Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/19/19 in Posts

  1. 5 points
    No. Space-time should not be comprised of anything like dough. It is not substance-like at all. The concept of space-time is just the recognition that the measurements of space and time are frame dependent and not absolute. The analogy is that in Newtonian physics, space and time are treated like North/South vs. East/West. In such a situation everyone, no matter what direction they are facing, all agree on these directions. Everyone, for example, agrees that town A is 40 miles North and 30 miles East of town B. However the Space-time manner of treating this is that each person uses his own sense of Left/Right and Front/Back. Thus one person facing one direction will say that town A is 30 miles to the left of and 40 miles in front of town B, while someone facing in another direction would say that town A is 50 miles directly to the right of town B. It makes no more sense to think of space-time as being "substance-like" than it would to think of Left/Right-Front/Back as being "substance like". Now I also realize that in GR, it is said that Space-time "curves" in the presence of mass. And to many people this implies space-time being a "structure or substance". This is not what this means. "Curvature" of space-time really just means that the geometry rules governing it are non-Euclidean. In other words, the rules of plane, Euclidean geometry just don't hold.
  2. 5 points
    Glad to be back had some RL issues which are done with now
  3. 5 points
    thethinkertank has been placed in the queue for spamming the forum with an impressive amount of nonsense.
  4. 4 points
  5. 4 points
    "Perhaps we can communicate with the aliens if they are aware of the EM spectrum." "We can develop the technology to capture what we need from space along the way to another system" "We can figure out new ways to communicate with alien cultures." "Aliens probably think differently." It's been a long time since I spoke any Hydrox. It's an older form of Oreo, where the middle is stressed before either end is considered.
  6. 4 points
    Allright I'll bite a little, but from what I have seen it is mostly a misunderstanding of how DNA works that makes you make these "assumptions". While I do think you have SOME understanding of biology, you seem to not know enough and thus say certain things are impossible. Reason 1: the genome does contain enough information. Well do you have any evidence for this; cell type specific transcription factors, cryptic transcription start sites, alternative polyadenylation, alternative splicing, post-transcriptional modifications, RNA secondary structures and post-translational modifications lead to a whole lot of diversity, can you give some actual evidence that there is not enough information within the genome or is this just what you believe? Reason 2: The genome only says how to build parts. If we don't have said fats, or essential vitamins or whatever, then the end products cannot be made, so you can definitely produce blueprints and use things which are not within the blueprints but come from somewhere else. I would like to say that a better analogy is that the genome encodes for tools with specific use-limitations which, when combined with the genome, lead to the production of both the factory and the end products. Reason 3: The genome does not determine which of its genes are used and when. Yes it does... epigenetic regulation is a result of the tools encoded by the genome, so indirectly the genome contains information for when parts of the genome are to be used. I don't get why you don't think this is the case, for instance CpG islands are encoded by the genome and DNA methylation enzymes, when guided by cell type specific adaptors and/or by lack of transcriptional activity, will methylate these CpG islands which leads to reduced transcription. All of these things are encoded by the genome, right? Reason 4: The genome cannot guide its products. There's plenty of signals both within the RNA and amino acids (look up nuclear localization signal) which direct proteins, alternatively see the Golgi (which is encoded by the genome) and there's evidence that parts of the DNA codes and/or binding factors/histones lead to chromatin localization within the nucleus (see CTCF and Lamina associated domains, and see super enhancers and transcription factories). Reason 5: No way of reaching the next level. Take a course in genetic embryology, look up hox genes. I don't want to go and explain all of of biological development but for instance, go look at sonic hedgehog and its influence in the formation of your hands and then tell us why this is not encoded by the genome. Reason 6: The limited role of developmental proteins. DamID now I have to explain developmental biology anyway; so lets say the genome has a developmental program to turn cell A into cells that proliferate outwards. This program is activated by a signalling protein and the cells will proliferate away from the source of the signalling protein, the further away they are, the less they proliferate. This is how your fingers can grow. Now you may think, why is it only in 1 direction, and there are other gradients with signals coming from closer to your body which signal the cells not to proliferate, and in