Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/22/19 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    In various threads we have (albeit briefly) touched on the fact that resistant bacteria are starting to overwhelm our ability to treat them. Now the CDC has issued a new antibiotic resistance threat report, Basically every 4 hours a new resistant strain is detected and about 35k people die every year due to resistant strains. Countermeasures that have started since the last report came out (2013) were less effective than hoped. Among the biggest threats currently are resistant Acinetobacter, Candida auris, Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium), carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae. There are a lot of issues that have to solved outside the clinical environment, such as reducing or stopping the massive use of antibiotics in agriculture. There, antibiotics are routinely used to fatten animals which results in massive amounts of antibiotics released into the environment and enter the human food chain. Another aspects are procedures in health care (including elderly care) which are often not up to par to limit microbe spread. The challenge is that a single failure can lead to spread through the health care services. There are folks still hoping that we will find an alternative treatment that will be as useful as antibiotics (which we messed up badly) but so far not alternative golden bullet is really in sight (yes there are some developments which can be useful but for the most part they have potential and/or have not shown to be effective in vivo). As a result, it seems that we are indeed moving straight toward the projected post-antibiotic era. Personally (and of course biased by my own research), I think we need to accelerate our understanding of bacterial physiology in order to develop effective countermeasures from the bottom up, as in most cases we only have a very rough understanding how antimicrobial substances actually kill bacteria (which to some extent is also true for antifungals and fungi).
  2. 2 points
    US special forces staged a raid near the Syria/Turkey border and flushed out Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who then blew himself up with explosives when trapped. Apparently DNA confirmation of his identity is now possible 'in the field' and much quicker than the usual couple of weeks it takes for criminal cases. Obviously there is a need to be sure, as he has been 'reportedly' killed several times before. D Trump is either trying to draw attention from his escalating problems, or still trying to take wind from B Obama's sails ( the Osama bin-Laden takedown ), as apparently he posted a ( staged ) picture in the Situation Room from the wrong time; he was playing golf during the actual raid. Congratulations to American Special Forces and Intelligence Services. Also, our Allies in the area who supplied the intelligence; you know, those same people D Trump deserted and left to be slaughtered by the Turkish offensive two weeks ago.
  3. 2 points
    Why can't you see who giving you likes? Compared to some of the people on the forum, who actually know about science, my posts contain no substance whatsoever, yet I've got 22. I know there not important, I'm just curious.
  4. 2 points
    I wasn’t totally convinced at first, but I like Warren a lot. I’ve been tracking her for years, especially after the financial crisis and steps she took to fight back against banks in support of families like mine. I also like that her dream job was teaching special needs kids, and that’s what she did until getting fired for being pregnant. I think she’s genuine in her desire to help, understands the system better than most and is smart as hell, capable of getting it done, and isn’t in it just for reasons of avarice. Beyond that, I’m still waffling a bit about who my next choices are, and now that I live in Iowa I take it pretty seriously. Mayor Pete is impressive and smart, and I liked what I heard when I went to go meet him. He’s focused on the right things and surrounds himself with smart people, but I’m just not convinced he’s ready for the top slot (tho Trump has shown anyone can do it). I also met Michael Bennett and quite liked him. Super down to earth and well rounded. He’s a former school administrator and just a smart decent guy. He’s got a great collaborative demeanor, tons of respect across the aisle, and everyone who’s worked with him loves and respects him quite a bit regardless of party, but he’s just not inspiring people and that’s critical. He’s a bit milquetoast, TBH, and that won’t fare well in a cage match with Teflon Don. I was previously interested in Kamala and would love to watch her rhetorically punch Trump in the balls, but I get a sense of inauthenticity and heavy reliance on talking points from her that doesn’t sit well with me. She’s clearly a smart fighter, though, just still have no idea what she truly stands for / what her principles are. I’m a firm no on Beto, Tulsi, de Blasio, and the bulk of the others (can anyone say Mariam Williamson???), but do like Booker... just don’t think he can win. Would prefer him to be selected for a cabinet position addressing racial disparities in criminal justice and gun policy, etc. I’m