Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/06/22 in Posts

  1. wow I don't think our Molson's chugging friends to the north quite realize that our Democratic Party is, by the standards of pretty much every other democratic nation on Earth, quite moderate. And has been trying to find compromise every way possible with a GOP that has moved far to the Right and now snuggles with white nationalists and Christian theocrats and bizarro science deniers. And their undertow pulls along others who should know better. Due to our flawed electoral college system, and the deeply skewed Senate (where in a few short years, the most conservative 30% of our populace will have 70% of the Senate), and a ton of gerrymandering, a minority has hijacked the political process and has little interest in real conversation about issues or compromise. FFS, we are just trying to survive as a democracy at this point. And so many of us are straining to reach out to conservatives, try to find some way to shift in their direction without abandoning whole demographics at risk, struggling to have some kind of rational fact based dialog with them that has some anchoring in the reality of the 21st century. Outside of a few places like Boston, Seattle, or San Francisco, I don't think you find that many liberals who are loftily proclaiming their wisdom and rightness or are not willing to compromise. You really have to know compromise is all we do these days. I had to vote for Biden who, in any other recent decade, would have been seen as centrist, and has not had a career I would call terribly progressive. My vote was a compromise, as were many others' votes. And anyone I vote for in South Dakota is a compromise (and I think other Red Staters would likely say the same).
    4 points
  2. How many late-term fetal abortions are there in the US? ..I would be surprised if women/girl show up who have spent 5,6...9 months pregnant and ask for an abortion, just like that, without a good reason... there must be a very good reason to ask for such a thing after investing so much time and energy... that requires a cesarean section anyway.. so child can be alive after it.. if it he/she is able to.. For example: a seriously ill or terminally ill fetus that would not have survived anyway.... a potential danger to the woman.. In many posts you push "late term abortion".... while it is a meaningless minority...
    3 points
  3. This is almost mesmerising, the superconductor runs around the mobius strip almost if by magic!
    3 points
  4. Some folks are probably excited about this... https://phys.org/news/2022-06-results-anomaly-elementary-particle.html New scientific results confirm an anomaly seen in previous experiments, which may point to an as-yet-unconfirmed new elementary particle, the sterile neutrino, or indicate the need for a new interpretation of an aspect of standard model physics, such as the neutrino cross section, first measured 60 years ago.
    3 points
  5. John Wheeler came up with this wonderful phrase to summarise what GR is about. But buzzwords can only get you so far. If you have a situation in which a small object moves in the vicinity of a stellar object that heavily distorts space-time around it, then it's fair to say that the star tells space-time around how to bend, while the relatively small stuff moving close is told how to move. However, consider the collision of two black holes. In that case, both the motion of the objects and the warping of space-time are very difficult to tell apart. For those cases, the only alternative is to appeal to the equations and have a computer solve them for you. The equations are highly non-linear, which means that ultimately it's impossible to express the warping as the sum of contributions of this and that piece of matter. Gravity itself gravitates. See my point? Another aspect I would like to point out is that mass is not the source of the gravitational field. It's energy-momentum that plays that role. The "mental operation" that you're proposing here, if I've understood you correctly, is to remove the sources and be left with an empty space-time, and then you ask yourself what shape does that space-time have. Well, think about this: Einstein's field equations have many solutions corresponding to an empty space-time. Gravitational waves are a particular example of solutions to the Einstein vacuum equations. So I guess my answer is: No, you can't figure out what space-time is like with nothing in it. Not a priori. You have to make a guess.
    3 points
  6. It’s a congressional hearing. That’s sorta how they go, but y’all are tuning in thinking it’s another episode of America’s Got Treason.
