Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/19/19 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    There is a difference between the 'fossil' field and 'changes' to the gravitational field. Changes propagate at the speed of information, c , while the fossil field is pre-existing, and no new information needs to be transferred. IOW changes have to obey causality, and have a limited range of observability that is time variant, because of the limited speed of light, while the pre-existing fossil field is simply the existing space-time curvature, and if our measurements could be made accurate enough, we could know the 'overall' curvature of the universe at large ( not just the observable part ). Our current best measurements indicate the Universe is essentially flat ( to a very high degree ), indicating that it is extremely large compared to the observable part we see, such that curvature is trivial ( analogous to the Earth appearing flat at short ranges ), or, it was extremely 'fine-tuned' at the beginning, such that even after 13+ billion years of expansion, it is still essentially flat.
  2. 3 points
    Therefore it is subjective not objective. You need to look up the words subjective and objective in the dictionary. Your “sense of peace” is not objective evidence.
  3. 3 points
    There are occasional threads about the possibility of ancient civilisations that left no trace. Those interested in such things might find the following paper interesting: The Silurian hypothesis: would it be possible todetect an industrial civilization in thegeological record? https://fermatslibrary.com/s/the-silurian-hypothesis-would-it-be-possible-to-detect-an-industrial-civilization-in-the-geological-record I have only skimmed the beginning of the article, but the footnote on the first page is brilliant:
  4. 2 points
    As to the question of range of gravity... Lets consider again QFT, the 'marriage' of Quantum concepts with Special relativity. All forces are thought to be mediated by virtual bosons, such as photons, W and Z particles, gluons, and gravitons. Photons and gravitons are massless, and must travel at c. They can also be extremely low energy/long wavelength such that when we apply the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to them, as their energy approaches zero ( wavelength approaches infinity ), the HUP says they can exist for a time approaching infinite. IOW they can approach infinite distance when their strength approaches zero because there is no time constraint; and this is evident in the inverse square law which the obey. Now consider the weak force, mediated by massive virtual W and Z particles. The fact that they have to have a minimum amount of mass-energy to exist means that their time is limited by the HUP. Since their mass-energy cannot approach zero, they can't have an amount of time approaching infinite to travel to infinite ranges. The distance they can reach is limited by the HUP and SR ( as they are subluminal ). The same analysis can be done for the strong force when it is modelled as a Yukawa potential with massive Pion exchange. But I'm incapable ( without doing some research ) of doing this analysis with massless gluons mediating the color interaction and residual strong force between protons and neutrons.
  5. 2 points
    The ability to experience fear, worry and anxiety is a vital survival trait. Worry alerts us to potential problems; anxiety is a message from our subconscious that the problem is almost certainly real; fear is confirmation and the preparation of the body to deal with the problem, by fight or flight. Alcohol allows a temporary change of perspective on reality, in the same way a ten mile run, a walk through the Louvre, or the contemplation of mitochondrial biochemistry does. Temproary changes of perspective enhance, rather than cloud reality. Faith, in contrast, is the ultimate means of hiding from reality. Faith is the most effective way of rejecting evidence. Faith allows one, like Carrol's queen, to " believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast" yet to do so without his charm. Faith allows one walk off a cliff, confident one will be unharmed. Faith allows one to immolate oneself and forty innocent fellow humans, confident one will awake in Paradise with a harem of virgins.
  6. 2 points
    The reason why people talk about the speed of an object relative to the expansion of space is due to a problem physicist have with describing the universe to fit the data from cosmic background radiation. Einstein discovered that mass increases when in object is seen to be in relative motion to another object, but the mass increase of other galaxies was never detected to fit that theory. It is as though they are in relative motion to us while still being considered to be at rest, since they are not affected by relative motion in this way. This is explained as being due to them still being at rest relative to space itself. Then it was found that a universal theory would have to allow the Big Bang to be faster than the speed of light in order to fit the cosmic background data. Then they concluded that an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light relative to the expansion of space in their theories, but space itself can expand faster than the speed of light.
