woke up only to realize that I was still dreaming. My dad had the same experiences, I don't think it's uncommon.

And everybody will say that (their) now is "now". But even if you could synchronise all those different perceptions of "now", then the next "now" would not be synchronised.

No. Everyone will (possibly) measure a different value for t. (As was explained in the thread this was split from.)

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that the flash of lightning happens "now" (even though it was actually microseconds ago) and the thunder happens later. Even though both happened at the same time at the origin (which you would call "now" if you were located there). I can't see what is confusing about that. And maybe sometimes we can't see the lightning but I don't know how that is relevant. I also can't see what the problem is with the relative time difference between two planets separated by a significant light-travel delay. This is the same thing we saw when astronauts were on the moon. There was a 2 or 3 second delay before the signal got there then another delay before their reply got back. So conversations were filled with 5 second pauses. Nothing odd about that. Well, that's true. We are all travelling in parallel to the future. But we will see other's time at a slightly different rate. So when we experience 2,000 years pass on Earth, we may see that 1,999 years have passed on that distant planet because of relative difference in speed.

That's a shame. *shrug* If you see a lightning flash and then a few seconds later here the thunder, do you worry that they didn't happen at the same time. It doesn't sound like there is any science here, just your confusion about the finite speed of light. We have had this conversation before and it doesn't seem that anyone can help you get your head around it.

This is one of the reasons that physics doesn't tend to rely on the terms future/present/past. Language is sloppy and imprecise, and relativity makes a further muddle of relative timing.

Please start another thread to discuss the finite speed of light. So we observe a planet 2000 light year away. So we are seeing it as it was 2,000 years ago. The alien civilization may just be getting started (or maybe is already well developed) at that point. 4,000 years after that, a future alien of that civilization is observing Earth. They see it as it was 2,000 years before that; ie. as it is now. *waves* What is the problem with that (apart from language not really making it easy to describe events happing in the past in the future - we need the future historic tense).

Absolutely. The average distance to planets found so far is about 2000 light years. (Still off topic, though.)

Surely the proposed scenario demonstrates exactly why there is no universal 'now'. Now of course equates to 'the present', whatever that may be. My (or that of any observer) 'now' is made up of an enclosing or envelopeing 'bubble' around me containing signals from an enormous number of sources. Depending upon how long it took each signal to reach me all those signals are of different ages.

These are not terms generally used in physics analyses.

! Moderator Note (emphasis added) This isn't the WAG forum. Your refusal to engage in discussion based on established physics is inconsistent with posting in a science forum. Your refusal to provide a mathematical model and/or evidence is inconsistent with the rules of our speculations section.

You also need to distinguish between the use of the entity [math]\frac{1}{\infty }[/math] in loose form by applied mathematicians (like me) and proper limits like this [math]\mathop {\lim }\limits_{x \to \infty } \frac{1}{{{x^n}}};x > 1,n \ge 0[/math] [math]\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \frac{1}{{{x^n}}};x > 1,n \ge 0[/math] where if you pick the debarred values of x or n you will converge to 1 or 1/0

My guess would be that symmetry breaking is just a fancy word for hitting a physical spacetime paradox. The Higgs mechanism combines all of quantum theory. It is like everything in the theory is all connected together. If you were to try to break the symmetry of this, you would end up hitting a physical paradox. The particles are also related to each other through time. They would be linked together through time. Then it isn't enough to just think about them as waves, but as a particle wave duality interacting through time. I think quantum tunneling could work in the same fashion as quantum jumping. If their waves cancel out in a phase space, then they lose their mass. Their energy would also be undetectable for a brief instance. Then I believe that the wave portion gets rid of the particle in particle wave duality. It is though it no longer exist for a brief instance, until the wave cancellation ends and the particle reemerges. It could mostly be due to the reflection of their waves in phase space that causes them to tunnel. That is the point of view of most of the people I have read on that work in the field in the past. I have read some really convincing arguments that they should be considered as both a particle and a wave, and I think it is nice to be able to fully realize how one of these aspects plays a role on the other. One could say, if you only considered it as being a wave, then your considerations would only be true if they were never observed. The act of observation or experimentation itself forces particles to act more like particles and less like waves. You would only be giving it half justice.

The derivative of a horizontal line is zero, and the derivative of a vertical line is infinite. In those cases, you cannot resolve infinity or zero. The derivative of a line intersects a point on the curve, because the height or distance between the two points in question is zero. If h is not zero, then it would intersect at two points. You are missing the logic behind finding the limit. When you take a limit you are discovering what the value would be when it actually is zero by looking where it approaches on a graph. Then you don't have to graph it to see this every time.

The reason you find or take a limit is when the values cannot give you an exact answer in an equation. Then the equation can be graphed, and the limit assumes the value that the function approaches on the graph. It is an extra step that can be taken to make a graphical analysis to find an approximate answer by looking at a graph. You can say that it is a certain value, even though the calculation of the variables in the equation cannot give you an answer. It is another way of trying to deal with infinity or infinitesimals in of itself. The main reason why this method isn't used in a lot of work is because it is not known if it has been proven to be reliable, but it has been proven to be reliable when finding the derivative. Limits can potentially give false values, presumably. I have never seen any evidence of that.

The twin paradox based purely in Special Relativity is truly a paradox, meaning it cannot be solved this way. In this case, both observers would actually measure the others clock to run slower. Then it is impossible to imagine how this can take place. The problem is that it assumes that two observers could have always existed in the universe with a constant relative velocity, but this would actually be impossible. Everything accelerated from the point of the Big Bang, so every two objects would have had to had acceleration relative to each other in their history. Even if you assumed that they were at a constant velocity relative to each other and their acceleration was due to the acceleration of spacetime itself, it would still have relative Doppler shifts. Then Doppler shifts solve the paradox in terms of acceleration.

On the same stance: If around you everything is in the past, if the present is what you feel on your skin, it follows logically that the future is inside you.