Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/13/21 in Posts

  1. Dear All, I am going to take a hiatus from the forum from today. As some of you might know, the natural sciences are not my only area of interest; in particular, I am committed to a form of spiritual practice as well, and have been living in a Buddhist monastery as a lay person for the past few years. I have made the decision to deepen this practice further by ordaining as a monk in the Theravadin Thai Forest tradition, and for various logistical and monastic-political reasons this should ideally happen at a traditional training monastery in Thailand. So tomorrow I will be departing for T
    12 points
  2. A marketable skill for sure in the looming post-crash economy.
    4 points
  3. Happy St Patrick's Day!!!
    4 points
  4. Economists have successfully predicted 10 of the last 4 market crashes
    3 points
  5. The period over which tidal locking would occur is highly sensitive to the distance between the bodies, and varies by the distance to the power of 6. It is less dependent on the mass of the primary. The relationship ( assuming all else is equal) is T = a^6/M^2 So, if we take a very luminous red dwarf like Lacaille 8760 with a mass of 0.6 that of the Sun, and a Earth equivalent position in the habitable zone of 0.268AU, you get a time period for tidal locking of roughly 1/1000 of the the time it would take for the Earth to tidal lock to the Sun. For a smaller star like Proxima Cen
    3 points
  6. OK so here is some more Chemistry which I hope will also be useful to Oneworld. As I have mentioned before, homegeny depends upon the scale you are working at. So starting inside the atom things are definitely not homogenous. There is a massive nucleus surrounded by a lot of empty space containing some electrons. Uniformity is represented by saying that every atom of a particular type is the same as every other atom of that type. For example all hydrogen atoms are the same. (for those who know about isotopes I am ignoring them) If we use those atoms to build molecul
    3 points
  7. I littered your topic? You have done nothing but talk trash from the OP, your entire topic is trash, it makes no sense to anthropomorphize animal behavior yet you continually do so. You kill animals simply by breathing, ever hear of fairy flies? BTW, feel free to comment in any topic I make, I may not always be right but I at least have the integrity to admit when I'm wrong.
    3 points
  8. That looks very suspicious... If somebody truly wants to just read the all messages that you posted, you can't do anything with it because in the worst scenario he or she will write crawler/harvester which will visit person profile every couple minutes or seconds (script with wget/curl in a loop), parse it, and check if sonebody wrote anything new and then parse new messages and add to the database. ps. Beware of attaching photos. Remove meta-data from photos. Don't add photos from smartphone on mobile version of this site directly! Use PC. You have no idea what meta-data they con
    3 points
  9. Go to your profile. On the left is a list of the people following you. Choose "Options". You can select to not allow others to follow you.
    3 points
  10. Like this ? Maybe @Sensei has some ideas ?
    3 points
  11. That seems to happen quite a lot. Have you figured out what's causing it?
    3 points
  12. Nobody here gives a shit what you believe, Jay Tony. This is a topic where facts both exist and matter. https://www.statista.com/topics/5920/minimum-wage-in-the-united-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/03/15-minimum-wage-black-hispanic-women/
    3 points
  13. This happened yesterday and is important information for our age group.I had my 2nd dose of the vaccine at the vaccination center after which I began to have blurred vision on the way home. When I got home, I called the vaccination center for advice and to ask if I should go see a doctor, or be hospitalized. I was told NOT to go to a doctor or a hospital, but just return to the vaccination center immediately and pick up my glasses!!
    3 points
  14. https://www.facebook.com/lynnmiclea.author https://www.facebook.com/lynnmiclea.author