between each source of the first developmental signal source are inhibitory sources, thereby the cells will only proliferate in the shape of a finger. This is a super simplified example, but just shows that this can all be done by the genome. Reason 7: Lack of construction endpoint. Don't get what you mean, the genome encodes for both a functional embryonic cell as well as functioning cells in adults, but we get a functional cell from our mother's egg cells. Just DNA alone would not produce anything, there needs to be a factory present already, which has been evolving for SOME time. Reason 8: Diversity from the same genome. Why don't you just learn about histone modifications, DNA modifications, post-transcriptional processing and cell-type specific transcription factors, or just take a course in epigenetics before saying this are impossible. Reason 9: Designed systems can’t repair themselves. Chaperone proteins can sometimes repair themselves, but regardless, your idea of cutting your finger and it"repairing itself" is just plain wrong. The cells die and new cells proliferate filling the gap. You seem very keen on explaining how things work but then you also fundamentally misunderstand certain things... Reason 10: Development is not construction. Construction of the plans to build things (and when to use them etc), construction of the tools and construction of the required materials is all done by the genome, but these tools then interact further with the genome to change things so that developmental progress is made. See all the other points for a more indepth explanation of this. Just learn some biology or at least give real reason why you believe what you believe. You just say "this isn't possible" but then there's soo much evidence that it is possible... -Dagl
  7. 4 points
    I'll clarify for him. For the reaction mass to produce an upward force on the rocket, it has to be accelerated downward relative to the rocket. In order to return that mass to the top of the rocket, any downward velocity the mass has relative to the rocket has to be stopped and reversed. This is an acceleration just as much as the one producing the upwards force on the rocket (acceleration is either change in speed, direction or both). This action will exert a force on the rocket opposite to that caused by accelerating the fuel downward. The end result of this force will be counter any upward movement by the rocket. This ends up with the net movement of the rocket as being zero. There is no way around this. There is no "clever" way to "fool" the rocket into having net movement by recirculating the fuel/reaction mass.
  8. 3 points
    This is yet another typical example of someone wanting to formulate a GUT with his personal model that has absolutely no idea what is involved in a GUT theory.... One of the most fundamental steps is the mathematics that offer a means of testing such a theory . A theory without mathematics that is based on simply verbal word play is utterly useless You cannot build a working circuit without being able to calculate the required resistance and capacitance to create an RC timing circuit. Nor can you predict how our universe will evolve in terms of expansion (which quite frankly required nearly every field in physics) nor can you make predictions of particle decay nor interactions You require mathematics for that.... This formula is far closer to a GUT than anything I have seen of your posts. [latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex] You have absolutely no idea how detailed this formula truly is in terms of all the tensors/matrices complex conjugates etc. If you ever hope to build a GUT then you had best be able to decipher this equation. At the very least recognize each term Just for the record you have three spatial dimensions time is seperate as an independent variable which is the mathematical definition of a dimension. Hence spacetime containing four independent quantities that can change value without affecting any of quantity
  9. 3 points
    Obviously you never met somebody who really is paranoid. Not just vague ideas of being followed, but acting according these feelings, in such a way that such a person cannot copy with daily life anymore. Example: colleague comes panicking into the office, hiding immediately under his desk, saying that those helicopters outside are chasing him. Because that does not help. The paranoid feelings overwhelm a person completely, so he cannot think rationally anymore. That's why also very intelligent people can become psychologically ill. Intelligence does not protect against psychological illness.
  10. 3 points
    There is no purpose or goal in evolution. The purpose of a star is not to fuse hydrogen. The purpose of a river is not to send water to the ocean. What we observe in nature is a consequence of physical laws, there is no purpose. The basis of evolution is not improvement, that is too vague and subjective. Evolution is simply that an animal that is suited to an environment will survive long enough to produce viable offspring and one that isn't will not produce offspring. It may be that 200,000 years in the future man will have a brain that is only half the size that it is today. That would be an 'improvement' because that trait of having a pea brain is best suited for the environment.