also watching Andy Yang a bit like I would watch a lab grown experiment in a Petri dish, but to me he’s more of an interesting oddity than a serious contender (sorry, JCM... different strokes for different folks, and all). Anyway, we’re the first people on the planet here in Iowa who get to decide on this, so we can’t adjust our choice based on what other voters have chosen in other states... I can’t wait and see who’s popular or who gets traction, but instead need to be ready to make more of a raw and personal choice. I’ll need to stand in a room with my neighbors and with my kids on a cold winters night in February and choose my person for all to see. to defend my choice / try to convince others to join me and make the same choice when the caucuses occur. I’ll also be there to listen to others and will try to remain open to being convinced by them to move over to their candidate instead... All that said, no matter who wins the primary, I’ll most definitely be voting for that person in the general, whether they were my 1st choice or my 17th. This needs to be an election more about principles than purity. Peace ✌️
  5. 1 point
    I have an engineer friend who used to work in Saudi Arabia. He says that at certain times over there, condensation would be streaming off the metal roofs of the modern industrial buildings and running down the downpipes from the gutters as if it was raining. I doubt if it would last for long though. The condensation would be bound to warm the metal up past the dew point very rapidly. You would need a combination of very clear skies, and high humidity, to maximise the yield. I'm sure it's been tried over there. If he noticed it, lots of other people would too. I prefer the transpiration bag idea. So long as there are some non-poisonous bushes within range, you can get a lot of water using a few plastic bags, and the local bushes. They suck up the water from below, and deliver it at no cost, other than the effort of collecting it and resetting the bag.
  6. 1 point
    Then why are you using the internet?
  7. 1 point
    What experiments are you talking about? And if you don't know, how do you know you can "prove" it? You should forget about "proof", and concentrate on how you can provide evidence of your claims. The more evidence to support it, the more persuasive your argument will be. Define EXACTLY what you mean by "I can do telepathic ability". Define what you mean by "send messages directly mind to mind". The most important thing at this stage is for you to decide what would show your claims to be FALSE. What test failed, or what message not sent would show that you CAN'T do telepathic ability? Your claims need to be capable of falsification before we can take them seriously. Once you can do that, then you should be able to take any standard test for ESP, using validated methodology. They'll be looking for results that go beyond statistical anomaly. Or if your definitions are different, perhaps then someone could suggest a way to test them. Based solely on your OP, I would expect you to be able to send a random phrase as a private message to one of our staff members, then send the same phrase directly to my mind with your telepathic ability. When the staff member and I confer, I should be able to tell them, "Blue peninsula hopping trousers twisted badly", and they should be amazed that I said the exact same phrase as you. That's when everyone here suddenly becomes very interested in your thread. Got anything like that?
  8. 1 point
    What are you trying to do here? Equation 1 is an unusual way of writing the standard equation of a circle x2 + y2 = r2 (note you don't need LaTex to write this, just use the sub and super script icons on the text input editor, labelled x2 and x2) your way puts you into immediate trouble since if D is the diameter D = 2r so equation 2 becomes [math]\frac{C}{2} = \sqrt {{r^2} - {{\left( {2r} \right)}^2}} = \sqrt { - 3{r^2}} [/math] So you are trying for the square root of a negative number. Furthermore if C is the length of the circumference, you can't just replace y with half of it.
  9. 1 point
    That is not the equation for the circumference of a circle. That will give you the y coordinates for the (two) points on a circle (with radius r) corresponding to the given x value. You could, perhaps, integrate over a range of x values to get the circumference but it seems unnecessarily complicated because: C = 2 pi r
  10. 1 point
    Are you familiar with the Gish Gallop? Please, focus on the things that matter instead of introducing a bunch of bullshit irrelevant to the discussion taking place.
  11. 1 point
    This has nothing to do with the discussion yet always lands at the end. There's a thread about that topic where you've abundantly posted yet brought it over here again and again. where you'll incessantly perpetuate the fallacy that the Dems are by default worse than the criminal running the place now. Anything but the substance is what we expect from American Republicans in this matter. Yet when Canadians repeat that nonsense ad nauseam, it's obvious we're already down the tubes and it's the conservatives instilling it. Conservatives would do well to clean up their own house before admonishing others. That's what's wrong with this continent.