    3 points
  7. It is a matter of specular vs. diffuse reflection. Specular reflection is mirror-like, where the incidence angle and reflection angle are the same. With diffuse reflection, the reflected light scatters in all directions. Which domimates in any given scenario depend on the nature of the reflecting surface. A mirror is highly specular, while a sheet of paper is highly diffuse. The Moon falls on the paper end of the spectrum. Here is an image of three spheres lit by the same light source, but with different specular/diffuse ratios: On the bottom left is what you'd see from a mirror-like surface of pure specular reflection; one small bright dot of light. In the top middle we have a mix of specular and diffuse reflection. You get a bright highlight in the center and things darken as you move to the edge. Then on the bottom right we get a fully diffuse sphere, Which looks evenly lit all around. (the slight darkening at the upper left is caused by the sphere not being perfectly centered in the frame, so the camera sees slightly around to the unlit side.) The last one is what most closely matches the Moon in the sky. In addition, the surface of the Moon is not smooth, and this just adds to the diffuse refection overall. You seem to expect the Moon would behave like the mirrored ball in the lower left. Given the fact that the Moon doesn't have a mirror-like surface, this simply would be possible. And even if the surface was purely specular in nature, the fact that the surface is bumpy and irregular would have it looking something like this: and not the single point of light.
    2 points
  8. I don't think it makes any sense to tinker with language in this way. All languages have strange things in them. It's part of their charm and reflects their convoluted history. To try to remove them all would be to lose all that richness - and deprive writers and poets of the opportunity for puns and deliberate ambiguities. Take a word like "mine". That can mean either an excavation in the earth for minerals or a static explosive armament. But in fact they have a common origin. The original explosive mine was gunpowder placed at the end of an excavated shaft, dug to blow up (undermine) the walls of a castle. Hamlet speaks of "the engineer hoist with his own petard" (a synonym for mine) and goes on to say "but I shall delve one yard below their mine and blow them at the moon".* I think discovering the common root of these things is fun. And then we have different spellings and meanings for the same sounding word: rite, write, right, wright. English has more of this sort of thing than most languages, because it draws on both Germanic and Latin roots, forming in effect two vocabularies. Historically the upper classes spoke (Norman) French and used Latin-derived words, while the peasants used an Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. To this day the Germanic words sound more "earthy" and less refined than the Latin-based equivalents. This was brought home to me in the Netherlands, when I was sent for a blood test, at the "prikpost". I understood what it meant, but it sounded a bit, well, blunt. So I'm in favour of leaving these things alone and enjoying the diversity. * If you visit St Andrew's, in Scotland, there is a ruined castle where you can see both such a mine, dug during a seige, and a "countermine", dug from inside the castle to stop it. You can go through, down a ladder, from one to the other, at the point where they meet.
    2 points
  9. You mean whether coronavirus are known to jump species? If so yes. The most notable cases before SARS-CoV-2 are obviously SARS and MERS. But the viruses are present in many mammals and there are many signatures indicating mixtures and exchanges between species. I.e. spillover to humans are not unexpected.
    2 points
  10. The event horizon is a mathematical construct, which indicates a radius ( or radii ) after which certain effects manifest. Te rules and laws of GR continue to hold until infinities arise, close to the singularity; IOW no faster than light tavel. Te Shwazschild solution is a special case where infinities aise at the event horizon due to choice of co-ordinates. You may have misunderstood the fact that inside the event horizon, the only direction available is forward in time ( due to GR's geodesics, or geometry, terminating at the singularity, with no paths out of the EH ). A Big Bang arising from a 'white' hole connected to a Black Hole in an alternate universe is also a non-starter, as it would have observable differences to our universe, like a discernible center, or a 'rotation'.
    2 points
  11. Even the Speculations forum requires evidence to be presented in support of your 'speculation'. Hand waving arguments are not sufficient. The electromagnetic force, as we know it, did not exist until 10-35 sec after the Big Bang started. Prior to that, it was a unified electroweak field where fermions like electrons, muons, neutrinos and quarks ( and some bosons like W and Z of the weak interaction ) were massless. The Higgs mechanism allowed these particles to gain the property of mass, and the evidence of the Higgs boson, detected at CERN a few years ago, allows for a high degee of confidence in this model. I'll be waiting for you to present evidence supporting your model.
    2 points
  12. I refuse to engage in a duel of wits with an unarmed man.
    2 points
  13. No, this is a common misconception. The thing here is that the region close to the event horizon does not share any notion of simultaneity with a distant stationary observer (‘Schwarzschild observer’). As a result of this, a distant and stationary clock would measure an infinite amount of time for anything to fall to the horizon - meaning the horizon is never reached as measured in that distant frame only. On the other hand, if you consider a clock that actually travels itself to the horizon, you’ll find that it measures a finite and well defined amount of time; there’s nothing special about spacetime at the horizon at all. The clock just falls through and onwards to the singularity. It does not stop and freeze at the horizon. Time in GR is a purely local phenomenon, so you have to consider clocks that are actually there, and not distant observers.
