Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/20/18 in Posts

  1. 5 points
    Grabbed this from a FB friend. Seems like a good clarification, but is probably too long to read for those who need to read it most. Enjoy. //“I would like all of my right wing, conservative friends and family members to read the following. It explains my beliefs in a nutshell. I borrowed this from my buddy, who borrowed this from another friend.This explains my views in an even tempered, logical way. Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: Not every Liberal is the same, though the majority of Liberals I know think along roughly these same lines: “1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period. 2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen. 3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt. 4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist. 5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. I'm retired and on a fixed income, but I still pay taxes. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare. 6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live. 7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine. 8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you. 9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I'm not opposed to deporting people who are here illegally, but I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc). 10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation. 11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past. 12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized. 13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is sensible policies, including background checks, that just MIGHT save one person’s, perhaps a toddler’s, life by the hand of someone who should not have a gun. (Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine). 14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person? 15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else. 16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be? I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.”
  2. 4 points
    Before when I clicked on the upvote, the number incread by 1 so a post that had no votes yet would change from displaying nothing at all to 1. Today I noticed that the click produces a number 0. If I leave the thread and return 1 is then showing? Also what is the point of/difference between 'likes' and 'upvoting', it's all to easy to get the wrong one if there is a difference.
  3. 4 points
    These 'negotiations' are nuts. We dance around like there's some give and take, so that gun owners can be happy and gun control advocates can be happy. Most of us on this forum can spot the correlation a mile away... People are dying because of easily accessible guns. Your hobby, whether hunting or target shooting, is causing unnecessary deaths. And the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself from all the others who have guns, says something about the magnitude of the problem. I like you guys, Zap, Moony and Raider, and have a lot of respect for you, but what would it take, how many deaths, how many schoolchildren killings, what size body count, before you can say " No more" ?
  4. 4 points
    So far the Big Bang theory is the most solid explanation for the birth of our universe, but i always found the idea of a singularity instantly spewing out a massive quantity of matter was uncanny. So i pondered upon it for a while, and came up with a theory that would explain events prior to that of the Big Bang, based on what we know about physics so far. In this theory, the Big Bang isn't t=0, but just an event in space. Just a quick warning first: I am no physicist, i am just an amateur that daydreams a lot and think about stuff a lot. Also english is not my native language, so i apologize for any mistakes. I also invite anyone and everyone to poke holes, deconstruct and falsify my theory. If not, to provide help on how to better construct it. Thanks! So here it goes: Snowball Universe: The Universe starts out as an infinite void, with nothing but infinite space and virtual particles popping in and out of existence. On really rare occasion, bits of matter will clump together. I'm going to refer mostly about matter, but you can assume the same happens for antimatter too. The clumps of matter will interact with each other and merge. Clumps of matter that come into contact with clumps of antimatter won't mutually annihilate each other. When their surface come into contact, the burst of energy released will make them "skip" against each other. Much like how the Leidenfrost effect works. Clumps of matter will keep on getting bigger, eventually forming objects with a mass equal to that of a black hole or greater. This hapens in an uniform pattern in the infinity of space. Our pocket of the Universe starts when two black holes with each a mass vastly superior to that of our observable universe came into contact. I'm going to refer to those hypermassive black holes as "Nemesis". The collision resulted in a massive burst of matter, to which we attribute the Big Bang. Instead of being a singularity, it is actually a collision point. What this theory explains: -Where all the antimatter is. Our Universe is an agglomerate of matter. If we could peek further into the Multiverse, we could see agglomerates of antimatter similar to ours. -The missing mass in our universe. This theory explains the mystery of dark matter, the gravitationnal anomaly actualy comes from the Nemesis. -Where our Universe came from and where we are headed. This theory is based on what we already know about space and particles. Matter has a tendancy to clump together, and the Nemesis will keep on getting bigger and bigger and merge with each other. -The actual Multiverse is much less dense than our Universe. Our Universe is just an agglomerate of matter around a Nemesis, much like an accretion disk. If we could zoom out and see the whole Multiverse, it would be similar to our Universe, less dense, and instead of galaxies, it would be made out of multiple pocket universes made of either matter or antimatter. What we could look for: - Remnants of matter that orbited our Nemesis from before it's collision, the Big Bang. Since the collisions are really rare events, chances are that whatever matter was left was in a state close to that of "Heat Death". That matter has possibly merged with that produced from the Big Bang. -Presence of other universes or antiverses. If their existence is real, their light has probably reached us, but has probably redshifted to the point that we can't perceive it with our current technology. -If we really are orbiting a Nemesis, we should be able to detect its gravitationnal field and its effect on objects around it. Our universe should also begin to form an accretion disk around its Nemesis. -The possible "death" of the Multiverse. The Multiverse started with virtual particles merging together into clumps of matter and antimatter, and has been growing since then, at a very slow rate, even astronomically speaking. Either the Multiverse will reach an equilibrium in which it's growing density allows enough interaction between matter and antimatter to balance the creation of new matter, or it will keep on growing, becoming denser, to the point where the infinity of space itself is filled with mass with a density similar to the core of a black hole, at which point it will either stay completly filled, or will instantly vanish from all the matter and antimatter being forced together, starting the multiverse anew with a complete void.