  11. 3 points
    We've recently had a few posts by newer members asking for advice and expert input on ideas they are unwilling to disclose publicly for reasons of IP protection. Staff feel that this goes against the spirit of this forum as a place for open discussion, and we have therefore updated the rules under Section 2 to include the following:
  12. 3 points
    Yes...The expansion of the universe affects light and this is observed by the lengthening of the wavelength or shift to the red end of the spectrum, and is known as "cosmological redshift" The actual trajectory is affected by spacetime curvature or warping by intervening objects.
  13. 3 points
    I appreciate you've though deeply about this issue - however this is incorrect. Regulatory genes can, for example, encode silencing mRNA which is used for post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. RNA secondary structure can act to alter gene expression. Somatic V(D)J  recombination of existing genes is critical for adaptive immune function. There is an entire field of Developmental Genetics which deals with the mechanisms for differential expression during development - and the vast majority are genetically determined. Ultimately, the genome does a lot more than simply encode proteins, and much of its less obvious function is newly and incompletely understood - the term "junk DNA" was coined in 1972 to describe the 98% of the human genome that does not encode proteins. It wasn't until the 1990's that we started to unravel the function of non-coding DNA, but it does a lot more than we originally thought and were are still in the process of determining its function.
  14. 3 points
    I think you are just seeing the same issue from different perspectives. The DNA encodes required proteins (though again, it does not encode the required metabolites, such as nucleotides, amino acids etc, though it does encode the machinery involved in acquiring and synthesizing it), but it requires the presence of a fully functional cell background (with the machinery in place) to produce them. This is the chicken or egg problem as as without everything already provided by the cell (or having an incompatible cellular set up) the program will stall. Likewise, not providing required nutrient will inhibit the production of said machinery. I.e. if you nitrogen (or phosphate) limitation, translation/transcription will not proceed and it does not matter that the genome has all the information to produce all the proteins required for nitrogen/phosphate uptake. Plus there is increasing awareness that the cellular content plays an important role in the trajectory of cells, which might play an important role in asymmetric cellular aging. I.e. depending on what cellular component each daughter cell inherits (as the content is not necessarily divided perfectly equally), they may have different growth trajectories. So despite the fact that both cells inherit the same DNA, one may remain highly active, whereas the other one gets all the crap and heads to apoptosis. So yes, the basic genetic material is without doubt present and inherited within the DNA. However, its expression and the translation into a given phenotype is highly dependent on the intracellular (and extracellular) content.
  15. 3 points
    I am wondering a bit why DanielBoyd got so many negatives on his OP. I think some people read it as another Intelligent Design posting, but it isn't. But as OP in a new thread, it is a bit long. Flying over it can lead to some wrong conclusions. But of course DanielBoyd is also to blame for this, given the title of the thread, and the, in my opinion, superfluous mentioning of entropy and its provocative title. For me it is clear that the DNA does not, and cannot, contain all information to build or even identify an organism (except of course by just comparing DNA of known organisms). It needs the complete apparatus of the living cell that the DNA can fulfill its function. A viewpoint one can use is that of a message and its interpretation. A message can only be interpreted by a correct interpreter. AFAIK the cellular 'interpreter' of DNA is not 'neutral'. Even if we had the complete DNA of some dinosaur, we will not be able to reconstruct how it looked like, because how the information is interpreted depends on what the dinosaur cell did with it. (So the Jurassic Park idea, to exchange frog DNA with dinosaur-DNA and so let grow a dinosaur, will not work, because the frog-egg has not the correct environment for the DNA to produce a dinosaur.) So I agree with DanielBoyd that DNA contains the design of an organism is not correct, even if DNA of course has a strong influence on what the organism will look like. It is more like a list of ingredients of a recipe. And of course there are all kind of feedback loops in the mechanism, where proteins synthesized according to a gen, has impact on what the cell does (directly or indirectly), and so possibly also on what genes will be read later on.
  16. 2 points
    Have we ruled out trolling as the cause of the problem? Anyway, it seems that nearly everything can change- everything except Farid's mind.
