Leaderboard

Every body appreciates the printed classics. A lot of the new printed stuff is garbage 🙂 . If you say so. Keep in mind that I mentioned two members who expressed a desire to re-purpose sports as 'games', and one of them has replied, and not objected to that characterization. Is that a 'strawman' ? I was not replying to you, I said 'some members', and then named them. I was not replying to an imaginary argument. So maybe by 'strawmanning' you mean someone doesn't share your worldview ?

My understanding is it’s related to asymptotic freedom. When you add energy to a “typical” bound system (e.g. ionize an electron) you end up with free particles. When they combine, you get a release of energy. But adding energy to bound quarks doesn’t do this - you can’t free a bound quark. Their potential energy at large separation doesn’t go to zero as it does with gravity or Coulomb forces.

Which side is that? Never mind; I realize that this part of the matter is far off topic. What I'm really curious about is why people occasionally suggest that substantive change, or progressive change, in any area of public life cannot take place until a certain generation has died off. Why is it considered more likely that a fresh young cohort will achieve what the youth of the 1960's and 70's failed to achieve, or regain what we did achieve that is now being destroyed? Opposite points of view on social issues are older than I am, older than democracy, older than sport.

It seems like all the arguments you mention either mischaracterize opposing arguments, or argue from incredulity, or are outright strawmen attacks. If you can meet the physical requirements necessary to compete at a certain level, can you explain to me again why your age or gender is an issue?

No way. I wanted to make a contribution here. I was thinking about mentioning 'residual QCD forces' to complete the picture (similar to mesonic states flying to and fro), and @MigL beats me to the punch.

Page 36, still strawmanning hard. I believe there are women out there who, if supported as athletes from a young age (the way men are), are fully capable of trying out for pro sports at virtually every level and qualifying for all the physiological benchmarks. Most assuredly, some sports would have a level of competition that would disqualify MOST people, men or women, and men may indeed dominate that league/class.

Technically that is not the strong nuclear force. The strong nuclear force is the color force of QCD. What holds nucleons together is 'residual' color force, which is more easily modelled as an exchange force ( Yukawa ),

As I understand, there is no "free state" of a quark, and quark mass cannot be interpreted consistently as mass of a "free quark." The quark mass is a coefficient of the quadratic term in the quark's Lagrangian. It is a mass term in the corresponding equation of motion, Dirac equation.

The progressive element is essential in any society that pursues betterment of the human condition. Progressivism, as a tenet, is a good theoretical starting point. Problem is: Self-declared progressive parties vie for power and control of the budget, like everybody else. If under pressure, they will act in ways that contradict their 'theoretical principles,' provided working politicians really have some of those. Whatever their tenets are, and out of this pressure to out-elbow everybody else, they will not hesitate to re-define their concepts. As MigL said,

Matter is definitely not energy. In the example given by Edgard Neuman, the proton he considers, is a volume occupied by three quarks, fundamental fermions, which make up approximately 2 % of its mass. The other 98 % of its mass is binding energy. So yes, one can certainly make the argument that mass is energy. While not true for rest mass, which is mass in the specific frame where it is at rest, one could consider mass and kinetic energy the 'same' property measured in differing frames.

While some of you guys may want to re-purpose sports as 'games' that all people should be able to play, the rest of the world is pushing back; they want sports where elite athletes compete against each other, and where some of us simply watch them and enjoy their performances. Sporting competitions will not change, no matter how much Peterkin or Dimreepr want to 'play'. So trans athletes have to be incorporated, somehow, into the existing system, in a way that is fair for all. It would be madness to include the 6 trans athletes ( I remembered INow ) at the expense, and detriment, of thousands, if not millions, of women.

This is all part of the modern phenomenon of re-defining words to suit an agenda. Republicans are trying to re-define 'progressivism' as something bad; as simply change for the sake of change, or change to a worse outcome. Most people ( who don't watch Fox News ) know that is politically driven, and it actually refers to the improvement of the human condition.. I would also suggest the term 'populism', has been re-defined by a liberal agenda, to mean something just short of fascism, while in effect it means a government serving the needs, and representing all the people, including commoners; not simply the elite affluent/intelligentsia, who don't necessarily believe the 'commoners' deserve representation.