  5. 4 points
  6. 4 points
    It is difficult to say that there is nothing if so far four people close to the administration and campaign have been indicted and/or plead guilty. In most investigations I would presume that this alone would create cause to look deeper into a given organization. Who in the Clinton campaign was arrested due to dealings with Russia?
  7. 3 points
    I collect automatic watches, Raider. I would give it up instantly if someone were to draw a correlation between watch collecting and endangering human life. You seem to think there is a distinction between 30 rpm, 60 rpm, or even 700-950 rpm. Which of the reasons for owning a gun ( aside from 'bragging rights' ) require that rate of fire ? The mentality that it is OK to have a 'hobby' that endangers others, is what's gotta change.
  8. 3 points
    I'm told that when naked mole rats sit around shooting the breeze, they discuss how they are a clear aberration. Apparently domestic cats hold much the same viewpoint. Not to mention African Greys. It seems its a tendency of any reflective species to view itself as unique and special. You can probably eliminate any single species from the planet and the biosphere will continue pretty much as it was apart from some small, local readjustments. So you can replace the word "humans" in your statement with the name of any species . If you don't feel a Great White is not a super-fish would you like to take one on in unarmed combat. I suggest it won't be long before you are truly unarmed. Moontanman has mentioned examples of intelligence and tool use, etc. There are plenty of examples of animals that are faster than us, or anything else,have better vision than us, or anything else, can endure lower temperatures than us, or anything else. And so on. If we insist on comparisons that focus on our strengths and ignore our weaknesses it is difficult to not to consider us super, but that seems a biased approach. Overgrazing is common. Predators sometimes kill too many of their prey. The Great Barrier Reef is being destroyed by one of its inhabitants. There are, I think, numerous examples of this. We are better at it than most, but I don't think most of us want to boast about that.
  9. 3 points
    You mean we shall be ruled by pornographers?
  10. 3 points
    Yes, there is. Put a kid that can just walk and never seen a pond or lake by the waterside and I'll guarantee the first thing they do is pick a stone up and chuck it in. On that gene is written 'stone->water'.
  11. 3 points
    No problem. The easy way to approach this is to realise that rolling one die twice or two dice together is the same in probability theory. Please note the singular and plural of the word die. So it we roll two dice together and list all the possibilities we can see that they are 1 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 2 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 3 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 4 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 5 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 6 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities Adding these up we see that there are a grand total of 36 or 6x6 possibilities (or outcomes) though not all include a 1. Now this is where we need to become more precise in our wording. Because there are two situations where a 1 is rolled. The roll can produce at least one 1 (two 1s in this scenario) or The roll can produce exactly one 1 In the first of the above lines each of the six possibilities produces at least one 1, making 6 ways to get a 1 In the last five of the above lines one of the 6 possibilities is produces at least one 1, adding a further 5 ways to get at least one 1 So there are a total of (6 + 5) = 11 ways to get at least one 1 out of a grand total of 36 possibilities. So the probability of getting at least on 1 is 11/36. In the first of the above lines, five of the six ways will produce exactly one 1 and the sixth will produce two 1s, making 5 ways to get exactly one 1. In the last five of the above lines one of the 6 possibilities is produces exactly one 1; there are no ways to produce more than one 1. So this adds a further 5 ways to get exactly one 1. So there are a total of (5 + 5) = 10 ways to get exactly one 1 out of a grand total of 36 possibilities. So the probability of getting exactly one 1 is 10/36 This analysis is meant to help understanding and provide something to fall back on. You can always use formula, which is quicker, once you have the understanding. Does this help?