  17. 2 points
    I'm not sure that would be the case; yes you can push a big mass and it will keep moving, but you need to push against something to start and stop that big mass. Having gravity and friction are actually very helpful to moving and processing stuff - I think doing useful work in microgravity will be more difficult, not less because of their absence. And of all the processing steps for mining and refining most materials, the moving stuff around part is likely to be the least energy intensive part of the whole exercise. I would expect a lot of energy intensive processing just to make (and recycle) the raw ingredients needed for metal refining. I am presuming energy will be some kind of fusion power - ie fusion that is simple enough that a small colony with limited economic and industrial capabilities can build and operate reliably, entirely with local skills and resources - no small step for getting that I am thinking. Fission is technically easier but fissionable elements are not abundant and will probably be mostly contained at very low concentrations within nickel-iron - and 'minimal amounts of energy' looks unlikely to be sufficient to refine it; energy costs of making energy using fission look like a serious issue in such conditions. I've thought the 'stepping stone' approach is the most reasonable of the various virtually impossible ways we might use to get people to another star - if truly self-sufficient colonies capable of spawning new self-sufficient colonies can be successful using asteroid/comet materials, and each new colony is in the direction of a target star, then potentially, eventually, some distant descendants might get there. But except for the very last of that long line, the stepping stones will only be a step to another stepping stone; the people involved aren't going to that star - and if their lifestyle works they don't need to - so keeping society wide commitment to that far, far distant end goal may prove difficult to sustain for the thousands of generations needed. I suggest the urge to find new territory - a primitive urge - underlies the sense of attraction people have for other stars and other worlds, but given the multi-generational nature of the goal, that is really not going to be sufficient to expect whole populations to repeatedly make economic sacrifices for something they will not see. That urge to up stakes and hit the road when things get tough in search of some place better is too vague and non-specific as a motivation, and is not (I think) sufficient for circumstances where you have the ability to make the 'someplace better' yourself, even if from such dismal and difficult raw material as asteroids and comets. Having worked hard and made some comfort and security - if you have successfully built someplace better and the way forward involves sacrificing that hard won security and comfort for starting all over again - that commitment to the far off end goal will be hard to keep going.
  18. 2 points
    This is important information, that you really need to tell your doctor. He will know what to do.
  19. 2 points
    If it is changed from a circle to a square then, yes, it is now a square and not a circle. That is because the circle became a square. You can't start off by saying that a circle becomes a square and then say that it hasn't. This makes even less sense than your other thread. If it was a square and a circle (whatever that means) then it would have changed from a circle to a square-and-a-circle. Seriously. This is just totally incoherent nonsense. What is the point?
  20. 2 points
    There are three issues that need to be addressed in this whole thing: 1. Conservation of momentum. I thought you had got this, but it appears not. 2. Generating a directional pulse (And, related to that, whether it is even possible to have a directional magnetic pulse) 3. Whether a magnetic pulse would be more efficient than electric or electromagnetic. So ... 1. So, I thought you had got the whole "conservation of momentum" thing. This makes me doubt it. The fact that two wires in the system have a force between them or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether you generate a pulse heading in one direction, which will impart momentum to the rest of the system in the opposite direction. So, if your pair of wires radiates symmetrically (which it will, even if not spherically symmetrical) then this is equivalent to throwing rocks in all directions. It doesn't matter if half the rocks are bounced off trampolines, nor does it matter if there are forces between the wires that generate the magnetic field. 2. The reason the grenade outside the craft will push it is because some of the blast will hit the craft and either be absorbed or reflected; this will impart momentum to the craft. In an alternative view where the grenade is still attached to the craft and explodes, then momentum is imparted to the craft because most of the blast material goes away from the craft and a small amount is blocked/shadows by the craft; resulting in a net momentum of debris in one direction, hence imparting momentum to the craft in the opposite direction. You could also do this with the grenade in the craft by allowing the blast to only escape in one direction. Kind of like a ... rocket. Now, you need to arrange for your electromagnetic pulse to be similarly directed. For example, one wire/coil generating pulses and a reflective surface (perhaps a parabolic reflector) behind it. This will ensure you get an asymmetric impulse which will therefore impart momentum to the craft. (This would be like a light sail pushed by a laser on the craft.) You cannot achieve this with two wires. 3. If we assume the same level of efficiency for whatever system you make, then there is no reason that a magnetic pulse will be more efficient than an electric or electromagnetic pulse. This is because of another conservation law: energy. If you put, say, 1 joule into generating a magnetic pulse and one joule into an electromagnetic pulse (if these things are even different, once you start talking about radiating the energy) then the pulse contains one joule. The energy carried by the pulse, and therefore the momentum carried by the pulse, is the same in both cases. Magntism is not magic. It won't give you free energy or extra momentum.