  12. 1 point
    The way things are going towards cars broadcasting data, you might not need to rely on motion detection.
  13. 1 point
    This looks so good! I am currently building a grill, this looks like a good debu cook!
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    It probably won't get through the Senate. The important conditional seems to be whether the hearings will help or hurt Trump's popularity.
  16. 1 point
    It is not really that the sun is too small. There is, in principle, a Schwarzschild radius for any mass. The problem is that there is no mechanism to make the sun turn into a black hole. A black hole with the mass of the sun would have a radius of about 3km. [Edit: sorry, I see you have already worked this out.]
  17. 1 point
    Here is the theory you require. Make sure you get you friction force acting in the correct direction (your dashed one in this case) Also the normal reaction (again dashed) is the force ating on the wheel. The other mg at P acts on the ground, not the wheel. The moment provided by the contact point P about the centre = tangential force due to friction x wheel radius. Note the frictional force is only equal to μmg when the wheel is on the point of slipping. At other times it is less than this. All this is detailed in the text.
  18. 1 point
    I'm with you on that. To me, extinction is the enemy, and if we can prevent it, it doesn't really matter how. Of course, you don't want to advance the extinction of one species, by trying to save another, so it has to be done carefully. But if you can keep the remaining species alive, until the human population gets under control, then that's a result.
  19. 1 point
    Accelerating protons, deuterium nuclei, tritium nuclei, or alpha particles to the speeds at which they fuse is equivalent to high temperature. Extremely high temperatures ! I thought you were considering COLD fusion.
  20. 1 point
    I think it is important to make a distinction between psychosis and schizophrenia. While I am not an expert in the precise definition, from what I understand psychosis is a condition when the patient has issue with identifying something as real or not. Psychosis can be a symptom of a mental illness, such as schizophrenia, but they have additional diagnostic symptoms. As such, psychotic episodes can be caused by a variety of sources, such as drugs or sleep deprivation. While under these episodes brain activity may be altered (which could be visible on MRIs) in these examples the brain is not damaged per se. However, conditions that can cause prolonged psychosis are a different matter. Schizophrenia, for example is associated with a reduction of grey matter and this loss appears to be progressive. As DrmDoc mentioned, the mechanism behind that is not clear. However, since psychosis can occur without damages, and are the result of altered activities (at leas in some cases), there is good reason to assume they are more likely the result. On the other hand, there was some evidence that early treatment of psychosis with antipsychotics may result in slower detoriation. It still unclear whether this is because prolonged psychosis can lead to additional damages, or whether antipsychotics deal with something that actually do the damage. As a whole it seems that the neurprotective hypothesis as well as the hypothesis that psychosis may result in neural damage does not have a lot of evidence to date.
  21. 1 point
    I would think the biggest difference is that ,whereas for an undergrad degree a Prof is teaching you about a subject so that you learn the basics, for a graduate degree you are learning about a subject independently ( you do have an 'advisor' ) and develop your own 'tools and skill set'. IOW a PhD candidate will independently research and learn, to become an expert in a specific subject.
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    In my dictionary "coward" is defined as "a person who lacks the courage to do dangerous or unpleasant things" For Baghdadi to bring 2 children into a dead-end cave and blow himself up is not cowardly. He was doing dangerous and unpleasant things EVERY DAY. Now I figured out Trump's repeated remark that Baghdadi fled "whimpering, crying, and screaming." Trump facing impeachment is figuratively "whimpering, crying, and screaming" every day in his tweets (blunt language with all caps with many exclamation points is screaming, always being the victim is whimpering and crying). He is projecting his own anxiety about impeachment on Baghdadi.
  24. 1 point
    The lower value the better! michel123456 calculated it incorrectly, and you repeated it.. Because you have to calculate it using equation: number of positive votes * 100% / total number of posts = ratio of positives to total. The bigger the better. Janus and Arete have very high rank (they write less but more often get large number of upvotes). total number of posts / number of positive votes = how long have to wait for positive vote in posts. The lower the better. michel123456 has: 508 * 100% / 5857 = 8.6% ratio of positives to total by percentage (5857/508 = 8.67 means 1 positive vote per every ~9 posts). In your case it is much better: 2177 * 100% / 11357 = 19.2% ratio of positives to total by percentage (11357/2177 = 5.2 means 1 positive vote per every ~5 posts, which is very good result). Net crawlers are searching internet, and visiting web sites to check whether they changed. They could be counted in, if there was not implemented history of IPs (that would limit accidental recounting a lot for crawlers like Google/MSN/Yahoo, but not entirely because viruses and criminals use zombie networks). It's not 64000 the real life people who saw it.. They were computer network bots, I am afraid so..