    2 points
  14. Have you not read any of the preceding posts ? Using the equations developed by Meghnad Saha in the 1920s, we can calculate the ionization state of a gas in thermal equilibrium from the temperature and pressure. All gases in the early universe ( mostly Hydrogen and Helium ) remained completely ionized down to a temperature of about 3000oK. In this state, the universe consisted of an opaque plasma, but once it expanded further, and dropped below this temperature, electrons were allowed to bond to nuclei to form atomic Hydrogen and Helium, rendering the universe transparent. We 'see' the glow of the opaque ionized plasma as the CMB radiation, but it is no longer at 3000oK, it is now at 2.7oK, a reduction of about 1040 times. We can then use your standard statistical thermodynamic gas laws, which relate temperature, volume and pressure, to conclude that the universe must have increased in volume by the equivalent factor of 1040 times, since the recombination era ( when atoms were able to form )
    2 points
  15. I think what the OP is getting at is that it would be theoretically possible to RAISE a rock, in a tight fitting container, with less than it's own weight of mercury, using the head of mercury to exert the required hydraulic pressure on the base of the rock. But the problem is that if it's in a tight fitting container, you can't move it, so lifting it doesn't get you anywhere. So the idea is to have a small gap in front of the rock, and pull the rock into that gap, so the mercury flows to the rear, and then excavate a new gap in front of the rock, and fill in the gap at the rear, hence inching forward bit by bit, constantly excavating in front, and filling in behind. It's a far cry from floating a rock along in a canal of mercury, and of course, you need a flat route. I can't see it being possible in the real world, but I guess you could say it's theoretically possible.
    2 points
  16. Before you use any chemical on your countertop, try spilling Benzaldehyde green on something of no value, outside of your house, to see if it reacts with the chemical there..
    2 points
  17. ! Moderator Note We're going to wait a week, travel back in time a week, and THEN ban you.
    2 points
  18. FYI https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/ The more that fish is dragged across the trail, the worse it smells.
    2 points
  19. 2 points
  20. It could be a uric acid crystal. Here's a picture I found of some on the internet: To me, your picture does not look biological, but more likely chemical. But I am prejudiced, of course.😀
    2 points
  21. And how is that related to your claim that gravity and magnetism are “synonymous”? Your posts contain far too many tangents. They need to be much more concise, coherent and relevant.
    2 points
  22. At least part of why cases of depression have accelerated is because we assume whatever the person is depressed about is a personal thing, and not something systemic that may be affecting us all. We consider it their trauma to deal with, even though we're here to lend support where we can. But what if depression is just a normal human response to the kinds of crazy we're seeing these days in some countries? In the US, we're realizing how enslaved we've all been while celebrating our freedoms. We have inalienable rights guaranteed to the People by our Constitution, but we never passed an equal rights amendment to truly include all People. We escaped the tyranny of the wealthy so we could let the wealthy lead us right back to being underrepresented by our own leaders. Maybe we should focus more on what's causing such depression instead of finding ways to live with it.
    2 points
  23. And only relevant in the local time era. Genghis Khan probably has the most descendants ever. But now, those descendants probably have about 1% of his genes. (wild guess, can't be bothered to research it). So basically, if you want life to have a meaning, you have to invent one.
    2 points
  24. These give you the 2-D shapes of the gravity wells, which would be related http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacemaps.php#xkcdgrav
    2 points
  25. Yore not alone, especially after these last few years. The pandemic and breaking of social norms and related ignorance in politics (but mostly having to stay home during the pandemic) has caused depression frequency and intensity to surge. Councilors appointment books are overflowing and even they themselves are feeling the effects. You’re not alone. Getting out in nature, walking, sunlight etc all definitely help, and the hike you’re taking could turn into a two-fer if you happen to walk through cattle fields and maybe find those shroomies you seek.
    2 points
  26. This is boring It’s not your choice to make. It’s the parents and healthcare providers involved in that child’s life. Maybe they’ll want to someday play non-elite level childhood and school level sports. We should stop passing laws making that illegal. Puberty blockers aren’t the problem here. Equality and acceptance blockers are.