  21. 2 points
    Like when you thought you were snogging Taylor Swift and later found out it was the dog licking the takeaway off your face that you ejected.
  22. 2 points
    How about almond scrimshaw?
  23. 2 points
    There are a couple of wrong assumptions regarding genomic differences, but before that, a basic mistake is that your calculation assumes a genomic transition from human to chimpanzee DNA. However, the distance that you should calculate is that from either of them to their common ancestor, which diverged ca. 6 MYA ago. Another fundamental issue is that genome re-arrangements are not based on single nucleotide exchanges alone. Quite a lot of larger scale changes are based on duplications as well as deletions, predominantly in intergenetic regions. You will note that the genome size is actually different and if you align the whole genomes of the two species you will find sizeable gaps in either of them. So depending on how you actually count those gaps (and/or perform the alignment) you will find similarities between human and chimpanzees as low as ca. 80%. If we focus on actual genes, that shoots up close to 99%.
  24. 2 points
    Not quite. There are multiple symmetries. Some lead to anti-matter, others to supersymmetric particles, others to mirror matter. (There may be others ...)
  25. 2 points
    Certainly not parallel universes. But if it provides evidence of mirror matter then it is possible (but not certain) that there could be large scale structures equivalent to stars and galaxies, made up of mirror matter. This would exist in our universe but not be directly detectable. That could be described as a "parallel universe" but it requires a bit of journalistic license. There is a good overview of mirror matter here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter
  26. 2 points
    Strange already explained it, but the opening post sounds an awful lot like an irreducible complexity argument, and the factual errors, lack of citation and flawed analogies are archetypical of such arguments. To clarify, I'm not accusing you of religious motivation - but the opening post sure looks an awful lot like the standard lead up to a creationist pitch, which might explain some of the reaction you're getting.
  27. 2 points
    If you would replace "does not exist" by "it is not true science"... i.e. "Psychiatry Is Not True Science, because [your reasoning here, about inability of scientific verification of person mental illness]".. your statement would have more sense and many more people could agree with it. If there is no reliability of source data, it's no different from reading from tea leaves, or numerology. Some people claim to find something/future in tea bags or leaves etc. Which is obviously false. I agree, there is needed MRI and other highly advanced scientific tools to check somebody hyper or lack of brain activity in certain regions of the brain and comparison with "normal"/"average" working brain (with lack of "reference brain" there must be used "average brain activity"). Medicament used to increase activity of brain if it's too low, other medicament to decrease too high activity (e.g. "psychoactive drugs"). Actually reactions of medicament on the brain, or reactions of hormones, or psychoactive drugs etc. etc. is quite well scientifically documented. There are routinely performed tests on animals, also apes, how they react on lack of, or abundance of certain drugs, and brain activities. You're now talking like people who are asking "when there will be cure for cancer?!".. i.e. it's lack of understanding, and putting everything to one single bag called "mental illness" or "cancer". Each person cancer is completely different from other person cancer. Each person has completely different mutation than other person (apart from obvious mistakes like transfusion or transplantation of organ from person with cancer to the new host etc.). There is nothing common in breast cancer of one women and other women, except placement of the cancer. Don't put them to one bag. Every case is unique. In one case it could be long term lack of chemicals required for normal brain work (improper diet missing essential compounds). In other case it could be attack of known or unknown parasites, fungi, microbes, which interfere with nervous system. In yet another case it could be genetic mutation. etc. etc. f.e. there are fungi which are attacking nervous system of animal like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis and ant is starting behaving abnormally.. Reaction of human nervous system on presence of parasites is not yet fully understood. Especially for unknown parasites. Lack of high level technology equipment in psychiatric hospitals don't help. There used to be cases when somebody had tumor in the brain, and psychiatrists claimed they have some mental illness..
