Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/27/20 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    A scientist is someone who does science. You can make a distinction between professional and amateur, but those are modifiers/distinctions within the category — both are scientists. A scientist who becomes unemployed doesn't suddenly forget how to science. You can also make a distinction about the level of training. But someone without a degree who is doing science is a scientist. These days it's unusual, but go back a while, and training wasn't quite as formal. There have been largely self-taught scientists, and others who were informally taught, for at least part of their background. Einstein had defended his thesis, IIRC, when he was employed as a patent clerk and wrote his papers in 1905; he did this while looking for a professorship (much like actors and actresses wait tables between gigs if they haven't made the big time). He was a scientist.
  2. 2 points
    I'm sure that would be a surprise to the Olympians who won gold medals back when competitors had to be amateurs.
  3. 2 points
    [T]he fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. — Carl Sagan Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right. — Robert Park ! Moderator Note Showing that you are right requires experimental confirmation. It also requires that one be able to try and falsify your idea. And I have provided an experimental result that falsifies your idea (it is completely unsurprising that you dismissed this without justification and have not pursued it further. Instead, you repeat your assertions). Plus descriptions of other experiments that confirm Faraday's law. Others have pointed out that motors and generators run in accordance with Faraday's law, and would not work if things were as you claimed. So what I mean here is that quoting Schopenhauer and invoking the fallacious "if you are resisting I must be right" stance implies you have no evidence to present. You were given the opportunity, and you chose not to. There's no point in wasting more of anyone's time. Don't bring this topic up again.
  4. 1 point
    I would like to create a little room here for the wonderfully unexpected, beautiful,... (add your adjective) in Nature. Unexpected and/or beautiful could be interpreted as curious/spectacular, or similar. I mean to use these examples in order to keep the kids interested in Nature. The youngest ones get bored very easily. Examples could be: a rare animal, plant or protist, an almost unbelievably beautiful geological phenomenon, an amazingly complicated molecule that looks like a tinker-toy assembly, spectacular phenomena in water eddies and such. You get the idea. My getting-started examples: Glasswinged butterfly A family of butterflies that eat poisonous leaves when they're caterpillars and grow transparent wings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_oto Rainbow Eucalyptus tree A species of tree that looks as if somebody had Photoshop-painted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_deglupta Maths are also welcome. Things that look paradoxical like 0.9999999... = 1 would be the idea. I'm sure people will enrich this with possibilities I'm not foreseeing.
  5. 1 point
    While I am not well read in that area, I do not think that this is an accurate depiction of Islamic occasionalism. From what I understand at its core it seeks to answer how causality can be viewed in the context of divine actions. As such depending on which form of occasionalism one subscribes to either only God is the source of causality and all other creaturely causality are occasional (global occasionalism). Other forms have a more limited scope for ocassionalism and allow for more creaturely causality (local occasionalism. While Islamic philosophers were probably the first to formulate occasionalism, there are disagreements whether they are actually seen as a global occasionalism (as implied in OP). However, my knowledge is too limited to provide more information on that regard. It should also noted in the Islamic tradition there have been arguments for and against what one would now call global vs local occasionalism. The interesting bit about this position in my mind, however, is not so much the divine part, but the important implication it had for the Aristotelian school of thought where (as I understand it) logical connections between entities were inferred as part of their properties. The occasionalist stance then is that one should instead assume a lack of such connections. Depending on who you read, to me the take home message here is not that there is no link between observed cause and effect, but rather there is no necessary link, which is a very interesting point (substitute God with something like Truth or something like that and it gets really interesting... you can then ask what is the true causal connection between observed entities?) And now to the question whether occasionalism could have arisen in the Christian world and the answer is of course, it actually did. While Islamic and other philosophers made occasionalist arguments, occasionalism was heavily developed in the framework of Cartesian metaphysics (e.g. Malebranche). I would also like to point out that in both, Islamic as well as Christian frameworks, God is seen as rational rather than arbitrary (that is why even everything stems from the divine entity, things happen in reproducible manner). Also what you mentioned regarding creation sounds to me like the the so-called Divine conservation s but continuous creation argument. Again, one made both by Islamic as well as Christian scholars.
  6. 1 point
    That "Narrow band" is a lot wider than it looks to the naked eye. You are only seeing that part that is bright enough. As an example, consider the Andromeda galaxy. To the naked eye it looks like a small fuzzy spot, but if you could see it in full, it would appear like this in the sky. Several times wider than a full Moon. What we see by naked eye is just the nucleus of the galaxy. But just because we don't see the disk by naked eye doesn't mean that it doesn't hide the light from galaxies behind it.
  7. 1 point
    Interesting mixture of tautology and no true scotsman fallacy happening here
  8. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note I'm going to suspend you for a bit, so you can talk to your therapist about some of these misconceptions you have. This type of discussion is quite obviously making things worse.
  9. 1 point
    I think you're confusing what equation (problem) you actually have, and what values of \( k \) make sense for your problem. You also seem to have some confusion about what values of \( k \) are valid for your problem. In your OP, you're proposing up to four different equations: \[x^{2}+1-1/k=0\] \[x^{2}+1-1/k=1\] \[x^{2}+1+1/k=0\] \[x^{2}+1+1/k=1\] So the first question I would ask you is: Which one is it? Maybe you want to solve all of them. The question about what values of \( k \) make sense is simpler. Only those with \( k\neq0 \) make sense for the equations you've written. Moving something or other to the right hand side has nothing to do with it, unless you do it multiplicatively. For example, if your equation were, \[k\left(x^{2}-k\right)=1\] you would have to be careful not to divide by \( k \) in case that parameter were \( 0 \). In general, when you have both unknowns (the thing you want to solve for) and parameters (which define an infinite family of possible equations, one for each possible value of the parameter), you must discuss the equation for every possible value of the parameter. And you must leave out those values of the parameter that don't give a sensible equation. I hope that helps.