    2 points
  27. I don't think that follows. Even the smallest pieces pose a threat, because of the huge speeds that they orbit at. Even dust grains are said to be a hazard. If you could invent an anti-satellite weapon that shoved the satellite into a lower orbit, making it burn up in a reasonably short time, that would be ideal.
    2 points
  28. If you are going to attack someone please be so kind as to provide evidence. They are not "pseudo scientists" simply because you don't like what they said. If you have evidence they are pseudo scientists please provide it. Otherwise the honorable thing to do would be to retract your statement. I don't care if you are right, but I care that we make reasonable and fair arguments here.
    2 points
  29. I think, to be fair to those questioning the basic psychology and wisdom behind all this, it's okay to ask how these correlations work. For example, does puberty blocking improve overall health because they are fitting in with their subculture in, say, California, and so their decrease in social stress is improving physical markers and decreasing suicidal ideation? Or is it because they are fundamentally a different gender than the birth one and this is a genuine improvement of physical functioning? Does the improved health effect show the same degree in Vickburg MS as it does in Berkeley CA? Is it roughly the same in Houston and Stockholm? (actually Stockholm wouldn't work now in such comparatives because Swedes have banned puberty blockers due to, cough, ahem, unresolved scientific questions) Causation is important here. If I reduce a child's suicidal thoughts and boost their health by raising them in a Truman Show simulation, that might not be worth it. I might choose some other therapeutic path for them to feel better, in spite of the positive correlation between Truman Show fake reality and "overall health." So it's fair for @MigL et al to ask if there are other solutions to alienation and depression of gender dysphorics that might lie in other domains than the pharmaceutical. Maybe there are no others that can work, but it's still worth exploring before seriously altering a child's body (or later on, removing pieces of it).
    2 points
  30. That's how I interpret pro-choice as well. I recently heard of an exchange between two women on either side of that fence, and the pro-life woman admitted she had gone to a clinic to abort her daughter but walked out before the procedure, and considered it the best decision she ever made because she loves her daughter so much. The pro-choice woman just told her she was very happy the woman had been given the choice.
    2 points
  31. I disagree, physics derived from questioning things just like this, and to just shove aside questions like these in the physics community only shows the lack of answers. If questions to unanswered problems is philosophy then what do we really understand, if every thing just creates another problem that cant be answered. Where I do not quite agree with Bufofrog that philosophy is the trash can for all questions that sciences cannot answer, he definitely has a point. In philosophy, we say that your kind of question contains a category error. Causality can only meaningfully be defined in space and time. E.g. following statements should clarify this: a cause always precedes its effect Two events can only be directly causally related when they are in their immediate vicinity But such propositions only make sense in space and time, they are meaningless when talking about space and time. Causality does not apply to space and time themselves. The relationship between spacetime, energy, and gravity is a conceptual one, not a causal one. By giving the conceptual relationships between these three, one could say that the job of the physicist is done. As a philosopher, of course one can ask all kind of petty questions ('is space really curved?';'What is ontologically first: gravity or time dilation?'). Physicists can do very well without such questions, and their possible answers. Some of these questions can be fascinating (e.g. PBS spacetime has an interesting episode about the latter question). Exactly these kind of questions show that 'causality' does not apply to spacetime itself.
    2 points
  32. And that's another strawman, the argument was about how an off-cut can lead to an unintended machine i.e. an emergent quality. As machine's become more complex, other emergent qualities 'should be expected' the nature of which is impossible to predict; therefore the premise of the OP is demonstrably false.
    2 points
  33. Because it's a bad argument. I think they should be legal in some cases and in some cases not. I can therefore agree with arguments from each side. Capiche?
