Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/02/20 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    I agree that the OP definition is not quite right, but both your A and B examples have two errors. Yes a zero error is a systematic error but it is not due to a wrongly marked or non uniform graduation and yes it can result in an increased or decreased actual measurement. A simple example of a zero error would be dirt on the pan of an otherwise accurate weighing scale.
  2. 2 points
    Well, I'll be damned. One wave of the hand, and 5+ billion of us, who just happened to be born into non-Christian cultures, sentenced to burn in hell for all eternity. Makes me wonder just which of those two guys to blame, really.
  3. 2 points
    Aren't you all glad that you found science as an interest/vocation? We could all easily be victims to this kind of BS if we didn't know the science basics.
  4. 2 points
    Sound we regularly experience carries very little energy. 80 dB is ~ 1 milliwatt, so assuming 100% efficiency: “to heat up a quarter liter of coffee 50 C it would take: 1 year, 7 months, 26 days, 20 hours, 26 minutes and 40 seconds” https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/poster-coffee.cfm 130 dB is just 10 watts, though it is logarithmic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_power
  5. 2 points
    My very short answer: A value of a random variable. Let's say you receive a symbol "1". If this is the only possible symbol the fact that you received it does not give you information. But if this symbol is one of two possible, "0" and "1", then the reception of symbol "1" may contain information. So having more that one symbol is a requirement, but not sufficient. Lets say you receive the pattern "111111...". The probability of the symbol "1" is 1. Again there is no information. But if random sequences are allowed, for example "00", "01", "10", "11" then we may use these sequences to represent information. So conceptually information can be seen as a value form of a random variable. The above is an attempt at an extremely short introduction to information theory, which is tied to discrete probability theory. Most important early contributor was Claude E. Shannon and his paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, dealing quantitatively with the concept of “information”. Shannons concepts and the mathematics he used to describe information and to measure information content is a remarkable contribution. I believe it's tricky to find any areas of IT where his work does not contribute. Wikipedia* has links to some concepts related to your question. Feel free to ask additional questions. *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Communication For an early predecessor of Shannon, working on sinus signals and frequencies, see Hartley: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Hartley
  6. 1 point
    Oh, what sweet delicious irony. Everyone else's imaginary friends are imaginary, but my imaginary friend is real. Lol
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    Accepted let's move on. Clearly all those years of experience, plus more which must have been spent in study of the subject, have given you command of Applied Thermodynamics (along with other subjects). As shown below You are not the only one who has had additional thoughts as a result of our discussion. It has also made me realise something I should have realised before. Thank you for that. +1 In another recent thread here at SF, a teacher of thermodynamics asked how to introduce the subject of entropy, without using the traditional second law approach. The discussion in your thread made me realise that of course you cannot use much of the mechanism of the second law if you are going to do this. This must be why the early diefintion did not mention entropy : entropy had yet to be defined. Hindsight allows an applied thermodynamicst to use formulae and techniques out of the logical sequence of the definition. This is in fact what I was doing and led me to my original agreement that you cannot use the classical approach to prove or disprove the kinetic interpretation. You need additional material for this. Perhaps my digression to show why the early pioneers always referred to cyclic processes was excessive, but I hope you have come to realise that since the kinetic approach is non cyclic in basis, you cannot use that part of classical thermodynamics which is defined only for cyclic processes. So another way must be found. But the kinetic question in the OP is not applied thermodynamics it is more fundamental than that. So discussion must follow and hold to a formal logical sequence of definitions and results. I don't know if you have heard of the Massieu and Planck functions ? These two provide the (mathematically derivable) link between the classical and the statistical approach, so that this is often referred to as 'the Massieu Bridge'. All of this is expounded detailed in Guggenheim's Advanced thermodynamics. (I would not recommend the Wikipedia pages on this they are rather unhelpful and not completely comprehensive or correct) However, just are there are several approaches to classical thermodynamics, there are several versions of the statistical approach. Unfortunately the statistical versions do not always completely agree with the classical versions, fluctuations being one such area of divergence. Epstein, in his famous textbook, included a whole chapter on the experimental evidence for and theoretical basis of such divergence. Epstein A textbook of Thermodynamics A free pdf is available here. https://archive.org/details/textbookofthermo031032mbp/mode/2up I am not sure of free pdfs for Guggenheim.
