Leaderboard

To be honest, no disrespect, but I've stopped reasoning over your replies. They seem to be either attempting to derail the discussion or just go round in nonsensical circles.

Around 400 miles [650kms] north of the Fijian group of Islands, is a small group called Rotuma, a Polynesian group of Islands, and a dependency of Fiji. While I am fairly familiar with most of the Fijian group, I was less knowledgable of Rotuma. So I did some research and came upon this strange Island named Hafliua sometimes called Split Island. The following photos will reveal the reason.... As is clearly visible,caught between the two walls is a large boulder that has been there throughout recorded history. Some more info on this weird formation..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hạfliua The Island is obviously part of a sunken atoll and long extinct volcano, so any ideas as to what happened here and what was responsible for this formation and split?

An NFA allows a Turing Machine to have transition from having n internal states to n + x internal states to any number of internal states. An input tape is accepted if any of the currently active internal states of the non-deterministic automaton result in an accepting state. A person doesn't have a finite number of cells in the body we can easily generate new cells to combat viruses etc. A DFA cannot create new internal states. It has a fixed number of internal states. It has been shown that there will always exist a theoretical DFA that can be constructed from an NFA with a known number of internal states. There is probably a scientific answer. One could argue that the body's ability to defend against infection qualifies as something non-deterministic that is probably not possible for a DFA. You could say that your body has learned to recognize a new tape called a virus. So we could assume that there are some things a DFA cannot do but we can't easily prove because it lies outside our understanding of science.

I think the point made about basketball (it tends to discriminate towards very tall people) is a fair one, as it underscores that all sports at the higher levels are going to be somewhat exclusionary and attract people with a certain anatomical blueprint. No one has proposed "professional short people's basketball," or "football (American usage) for the small-boned." In this sense, all sports (except those based purely on grace and finesse, like diving) tend to filter out those whose body type does not adapt well to its contact situations or need for inertial mass. The problem seems to be mainly with limited cases where someone can be overqualified with respect to a woman's league due to having been a biological male in the past and thus attained a bone structure and mass that might lead to rather brutal outcomes for other league players. If gender leagues were eliminated, then the tendency would be to recruit, in contact sports, those with more formidable musculoskeletal systems and we would have a sports world composed almost entirely of cis-males and trans-females, and very few cis-females who were not extreme outliers. Which would bring us back to the question of having some other criteria for leagues that somehow permitted the smaller and more gracile a venue for play. It's possible we would need to redefine sport, and what societies want from it. Do we want sports to be a professional business in which we can marvel at superb physical specimens far beyond the average human? This is somewhat akin to advertizing wherein we see stunningly gorgeous and idealized representations of ourselves using or wearing a product. We are invited to project ourselves into some realm of perfection well removed from our own. Now I'm rambling a bit. A sure sign I have no good answer to this whole conundrum.

I didn't mean for you to not pursue this. It's something that has merit, but it's not something existing physics is going to be able to answer. Precisely when. (and it's more hydrogeny, cesiumy and rubidiumy)

The properties of the Higgs field were known more than 50 years ago, when P Higgs first postulated the Higgs mechanism to explain the masses of the W+/_ and Z bosons, which result from the symmetry breaking of the Electro-Weak force. The hi energies at which its bosonic field excitations ( Higgs boson ) become evident was always out of our reach, until the LHC was built. The Higgs scalar field is well known: we just needed to find its bosonic carrier particle, to verify it actually exists. So, what exactly do you mean by 'how the insides change' for a scalar field ?

I'll try a logical explanation with more detail without referring to math of specific laws of physics this time: Let's say two hypothetical devices are working perpetually* as a unit without external energy source. Perpetual motion device A feeds energy (1) into device B and then device B feeds energy (2) to device A. Since no external energy is added and operation is perpetual there is no internal energy wasted; efficiency is 100%. Device A runs from the energy provided by B and B runs from the energy provided by A. Hence, over time, A must supply B with the same amount of energy that A would require to operate in isolation. And B must provide A with the same amount of energy B would require to run in isolation. So the result is that the only way the device A and B could work as a 100% efficiency perpetual motion device together is if they could do so in isolation. A and B are perpetual devices on their own or the device (A+B) is not a perpetual device. In other words you can not build a perpetual motion device unless you have a set of perpetual motion devices. This does of course not alter the fact that perpetual motion machines is not possible. It is just a way of showing how OPs setup is not working in a general case. (I answered from phone earlier and was unable to use an image. This is pretty much same as @Janus but I had started drawing already so posting probably does not harm.) *) Not possible! Only used to setup the explanation.