    2 points
  34. While I see your point, relating to how people focus on a specific social cause, I think there is one flaw there. If I crusade to save tigers, I will also likely want to support having nature preserves where they can have a life. Kind of a package. The tiger savers are not in it to save tigers then stick them in little cages where children can try to get a rise out of them and throw trash in the cage. Similarly, if I save a fetus, then what happens to it after birth is a consequence of its being saved. I'm not sure it's morally defensible to make sure the baby goes full term, be delivered, and then walk away saying "Yep, forced Mom to birth you, now she's facing more dire poverty and lack of support, but hey, you're on your own, kid!" Your own example on the DP is also subject to the same problem. Most people who march against the DP, do in fact also support better prison conditions. And they do so, again, because the years of prison life is a consequence of not being executed. In all my examples there is the common thread of: quality of life is part of valuing life. You just can't separate them without unfortunate consequences. (I thank @MSC for also underscoring this)
    2 points
  35. This is totally garbled. First, non-neutralising antibodies also help against infection by marking the virus for destruction by phagocytes. So they are generally a good thing, not a bad thing. Secondly, partial escape of variants from previous immunity seems to mean that while people catch the virus in spite of being vaccinated, as I did recently, they don’t get very ill. Upon recovery, they are likely to have a broad-based immunity, deriving from having been infected. So there are some grounds for thinking that vaccination does a good job of blunting the impact of these newer variants, while building broader based immunity from people getting mildly infected. But you ignore all this in favour of promoting alarmist nonsense from cranks, using one argument after another, to suggest that vaccination is some kind of disaster, even after each one is shot down in turn, all the while professing innocence because you are not a scientist. The obvious question is why, if you are not a scientist, you are so determined to ignore what mainstream medical opinion is saying, focusing instead on fringe and crank opinion in preference. Why is that? Why is it so important to you, personally, that vaccination be shown to be a bad thing?
    2 points
  36. Between Christian nationalists and white supremacists, the Republicans are overwhelmed with hate and bigotry of the sort you can't compromise with. They want things I can't give in to even a little bit and still call myself human. How do you meet someone halfway when they want whole groups of people to be oppressed?
    2 points
  37. This is an extremely serious subject, which needs to be dealt with. But this discussion needs some humor ...
    2 points
  38. This qualifies as spooky, every word is true as I experienced it, though you can make of it what you like. I treat it as a mystery, not proof of spooks. This is one of only two "odd" things I've ever experienced. Odd it certainly was. But it didn't strictly happen to me. I'm including it here because I was sitting right next to the guy it happened to. The two of us had been to a nightclub disco in Nailsworth in the Cotteswold hills. We were travelling home at about two am, the road was completely empty. We'd had a few drinks, nothing excessive, and I was driving, he was in the front passenger seat. I have to mention now that my friend was 0% superstitious, a totally non religious, non-superstitious individual, and I'd known him years. He was a down-to-earth son of a farmer. As we drove, along the tops of the local hills, I was looking ahead and noticed how much like an arch the trees were, above the road, in my headlights. I was looking up, admiring that arch effect. Suddenly my friend sat bolt upright, and shouted "what the fuck was that?" at the top of his voice. Then he shouted "stop the car, stop the car!!" I stopped and asked him what the hell he was talking about. He was saying "didn't you see it? You must have seen it" and stuff like that. I said "see what? I didn't see anything". He said that a weird little creature crossed the road, right in front of the car. He kept saying I must have seen it, but I saw nothing. I know I was looking up at the arch above the road made by the trees, right at that instant. He sounded so genuinely shocked, I asked what it was like, and he said that it was 'horrible', less than a meter in height, black, shiny, and smooth, with a body rising to a peak at the front, and then gradually flowing down towards the rear end. And he said it didn't run, like an animal, it "flowed" across the road, and "glided" up, and over the stone wall. I was laughing at him, and ribbing him, but he was really shaken. I said, OK, lets back up and have a look. So I reversed up about 100 meters, to where he swore it happened, and he pointed to a wall on our right, and said it came from there, and then pointed at another wall on our left, and said that it disappeared over that wall. With me still taking the mickey, we got out of the car, and walked up to the wall it disappeared over. It was very very dark, no moon or street light, just my headlights pointing down the road, so I couldn't see much to start with, but when my eyes got used to the dark, we could see that there were gravestones, and then I made out the shape of an old church. I have to admit, my confidence was a bit rocked then, but I still took the mick, and told him it must have been the devil, and we both ended up standing on