  9. 1 point
    24 hours has passed which I guess is enough. For what it's worth, T2 = T1 + W/2nCv which defines the maximum value of Q2*(T2-T1) for the system, but that's now by the by. Certainly there was no ad hominem intended (and many sincere apologies if it appeared otherwise). I was simply the stating that the heat pump example you asked me to consider seemed to shed no light at all on the OP paradox. I present three main grounds in support of this assertion. Firstly, in the OP case, the Youtube presentations claim that the 2nd Law has been broken by 'statistics'. ie that some quantity of system entropy has somehow vanished. I think I've demonstrated clearly enough that the heat pump at least preserves initial total system entropy. So here, it seems uninformative. Secondly, the presentations claim that the gas has somehow contracted from some initial equilibrium state to occupy half of its original volume purely through its own internal mechanics. ie that the contraction happens without any external nett energy exchange with the environment. Again, for the heat pump case I've demonstated that all volumetric changes have exactly matching Q and W terms, so again, it seems uninformative. Lastly, as stated earlier, it dawned on me on Saturday that there seemed to be a strong conservation of occupied volume arising from the conservation of angular momentum. I don't see how the heat pump example was leading us toward such a conclusion. In hindsight, perhaps a centrifuge would have been a more effective guiding light - the volume restoring forces here are quite explicit and macroscopically large. In conclusion, it's become clear that the Youtube proposal of a broken 2nd Law is nothing but a red herring. Their real stumbling block arises from overlooking fundamental 1st Law constraints. Their loss of control of the 1st Law simply results in entropy being undefined, even in qualitative terms. Lies, damned lies and statistics again. Anyway many thanks to you all for your assistance in clarifying and solving the OP paradox so completely. I'm most grateful for your time and patience.
  10. 1 point
    Yes. Evolution requires time. As does essentially every other thing across the entirety of everything.
  11. 1 point
    'Zero error' is the degree of error at the zero mark. Does that agree with the statement you posted?
  12. 1 point
    It seems slightly off from what I recall. I'll try a hint since this is homework section: A: Let's say an analog meter shows 101 when value really is 100. The same meter shows 0 when actual value is 0. Does that indicate that the meter have a zero error or not? B: Lets say a meter shows -1 when actual value is 0. The same meter shows 100 when value really is 100. Does that indicated that the meter have a zero error or not? I would say that your definition states that A and B above are zero errors. AFAIK only A or B is a zero error.
  13. 1 point
    As I think your project is very worthwhile I have been giving some serious consideration to explain my tiling comment. +1 I have been rather busy today but I will post soon on that, using these pillars of Maths Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry and set Theory in relation to trigonometry and symmetry. Meanwhile perhaps you would like to think about this category ? Mathematical notation and symbols. This is often the Cinderalla category, but it pervades all of Mathematics.
  14. 1 point
    Apologies for the delay, I think that it is a good idea. It would reduce the amount of complexity and work required to make this thing. Thinking about the project now I am probably going to start off by creating a layman's mapping based on what I currently know then expand it with the help of others as I mature my knowledge in mathematics.
  15. 1 point
    If they had that capability already, what are the odds they don't know about us? And what is the gain to be had of taking our planet, if that can't happen for up to 10,000 years? (1000 LY at 0.1c) It's an interesting conundrum. You launch a takeover bid, but the target has many generations to innovate and invent while you are on your way. You might have been the more advanced species when you initiated the attack, but that may not be the case when you arrive.
  16. 1 point
    And to add to this, after all my years on amateur science forums, there are two other crucial problems I see: 1. People often develop an intense focus on one particular or narrow point/source/information, and may even possess a good grasp on it; but then they fail to understand how it fits into a larger context. For example, I have met lots of people who have a good handle on Minkowski spacetime (SR), but then they naively try to add in gravity, and fail to understand why this does not work. Or people who become almost obsessed with one paper by one author, without grasping the context in which it was written, and thus draw the wrong conclusions from it. Nothing in the sciences stands in isolation, knowing and understanding the larger context is as important as any individual piece of knowledge. 2. Too many people seem to be entirely unable to distinguish valid sources of scientific information from pop-sci, personal opinions, or outright woo. Access to information is useless - even dangerous - if one is not equipped to judge the scientific value (or lack thereof!) of it.