  28. 2 points
    A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St Peter at the pearly gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, “What are those clocks?” St Peter answered, “Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock will move.” “Oh,” said the man. “Whose clock is that?” “That’s Mother Theresa’s. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie.” “Incredible!” said the man. St Peter continued, pointed to another and said, “That’s Abraham Lincoln’s clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life.” “Where’s Trumps clock?” “His clock is in Jesus’ office. He’s using it as a ceiling fan.”
  29. 2 points
    On its own - no. You brought up Hox genes in the context that the diversity of Hox genes did not account for the diversity of observed body plans. I simply presented the considerable body of empirical evidence which demonstrates that they do explain that variation. I hope this stems from a lack of understanding rather than disingenuity - but the proximity of a regulator to other coding genes dictates its effect in a regulatory cascade - no one should expect the Hox gene, or any other regulatory gene to self determine its regulatory function - genomic architecture dictates the genes downstream of a regulator. Hox genes are part of a regulatory cascade that does determine which proteins are expressed in cells, and how they differentiate spatio-temporally. They are part of the genetic system that governs "how millions of cells with different patterns of gene expression work together to create a morphological structure". I certainly did not state that Hox, or homeobox genes in general explain everything - that's a considerable strawman. "A diverse range of mechanisms, including nuclear dynamics, RNA processing, microRNA and translational regulation, all concur to control Hox gene outputs." https://dev.biologists.org/content/140/19/3951.abstract And here we go down the rabbit hole of shifting goalposts and argumentum ad ignorantiam. No one ever claimed that Hox genes in isolation explain the diversity of the tree of life, all of developmental genetics and the entirety of tissue differentiation. They are adequate to explain animal body plan variation, as shown by significant, already cited empirical evidence. The claim that they demonstrate a gap that genetics cannot explain was therefore false.
  30. 2 points
    Asimov used to talk about someone approached him and said they had a great idea for a story; if Asimov would write it, they could split the money 50:50. Asimov said, "tell you what, you write the story and keep all the money." Ideas are easy. Execution is hard.
  31. 2 points
  32. 2 points
    You need to be more specific. What do you mean by "not respecting different races and cultures"? I don't know where you live, but in a secular democracy where individual liberty is paramount we don't imprison people for not respecting other races/cultures. The concept of disrespect is entirely subjective and within the ego of the offended. And in the West we don't trample individual liberty for the sake of someone else's wounded ego.
  33. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note I split this off to let people discuss the simulation hypothesis. But since it’s turned into Tyson-bashing, I’m closing it.
  34. 2 points
    And I engage with them in open dialogue whenever I get the chance, just like I’m doing with you both here. You don’t get to share your opinions then admonish me when I challenge them simply because you can’t vote here. If your residence in another country didn’t prevent you from posting then it equally cannot prevent me from critiquing your posts and pointing out their flaws.
  35. 2 points
    Who would have thought a thread about Japanese doctors would become so confrontational so quickly.
