Leaderboard

I get what you're trying to say, but it's not science's/scientists fault the world's in the shitter; it's people (politico) like you, who willfully ignor the evidence; for instance COVID-19 wouldn't be such an issue if a/ the advice given by science, to prepare for a pandemic b/ the advice given by science, after the advice previously given was ignored, to wear masks/PPE and avoid contact. A little understanding goes a long way... 😉 Yet nature is the answer to your problem, I'm not a stranger to the urge to die (I even tried once); when you're at your lowest and you wake up the next day the only choice is up. I'm not making light of mental issue's and I know "It's easy for me to say", but we have a choice to not be sad; meditation for instance is a choice to be content in that moment. A little learning and acceptance and understanding, it's possible to extend that moment for life. Being eternally sad is no more possible than being eternally happy; what is possible is to accept both for what they are.

How the heck you see that in @Curious layman's posts is beyond me. He has simply voiced the opinion that, with the ongoing changes in society regarding our view of gender, sport will be impacted. He is interested in what these impacts might be and how we might most effectively handle them. If you don't want to be viewed as a politically correct evangelist then stop saying things that sound like you won't tolerate honest questions.

But like many other discussions which should take place about some important subjects, this has descended into absurdity, accusations and recriminations, just as quick. If people aren't allowed to voice their opinions without even the chance to explain their point of view, before the 'pack' jumps down their throat, and accuses them of having 'an agenda', how can we possibly have a serious discussion ? Whatever happened to tolerance for others' opinions ? I've voiced this sentiment previously, if all we want from members is an 'echo', then I, and other members, see no need to participate in opinion based forums, as there is NO DISCUSSION.

! Moderator Note That was one of my points; this is not on-topic, but also, you need to follow rule 2.7 ! Moderator Note You didn’t point to studies, you pointed to a discussion board. Not good enough. This is not a negotiation.

I can’t parse this. “the same is underreported extra”? It sounded like you couldn’t find information. Now you’re arguing against the information? Youtube isn’t really scientific literature, and just posting a video link is insufficient. Can you just post the info here?

He also painted a picture of what will happen if someone who is transgender is allowed to compete in women's sports. "I support transgender rights, but there are serious issues with former men entering women's sports. Mike Tyson would be an example." Here's the picture that pops to mind as someone who is going to compete against your daughter: It is unfair to transgender people to have their very personal and difficult situation presented as such an extreme caricature. It is reminiscent of dog whistle used by people who don't want transgender people to be able to use a particular bathroom by suggesting that perverts will now have a license to peek at your 8 year old daughter as she uses the restroom at school. The increasing acceptance of transgender athletes means there is legitimately a serious discussion that needs to take place. So let's not begin that serious discussion with a highly insulting caricature of the people who are impacted by this discussion.

Quote from Duda Jarek : So what is kinetic energy in a fluxon ? " In these models we have energy density (Hamiltonian, can be translated to Lagrangian) - usually with some spatial derivatives like stress, temporal for kinetic behavior, and potential (e.g. Higgs-like) ... integrating energy density we get mass of particle, usually scaling as in SR thanks to Lorentz invariance. Unfortunately it is quite tough calculation, I have attached for kink of sine-Gordon a few posts ago. " _________________________________________________________ Keep in mind the Hamiltonian actually refers to absolute energy. In other words, the sum of potential and kinetic energies. The disparity between kinetic and potential energies is known as Lagrangian. Hamiltonian equals total energy in an optimal, holonomic, and monogenic system (the normal one in classical mechanics) when and only when both the limit and the Lagrangian are time-independent and the generalized potential is absent. In any coordinate system, the Lagrangian is optimal for systems with conservative forces and for bypassing restriction forces. Generalized coordinates can be used for ease of use, to take advantage of device symmetries, or to take advantage of the geometry of the constraints. However, in Lagrangian mechanics, a quantity known as the Lagrangian is used to explain the behavior of a system. Both Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics allow you to reduce complicated x, y, and z coordinates to the system's most fundamental properties. The problem is that in mechanics, the term "physical" refers to something that follows the laws of physics and/or is detectable and observable. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are matter or energy. The problem is that the Lagrangian is defined as kinetic energy minus potential energy: L=T-V. As a result, several science students, including myself, will ask, "Why would you do that?" Since energy is preserved, it makes sense to incorporate potential and kinetic energy, so why would you deduct them? Many physicists regard the Langrangian as a more basic phenomenon than energy, despite the fact that it does not appear to correlate to something physical. It's all the coordinates and variations in coordinates here. Acceleration, for example, is called "physical" (in the sense of being measurable), while speeds greater than the speed of light are considered "non-physical". We may , of course , apply cyclic coordinates or symmetries for reducing the number of variables in dealing with how particle physics and macroscopic phenomena look like. Would you offer elucidation(s) on these , please ?