Depends on the phase of trial and the trial design. In phase 1 and 2 you're recruiting predominantly young healthy volunteers so you'd expect less adverse outcomes due to chance. By phase 3 you should be recruiting participants that reflect the drugs target population, but people likely to have adverse reactions are screened out.

Thanks, iNow. I like the "meta" joke in having such a thread. And I suppose the topic can help more reticent members come out of their shell. Some topics, however, are only of interest in (m)academia. I will recommend Christopher Guest's nuts monologue, in the film "Best in Show. "

At last statement respectful towards Mathematics (and mathematicians). You are not aware of....... It is not appropriate in this thread as it is specific to Turing, but rational thought (including Mathematics) can be divided into two main divisions and here we are dealing with only one of them. The second is so often forgotten in statements about rational thought in Science, Mathematics Engineering and so on, especially by Scientists. I have spent a good deal of my working life dealing with that second aspect, so naturally I often draw examples from there.

A priest, a minister, and a rabbit walk into a bar... The rabbit says, “I think I might be a typo.”

Yes and it's basic form toy!

One factor is that the muon and tau particles that would be produced by the muon and tau neutrinos are more massive than the electron, so more energy is required in the interactions.

If you wish to discuss your offering there is nothing to stop you starting your own thread with a better OP

Yes that is a fair point +1, a pity you are too late to make it to the OP. The OP was rather rambling and ill defined. The only question (point) for discussion I can see is Which has already been answered.

Thank her for her service. She sounds pretty badass, and appears to be a pretty good example of exactly the point I’m making. She’s welcome to her opinion, but yes. I’d pushback on this idea of “majority.” Perhaps a plurality, but not necessarily a majority. Sure, some men will be more physically able and have a higher ceiling on their physical capabilities or performance potentials, but probably not “most”… at least not here in the US where beer bellies abound and potato chips are often a side dish beside the cheeseburger and milkshake. Either way, and even if I’m wrong… those performance ceilings I mentioned can be pretty easily accommodated and dealt with by using the sorts of divisions and classifications we’ve referenced, and with the added benefit of rendering moot these discussions about how best to include (or sadly too often to EXCLUDE) trans humans in sports when they wish to compete. Gender need not be a threshold qualification criteria in sport. It really is that simple IMO, and similarly it need not matter what plumbing a person uses when they piss… unless we force it to matter.

Contrary to physical law? I'm positing conditions that are at the extremes of our understanding and ideas from respected physicists who specialize in this field. Non of this is my own idea, I'm just pointing out that to understand if time exists then we may need to understand fundamentally what time is. Since it appears that relativity breaks down at the small extremes, where time may fundamentally emerge from, then maybe relativity is not the key to answering this question.

So long as the athlete meets the criteria for the class, you let them compete alongside the gender with which they identify. This isn’t hard. It’s just a game… erm… a sport.

@Heis3nberg It's not the simplest subject. I do not see any related question apart from the historical facts. To verify this hypothesis one avenue envisaged is to compare the flux of neutrinos detected between day and night. Indeed, at night, solar neutrinos, to be detected, must cross the whole of the Earth, and should therefore be able to oscillate by interaction with matter, therefore at a rate different from the oscillation in vacuum, which should cause a flux detected different from that detected during the day. In addition, such an experiment would allow us to better understand the periods of these oscillations, which would improve our understanding of the phenomenon. But currently, the detectors are not sensitive enough to allow this measurement. I do not understand everything to get this equation, but I found this form of expression where the probability equation becomes: P=|〈νe|ν(t)〉|2≈|〈νe|ν2m(t)〉|2=|〈νe|ν2〉|2≈sin2θ≈13 A deviation from the value of the sin²θ probability is an indication of the presence of oscillations.