  17. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note This is more suitable for the Lounge. Note that the idea of a good illusion is of course to make it difficult for the viewer to figure out how it is done. It would be quite a jump to suddenly conclude that magic is real (unless you believe that there a lot of uncles with detachable thumbs).
  18. 1 point
    Since no one brought up the mainstream answer to that question, yet: Consider the journals that the sources you are citing were published in.
  19. 1 point
    I should also add that theoretically folks may still have long-term protection if sufficient memory cells are formed, which cannot be easily be tested with simple serological assays (i.e. the rapid tests). What the study calls into question is the usefulness of serological tests to establish how many folks may have been infected without detection as well as the length of immediate protection. Now, lack of immunity against RNA viruses in general is often the result of their high mutation rate. OTOH, coronaviruses have a proof-reading enzyme that reduces the mutations rates (but are still high compared to DNA viruses). Also, there a bunch of viruses that can cause cold symptoms so it cannot actually be traced back solely to the major human coronavirus strains. I have looked a bit into some older pre-SARS papers and found one from 1990 (Callow et al. Eipdemiol. Infect) in which 15 volunteers were infected with coronavirus 229E. Here they showed that some volunteers showed slightly increased antibody titres after one year, though it did not protect from re-infection. However, there was lower shedding, indicating a higher level of neutralization and none developed a cold. So there is some potential there, especially if vaccines result in a stronger response. At the same time, SARS-CoV-2 (and 1 for that matter) obviously elicit quite different responses, including massive inflammatory responses. So there are still a lot of unknowns at play (plus, we do still do not understand all that goes into long-term immunity and the literature is maddening at best).
  20. 1 point
    I disagree with this. There are too many people who want power over others, and don't wield it responsibility. The police are a magnet for such people. Your experience is likely with people who joined that culture willingly. Getting martial arts training foisted upon you does not mean you have joined that culture. Just like training in other aspects of society — workplace training on e.g. sexual harassment and sexual assault hasn't won everyone over to a culture that respects women, for similar reasons. (feel free to substitute other culture subsets for that) This is one reason the focus has been on attempts at fixing systemic problems and holding people accountable. You might not prevent one instance of excessive force by an individual, but if you don't tolerate such behavior, you might be able to prevent the next 20 instances the individual might have perpetrated, because they will no longer be on the police force.
  21. 1 point
    An omnipotent being can do whatever they want.
  22. 1 point
    Me too. (still somewhat blinded though...and honestly not sure what my better half is on about half the time...)
  23. 1 point
    It's late and a combination of your obscurantism and swansont's bloody-minded negativity has exhausted my patience (which to be frank, I've never had in great excess). It must be obvious to you by now that I've been clear in my own mind since way back on page 1 of this thread where the Youtube presentations break down. The key lies in conservation of angular momentum which is a topic I usually shy away from. Turns out, it can be quite useful on occasion. Do we have anything more to discuss? If your earlier posting was a joke, then I'm sorry I didn't get it and took its meaning at face value.
  24. 1 point
    No. That’d perhaps make it easier to accept, though
  25. 1 point
    There are lots of studies and data from global banks and the federal reserve that slice and dice this data in various ways, but here’s a handy visual from just last month that gives a 20,000 foot view of the scale of it all: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and-markets-in-one-visualization-2020/ This atlas of activity is pretty badass, too: https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu
  26. 1 point
    For starters, I think we should agree on what money shouldn't be able to buy, and that may help us decide to live without it. Academic placement, political favor, and professional privilege (access to your doctor's private line, etc) are some of the areas where money does nothing but corrupt the system. After that, we have science to help us determine how to best use our resources. And we need to have a talk about what a basic life in a modern society should look like. We certainly shouldn't be paying all these taxes and then letting excessively wealthy people decide what to do with the money that's supposed to help all of us.