  25. 1 point
    Changes in their angular momentum can be measured, but in QM this is not physical spinning. In e.g. hydrogen, you could flip the hyperfine state, which is the 1420 MHz transition. The only way to give the electron orbital angular momentum would be to have it jump from the 1S to the 2P level, which requires a 10.2 eV photon or from a collision (which is not something you see very much in a thermal system). But that doesn't involve any physical spinning of the atom. That notion is inconsistent with QM.
  26. 1 point
    Yes, I jumped to conclusions. I did not pay attention to the fact that x in the exponent is in the denominator. To these formulas it is still necessary to apply the normalization condition, calculate the coefficient c1 so that the field strength equals zero at infinity, and then compare Newton's law of gravity. And so, from them it is impossible to draw a conclusion, positive or negative mass at a gravitational field. And the gravitational field must have mass because there are gravitational waves. Waves are an oscillatory process, oscillations are impossible without inertia, and the measure of inertia is mass.
  27. 1 point
    Well, I see an arogant dismissal of the opinions you consider beneath you. I'll take that bet...
  28. 1 point
    I was trying to leave no doubt...and making fun of the fact that Trump bypassed the protocol of informing Pelosi prior to the raid...claiming security reasons.
  29. 1 point
    An object less than 1 tenth the mass of the Moon with a relative velocity of 50 km/sec would have about ~ 9e30 joules of KE, which is some 76 times the gravitational binding energy for the Moon. An extra-solar object would be moving at least 42 km/sec relative to the Sun at Earth orbit distance. At the right approach angle, a 50 km/sec relative velocity with respect to the Earth-Moon system is not unreasonable. The Gravitational sphere of influence( the distance at which its gravitational effect is significant compared to the Sun's) for a object 1/10 the mass of the Moon is actually quite a bit less than the Earth-Moon distance, so I don't see its hitting the Moon as having much of an effect on the Earth's orbit.
  30. 1 point
    'Networking' is wearing a mask and generally being agreeable in the hope that one day those parting phone numbers will benefit you.
  31. 1 point
    Somehow, He found his way into the ST universe also. (during the course of the cartoons featuring him, the colors of his outfit changed, this is one of the early color schemes)
  32. 1 point
    Just curious- it's not my field. I presume that much of the debt which that 8.2% of revenue is being paid on , is historical debt. Is it plausible that the money was borrowed in order to build and run hospitals, schools roads etc? If so, is it possible that the money saved/ earned by the state (depending how you look at it) by having a health better educated workforce with better infrastructure is more than 8.2% of revenue? If so, is it possible -even likely- that, had the previous governments borrowed more, and built, for example, better roads, they would now have more money today? That's kind of the point of most borrowing- you can invest it. Once you consider the notion of investment, it stops being simple addition and subtraction.
  33. 1 point
    Many Bugs Bunny cartoons began with Bugs popping popping out of the ground expecting to to be at some vacation spot, but instead finding himself at some other remote lcoation. This would result in him pulling out a map and quipping " I knew I shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque!" The background here, as noted by Phi for All, is a Litihum cracking station as depicted in the original Star trek series. Specifically, the one on Delta Vega, located at the edge of the galaxy (from the episode "Where No man Has Gone Before"). Risa is a planet from ST the Next Gen known as a prime place to go for R&R. Switching "Aldebaran" for "Albuguerque" was poetic license on my part. The 3D rendering of the station is based on the matte painting used for the episode.