Spectacular pictures and great question. +1 (Volcanic) Horseshoe islands are uncommon but not unknown. Here is a link to another. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146164/the-island-shaped-like-a-horseshoe As you say the eruption was asymmetric. The obvious dipping of the volcanic layers down from the high side to right under water suggest this. The layering can be traced through the cleft as though a slice of cake was removed. The cleft is wider at the top than the bottom. There is evidence of several less dramatic vertical breaks segmenting the island in the photos. So how did it happen ? Well there are three conceivable mechanism I can think of. Firstly the eruption may have issued through sea bed faults. This would have accounted for the original asymmetry of the eruption. But it would not account for the clefts or large scale vertical joints. Then there may have been a series of small eruptions, perhaps many, building up the layers around a central plug. This is common in such marine islands. One day the central plug was blown clear in a massive explosion and the surrounding ring fell backwards and outwards. This would have increased the ring diameter and perhaps caused the original segmentation. This would also account for the taper in the gap. I say perhaps because jointing is also a common feature of volcanic rock which shrinks as it cools. A determination of the rock type would help identify any such activity. Jointing is most common in granitic and basaltic roc, as opposed to the tuff lavas associated with pyroclastic events. Kartazion has mentioned the third mechanism, subsequent erosion. A gentle correction here to help your English. The word is seismic not sysmic. There is little scope for erosion by the usual forces but I suspect that the lodged rock was the result of rain erosion of the upper dipping layer to the high side of the cleft, causing a large boulder to separate and lodge lower down in the narrower part of the cleft. The rounded shape suggests it is within the reach of the spray from the sea. The general rounded shape of formation itself further suggests soft rock and tropical rain erosion. So the story of this island is entirely different from the famous 'rock of ages' cleft in limestone scenary on the english Mendip hills. Here the result was from the interplay of limestone scenary with first ice and then running water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrington_Combe

I'm guessing a "Tesla Ball" is one of these

Odderon particle is the odd charge parity counterpart of the pomeron class of particles; postulated in the 60s and 70s to explain the rising cross-section of proton/proton soft collisions at high energies. I fail to see how you can have a 'visual' of that particle. Can you also visualize a proton, an electron, or a Higgs boson ?

Is it possible you’d have better luck finding what you’re after here? >> http://blogs.scienceforums.net/ajb/author/ajb/

You mean the odderon is the Higgs? I'm assuming God particle = Higgs. Higgs and odderon have different spins. Odderon is an odd number of gluons (spin 1); Higgs is spin 0. How do you get zero from an odd (algebraic) sum of ones? For some reason, I can't sleep. Normally I would be sleeping peacefully now.

The tank is progressing well!

I am now going to go off on a tangent ... When you decide to have your gender reassigned from male to female, I'm sure it is explained to you that there are some things you previously did, that you won't be able to do anymore. Like peeing standing up ! What is this obsession we have that everyone should be able to do whatever they wish, no matter their life choices ? If it is an aspect of survival, like a crippled person entering a grocery store to buy food using a ramp, then we as a compassionate society need to make it happen. And certainly, if competition is your livelyhood then trans athletes need to be able to compete, but if it is just for fum ( or games for Dimreepr ) then that is not required and cannot be considered a 'human right'. I had the same problem as Studiot; always wanted to fly jets, yet my vision sucks. Is it a 'human right' that I be able to fly jets ? Or do I suck it up and live my life without that thrill ? Of course Zap. I consider myself 'compassionate'. But, as to wether it is a 'rght', human or otherwise, I'm not so sure.

Tying all this talk back to the thread, I feel that issues like transgendered athletes are lures cast into social media by bad actors and bottom feeders to bait us all into choppy waters. They’re basically chumming and dredging with small insignificant issues so we become distracted and don’t focus on more important things or focus on their wrongdoings and the way they rig the system. Too often we oblige and get reeled in and fall for it hook, line, and sinker. I don’t think it needs to be this hard, though. Letting the trans athletes compete may feel like swimming against the current, but the tributaries are likely to be fertile and the lakes well stocked if we allow it.

Please provide a citation. Otherwise people may jump to the conclusion that you are simply making things up to support your world view. I'm sure you don't want people to get the impression that you are uninformed and full of shit.