  12. 3 points
    That is a very silly argument.
  13. 3 points
    Being fair I think this is a strawman argument. Captain Kirk isn't a magnet (except for the chicks) and the planets he beams to aren't usually vacuums... lol.
  14. 3 points
    There is some randomness to it, but not what is implied in the framing ("all outcomes equally probable"). If I mix H2 and O2 and add a spark, I'll get a whole lot of water. But I could get HO, and H2O2 as well. But the odds of getting those are not dictated by the calculations presented in the OP.
  15. 2 points
    I already told you I'm willing to take you at your word. I cannot help it if I feel the words you use (see below) strike me as off topic and/or angry commentary about the United States.
  16. 2 points
    Meanwhile, people who largely agree get spun around the axle and battle at the margins. Focus on the hub. You’re allies. We’re together on this. Let’s stop sniping and start joining the orchestra of voices singing for change.
  17. 2 points
    If you gave them up as publically as possible saying your doing this under great duress, you might (even probably) start a movement that leads to others doing the same and if enough do your almost certain to save a life (or even thousands); however long the journey we can only get there if/when someone takes the first step.
  18. 2 points
    This may be useful to you. When I was evolving a business or sales strategy, before exposing it to other members of the team I played a little game. I took the draft propsal and imagined it was written by someone I detested, my worst enemy; an individual who was lazy, incompetent and foolish. Now was my chance to demonstrate how ineffective they were by dismembering this proposal, identifying all of its weakenesses, ferreting out the factual errors, highlighting the failures of logic. Then I got stuck into that heap of garbage with relish, ripping it to shreds. Consequently, I subjected it to more intense scrutiny and scepticism than was likely to come from the team and could now restructure it, remove the errors, consolidate the argument and produce a work I could not only be proud of, but be confident that others would approve of it too. You might want to try a similar approach.
  19. 2 points
    Not too dissimilar from the population density map below.
  20. 2 points
    There is a 2004 study in Italy into the origin of black wolves. Occurrence of black wolves in the Northern Apennines, Italy . (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03192528) Unfortunately the article itself is behind a paywall, but here is the abstract: The occurrence of black-coated individuals in wolfCanis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 populations is not surprising itself, but their presence in populations recovering from a severe numerical decline has been considered a possible sign of crossbreeding with the domestic dog. In the northern Apennines (Italy), black wolves occur at a non-negligible frequency. In a 3300 km2 area, 22% of wolves observed and 23% of all dead wolves found were represented by animals with a completely black coat. One ‘black’ wolf belonging to the studied population was analysed by a set of microsatellite loci, and no trace of hybridization was found in its ancestry. This result induced us to consider the occurrence of a black phenotype in this area possibly derived from a natural combination of wolf alleles in coat colour determining genes, and not necessarily as the result of crossbreeding with the domestic form. And this may be the study that Moontanman was aware of through the documentary. "Molecular and Evolutionary History of Melanism in North American Gray Wolves" And the good news is that the complete article is freely available. In the meantime here is the abstract. Morphological diversity within closely related species is an essential aspect of evolution and adaptation. Mutations in the Melanocortin 1 receptor (Mc1r) gene contribute to pigmentary diversity in natural populations of fish, birds, and many mammals. However, melanism in the gray wolf, Canis lupus, is caused by a different melanocortin pathway component, the K locus, that encodes a beta-defensin protein that acts as an alternative ligand for Mc1r. We show that the melanistic K locus mutation in North American wolves derives from past hybridization with domestic dogs, has risen to high frequency in forested habitats, and exhibits a molecular signature of positive selection. The same mutation also causes melanism in the coyote, Canis latrans, and in Italian gray wolves, and hence our results demonstrate how traits selected in domesticated species can influence the morphological diversity of their wild relatives. Note that the conclusion here (black wolves arose from interbreeding with dogs) contrasts with the conclusion in Italy (the black colouration arose independently).