You don't have to go so far. The roadways only need to be permeable, or convex (whichever is appropriate to its use) in order to collect water, and a light colour, to reflect sunlight, instead of absorbing it. OTH, your house walls - what isn't covered in vegetation, need to be thick and heat-retentive, to cut down on heating/cooling. You need not depend on solar energy (which still carries a biggish ecological burden in its batteries and distribution system); you can augment it with whatever natural energy is most readily available in a locale: wind (This is one of many available models https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/04/06/could-this-be-the-safest-most-powerful-wind-turbine-in-the-world) wave or tide generators (not sure about these; they seem to need a lot of unwieldy infrastructure and mechanical devices https://www.alternative-energy-tutorials.com/wave-energy/wave-energy.html https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/tidal-energy/) and of course, good old hydro, which ought to be done on small scale, according to local ecology and conditions, instead of damming the big, life-blood rivers, so that the trickle that finally reaches the ocean is too shallow for salmon to negotiate. https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/planning-microhydropower-system Of course, the most important, decisive aspect of power is how it's used. We've been unforgivably wasteful for a very long time. We need to make our houses and factories far more efficient (and wherever possible, self-sufficient) https://www.nxtcontrol.com/factory-ecomation/ and we need to rely a lot less on technology and a lot more on human motive power - we'd be a whole lot healthier, too. There are ideas and experiments and projects all over the world - and people (I mean normal people, not eco and architecture geeks like me) hardly ever hear about them. If you build earth-sheltered, packed earth, straw-bale or cob house, or build thick rock walls to collect heat, you have protection from heavy weather, and a lot less sail surface for the wind get hold on. If you then make the roof a low curve, it's a natural shelter. https://www.buildwithrise.com/stories/underground-homes You have to make sure you're digging above the water table and the flood-plain of the nearest river. With city apartment buildings, this is more complicated. I would very strongly recommend low-rise, low-profile, blunt-cornered buildings with deep cellars and reinforced exit tunnels. Those tall forest-buildings in Milan and Singapore look beautiful, but they are vulnerable, and hard to escape from. Put a berm around the whole complex, https://www.stantec.com/en/ideas/elevating-low-rise-development-its-a-swell-idea and you're practically home-free - plus some really good skateboarding, sledding opportunities for the residents... Here is a cool design for a public building https://www.visitnorway.com/places-to-go/eastern-norway/oslo/oslo-opera-house/

The best we can do is say that conditions exist or once did exist, to support the existence and evolution of life, as we know it. Not until we discover an undeniable Alien relic or fossil, ascertain undeniable constructions such as cities, bridges, or vehicles, or of course actual physical contact, can we be really certain. Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

Is this for examination purposes ? I ask because UK A level exams are coming up and I was preparing some more detail for you but there is a small but important point I would like to clear up. Van der Waals proposed his froces in 1873, before experimental confirmation of either atoms or molecules. London proposed his quantum idea in 1930 to explain the work on inttermolecular forces that had taken plece in the intervening half century. Since then modern Chemistry has gained a vast amount of new data, both the VDW and London explanations have been refined and redefined several times. So it is important to use he definitions and explanations appropriate to your syllabus if this is exam material. The UK A level currently defines VDW as a general label for intermolecular forces and London forces as a special case.

The role played by atomic nuclei in chemical bonding and intermolecular attractions is to provide the potential wells that confine the electrons in their orbitals. The variety of forms of attraction between atoms arises from the ways in which the electrons in adjoining atoms behave. The "Moon model", put forward in the 1980s by Robert J Moon and apparently not taken seriously today, concerns nuclear structure. This has no impact at all on chemical bonding.

If they are to be fully accepted in top level female sports in the category of their chosen gender, and be handicapped neither unhealthily nor unfairly (the two handicaps being generally incompatible and necessarily arbitrary), transgender women will dominate many if not most established sports, due to the the inherent and well understood advantages of having XY chromosomes and having gone through puberty. How will this be conducive to their acceptance by society? In sport and otherwise. How will the US Women's Soccer Team feel when they are either all replaced by transgender females, or are only able to maintain their place by overly restrictive and/or unhealthy rules that essentially eliminate transgender females from trying out? Or is that just okay? As long as someone is representing them and getting equal pay with the men...

I can't tell if you are being ironic or as dense as iron. 😁

I think you must have skipped the half of the arguments in the last 36 pages that didn't support your opinion, or failed to follow the logic in them, while believing your own were fairly robust. Reading this post of yours, Wolfgang Pauli's "not even wrong" quote comes to mind here.