His comment is uninformed. There is nothing in the spike protein mRNA that makes it vastly more stable, and the instability of mRNA is well known. It is fairly common to use surrogates for these type of studies. Even if it was much more stable, we would be looking at a couple more days at best, which, unless you are talking about mayflies rarely falls under the moniker of long-term effects. I just quickly calculated the total detectable lipid concentration, which dropped by that amount. So yes, it is cumulative for all organs. Again, it is based on how we generally metabolize lipids. As we are not getting continuous injections, what happens is that the total amount of lipids gets distributed and eventually eliminated. We also know which organs conduct much of the lipid metabolism so I am not sure why at this point we should all pretend not to understand how lipid metabolism works. Again, I think the basic thing that you and the twitter post seem to misunderstand is how compounds, including lipids get metabolized and eliminated. I am sure that if you look at ADME profiles, you will find something for those LNPs. Moreover, the post seems to be confused about how elimination studies are done. If you want to understand how it is eliminated from the body you would go and measure generally blood and liver values as well as identify those compound in waste (i.e. urine and feces). And guess what, that is what they did and how they estimate elimination rates (some other routine methods involve simple blood plasma analyses. Quickly screening lit has indicate that terminal terminal half life for ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 were ~3 and 8 days, respectively. It is not a hypothesis, it is how the liver works. It is how we metabolize things. What you propose is that for some reasons LNPs changes how our organs work. If the liver would simply accumulate harmful substances we would be all dead. A steady state also does not see-saw. If the compound was delivered at a steady rate the concentration would remain steady and then decline slowly as the compound is being eliminated. However drugs can be released in bursts or re-distributed unevenly (e.g. the compound can be released from other organs back into the bloodstream). The main source in this case is leakage from the injection site into the bloodstream. Again, not a hypothesis, there is huge body of literature out there showing how liposomes, LNPs and similar compounds pass through our body, get eliminated and/or can get modified to control said elimination. We should not assume that science collectively forgot how basic animal physiology works just because a random guy on twitter doesn't. Again, there are plenty of studies looking at mRNA as well as LNP degradation and metabolization, as well as basic liver functions. And I want to recall that one of the biggest challenges mRNA vaccines faced are the fact that those were eliminated too quickly to reliably create an immune response. Similarly, early LNPS were cleared too rapidly which added to the issue. Thus, much of the work surrounded stabilization of mRNA in vivo. So suddenly assuming that it is somehow very stable just goes against all the basic biochemistry we understand regarding those molecules. In addition, the whole molecule is not terribly stable outside of the body, either, which is why they require storage at low temps. I am not sure why you want to discuss tweets from a person who clearly has no expertise on that matter. Although it does not fall strictly into my area of expertise either, it is easy to see that the author of the tweet has not found it necessary to educate themselves on the subject matter before taking it to the social media (and yes, the irony is not entirely lost on me, considering my postings here). Take Gregoriadis and Neerjun (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1974.tb03681.x) which is one of the early papers looking how one could control uptake and elimination. There are tons of advances to control elimination rate, tissue specificity and overall stability in the lit, with detail that goes far beyond my knowledge. So any argument that argues that something mysterious is happening here, is likely based on ignorance. So what I think you propose is that for some reasons the main organs for lipid metabolization (and subsequent elimination) will only be active for the first two days or so, then all residual LNPS would magically bypass these organs and mechanism, accumulate in ovaries and stay there forever? So instead on measuring well known excretion routes we should instead focus on something that a random twitter guy does not understand? I would advise you look for some reliable sources. I am not sure whether the person has an agenda or is just badly misinformed, but either way I would urge you to find someone better to follow as neither of us is going to learn anything by feeding trolls.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. Making claims like this with no evidence is conspiracy, and it's against our rules. We need something to discuss using reason and critical thinking, not hand-waiving and wild speculation. If you have evidence of your claims, you can open a different thread, but this one is closed.

Thanks for clarifying, mate. It is appreciated. It feels like maybe you're saying we should always strive to do better and avoid victimhood in all of its many forms. That's a laudable goal for sure! What I struggle with is the suggestion that there are no differences. Of course there are differences. The magnitude of the assault is different. The severity is not the same. The impact and longevity of these events far from equal... Poverty is bad and we should seek to alleviate it wherever we can. It also causes psychological trauma, but not in the same way that a brutal attack or a rape does. Prostitution often results in psychological harm, but again... not for everyone. Some women and men choose to engage in this voluntarily, are quite happy to do so, and reject these paternalistic and condescending notions that they are victims. A great many simply are not. So... we need to avoid grouping all "victims" together in one bucket. The effects a "victim" of eggs being thrown at their house are hardly equivalent in scale or magnitude to the effects of a "victim" of kidnapping, for example... even though both can be lumped into a single label... we should not conflate them all as if they are the same. Anyway... thanks for re-engaging in the discussion with a bit more clarity. It's appreciated, and I hope my post here is received with the comity with which it's intended.

... as long as the picture has his mouth open.

I would say false. Evolution is a fact (we observe it and so can't deny it), and the Theory of Evolution describes the process. I don't think there's any need to elevate any theory to "fact" status. It implies that theory isn't strong enough when it certainly is, and we get to keep improving it if it stays a theory. I think it sends the wrong signal when we update "facts" based on new evidence. And welcome back!