  34. 1 point
    I’m trying to understand this? If c were a constant that would mean that if you change the medium of empty space to say glass? Water? Etc? C would be unchanging, but the medium is set at empty space by Einstein (generally referred as a vacuum). This is a condition, so long as the condition doesn’t change c is like a constant but it requires the condition to remain so. Under the condition set by Einstein ( empty space) c becomes invariant without regard to how you move through this empty space. Yes, it may seem at odds to what you might expect ( not obvious), but the observation conforms to Newton’s first law of motion at all times as it should. When light passes a large source of gravity it is effected. The confusion comes when it is argued that under the influence of the gravity source c remains c which would violate Newton’s first law Yes, c is c invariantly, but only under the condition set by Einstein ( empty space). Change the condition then there is no reason to suggest that c doesn’t change. To suggest that c (the number) remains the number even as it passes through water would make that number a constant. It isn’t. c (the number) gets smaller as light passes through water. This does not violate Newton’s first law, or Einstein’s invariance of c in a vacuum condition. I’m thinking this through l can’t see where I might be confused 🤷‍♂️. Rhetorically, maybe? Somewhat long winded to the point of confusion? Yeah, I tend to reach that point. Seemingly effortlessly😒, but i don’t think I am confusing the word invariant with constant. Note, to clear up one paragraph when light passes near a large gravity source I’m assuming the presence of that source violates the condition set by Einstein of empty space. Assuming that a vacuum requires a condition of no effect. I’m assuming there is a hardware problem cause this and the Janus post didn’t show up until after I had replied to stranges post which was considerably after all the post were made? I would have preferred to have responded to this post first. What?
  35. 1 point
    Maths is not simply about having a formula and substituting values into it. Trying to learn lots of formulae is likely to lead you into difficulty in the long run. Understanding what you are doing is far better. Note: I am just about to apologise to another member in another thread for not reading his post properly and therefore not understanding and thus saying something silly and using the wrong formula.
  36. 1 point
    No I didn't. Here is an explanation of why dark matter doesn't form structures: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-100-why-doesn-t-dark-matter-form-black-holes-c5b6d90b1883
  37. 1 point
    md65536; In the graphic, the arc of radius 1 represents one unit of ct (sec, yr., etc). The red curve is the perception of distance traveled by the observer based on his speed and local time In the interesting scenario of an anaut moving outward from the center of a spherical system of objects, over a range of speeds, the sphere has a maximum radius at v/c=.707c, and two different speeds for each calculated distance. Relative to your puzzle, the green curve is 1/2 the local time for any given speed. Any pair satisfies 'equal distance'. Only one satisfies the '2:1 aging'. A horizontal line between the intersection of the green line and blue diagonal (light speed) projected downward to the red should provide the answer. A speed is .4472 and B speed is .8944. What do you think?
  38. 1 point
    What's wrong with that? Compassion is a huge part of many religions: the academic study of compassion might be useful - but it's not the same as the practice of compassion. When was the soul put into humans? Who cares - the answer won't make you a better human being, which is what religious teaching should be trying to help with. All this pretence at academia by 'religious' people seems to belie an insecurity and need for validation with science. Spiritual practices should stand on their own merits, anything that needs propping up with pseudo-pseudoscience should be left to fall. And honestly Gees, though there are some aloof people on this site, likely including myself, you are among the worst for it. Look at yourself before casting stones.
  39. 1 point
    Where have we hunted invasive species to extinction? I know we've removed invasive species from the place they've invaded, but that is hardly the same as hunting them to "extinction". Typically invasive species are removed from an ecosystem because their lack of natural predators in their new environment allows them to do undue harm to the existing and/or desirable ecosystem.
  40. 1 point
    I thought it was something everyone can do. Now I feel weird(er)...
  41. 1 point
  42. 0 points
    ! Moderator Note If you reread the OP, you'll find your ignorant, misinformed stance is off-topic here. This thread is about how the climate is changing faster than the models predicted. Further attempts to troll this topic will be removed to the Trash.