  7. 2 points
    So as I suspected, a version of solipsism: https://www.britannica.com/topic/solipsism This is one of those rather "empty" philosophical ideas that can never be proved or disproved. Similar to the idea that the universe was created 15 minutes ago, but made to look billions of years old. Nothing can falsify the idea, but nothing can confirm it. (Which is why this is in Philosophy, rather than a science section.) These ideas may have some use for training peoples reasoning and critical thinking skills, but no one seriously tries to say they are true. (Well, obviously, almost nobody.) I would turn these questions around. If there are other consciousness (etc.) how can this theory be correct? Other problems: the universe appears to be very hard to understand. Most people cannot understand quantum theory or general relativity. So how can their (our?) consciousness create something they cannot understand? If the author hasn't managed to convince you in an entire book, I doubt anyone on a science forum can (where people will naturally be sceptical of the idea).
  8. 2 points
  9. 2 points
    Ugh. Headline editors. The probability may be low for a single decay, but the event is not rare if you have a lot of the isotope. If you had a mole, you'd have 33 decays per year. Less rare than payday (for me, anyway)
  10. 2 points
    That is a good summary. I believe we had discussed it in an earlier thread somewhere. But essentially, when vaccines were developed, it was assumed that local accumulation followed by a slow release would yield the highest immunogenic response. This is generally referred to as a the depot effect. However, this effect was not unequivocally shown to be relevant or even present, and especially the use of adjuvants makes it questionable whether intramuscular injection site is really that important for immune activation. There are other considerations, of course, as injection into subcutaneous fat layers may result in too low mobilization. Nonetheless, it is quite likely that with the proper adjuvants IV injection are feasible. However, as the vaccination methods were developed and tested with the "classic" method in mind and because they were shown to be reliable with minimal discomfort, there is generally no good reason to change it. One has to keep in mind that the medical profession is generally required to follow protocol rather strictly (i.e. based on the specifics that has been tested and documented), for good reasons. Edit: regarding the lymphatic system, one could really extend the whole thing to a rather large lecture. The immune system is quite complicated but in this context it is important to recognize that both systems (i.e. blood and lymphatic system) intersect and the lymph nodes is where the lymph fluid is drained into the circulatory system. Thus while the success of vaccines is ultimately determined by the actions within the lymphatic system, they can (and have to be) detected throughout the circulatory system (typically via antigen presenting cells of sorts), where they are then directed to secondary lymphoid tissue (via the lymphatic system). The antigens can also directly enter the lymphatic system, but it is not required per se.
  11. 2 points
    „Although common belief is that vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream, they are actually administered into muscle or the layer of skin below the dermis where immune cells reside and circulate as occurs following natural infection” https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/immune-system-and-health „Most vaccines should be given via the intramuscular route into the deltoid or the anterolateral aspect of the thigh. This optimises the immunogenicity of the vaccine and minimises adverse reactions at the injection site. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of administering vaccines correctly.1–3 Clinical practice needs to reflect considerations about the right length and gauge of needles used to ensure that those vaccinated get the immunological benefit of the vaccines without local side effects” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118997/
  12. 2 points
    I have no idea about your disability (I am not a mind reader) but I did attempt to be helpful and encouraging by explaining in detail what made each of your sentences incomprehensible. You could look at that feedback and use it to improve your writing. There seem to be two main problems: 1. You use pronouns (“it”) and verbs with no obvious referent so it is very hard to know what the “thing” is that you are talking about 2. You seem to use words in non-standard ways so it is completely unclear what you are trying to say. So: be more explicit about what you are referring to and check the meanings of words in a dictionary before using them
  13. 2 points
    Comment not needed... The article is here. Do not forget to follow this link (from the article) for the zoomable version. What are all these ring structures? I thought planetary nebulae do not exist that long, so to see so many seems impossible. But what else are they?
  14. 2 points
    Always try to keep sexual fluidity contained with condoms or dams. They are a medium for STDs. Oh, that isn't the intended meaning ?
  15. 2 points
    I think the breakdown in discussions between the religious and those who are not is that so often one side doesn't really listen to the other. I don't think Eric was trying to tell you why you should use faith, but was instead telling you what faith means to him and how he uses it. As with most things there are many ways to approach a problem. With parachuting Eric uses his religious techniques, you use risk analysis, while others use financial, image or adrenaline considerations. In short, each of us uses what is important and useful to us as individuals. Not everyone relies strictly on logic and science.