  27. 1 point
    If we could remove the extremes at either end, our current system could lead to less of a focus on acquiring more wealth than is necessary. If we want to curb extreme greed and poverty, regulation is our best friend. I know this because of how much the obscenely wealthy hate it, and how much the devastatingly poor need it.
  28. 1 point
    Too bad Star Trek:TNG never did explain their system ... "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity" - Captain Jean-Luc Picard Star Trek: First Contact
  29. 1 point
    Very interesting topic, very interesting comments. Not sure I haven't missed some of the important points. The initial concept of money was far simpler and far less risky than today's. And it was necessary. If I grow beans and you make leather, there should be a way in which you and I agree to exchange our products even if you're not interested in my beans and/or I'm not interested in your leather (see Markus Hanke's point above about "barter-based societies are not good enough"). That's what money originally was invented for. Leather and beans are demanded in sufficient generality so that you and I can produce notes exchangeable for beans or leather for everybody to accept them as payment in any concept. With this old concept, money represents a wealth that has already been produced. But this requires trust (see MigL's point). Then, along came the money lenders in Venice (initially only Jewish families); and later, also Christian families, like the Medici, followed suit. Now it's possible to lend money for an interest. It's also possible to lend money you don't have, because: 1) Not everybody needs all the money at the same time. 2) You can pay with money you don't have, but you think you will have. That complicates things enormously, because value gets entangled with time and predictability. Then, along came the Dutch, who invented the stock market; and followed the British (who sold the idea to everybody else) and invented a concept of money that represents a value that doesn't as yet exist (the wealth will come later). William Paterson invents the Bank of England, and gets us farther and farther into this new concept of money that's entangled with the future and the will to make money from money (see Studiot's point). The last unfortunate development (besides different sophisticated new ways of selling wealth that doesn't yet exist) is the modern banking system. Now, not only unpredictability is entangled every which way. Money is created as pure debt ab initio by banks, which also decide who's going to have it and who isn't. So even the primitive concept of money as a unit of exchange and account for the wealth you have produced has been completely lost. Summarizing: A) Money is based on trust: So, +1. Don't burn your money just yet. People still trust it. +1. Barter alone doesn't cut it. You need a universally accepted unit of exchange and account. +1. Greed. The possession of money leads to trying to find ways to get more money from your money. The people who can't make leather, or grow beans, or do anything real, but crunch numbers. Those are called bankers and investors.
  30. 1 point
    Text books are about the next best thing to formal training. I never pay attention to anything YouTube unless I can quarantee the poster is a well accredited physicist in the field of his or her expertise. ( The field of physics is highly diverse. I can quarantee someone like Swansont far beats my skills in his specialty. While I have my own specialty (cosmology)). So research on a topic should never be blind faith. If you cannot find numerous support on a theory by different professional opinions then be wary. Lol though I give credits to Studiot for applied engineering physics, Marcus for relativity and Janus for astrophysics. The information in this thread does not meet any criteria to question the second law in thermodynamics in any cosmology related studies I am familiar with including QFT related applications. You are absolutely correct to question the above. So +1 for that.
  31. 1 point
    You guys go ahead and burn all your money. I'll see how it works out, and MAYBE I'll do the same. But I won't be the sucker who goes first.
  32. 1 point
    As with everything else you see on YouTube, be prepared to do some research on your own ( in good old fashioned books ), to separate the wheat from the chaff, AND the 'made-up'.
  33. 1 point
    @sethoflagos You can read about an experiment showing this here: https://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html Second Law is true on average though, so you won't ever see a cup spontaneously unbreak or all the air move to one side of a room.