top of the wall, shouting "come on out, you bastard". Pure bravado, fuelled by a few pints of beer. Anyway, nothing 'came out', and we got back in the car and drove on home. Nothing more happened, except that when I called at his house the next day, his girlfriend asked what the hell we had been up to, because he woke her up in the middle of the night, babbling about seeing a weird creature, and wouldn't shut up about it till it was getting light, and she got no sleep. I know this guy so well, I know for a fact that he saw something that really shook him. I told him it must have been a fox, but he was adamant that he saw it really clearly in the headlights, and he was a farmer's son, and knew a fox or deer if he saw one. Anyway, that is an odd occurrence, especially if you knew how cynical and skeptical this guy is, but not that mysterious I guess. But the story has a postscript. About two or three years later, I was housesharing a flat, and a new girl moved in. A few of us were chatting one evening, about Stroud, the town she came from. ( not too far from Nailsworth ). She was talking about superstitious stuff that went on in the area, evidence of witchraft and such. I could tell that she was a fairly superstitious person herself. Then she said, "and of course, there are the Sfarts on Haresfield Beacon!". We all laughed at the name, and I said "what the hell are Sfarts?" And she said "they are little creatures that people say they have glimpsed at twilight on Haresfield Beacon. ( A local beauty spot ). I said, "what are they like"? and she said " they are about two and a half feet tall, black and shiny, with a point at the top, and flowing down gradually to a tail. And they don't run, they 'glide' across the fields. We were still laughing at the name, and the description, but something was nagging at me, like I'd heard something similar before. This was a good two or three years later, so it didn't immediately dawn on me, till the next morning, that it was practically word for word what my friend had seen. And this girl had definitely never met my friend, I hadn't seen him for ages, and she had only just moved in, and she came from a town ten miles away. I must admit I haven't got any decent explanation for why she should give such a detailed description, that so accurately matched what he said he saw. The end of the story is that I've asked other people since from that area if they have ever heard of Sfarts, or of weird creatures on Haresfield Beacon, and the answer has always been "no". And one more detail, I didn't connect the two initially because I knew that you would need to drive about seven or eight miles to get from where it happened to Haresfield Beacon, but I looked at a map once, years later, and if you travelled overland, along the ridge of the hills, it was actually less than a mile! Anyway, make of that story what you will. I can assure you every word of mine is true. (although I can't guarantee that other people didn't invent). It was frustrating that I wasn't looking, at the very instant it happened, maybe that would have been the end of it, if I didn't see anything, or maybe I would have seen that it was a fox, or bin liner in the wind. (although I do remember that there was no wind that night) But anyway, I didn't see it, so that's all there is.
    2 points
  39. 2 points
  40. Put yourself in their shoes. We’re intelligent, but also largely still driven by ancient instincts that were designed to give us a survival advantage in a largely hostile environment. Most people’s thought patterns are overwhelmingly ego-centric, along the lines of “what can I get out of this?”. People spend their entire lives chasing sense pleasure and running away from discomfort, putting them at the mercy of external circumstance. Our societies institutionalise greed (economic systems), hatred (militarism and nationalism), and mass delusion (corporate media). At any given time there are at least half a dozen active war zones around the world; we can’t even get along with our own species, and our own natural environment - never even mind with aliens. All these things were indispensable survival tools in the distant past, but now our technology has outpaced our ethical and psychological evolution - a very dangerous situation. We’re animals waving thermonuclear warheads around. Would you really want to get involved with such a species? I sure wouldn’t - I’d recognise their potential, and perhaps would watch from a distance, but otherwise would choose to wait until they’ve outgrown their first set of teeth at least. And as a species we’re nowhere even near that point, IMHO. Besides, if there are several spacefaring species in our galaxy competing for finite resources, then there’s quite a lot to be said for remaining silent and invisible, as a general rule (‘Dark Forest Theory’): https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-dark-forest-theory-a-terrifying-explanation-of-why-we-havent-heard-from-aliens-yet/ Apologies for being dark and pessimistic. Personally I see a lot of beauty and potential in Homo sapiens sapiens, but for now I see us as being little better than animals with a knack for technology. So I’m not in the least surprised that no one else has made contact.
    2 points
  41. To borrow thoughts from the thread on falsefiability, neither the 'rare Earth' orthe 'uninteresting Earth' hypothesis are falsefiable with existing technology. We might as well conjecture that a God createed only us and no others, and put us in an uninteresting 'frame' to teach us humility. All our conjectures are based on what we've experienced, and certainly cannot be the basis for what we don't know.