  21. 2 points
    I learned nothing. You learned that you're heavily biased towards the explanation that makes the most sense to you (you did learn that, right?). Not a discussion, then, by the definition I gave earlier. Sorry about using such an obvious trap, but did you have to actually jump into it, eagerly? This is the essence of why it's pointless to guess about something we can't possibly know about. The heaven you made up will always seem right to you, better to you, more "logical" to you (as Strange points out, bad use of "logic"). Nothing anyone can say will dissuade you of that. Pointless to discuss it. And if I came up with something as detailed as you did (but completely different), it would make no difference. You wouldn't be discussing it with me, you would be listening to me tell you my fantasy afterlife (which I know you really aren't interested in getting to know, because it completely contradicts yours). You already guessed up the best heaven you'll ever conceive. Anything I could tell you would just be wrong to you. Why would I want to waste my time on that? As a Humanist, time spent guessing on an unfounded afterlife can be put to much better use.
  22. 2 points
    If your goal is to demonstrate that faith-based arguments don't work on a science forum, then you are doing well. Wasn't that produced by religious fundamentalists who have been disowned by their own church and who lied to people to trick them into appearing in the movie, and then edited what was said in order to support their delusions. Yes, I can see why that would appeal to you.
  23. 2 points
    @1x0 What Strange said. It is bewildering to me why you don't get it, but I am happy to persist in trying to help you understand. Consider again your question, why are there no physical signs of infinity? The universe is larger than what we can observe. Light from the unobservable portion cannot reach us, since space there is expanding, relative to us, at a speed greater than that of light. We do not know whether this unobservable portion is finite or infinite. Which part of this explanation, badly worded as it is, do you not understand? And if you want a physical sign of infinity, how about this one? ∞
  24. 2 points
    Here are two "If" sentences. One of them falls within the scientific domain. The other one doesn't. The follow up questions and observations should illustrate why one is acceptable to science and the other is not. If Oumuamua, the interstellar object currently passing through our system, were an artificial construct, how might we determine this? Here are some possibilities: Look for an elevated temperature above that of an object from deep space. Look for EM emissions, especially those with non-random variations. Look for otherwise inexplicable alterations of trajectory. If there is an afterlife how might we determine its characteristics? Sceances have been shown to be fraudulent, mediums have been shown to be fraudulent or delusional, ghosts, as departed spirits, have no meaningful evidence in support of them. All the means by which information about the afterlife could allegedly be obtained have been discounted by investigation. Thus any discussion of the afterlive is entirely speculative with no observational or evidential foundation whatsoever. It is not science. At best it is science fiction. Edit: I see while I was writing that Strange said much the same thing, but with fewer words.
  25. 2 points
    Ten years, one thousand years and any period in between. That was why I used such as general term as "in the past". Considering it took me less than thirty seconds to retrieve the following that would seem to be your fault as much as mine. When I see a doubtful assertion I check it out and only if I find no significant corroborating material do I ask for supporting evidence. History and the Decline of Human Violence The VIsual History of Decreasing War and Violence Globally, Deaths from War and Murder are in Decline The Decline of Violence The World is not Falling Apart
  26. 2 points
    This really isn't discussable in a meaningful way. It's just you telling us your version of heaven, which is quite different from anyone else's, and none of them have a shred of evidence to support them. Discussing them like we could learn something from them is lunacy. As I've said before, your style is more suited to a blog, or fiction writing, where you can tell the readers the way things are. Here, you're just revealing wishful thinking with no basis in reality, and no concern for critical thinking or reasoned argument. Further, you're forced to make up all kinds of garbage, like Real Time, Lifers, and copies of Earth. You're "almost sure" your wild ass guesswork is true, whatever that's worth. You're trying to force a nature we don't observe into a discussion with science-minded people. There is a way to discuss religion scientifically, reasonably, critically, but this isn't it. Your perspective is subjective, and science is always trying to minimize subjective influences. I don't think we're the site for you when it comes to this type of post. We set the rigor bar high(er than most sites) to attract those who are attracted to science.
  27. 2 points
    Republicans... who control the White House, the legislature... senate and House... every branch... couldn’t keep the government open. They needed votes from Democrats on the other side of the aisle, but refused to offer any compromises to obtain them. Their “my way or the highway” approach failed. So much for the quote unquote deal artist. His history of bankruptcy has now extended beyond his businesses and morals into the realm of governance and his ability to merely keep the lights on.