  36. 2 points
    There are issues with the idea of multiple temporal (time) dimensions. There are no* models or theories that rely on more than one temporal dimension and no experiment* have hinted >1 temporal dimension. There are are also papers** stating that >1 temporal dimension leads to unstable atoms. I think the idea of >1 temporal dimension affects physics on an even more fundamental level than required for a new explanation of the result of the dual slit experiment. In the context of the above you will have to provide some detailed instructions what to look for to confirm your idea. When running a dual slit experiment using regular equipment the scientist will confirm current models. What should the scientist look for, and what calculations are required, to show support for your idea? The logic is not clear. If I would be prepared to run an experiment I would need to know what to measure to confirm your predictions about additional time dimensions. There will be inference pattern when firing one particle at a time, and no hitting of a "front wall". See for instance single electron experiment at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4617474/ or http://l-esperimento-piu-bello-della-fisica.bo.imm.cnr.it/english/whatisabout.html. So how can that be a "key"? What have been overlooked? *) that is, no mainstream theory, model or experiment that I am aware of. I have not rigorously researched this. **) From https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf, dashed square added, highlights the OPs statement about 3+3 dimensions: Slightly OT: If you want to read a more philosophical article about the single electron experiment: http://l-esperimento-piu-bello-della-fisica.bo.imm.cnr.it/Resources/The scientific sublime - physicsworld.com.pdf
  37. 2 points
    Full ack. With 'authority' comes responsibility. In this case, to show where somebody is wrong. If the person in question does not react on that, then OK, leave him/her with his/hers ideas. So this is pretty useless: This neither advances discussion, nor teaches anybody anything. 'Citation please' can be useful when somebody claims that 'science has shown that...' followed by a crackpot idea. But I do not think the OP did that. He pretty clearly shows his ideas, and the experts between us can look if these ideas match present science, and when not, can show this (with citations, if necessary). Citations are necessary when we do not agree on the facts; on theories, i.e. interpretations of facts, we must discuss. Above has nothing to do with any advancement in insight from anybody, but only about 'winning a discussion'.
  38. 2 points
    Headset and computer jack must be compatible. You need first to find out what you have :
  39. 2 points
    Let me try, John... Once again, someone who doesn't understand that nobody wants to read a 'wall of text' on an internet forum, has posted one.
  40. 2 points
    Reparations is a corner stone of our civil legal system. If you steal from someone, you make amends. If you slander a restaurant and they lose business because of it, you are required to pay them damages. Wrongful death? Reparations. Fell off a faulty ladder and can't work? Ladder manufacturer pays. And it doesn't matter if the faulty ladder was an ignorant mistake or done maliciously. Is it you position that none of these reparations should be made either? If not, then why aren't blacks also entitled to reparations for harm they've suffered?
  41. 2 points
    No, it is not right. No, it is not right. That is not an excuse for using invalid statements about relativity. Lack of rigour regarding the frames of reference can and will lead to contradictions regarding the math of Special Relativity. Personally I am not moving on without addressing that properly: Some readers might interpret such contradictions as problems with the theory of relativity itself* rather than issues with the descriptions and examples in this thread. That would be unfortunate, especially in the mainstream section of the forum. If multiple frames of reference are used the only way I know of, that gives correct results within Special Relativity, is to use Lorentz Transform or derive Lorentz Transform to be able to move between the frames of reference. So let's try another approach: Even if we are not allowed to use Lorentz Transform for argumentation yet we still have Einstein's postulates, and simply adding distances in one frame of reference to get a distance in another frame of reference is not compatible with Einstein's postulates. Question: what postulates are we going to use? Can we for instance state that the speed of light is invariant? Are we starting from other postulates?
  42. 2 points
  43. 2 points
    It's only peripherally supportive of extraterrestrials, like saying sonar evidence that could be whales is really aliens. It's much more likely to be whales. Similarly, it's much more likely that these UFOs have an earthly origin. Some country testing unusual aircraft. Ignorance and fear. When you mix them, as you have, it produces stupidity, hate, and unreasonableness. Critical thought on vacation, if you will.
  44. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note Polinski, you are being obtuse and dragging this thread off topic. Please stop. If you have nothing relevant to contribute here, you are welcome to either find a more appropriate thread or create your own.
  45. 2 points
    Yep, we should all read a book about it...
  46. 2 points
    Was just about to post this but Stringy beat me to it:
  47. 2 points
    The evidence would suggest it only happened once, or at least it was whittled down to one, much like the evolution of the internal combustion engine. In context, it's because they read a book about evolution (and we are here); you should try it.