  43. 0 points
  44. 0 points
    Nobody cares. That’s not what this thread is about
  45. -1 points
    Somewhere around 1 x 10-18g in a vacuum is a new constant. The diffraction gets too small to identify fringes. It's a natural size for the object to be physical and to never be in superposition. Uncollapsed(stateless | unphysical | virtual) Quantum Waves + State(Matter Field or wave collapse or decoherence) + zero Diffraction showing fringes = Physical Matter (Real) If an object is too large to display fringes, it is automatically physical. The question now is if auto-physical objects have a physical state or maybe being naturally physical doesn't require it. Do I need to claim there is a physical state in the first place for even quantum sized objects if it is the same thing as: wave collapse, decoherence, and zero diffraction? There has to be something that causes a particle to be physical or not before it even starts moving. If it is to only be a wave in flight, duality doesn't apply. But if physical, duality is allowed. Maybe I need a different term for "physical state". If I started using "Real" instead of "physical state" would that get physicists off my back about mass meaning a physical property? GR deals with what is Real. Wave Collapse, Decoherence, and Zero Diffraction cause something to be Real. We just need GR to handle duality for Unification. GR for reality QM wave function for unreal (only probabilities) Does this mean Diffraction is directly related to Superposition? It is curious to me that spacetime limits the speed of light and gravity to the same speed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/24/this-is-why-the-speed-of-gravity-must-equal-the-speed-of-light/#737e30e62fc0 The "unobserved" isn't real/physical and therefore not involved with spacetime. It doesn't have gravitons. Unobserved/Unreal quantum waves do not follow the laws set by spacetime. Maybe it would help if I explained what is happening in three famous quantum experiments. The Double Slit, Delay Choice Quantum Eraser, Which Way Quantum Eraser. The Double Slit Layered, Unobserved quantum fields begin to combine to assemble a new particle. The Dimension of the Unreal is able to know if the physical state of the particle will be requested in it's path. Something we know is capable of doing a state change is called a detector. But there are other more natural means of causing it. A particle with a physical state going through a double slit will only go through one slit. An unreal, quantum wave will go through both slits and display interference/fringes on a final panel. The final panel does cause a wave collapse but does not give the particle a physical state while in flight. Delay Choice Quantum Eraser Shows us the entire path of the particle is known before it starts moving. Entangled particles hold the same state while in flight. When the first particle hits it's final panel in a shorten path, it knows if its entangled brother will ever be physical or not in its path. Which Way Quantum Eraser Something very interesting happens when you cause two state changes in the path of a particle before it hits a final panel. If a particle knows (the unreal dimension) two state changes are going to occur, it goes back to being unreal quantum waves. When you see fringes appear on the final panel, it is because the quantum waves when through polarizers at the slits and the additional polarizer at unreal quantum waves. QFT assumes spacetime is involved ..it's not. It uses points (x, y, z) Cartesian coordinates. They are assuming those points are in spacetime. There isn't anything saying it has to be locations from spacetime. Spacetime is fine for points in space when the object in question is observed/has a physical state. Unobserved quantum fields do not need spacetime to function. You never get anything faster than light ..when spacetime is involved. Observation/state change, gets spacetime involved. You are not considering speeds from unobserved objects. If what I'm describing isn't spacetime ..it would be something completely new/undiscovered. A property of nature. I have no doubt something is going on here and it's the key to the theory of everything. Higgs is lie because particles are not assigned mass by some random particle they decided to name the higgs boson. The higgs field is just spacetime and the matter field. Particles are real when they are given a physical state.
  46. -1 points
    more than 9000 posts! Do you work sometime? The alternative is easy. NOT BLIND REVIEW! But it looks nobody wants it. Wonder why ahahahahaha
  47. -2 points
    what do the unicorns do? I don't think this would work as a postulate. the problem with math is it has no locality, no starting point, other than arbitrary ones. things just don't add up unless you start somewhere. You can calculate the cannonball trajectory, but you have no cannon to fire it from. I don't think math works as a theory of the universe.
  48. -3 points
    If you cant review fast, then don't review. We don't need arrogant people like you. We need good, honest and responsible reviewers. From your words I can understand that you are none of them. Your words means that you have no idea of what a researchers work is. It looks like you are one of this arrogant (which most of the tiime is goes with ignorant) person that sit all the time at his desk thinking that he's the greatest in the world. If you cannot understand that reviewing other peoples work MUST BE a priority, then don't do it. Please make a favor to all of us and DON'T REVIEW!!!
×
×
  • 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.