  28. 2 points
    I think it might be easier to understand if you consider that; Spacetime is inseperable, our 3 spacial dimentions are always glued together with our 1 temporal dimention. Gravity or velocity (its not only gravity which affects clocks) cause both time dilation and lenght contraction...apart from clocks running slower for a moving or gravity affectet frame also things change their size within our 3 spacial dimentions. It is not the clocks which run slower, it is time itself - clocks just measure the effect.
  29. 2 points
    Correction to Moontanman's assertion that most fossil fuels were produced in the Carboniferous era from rotting vegetation. Setting aside that if it rotted the carbon wouldn't be available, the Carboniferous produced a substantial part of the Earth's coal deposits, but oil was generated from marine deposits of plankton, primarily IIRC zooplankton. There are various sources for that oil, but most of them are post-Carboniferous. Natural gas (methane) is derived from coal, or in some cases decomposition of petroleum. On topic, @dstebbins , you have highligted an issue with popular science. It is rarely made clear enough that when scientists speak of life they are speaking of any form of life and more often than not very simple life forms, equivalent to prokaryotes. When they speak of complex life they are generally, at most, thinking in terms of sponges, or echinoderm like entities. And if they mention advanced life they might be referencing lizards, weasels, or politicians. Intelligent, "civilised" life will likely only be in the conversation if we are talking SETI.
  30. 2 points
    You members that are US citizens of course know much better and see the effects of his presidency on your daily lives. That's why I made my first post. I just wanted to understand and to express my view which was not based on facts(I don't live there so Trump-related news impacts me less so I am not so educated on the matter). I never said that the criticisms against him are fallacious. But I just felt like the opinions were: F you and F your decisions. And not just F your decisions; if you can understand that metaphor. The way that you guys replied to my post with arguments and facts and not from a place of emotion, made me understand and change my initial opinion. Thank you
  31. 2 points
    I think a big difference in the conservative stance is the amount of risk one is willing to take. In a stock portfolio, conservative choices would yield modest returns but be more predictable and thus reliable. And science is very conservative when it comes to its methodology as it strives for predictable outcomes. In our society, we risk changing the stuff we love if we change any part of it. Allow something new and you could be killing off something "classic" (which is far better than "traditional" since it carries none of that "stuck in the mud" connotation). Sometimes things are too risky and we just need to stay the course. If you identify your entire self as "conservative", you would probably say you don't take unnecessary risks (another universal trait claimed as partisan). And the only real difference between this and the liberal stance is the definition of "unnecessary". It's really easy for either side to place much more value on either tradition or change based on the exact same amount of risk. Nothing inherently wrong with this mindset, but I think it's easy to exploit it. Make a conservative think something may be too risky and they'll help you suppress it. Even if it's something that may really end up helping them, like consumer protection or universal healthcare. This is a universal trait assigned to "the other side". Liberals and conservatives both will say they "tend" towards one or the other, but the other guys are always following "blindly". We should probably try to remove these slippery phrases from our arguments if we want to get any traction with them.
  32. 2 points
    There is a distinction between the kind of mass you add. Adding relativistic mass, that is mass due to relative motion, will not cause gravitational collapse. This mass is a frame dependent effect, i.e. not present in it own , or rest, frame. Adding inertial mass ( or matter ) to the Earth does have an effect. The Earth is not like a star, it has no radiation pressure to counteract gravity. Once a certain mass is reached, electron degeneracy will stop collapse. As more mass is added, neutron degeneracy is the last holdout. but once you reach the point of several solar masses, gravitational collapse to a BH is unavoidable. ( mass increases with the cube of the radius while gravity decreases with the square )
  33. 2 points
    Assured mutual destruction is understood to be a deterrent. In the U.S. our nuclear deterrent is understood to have prevented war or at least kept us safe. Ironically when other countries seek the same deterrents the U.S. often views it as an act of aggression. It is a contradiction. At the same time our (USA) govt actively works around the war through sanctions and threats of preemptive military strikes to prevent other nations from having nuclear weapons we continue to develop more. That "do as we say and not as we do" behavior creates a lot of tension around the world. In lie of the weapons the U.S. already posses and the fact the U.S. is actively in talks with nations like Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear programs I think creating new nuclear devices is a bad idea that send a contradictory message to world.