  48. 2 points
    I would like to take the time to present an idea I have come up with. Please note that I am a layman when it comes to the field of rocketry so please keep this in mind My idea is " The usage of a ferromagnetic fluid, such as ferrofluid, as a replacement of conventional rocket fuel in order to develop a rocket engine which would have the potential of recycling its fuel continuously through the usage of motor pump technology. All the while containing both the rocket along with the fuel and other components of the engine inside of a casing so that the different fluids do not escape from there respective housings. (Here is a general image of the idea that I am proposing) (I apologize for this being done in paint, I will try and improve upon the visuals of the design at a later point in time) I would like to now take the time to explain this systems functions for how it would complete the objective described in the beginning statement. I will be highlighting each section on how they work and how they interact with one another. Section(1) Section 1 Is the large fuel tank which would hold both a ferro fluid along with the highly compressible material. The highly compressible material would generate a pressure on the surface of the ferrofluid causing it to have a tendency toward the bottom of the container. Section 1 is also where the ferrofluid is recycled into along the highly compressible material. Section 2 Section 2 is the pressure controller and the ferrofluid outlet. Ferrofluid would be ejected at a controlled rate out of this nozzle using the pressure controller. This is what would cause the rocket engine to propel itself upward, that being the rocket nozzle, in a controllable manner. Section 3 Section 3 is the ferrofluid capture environment. This is where the ejected ferrofluid would be captured by a strong magnetic field generated by electromagnetic "plates". (Please note that I am using the term plates as a placeholder for a material that would capture the ferrofluid) Each "plate" would be charged by separate electronic sources. Any non captured ferro fluid would be let out into the next section. After the ferrofluid has been captured it would then "fall off" into section 4 due to the demagnetization of the electromagnetic plates. Section 4 Section 4 is a ferrofluid collection environment where the ferrofluid will drop off into after it has been demagnetized. After this it would then be drawn into up into section 5. Section 5 Section 5 is the ferro fluid recycler. Where the ferrofluid would be recycled back into section 1. Section 6 And finally section 6 is the back and forth highly compressible material storage and compressor. It interacts with section 1 by refilling it with highly compressible material. Problems I have run into when trying to flush out this idea > The magnetic field used to collect the ferrofluid would have to be strong enough in order to overcome the high velocities of the ejected ferrofluid. > The magnetic field used to collect the ferrofluid would have to be weak enough so that it does not impede the ejection process of the ferrofluid > Constant usage of the ferrofluid may cause nanoscale damage to the ejection nozzle and the motor pumps over time due to well metal scraping metal. > The compression rate of the highly compressible material would need to match the refill rate of the ferrofluid into the section 1. > The "falling off" rate of the ferro fluid would need to be fast enough that the ejected ferro fluid is constantly being attracted to the electromagnetic plates. > probably billions more problems Thank you for taking the time to read over this.
  49. 2 points
    I think it fits to a personality disorder. My first guess is narcissist personality disorder, maybe schizotypal.
  50. 2 points
    There are many stunning photographs at APOD [Astronomy Picture Of the Day] some far more stunning then others...just type in APOD...a new one everyday. Here's another..... SEIS: Listening for Marsquakes Image Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech, Mars Insight Explanation: If you put your ear to Mars, what would you hear? To find out, and to explore the unknown interior of Mars, NASA's Insight Lander deployed SEIS late last year, a sensitive seismometer that can detect marsquakes. In early April, after hearing the wind and motions initiated by the lander itself, SEIS recorded an unprecedented event that matches what was expected for a marsquake. This event can be heard on this YouTube video. Although Mars is not thought to have tectonic plateslike the Earth, numerous faults are visible on the Martian surface which likely occurred as the hot interior of Mars cooled -- and continues to cool. Were strong enough marsquakes to occur, SEIS could hear their rumbles reflected from large structures internal to Mars, like a liquid core, if one exists. Pictured last week, SEIS sits quietly on the Martian surface, taking in some Sunwhile light clouds are visible over the horizon.