  34. 1 point
    Perhaps you didn't read my OP carefully - I dispute that these 'so-called second law violations' exist at all precisely because they ignore the concept of formal states. In particular these examples depict what I presume is a microcanonical ensemble (no heat bath is indicated) which in statistical mechanics (as I understand it at least) has a clearly defined equilibrium NVE state. ie the ensemble consists of all those possible accessible permutations of that number of particles (N) occupying a constant volume (V) within a vanishingly thin band of total energy (E). I trust that you agree that this corresponds to a formal state. The next slide presents (presumably) the same N particles occupying only half the volume, claiming that this an inescapable result of statistical mechanics. Would you agree that this corresponds to an entirely different formal state (with undefined total energy to boot)? Personally, I dispute that such a state could evolve for even the briefest of flickers because in that instant, it 'forgets' its earlier state - the information necessary for restoring it has been irretrievably lost due to the proposed macroscopic drop in entropy. The change would be permanent. This is significant. If we accept the smallest possibility of such an event, we accept higher frequency occurrence of less extreme random deviations and so on until we no longer have meaningful conservation laws - isolated systems would be continuously changing their properties in a continuous random walk with expected deviation propotional to the square root of time elapsed. I am amazed that so many seem to buy into this concept, without apparently the slightest shred of empirical evidence.
  35. 1 point
    When I was younger (the 1960s) I used to look forward to the Analog Science Fiction Annual every year. One year there was a short story called "Business as Usual During Alterations" Essentially some Aliens dropped a matter duplicator onto theEarth. At first everyone thought that would be the end of 'commerce and work and MONEY' But then some enterprising souls got a duplicator and started offering the service to "Duplicate your stuff for you to your requirements" And the good old American Dream was saved.
  36. 1 point
    I think I get the general idea. +1 for ambition, I will remember to log on again in 3020 to find out how you got on. Meanwhile here are a few thoughts. If you have access to a library look at the contents pages of compendia of mathematics books. I have a couple by that name, one by Manzel (2 vols) and one by Meyler and Sutton. There is also the Princeton Companion to Mathematics and the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Mathematics. The contents pages should give you some subject headings to think about. Also some authors publish dependencies or dependecy diagrams such as "chapters 4 -7 should be read before chapter 11". though this is more common in Engineering than Mathematics. However such information from either subject could be very useful, as it shows what depnds on what. As regards the subject areas themselves I suggest you don't use the tree analogy. This reuqires that the 'branches' are separate areas or subjects. In truth there is considerable overlap and I don't thionk there is a single 'branch' that could stand alone by itself. There is considerable overlap, For instance although Geometry does not require measurement, you could not do Geometry without numbers even for shape and form. How else could your distinguish triangles, squares, pentagons hexagons etc? So I suggest you go for a tiled presentation, perhaps a bit more formal than in Ghedieons diagram (+1 for finding that). With suitable overlap or overlay you can sowh the interactions. Go well in your endeavour.
  37. 1 point
    I remember when I was very young thinking about this. Suppose we just let people go into a store and TAKE whatever they want! Since everyone can have whatever they want, no one would complain. Then as I got older I discovered a very important, very disturbing fact- work is hard! Most people would not want to work if they did not have to have money! What if we could just go into a store and take whatever we want, but discovered that there was not anything in the store? Who would plant, grow, and harvest the vegetables? That's hard work! If farmers did not need the money they wouldn't do it! If tailor's did not need the money they wouldn't make shirts, slacks, suits!
  38. 1 point
    Not sure I grasp the idea completely but maybe the "the map of mathematics" could act as a starting point or act as a rough guide? It is a one page drawing showing how many concepts such as pure mathematics, applied mathematics, number systems, topology and many other fits together: https://www.flickr.com/photos/95869671@N08/32264483720
  39. 1 point
    Quite a bit is pretty fanciful from a scientific perspective, but is an extremely well done production. The setting is a fair sized city set inside of a large martian dome. Heavily modified assets and ridiculous level of detail really make the city come to life. The actual build aspects may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I've found it easy enough to skip past when things become too dry.
  40. 1 point
    First time interacting with dimreepr, eh?
  41. 1 point
    It's normal in the intestinal tract. Maybe somebody else will chime in.
  42. 1 point
    I can relate with every word here. Bravo! I'm 49 and didn't even know I was on the spectrum until about 3 years ago. Back to OP. I don't know how far you have gotten with your student but I know when I was a kid in high school and after I had mastered trig and and trig based physics I had a giant shock, a trauma really. At that time, calculus and that progression in physics felt like someone telling me that "everything you have just learned isn't correct". I thought I knew precisely how most things worked, but then I was told to start over from scratch where everything is much messier. I crashed and burned. My academic career never really recovered until a a few years ago. Break the news to the gently and when you change from one way of thinking to another, make sure they understand why. Also they should know that they do not need to forget or disregard the previous way of thinking because it is still useful. I hope this helps.