Translated from Google translate: The page appears to be modelling a classical harmonic oscillator for a mass m fixed to a special spring. This formula appears to be attempting to utilize Leibniz's notation for Newtons second law of motion: [math]m \frac{d^2 x}{dt^2} + F \cdot x = 0[/math] However, Newtons second law of motion in Leibniz's notation is: [math]F = m \frac{d^2 x}{dt^2}[/math] Subtracting force from both the equation left hand side and right hand side results in: [math]m \frac{d^2 x}{dt^2} - F = 0[/math] However, note the equation definition for the potential force on line 5: [math]F(x) = -\frac{dE_p}{dx}[/math] And the resulting potential energy: [math]E_p = -F(x) \cdot dx[/math] So, The equation on line 11 is mixing systeme internationale units of force (newtons) and energy (joules), which is mathematically incorrect. Kartazion, I recommend purchasing a university level physics textbook and study the section on Newtonian mechanics for classical harmonic oscillators. University level physics textbooks already provide the required level mathematics in Leibniz's notation, as well as numerical integration for models such as these, instead of landing in the middle of other online models that display crude and incorrect formulas and with insufficient modeling experience. Some experience in Latex modelling would be beneficial also. Reference: Anharmonic oscillator - Lemans university: https://bit.ly/2SKdIJX

While the efficiency of the combined pair would be the result of the combined efficiency of the two devices, it wouldn't combine to improve the overall efficiency but to decrease it. If you compound a 99% efficient device onto a another 99% efficient device, you end up with less than 99% end efficiency for the combination. It is the loses inherent in each device that add up.

Stop being so ignorant. Measuring something is to make a claim about reality it is not reality. More ignorance! everything you say or do begins in the mind, the mind is real. Oh, so we're quote mining now are we? I don't think you do know, not at all, everything you say betrays ignorance. Science is rooted in unprovable beliefs if you do not understand that then you do not understand science and the limitations it has, so stop with the feigned erudition. If you truly knew anything about science (and this extends to several other ignorant people here like IDontKNow) then you'd have the ability and confidence to attack what is said rather than who has said it. And so it goes on, the incessant attack upon the person not what the person says, you do know that this is how potentially good discussions descend into mindless bickering? of course you, but you don't care do you. My responses are in red.

Indeed, and in the vast majority of posts you’re thread hijacking.

Just in hopes of getting us back into the same zip code of being on-topic… the discussion isn’t about moving toward no rules. It’s about updating existing rules so it’s based more on merit and ability… so gender isn’t a threshold requirement for competing that needlessly excludes trans athletes.

No one can answer this accurately enough to judge which transgenders should be allowed to compete in CY's suggested "Women's" category at competitive levels. The baseline is elusive enough prior to judging on a case by case basis as described. You think anything suggested here is fair to trans athletes? Do you thinks it's fair to have someone judge whether they are "women enough" to compete? How about allowing them to compete...and then telling them they are no longer eligible after realizing the maintained more "biological advantage" than previously judged? How about making sure they are handicapped so onerously they cannot win? Would that be any better? Do you think it's fair to ask a transgender athlete to alter their body chemistry if they wish to compete? I can see no path to success on this. I can see it failing and all the so called "experts" abandoning it like rats off a sinking ship...I mean they meant well...hoped it would work out...and the athletes getting pointed at are adults and did choose to subject themselves to the drug regimes required to compete ...so not their fault. Except it would be.

Incorrect again. The reference was to your ignorance… your lack of knowledge, education, or awareness… on a specific topic. Perhaps you took offense to this, but it’s not an insult. Had Charon instead called you an idiot, stupid, or even a moronic fool, then that would’ve been accurately described as an insult, but none of those things happened. Have you identified the common variable across threads yet?

Yet curiously the OP ends with "Like i said, the theory is still unproved; But I believed it was fun trying to examine this fascinating painting of reality". Let me dig out the volume and get back to you... When logic and erudition fail you the insults are never far behind, unable to argue your case using logic and science and reason you all too rapidly resort to your base instincts and emotions.

The phrase "you were asked to proved" betrays a poor grasp of English grammar. I'm unwilling, as already stated the request indicates ignorance on the part of Ghideon, and of course you too for perpetuating it. As I explained (not that I'd expect you to be able to follow along without pencil and paper) only through ignorance would someone ever demand a peer reviewed paper to prove that 1 + 3 = 76.9 is false, an error. The Wikipedia article appears to be in error, that's my position.

Not a quote in sight, just foot stamping and emotional outbursts. Did I undermine science? quote me. Did I propose anything mythical? quote me. Did I post "claptrap"? quote me. You post a quote like that yet I bet you cannot even begin to define what "understand" means can you?

You don't know the first thing about science.