    3 points
  15. As an athiest, I have to say I don't believe that. Ironical, ain't it?
    3 points
  16. Every number (except 0) has two square roots. Using the convention (ignore negative root) leads to these kinds of problems. l
    2 points
  17. I think a distinction can be drawn between religion and pseudoscience. Astrology and crystal healing are pseudoscience, in that they make claims about observable physical phenomena, based on theories for which there is no evidence and which conflict with science. Attacking pseudoscience is fair enough, I would say, for anyone with a scientific education. Religion, at least in its more reasonable manifestations, is something different from pseudoscience. It is mainly a guide for living one's life, inspired by stories and ideas that don't make testable physical claims. However one can cer
    2 points
  18. Not hours; minutes. But many. Why? For all crackpots out there: https://www.gapingvoidart.com/
    2 points
  19. I'm not a mineralogist, but I can try to add a bit to what others have said, based on what I have quickly been able to read up.😉 Clays are made up of tiny crystals of "clay minerals" and water. The water is hydrogen-bonded to the surface of the crystals, which means it is attached by bonds that are about a tenth the strength of a full "normal" chemical bond. A crystal of dry clay mineral will tend to absorb water until there is a hydrogen bonded film of water all along its surface. Clay minerals are made of sandwiches of sheets of silicate tetrahedra, which have a -ve charge, with m
    2 points
  20. Which makes YOU the predator. Heck of a logical corner you’ve just painted yourself into. Absurdity ensues...
    2 points
  21. Water vapor and liquid water have some strong absorption features of increasing strength as you move into the NIR and IR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water
    2 points
  22. 'Existence' is a word with 9 letters. And if you want to know about the concept behind the word, I think I showed that it depends on the context: existence of what? If you want a general definition you would get something like 'something exists if it can play a role in somebody's life'. And here you see something else: 'existence' is the substantivation of the verb 'to exist'. So the existence of what are you interested in? To give again another example: space and time. One could call them the 'stage' on which causal processes occur (Pity that Markus is away now, he surely had to say some
    2 points
  23. We don't need the pitches to sound together to sense the harmonic relationship between them. Also, I don't know about you, but I would find music built entirely out of consonant intervals unstimulating to say the least. Good music tells good stories and good stories need some level of conflict. You can't have a Beowulf without Grendel and his mum tagging along in the background.
    2 points
  24. I don't think this is an imaginary numbers problem. If the square root of x is minus one, then x = 1 is a solution. Root (1) = -1
    2 points
  25. It is not necessary to expect your planet / moon system to create this weather on its own. There could be a conjunction with other bodies in its solar system that shaded it or passed it through a dust cloud every 4 years, or near an eccentrically orbiting body or somesuch. Many succesful SF stories have been built on variations of this from The Dragons of Pern to the short stories of The Unorthodox Engineers.
    2 points
  26. That would be the same as arguing physics is BS, because there are so many crackpot theories (see our Speculations section). One should look what professional, academic philosophers have to say about 'existence', not at philosophical 'hip shots' of people who are not knowledgeable about what philosophy has to say about the topic.
    2 points
  27. ! Moderator Note And once again we see zero support for an aether. No meaningful scientific discussion can happen about an idea without evidence in support. If "proving God" is now your goal, it's so far removed from your OP as to be a completely different topic (which you'll also need support for on this site). This thread is closed, please don't bring it up again.
    2 points
  28. I’ve had a bunch of randos who’ve never even once posted here start “following” me in the last few weeks... I am notified when they begin following. My understanding is that the follow function is basically a subscription to get updates every time I post. My intuition is that it’s not being done for any positive purpose or because they wish to learn from me etc., and may in fact be a coordinated effort to learn more about me and plan for a social engineering attack of some sort. Maybe (hopefully) I’m wrong, but I’d simply rather not have followers. Can followers be blocked?
    2 points
  29. 1) The current model of academic publishing is a #%&ing scam. Nowhere else would the creators of a product not only be expected to sign over their copy rights for free, but also perform the review and editing of others work for free, and have our institutions get financially reamed for access to the #$^ing work we created there in the first place. THEN, with the advent of open access publishing, they get to tack on fees to the tune of $USD 11,320 upfront to the %^(&ing authors. It's really no wonder that the profit margin in academic publishing is ~40%. 2) While the idea of open
    2 points
  30. Perhaps joigus cannot dispute the correctness this statement, for he is a Physicist. But I can because it is just plain wrong. To the best of our knowledge Paleoclimatology tells us that the Earth has only had its present nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere for less than half its existence. And the oxygen was not a component of the original atmosphere. The oxygen was actually released as a waste product from lifeforms that existed before oxygen for example stromatolites. Naturally the climate was also different then. So if the climate changed again, so would 'biological life
    2 points
  31. John, it's not my intention to prove you wrong, any more than it's very often my intention to prove myself wrong, for the sake of clarity and accuracy. Very often I take a back sit, click on the "follow" button, and try to learn from others, as you can easily check on the website's interface. There are many threads on which I'm just a follower. I strongly recommend you to carefully distinguish hostility towards you from rejection of your ideas, or even just honest intent to clarify your expression so that others can understand you.