  43. 1 point
    Just about every major pursuit is going to provide employment, but few investments give the kind of global returns that space exploration and other scientific endeavors do. The amount of new knowledge produced is fairly staggering, every time we take the risks to expand our knowledge and banish our ignorance.
  44. 1 point
  45. 1 point
    Okay, well the restriction on valid reference frames to v<c is a new one on me, however ... You agree that the spacetime seperation is zero in the direction of photon travel, which is my starting point. Does this mean that the emitter and absorber are physically adjacent (despite the huge separation in our own spatial and time reference frame), with a consequently strong electromagnetic coupling, and hence that the exchange of a photon between them reduces to a local event. I'm not looking for transfer of information from absorber to emitter as such, but whether the existence of an available absorber (removed in time) can be sensed by the emitter. Or does the emitter simply chuck out a photon irrespective of its ultimate destiny. No handshake in either direction.
  46. 1 point
    I stated before that the assumption was that the suspect is already intent on violence. If the suspect isn't intent on violence, then of course, no physical force from the officer should be used. What I stated was, WHEN the suspect is already physically attacking the officers they need to be prepared to deal with it and control the situation. Your position is unrealistic. If someone is intent on violently attacking another person, asking them nicely to stop simply isn't going to work. I agree with most of this. Over-policing needs to stop. Mass incarceration needs to stop. Racial profiling and systematic targeting of the poor needs to stop. Policing for profit needs to stop. Police brutality and use of excessive force definitely needs to stop. Significantly more resources need to be allocated to social work, mental health facilities, and PERMANENT economic stimulus for chronically depressed areas to alleviate the vicious cycle of crime and poverty. 100% yes to all of that. However, at the present time there is still a need for police. So the question is, what kind of police do we want? Effective police require an investment. Right now society isn't investing in police in the way it should. Even the admirable Scandinavian nations with abundant social programs still have police - and as we've discussed, they pay for it. Like it or not, American society in its present form is still extremely violent. There are numerous mafias and street gangs that would love to have complete autonomy if police are defunded and restricted in their ability to exercise authority, not to mention every two bit criminal with a grudge against society. I'm simply saying that violent confrontation is a part of policing, and how officers respond to violent confrontation matters a great deal. If they're untrained, they'll reach for their gun at the slightest provocation. If they're trained well, they will have a range of other options at their disposal to successfully diffuse the encounter. Just trying to be realistic given the context of the situation, that's all. ------ Here is an excerpt from Norway's 2020 budget whitepaper: Security Security is a prerequisite for freedom. Crime breeds insecurity. The population therefore needs to be protected by the rule of law, a strong and effective police force and a credible defence capability. This is reflected in the budget for 2020 with a NOK 2.5 billion increase in defence sector appropriations for, inter alia, investments in new submarines, maritime patrol aircraft and artillery for the Norwegian Armed Forces. We are preparing for an increase in military activity and strengthened emergency response preparedness. This meets the targets the Government has set in the 2017-2020 long-term plan for the defence sector, and will expand the defence budget by more than NOK 8 billion in real terms over the period covered in the long-term plan. The Government is planning for a continued increase in police presence. The budget proposal allows for the recruitment of graduates from the Norwegian Police University College in 2020. In addition, appropriations are increased to cover the full-year effect of the recruitment of graduates in 2019. More funds for the police will strengthen the capacity of police districts to prevent, investigate and prosecute crime. It is proposed to provide the police and the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration with funds in order to enable the implementation of new Schengen systems for border control and monitoring. These systems will improve capacity for detecting and preventing crime, ID fraud and illegal migration. To facilitate follow-up of the Security Act, the Government is proposing to increase appropriations for the Norwegian National Security Authority (NSM). The proposal facilitates digitalisation and improved efficiency and quality in the security clearance of personnel. Moreover, the Government proposes initiatives to improve the ability to prevent, detect and manage security incidents in emergency