  34. 2 points
    https://phys.org/news/2018-02-astrophysicists-planets-extragalactic-galaxies-microlensing.html Astrophysicists discover planets in extragalactic galaxies using microlensing February 2, 2018, University of Oklahoma The gravitational lens RX J1131-1231 galaxy with the lens galaxy at the center and four lensed background quasars. It is estimated that there are trillions of planets in the center elliptical galaxy in this image. Credit: University of Oklahoma A University of Oklahoma astrophysics team has discovered for the first time a population of planets beyond the Milky Way galaxy. Using microlensing—an astronomical phenomenon and the only known method capable of discovering planets at truly great distances from the Earth among other detection techniques—OU researchers were able to detect objects in extragalactic galaxies that range from the mass of the Moon to the mass of Jupiter. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-astrophysicists-planets-extragalactic-galaxies-microlensing.html#jCp the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa5fb/meta Probing Planets in Extragalactic Galaxies Using Quasar Microlensing: Abstract: Previously, planets have been detected only in the Milky Way galaxy. Here, we show that quasar microlensing provides a means to probe extragalactic planets in the lens galaxy, by studying the microlensing properties of emission close to the event horizon of the supermassive black hole of the background quasar, using the current generation telescopes. We show that a population of unbound planets between stars with masses ranging from Moon to Jupiter masses is needed to explain the frequent Fe Kα line energy shifts observed in the gravitationally lensed quasar RXJ 1131–1231 at a lens redshift of z = 0.295 or 3.8 billion lt-yr away. We constrain the planet mass-fraction to be larger than 0.0001 of the halo mass, which is equivalent to 2000 objects ranging from Moon to Jupiter mass per main-sequence star.
  35. 2 points
    As I pointed out , the sodium vapour in a street lamp is blue, but what you see is yellow. So the yellow you see isn't the "source", it's the light you see.. If you look at an apple, it's red. If you look at an apple that's on a spaceship moving towards you very fast, you see it as a different colour, say blue. The apple hasn't changed, but the light has. How can anyone argue that you can't see light, when you can see the colour change? Yes, it's obvious. You can see light- that's why you can see the colour change. It's why you can see the yellow light from a blue thing (so it's not a matter of "seeing the source".
  36. 2 points
  37. 2 points
    At the risk of maybe offending someone (for which I will apologize in advance), comparing Philosphy and science seems to me to be almost (but not quite) like comparing Barbers and Doctors.Many years ago I attended some sort of seminar (can't remember the details) where the speaker commented on the origins of medicine. He commented on the practice of bleeding people to remove evil elements, which was done by barbers. He then pointed out that from this simple practice eventually we developed medicine and the profession of Doctors, whereas the barbers were still just cutting hair. I do agree that Philosphy is more advanced than that, but still believe the comparison has merit.
  38. 2 points
    I don't see how anyone can challenge evolution, especially in the winter when we all get colds and flu from mutated viruses, that the previous year's vaccine has no effect on. As to the original OP, and the chances of life arising by chance ( anywhere in the universe ), I will only quote Jeff Goldblum once in my life... "Life, uh, finds a way" from Jurassic Park
  39. 2 points
    I'm pretty sure France uses them as well. Their lack of popularity at least in some respects, has to do with them not being good at producing weapons grade material...
  40. 2 points
    I really didn't think this would need an explanation... 'Seeing' is the brain's interpretation of information it gathers from certain detectors ( usually the eyes ). The detectors work by ( usually ) interacting with EM radiation. Whether something is 'visible' or 'invisible' depends on the ability of the information, the EM radiation, to get to the detectors, the eyes. This can be due to the path ( something may be in the way ). the intensity ( its too dark, I can't see anything ), or the type of information ( some animals can 'see' infrared, we cannot ). The point I'm trying to make is that light, or photons, are the information carriers. And while we 'see' by interacting with the information carriers, a photon itself cannot transmit any information about itself ( it would need to radiate light ) for us to be able to 'see' it. I.E. photons are invisible. everything else is semantics.