I gather you don't want to discuss with me but have you compared the actual values of methane release due to the US fracking with the tundra release values ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions The 5 posts only applies to your first 24 hours. This is done to prevent the inbox here filling up with multiple spam posts like you see on some sites and is a small inconvenience compared to deplorable state some forums are in. 🙂

I have tried to be encouraging, rather than directly helpful with the mathematics at the moment. I don't want to confuse you with a different approach from the one offered in your chosen course. That is I want to offer consistent help if needed. So remember you can always ask here about anything you are unsure of.

I do not know very well what you exactly look for but if you are willing to do maths (category: algebra) , I think your prerequisites are to obtain knowledge about : --- >> normal operations (summation, mltiplication in R) --- >> sets (and all operations) --- >> what function is and properties of functions. (1-1,onto ,bijective and types and all other relevant properties of functions) Then slightly pass please into pure maths ("entry to algebra" in other words) but as studiot advises, do not try to do too much at once. I think even if anyone is so much intelligent ,there are some limitations that that one would not be able to pass them.

Sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Trans_men at the bottom. Now who's extracting assertions from their colon. I have made no assertions, just given opinions. You need to get of your high horse and stop assuming people who are interested in this have an anti trans agenda.

She does have a point though (the men's running events, not the other stuff). For alot of sportsmen/women, sport is a way out of poverty. What if you're born female and you're considered a world class athlete, in some sports if you moved over to the men's events you're career would be over, you wouldn't even qualify. That's not a situation that would encourage people to be themselves. I could be wrong, but their seems to be a lot more male to female athletes entering sports than female to male athletes. It's something I think needs to be addressed at some point. I don't think sport needs a major overhaul, just a few tweaks here and there.

We don't have just male and female sports.... we have many more. For example, in boxing you have several weight categorizes (male and female). We make categorization in many different ways (by weight, by age, by sex, by disabilities.... or even by allowance of certain drugs). Once categorized, we can separate athletes into category-clean groups or we can include some handicap to certain categories to make them even. I agree with Curious Layman that future of sex-based categorization is not bright. I think, after some longer time, some other categorization method (depending on sport) will become more popular (in boxing, for example, we might choose to categorize only by bone+muscle mass). What I hope is that there will be the ultimate category. The category where anybody can try to compete.... (btw, is this already so.... are all 'man' sports open for females who might be able to compete?)

You are equating religion with a single example of religion. That's not a very convincing opening for an argument that values science and the scientific method. It casts your own thought processes, and consequently your argument, in an unflattering light. Moreover, you completely ignore the possibility (probability? certainty?) that some/most/all of the miracles were metaphors. An argument against religion that fails to recognise the multiplicty of interpretations of religion is not an argument but a worthless ipse dixit. Many scientists believe, though not necessarily in the fatuous strawman you have erected. Based on your lack of logic, affection for strawmen and emotional bias, you should be allowed near any scientific endeavour either. That we can agree on. And there we go again with the emotion and the strawman. The vast majority of religious scientists have no problem applying the scientific method independent of their beliefs. You assert it is not so - provide the evidence. You could have made this an interesting discussion by enquiring as to how such a separation is achieved, instead you have just vented. You should get you more. I don't discuss science with those who have no interest in science, or even a declared antipathy towards it. It's called courteous behaviour. My understanding is that he was, at best, a diest or pantheist, certainly not a theist of the type decried by Mnemonic.

I can only guess that such huge amounts of "hype" , as you name it , are for purposes of alleviating tension that is rising from left , right , and centre ; AND for bringing back some level of trust into the present Politico_Scientific Establishment . .. .. These vaccines' dangers , as you are quite well explaining , are evident.

Re-Enthalpy. Where do you think they obtained the knowledge to do that , certainly not solely from Darwin . I believe hole hearted that there had to have been an outside influence ( extraterrestrials ) there is no other explanation for our advancements to date.

A warning point for not divulging sensitive personal details about the basis for my gender identity? Would you like to tell us the basis for your gender identity? Idiot. Ah, took a look at your profile... communications major. What's the matter, you weren't smart enough for physics? I work in a field that requires real aptitude and when communications majors apply I throw their resume in the trash.