preparedness communications. Source: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/09814fbc520946869d6eaa65099c2983/national_budget_2020.pdf Page 13. -------- Note: 2.5 billion Norwegian Kroner is approximately 262,000,000 USD ---- And from Sweden's 2020 budget whitepaper: The fight against crime and its causes will be intensified. Society must be strong enough to protect people from everything from petty crime to terrorism. The Swedish Police Service will be given additional resources. Work on employing 10 000 more people in the Police by 2024 will continue to strengthen the Police’s capacity to better fight serious organised crime, for instance. As the number of court cases is increasing and a larger number of criminals are being sentenced, the Swedish courts and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service will be allocated additional resources. The capacity to combat welfare crime and money laundering will be improved. The Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Swedish courts and Swedish Customs will be strengthened. Honour-related violence and oppression will be made visible, pre-empted, prevented and punished. The whole of society must play its part in combating and preventing crime. Source: https://www.government.se/4ad5f1/contentassets/e8bf49ea1bbe41fda780895657ae94e0/from-the-budget-bill-for-2020-budget-statement.pdf.pdf Page 5. ----- From the Finnish 2020 budget: PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY EUR 816 million is proposed to the police force. The appropriation is used to launch measures that aim at increasing the police officer person-years to the level determined in the Government Programme, 7,500 person-years, by the year 2023. To ensure the performance of the operators involved in preventing and solving criminal offenses and the implementation of prosecution services, additional funding amounting to EUR 5.2 million is allocated to the prosecution service, courts, legal aid, and the Criminal Sanctions Agency. A one-off addition of EUR 2 million is proposed to focusing evidence on the District Courts. Source: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161822/Budget review 2020 October 2019.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y Page 15. ------ The point is, even as safe and prosperous as these Scandinavian nations are, non of them are thinking about defunding their police forces. US police by comparison are already woefully underfunded by State and local governments and we want to take more money away from them? It's not logical.
  47. 1 point
    Just to add to that, it's not like in SR where each observer also has a different notion of simultaneity, but each of those is physically meaningful. Eg. in flat spacetime, any two events that can be considered simultaneous by someone will have intersecting future light cones, where different future observers can agree or disagree on whether the events were simultaneous. In GR you must make a choice of how to define the surfaces of a foliation, that's not just based on a physically meaningful connection between its events. You'd choose it to make a useful tool, not a 'real' representation of simultaneity throughout the universe for a given observer.
  48. 1 point
    It would be a startling coincidence if the Earth was 'captured' at just the right angle to align with the ecliptic plane. All solar system planets orbit in the same plane; the largest deviation is Mercury, at just 7 deg inclination. Most likely because they coalesced from the rotating plane of dust/gas during the solar system formation. Pluto, which is no longer considered a planet, was most likely captured, as it is a full 17 deg out of the ecliptic.
  49. 1 point
    AS far as I know Entropy is not commonly introduced in this way, although in my opinion it is a better way than the common stumbling explanation offered concerning Carnot cycles. I think Entropy is best introduced in relation to indicator diagrams as a natural progression from PV work rather than Carnot cycles, which are best delayed until after the Second Law is broached. Note since you have posted in Classical Physics I asssume you mean classical Thermodynamics?
  50. 1 point
    Good question Paul, answer is that many look at Thoth/Hermes and have done for millennia, He's had many names in different areas - Thoth, Tioti, Tahuti, Tuti etc etc, ages ago I was reading online and saw a mention of an Uto-Aztecan word "Tuti", which the author had said meant "Sandals", I looked into Thoth myself and refer to Him as Tioti, the way I'd translate Ti-O-Ti would be from Sumerian Cuneiform(Which was found at Armana), from this Ti-O-Ti would mean Life-Ring-Life(Ti-Me = Life-Exists), once I'd realised this it reminded I of the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman, in particular His and Wheeler's Time-Symmetric Theory where Time(at the beginning) began to propagate in two opposite directions simultaneously from the same Centre. Ti-Me meaning Life-Exists in regards to Ti-O-Ti, the 'Ti' in Tioti can mean time, because without an Observer ie A Life how can Time exist?
  • 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.