    2 points
  42. I'm not convinced that life would get extinguished as often as they think. I just looked up the safe distance from a supernova, the estimate is 60 light years. Our nearest star system to us is about 3.4 light years, so you would have to be very unlucky to have a supernova go off within 30, even in a more densely packed part of the galaxy. The description of a 30 light year distance supernova sounds nasty, but not necessarily a TOTAL extinction event. https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/safe-distance-from-a-supernova-earth/#:~:text=Bottom line%3A What's a safe,away from the exploding star. On Earth, our evolution has taken 4.5 billion years. But much of that time was going from nothing to the first multi-celled organisms. If you have a massive extinction event that wipes out the larger organisms, you aren't starting again from zero. You have a head start of billions of years, in the life that survived. On Earth, we went from arthropods and molluscs to dinosaurs in a (relative) flash. So a lot would depend on what survives the supernova. If you have deep oceans the chances are that fairly advanced creatures would survive in the depths, kicking off rapid evolution to re-populate the planet.
    2 points
  43. I’m with @Ken Fabian on this. Einstein et al weren’t trying to disprove the theory. They wanted to test it to see if it gave correct predictions or not. Falsifiability does not mean you have to try to falsify a theory, just that for a theory to be science it must be testable in a way that is capable of showing it false if its predictions are not borne out by observation.
    2 points
  44. Because we both are intelligent and we have a common language, mathematics.
    2 points
  45. Glad to help. That's a major function of this site. 🙂 Ask again if you need more help.
    2 points
  46. Well I was replying to your question to bufofrog Which your repeated acouple of times. In fact I did double the volume in my original post to get from 500ml to 1000ml as the easiest way to get to moles/litre. But sure you could work on actual volumes if you prefer - It's just more mistake prone and longer winded. Bufofrog also offered you a very handy formula that can be applied in many cases That is C1V1 = C2V2 This is much used by pharmacists who do a lot of fiddling about with concentrations like you have been doing. Here are a couple of pages from a pharmaceutical calculations course that also show what to do when you can't directly apply the formula. I don't know what you wil be getting up to in Biology, but the most general situation is when you are mixing two different strengths of solution etc. There is one formula that works in all cases. [math]\frac{{{\rm{Resultant}}\;{\rm{Concentration - Weaker}}\;{\rm{Concentration}}}}{{{\rm{Stronger}}\;{\rm{Concentration - Resultant}}\;{\rm{Concentration}}}}{\rm{ = }}\frac{{{\rm{Amount}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{Stronger}}}}{{{\rm{Amount}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{Weaker}}}}[/math] This formula works whether you use w/w, w/v, v/v %, P ie all units so long as you are consistent.
    2 points
  47. So pleased you could renew your subscription with the Delphic Oracle.
    2 points
  48. Alko: The problem I find with your core thesis is that one can use the same argument to deny consciousness to any matter, even matter that grows from DNA coded instructions and which we call a person. To clarify, let's take your opening comment, "This article is an attempt to explain why the cherished fiction of conscious machines is an impossibility. The very act of hardware and software design is a transmission of impetus as an extension of the designers and not an infusion of conscious will. " Now I can substitute DNA coded life into that paragraph, like this: This article is an attempt to explain why the cherished fiction of conscious beings is an impossibility. The very act of reproduction, resulting in DNA-directed design is a transmission of impetus as an extension of the parents desire, and not an infusion of conscious will. Do you see the problem here? Your formulation seems to be unwittingly sneaking in a sort of Cartesian dualism, where something immaterial must be "infused" in some mystical process. But really, what does it matter (no pun intended) whether hardware that has the self-modifying features of a neural network (a connectome, in current parlance) is initiated in nucleotide chains or in some inorganic substrate. Your thesis begs the question.
    2 points
  49. That's interesting. Maybe it's like stuttering in that sense where they don't repeat the same letters when they're writing. I never stutter when I'm forming my thoughts in my head but very rarely in conversation I might jumble up a word. Replacing what you were going to say with a synonym makes it easier but it might also make the problem more frequent in your self-awareness. Thus many strategies alter the ratio of frequency versus intensity without being perfect cures. If you imagined that you were speaking impersonally to a robot instead of a conscious being then this would be much like writing. However you'd then have to sacrifice a lot of your metaphysical awareness which might be a Pyrrhic victory. You might solve one problem by creating another!
    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.