  41. 2 points
    Furyan, it works both ways I can also say "Unfortunately, you've been misinformed. Now you can either cling to your current, flawed belief, or choose to know the truth. It makes no difference to me what you decide. What I do hate, is wasting my time. So choose. A: learn the truth about the nature of light, colors and reality, or B: cling to your current, flawed beliefs." Do you see how it works just as well whoever says it? In order to distinguish whether it's right for me to say it or right for you to say it, we need to look at the evidence. Now, one bit of evidence is that your position relies on "not visible" being different from "invisible". But the dictionary tells us that they are the same. Since you are wrong about that- which forms part of the underpinning of your ideas- your ideas are, at best, unproven. Do you understand that?
  42. 2 points
    If it isn't too far off-topic, i'd like to ask how we " see " dreams: obviously reflected light is not involved so there can't be any photons to be detected, and is it still the visual cortex that is involved? Can anyone enlighten me? ( Sorry ! ).
  43. 2 points
    https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/1/25/16934824/trump-report-firing-special-counsel-robert-mueller This is EXACTLY what I’d expect to see upon looking up the word “innocent” in the dictionary. Oops. Did I say innocent? I meant petty, petulant, and pathetic.
  44. 2 points
    Shit, you're technically right.
  45. 2 points
    That is a very silly question. Because it assumes that the default position is to believe in some random idea. It leads to obvious corollaries like: Why do you not believe in Thor? Why do you not believe in the Easter Bunny? Why do you not believe that the stars are the souls of the dead? Why do you not believe in Santa Clause? The rational default position is to not believe in something until there is evidence for it. On that basis, I see no reason to believe in Thor, or any other gods.
  46. 2 points
    Sure. I think one million years is more than enough time for us to drain the resources of the planet, disrupt natural ecosystems, and generally make the planet unlivable before we move on to the next one. Also, just happened to be reading this article when I came across your thread: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/23/trappist-1-planets-likely-life-water-earth-like
  47. 2 points
    What if i told, that each day you wake up, you're a slightly different version of the person you re though/supposed to have been the day before, and the person from the day before will never come back again ? What if i told you, that when your body dies, you stop experiencing yourself as a human, however, your body would decompose and be reassimilated by the bio-mass, life would continue, possibly in your off spring, likely in your species, and certainly in other species, and, in the long run, the universe would continue to explore itself ?? And what if i told you, that how life evolves, and how the exploration of itself of the universe continue, is still dependent on how you affected the world when you were alive ???
  48. 2 points
    Which is not reasonable, since the Dems are asking for things the GOP had already promised. The dems offered up a very short CR, but it was denied by McConnell. Dems offered up a way to pay the troops. Denied by McConnell. The GOP controls what gets voted on. The bipartisan solutions for DACA and CHIP that would pass have not been brought up for a vote. And they've had months to do this. So yeah, they can see it that way, but it's BS.
  49. 2 points
    Here is the thing, though. Race and racism was a major driver for Trump supporters. Essentially, folks have wondered what topics are have driven voters to support Trump. Abortion is fairly low on all voter's mind with less than half (45%) considering them relevant for their votes. For comparison LGBT is about the same 40%, Economy 84%, Health Care 74%, Gun Policy 72%. People then tried to figure out what topics or attitudes are associated with or predictive for trump voters. Several studies looked specifically into the white voter section (as relatively few minorities voted for Trump. A paper before the election (Major et al., 2016 Group Proc & Intergroup Rel) found that: Thus among whites there is a sense of vulnerability due to presence of other ethnic groups leading to stronger support for Trump. Using the election data a conference paper Schaffner et al. showed that strong relationship between sexism and racism (and much weaker for economic dissatisfaction). Various polls have shown that Trump voters disproportionately view blacks as less intelligent, lazier and more violent than whites. Another study by Luttig et al. 2017, Res & Politics) found that: There are numerous article in newspapers discussing these links (e.g. here, here and here) . While I agree callings someone racist does not help changing their attitude, ignoring just to save someones feelings is not right either. We are at a point where the evidence becomes overwhelming that racism is an important factor for the current presidency. And the president himself seems quite aware of that and plays to that tune. Why else would he be tip-toeing around white supremacists (other than being one himself, that is).
  50. 2 points
    Ironically, under the title “time does not exist” it says “posted three hours ago”.