  10. 1 point
    Some time ago, I learned about the "screaming skeletons", or why archaeologists uncover ancient skeletons & mummies that look like screaming in horrid agony. Your jaw bone ascends toward the back (almost at a right angle to the horizontal line of the teeth), ending in a rounded protuberance (the condyloid process), which fits into a shallow groove in your temporal bone on the lower part of your skull. (For more, see Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body, especially the sections "Articulation of the Mandible" and "The Mandible (Lower Jaw)". (...) The nature of this joint is a key to understanding why mummies scream. Physician Trisha Macnair explains in "Human decomposition after death" on the BBC Health website. "This temporo-mandibular joint is fairly loose.... Unlike the tight ball-and-socket linking the leg and the hip, the jaw and cranium are held together only by ligaments and muscles. If unimpeded--by the position of the body, wrappings, or very fast desiccation--the jaw will drop down as the muscles relax and decompose after rigor mortis." See full article "the screaming mummies" https://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/screaming_mummy/
  11. 1 point
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Avoidance
  12. 1 point
    NASA has found water on the Moon's lit surface. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/927869069/water-on-the-moon-nasa-confirms-water-molecules-on-our-neighbors-sunny-surface?t=1603753199805 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-01222-x#_blank Abstract from Nature Astronomy: Interesting news, though not Earth-shattering, probably.
  13. 1 point
    The original statement has multiple interpretations, left ambiguous by your translation. This being a topic concerning translation of English to logic, I approve the translation. The two interpretations seem to generate mutually exclusive statements. Each has implications seemingly opposite of each other. The interpretations break into logical statements involving two of three variables: S(sunny), G, and E for weddings in garden and elsewhere respectively. Note that neither interpretation is a function of all three variables. Both G and E can be false if no weddings are held that day, and can both be true if weddings are held in both places. Interpretation 1: On sunny days, all weddings are held in the garden. S => ~E This implies that if there is an indoor wedding, it is not a sunny day. It does not imply that if it is a sunny day, there is a wedding. Interpretation 2: On sunny days, there are weddings held in the garden. S => G This implies that if there are no weddings today, it is not a sunny day. It does not imply that if there is an indoor wedding, it is not a sunny day.
  14. 1 point
    f Thanks. Please not though that specific the sentences you quote was an example of an invalid answer. I posted that to highlight what happens when the negation is dropped per your request; without negation it allows for weddings to be held at other places (for instance indoors) even if it is a sunny day. Maybe I should have posted a more explicit sentence: Incorrect, no negation: "sunny_day ∨ garden_wedding" = "On sunny days weddings are sometimes held in the garden and sometimes not held in the garden, for instance indoors.” Correct, as per tutorial, with negation: "~ sunny_day ∨ garden_wedding" = “On sunny days weddings are held in the garden.” The tutorial's sentence disallows indoor weddings on sunny days but does not disallow garden weddings on a rainy day. The incorrect sentence (no negation) incorrectly allows indoors weddings on sunny days.
  15. -1 points
    If you mean this topic: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/47901-faradays-law-is-false/ then I have to tell you that I have nothing to do with the man who has posted it ten years ago.
  16. -1 points
    The first example including the sine curve is what the induced current would be according to the Faraday's law. It predicts a sine waveform whose maximum should be when the loop is in the vertical position (according to the first image of the rotating loop in my OP). I claim that in the vertical position of the loop the current will drop to zero. The current will also drop to zero when the loop is in the horizontal position. Therefore, we will not get a sine curve on the oscilloscope, but a curve as I draw it in my OP: The maximum(s) will be actually in the moments when the loop is in the position of 45 degrees. This is quite enough to disprove the Faraday's law. I don't have to do that experiment. I can conclude what the waveform of the induced current will be on the basis of much simpler experiments. If someone has the means to carry it out, let him do it. I bet that I am right. Would you bet that I am not?
  17. -1 points
    Yes, you have missed many things because you cannot solve a very simple task. I had to add only these sentences in my last post: In the red cross section of the figure (a) the current flows away from us and then enters the Plus-input of the oscilloscope (represented with the Plus-sign in the figures a and b). Therefore we get a positive voltage on the screen. In the blue cross section of the figure (b) the current flows also away from us and then enters the Minus-input of the oscilloscope (represented with the Minus-sign in the figures a and b). Therefore we get a negative voltage on the screen. WOW, what a number of attacks without any real argument against the things said in my OP. You all really got upset. Let's bet if you are so sure. How much would you bet? “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer
  18. -1 points
    I read that a good software engineer automates what they want not to do - and they want not to do most things. I stopped in to ask a question, and then I posted some more. I had an imagination you might respond different than I know of you: that you have little Science of Self, and a refusal to develop it. I love my body, and my Self, and I don't tolerate doldrum. But note my signature. We head toward and into one. The other determines our path(s) there. @Swansont: "Humans have an emotional capacity that facilitates a great range of behavior. You believe things as you need emotional investment in something for it to have relevance to you", allows and provides a formal, neutral rendering. Those words and that language allow Science. @studiot: re - General Stanley - look below..... @Everyone: 'pussy hurts' conjers in my mind having one, and it hurting. As in grade school I imagined having one and experiencing a 'period', while my mom described hers to me. As George Carlin said, 'they're just words', and they allow us to transcend ourselves.
×
×
  • 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.