  16. 2 points
    We will all die at some point, so there are no guarantees in any situation. Faith is about giving you the courage to do doing something, when you are not sure of the outcome, we hope that something good will happen. I can sit here and say, I believe parachuting is easy, but the only way to have faith in parachuting, is to put one on, go up in a plane and jump. If I jump once, I have faith once, if I jump ten times, then I have faith ten times. But what happens if I have an accident or a close encounter with death whilst parachuting, will I have the faith to jump one more time? Street Pastors have secular risk assessments, policies and procedures to comply with the law of the land. We had training from the police and paramedics, much of which was about trying to avoid risks and risky situations. We have had no training at all regarding self defence. I guess it is hard to understand our motivation to do things, I hate violence and I hate to see other people get hurt, I want to see our community become a kinder and more caring place for my family, friends, children and grandchildren. Faith in God helps me to do something, rather than sit in the pub and moan about the state of the world.
  17. 1 point
    The way I see it, if God can do anything, even perform acts that are outside the laws of the physical universe He may even have created, it destroys most chances of meaningful scientific discussion about Him. If, however, God merely has a complete knowledge of the universe and operates within its laws, then we can actually have a decent dialogue that's not destined to end with, "Well, He's all-powerful, sooooo...." God still doesn't seem to desire direct observation, but with omnipotence removed He is less supernatural. What if He has been working with the Laws of Everything (all interactions unified with gravity and completely understood) for billions of years (with the current universe, at least)? Is a God like this any more believable? Any less worthy?
  18. 1 point
    I'm sorry, I shouldn't have assumed you can use Google or simple word association. I explained how electron degeneracy and neutron degeneracy work in preventing gravitational collapse of white dwarf stars and neutron stars respectively. Are you following so far ? Quantum degeneracy is an emergent 'pressure' against further compression which arises when attempting to force quantum particles to occupy the same state ( in the case of electrons, two half spin particles ). This is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Still following ? You can do a little more following at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure This degeneracy pressure ceases to be a factor when the gravitationally collapsing star has a mass exceeding approx. 5 Solar masses. In this case, collapse to a Black Hole with an Event Horizon is mandatory. Now you are all caught up. So, you are right. I didn't consider how unknowledgeable you are, how you didn't care to read it, and how you saw no need to inform yourself by doing some basic research. But I really don't think my 'writing strategies' are the problem.
  19. 1 point
    How about a coil, with the magnet * arranged so when you spin the head of the cane it generates electricity and light an LED? (* Dunno about ball-shaped magnets)
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    Any stone for countertops is going to be pretty heat resistant, but most have some type of sealer on top that may discolor or crack if you put too hot a pot down on it. Buy some trivets or hot pads and you'll be fine no matter what you choose. As long as your stone top has a good thickness (I'd go 3 cm), it should resist actual breakage from dropping heavy objects on it, but they're all still subject to chipping. Your tiles broke under stress not only because they're a thinner material, but also because they're on a flexible plywood base. Be careful if you do go with a thicker granite, marble, or quartz when you set glass objects down. Because there isn't a flexible base, stone countertops are notoriously unforgiving if you set glassware down too hard. I would also recommend avoiding any fancy or complicated edge treatments. Hard to clean, and it usually dates the remodel pretty clearly. Soft, classic edges and bevels are best, and won't go out of style quickly. If your new countertop extends over the edges of the base it rests on (like an island counter would), don't have more than a foot of extension without supporting it somehow (shelving brackets work). In my area in the US, you shop for the piece of stone big enough for all the surfaces you're replacing. A good installer will help you choose the best piece with the smallest footprint to give you the best coverage with as few seams as possible.
  22. 1 point
    Your question doesn't make sense in context. You asserted humans are self-aware, but dogs are not. When challenged, you moved the arbitrary threshold and instead asked about worms. The short answer is we don't really know. Maybe worms are aware. Freewill shared evidence suggesting bugs and ants are. Either way, you made an assertion that has been shown to be lacking. You seem to be suggesting that assertion applies equally to computers and AI, even though the original assertion (or "premise") is itself quite questionable. The point you keep asking about is that we don't yet know enough to make such firm assertions in the way you've done throughout the thread. /tryingtohelp
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    Take your time. I'm in no hurry. Just make sure your terms are defined and that there are no ambiguous pronouns.
  25. 1 point
    The Postman : David Brin Lord of the Flies : William Golding On the beach : Neville Shute