    2 points
  32. John, Just how easy do you think it is to realise that ambition? The heart of your OP, the nature of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics, wasn't even a recognised field of study until the the work of the Russian chemical engineer Ilya Prigogine was brought to general attention with his award of the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1977 - that's half a century after the first firm principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity were established! It isn't an easy subject. Do you really expect to become fully conversant with it with a few brief exchanges on a general science
    2 points
  33. The thoughts in OP are mostly speculative and do not follow current knowledge (see below), so I am moving it to speculations for now (depending how the discussion develops). The rules for speculative threads can be found here: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/29-speculations/#elForumRules First of all this assertion: That is mostly wrong. Initial life on Earth did not harvest light for energy for about 500 million years. The first (known) means of energy production were likely chemolithotrophs which do not use light. And rather obviously all the microorganisms which dwe
    2 points
  34. Here’s an idea. Try writing in a manner that makes sense to others. Basically, add units to your numbers, not your words. You’re making up terms and expecting to be understood. This will result in consistent failure. You have been given this feedback over and over and over again some more. You’ve been neg repped over and over and over again. You’ve not taken any of this feedback on board.
    2 points
  35. The key to freezing certain things successfully is the speed with which that process is done. Slow freezing generates much larger ice crystals than fast freezing, causing greater expansion within the cells and rupturing them, hence the commercial use of pre-immersing in nitrogen. Clarence Birdseye is the guy that learned this from inuits in Labrador and came up with a way to replicate their method commercially.
    2 points
  36. Quote from jcMcSwell : " Dark energy is probably the only actual force (that is not expansion itself) that will push the two objects apart over time ". Excuse me , dark energy is not an ACTUAL force .
    2 points
  37. You are as slippery as an eel. I give up.
    2 points
  38. It’s literally my job to measure time independent of time perception. I would agree that you cannot so easily disentangle time perception from time.
    2 points
  39. Yes, and we moved forward from there. We know a lot more now than we used to, so we won’t be going back to 1963. Yes. And we can do much more than that - we can even probe the internal structure of the protons and neutrons themselves, and thus directly test the quark model. In particle physics we do not speak of “certainties”, but instead deal with a quantity called statistical significance. This essentially tells us the degree by which, given a sufficiently large statistical data set, an event is likely to be “real” (as opposed to being a statistical fluke of some kind). As
    2 points
  40. I'm a tenure track professor. I usually get somewhere between 50 and 100 emails a day. I allocate about 45 mins twice a day to responding to them. I sort them by importance, then I answer in order until the time is up. Then I delete the rest. Emails go unanswered every day because I could literally spend the entirety of every single day responding to them, and I have teaching, research and administration to do. I tell my students that if it's important, send it again and tag it as important, or if it's important AND urgent, bang on my office door or call my phone.
    2 points
  41. Consider an arbitrary event located directly on the surface in question, and attach a light cone to that event. Now look at the tangent space to the surface at that event. If the surface is like-like, the tangent space will fall to the interior of the light cone; if the surface is null, the tangent space will coincide with the surface of the light cone. So this isn’t the same - you can (at least in principle) escape from a light-like surface to infinity, but you can’t escape from a null surface. For some time, yes. This is true. I’d just like to point out that the non-existence
    2 points
  42. You're still not reading the posts. Nobody is suggesting light travelling from the interior to the exterior, or for that matter, in any direction that doesn't head steadily in the direction of the sigularity. md65536's picture shows all the light paths and none crosses from in to outside the EH. Typo? Perhaps you meant to say that it cannot. Light cannot orbit (a Schwarzschild BH) any closer than the photon-sphere which is 1.5 times the radius of the EH. It gets more complicated for something like a Kerr-Newman BH which is a more realistic model of actual black holes.
    2 points
  43. That's what they thought in the 19th century. In the 20th , they realised that the smoke doesn't "blow away", because there is no "away".
    2 points
  44. Tell him to read if he wants to. If he reads it he'll be fine. If he doesn't read it he'll be fine.
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.