Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/15/19 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    3. Ran out of white Legos 2. Nose from his Halloween costume 1. Weight Watchers merit pin
  2. 2 points
    I think it requires a rather profound misunderstanding of how science funding works to make that argument. To explain for those following - say I apply for a federal grant. The whole packet might be 50-100 pages of densely written technical documents. I will probably take me a month or more to put together. It has a 10-20% chance of being funded, and if it's a big one, might net $1 million dollars of funding. My institution immediately takes 55% as overhead. The vast majority of the rest will pay for the salaries of the people I employ. Some will go towards lab costs. If I'm lucky I might get to claim one month of summer salary (for the three months of the year the university doesn't pay me) for 3-5 years. Ergo, I might actually pocket a few thousand dollars at best. On the other side, Ian Plimer - a mining geologist who doesn't even work on climate science, pockets over $400,000 per year from the fossil fuel industry, and "coincidentally" is an ardent critic of climate change. If I'm going to make up data or espouse a false belief for profit, I'm sure as hell not going to be saying climate change is real.
  3. 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).
  4. 2 points
    Kind of misses the point. It's reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this" It is not reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this or I will withhold US government support for your country" Do you see the difference there? Have you missed all the references to "quid pro quo or did you not understand them " ?
  5. 2 points
    My parents had 100 acres in the country with an old farmhouse and we'd have a party the whole weekend with lots of friends. We would just dig a pit in the ground for the charcoal and have the pig on a spit, turning it every once in a while. We'd usually have a keg, horseshoes, frisbees, weed, guitars, and it would run from early morning till late at night. Everyone would then crash inside or in tents. Brings back fond memories.
  6. 1 point
    It is difficult to discuss Free Will without preconceptions and preconditions. Here is my proposal for an objective (ie without such encumberances) question that is as near to free will as I can get. You need to solve a difficult equation by numerical methods, since there are no known analytical ones. One characteristic of numerical methods is that they require an intitial guess as a seed the method can refine progressively. What will your initial guess be? You can choose from any number whatsoever.
  7. 1 point
    Let's "first law" this into the dumpster...
  8. 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.
  9. 1 point
    Then why are you using the internet?
  10. 1 point
    Strange's approach seems good so I'll add to it. I think a detailed definition of "message" is useful. Some notes regarding definitions of message: -Is a message text only? -Can a message be numerical? -Can the message consist of random letters? -Can a text message be delivered in a different language? -Is a message delivered exactly letter by letter? -Will the receiver be able to distinguish "peace" from "peas"? -Does the receiver have to know about the subject or understand the words that makes up the message? -How does the receiver "know" that they have the message? What kind of sensation is triggered? -Is "intention" or feelings delivered with the message? Example: "Now that was just freaking awesome" could be a sarcastic comment or meant as a compliment. Some additional notes to start modeling the phenomenon*: -Is the effect exactly the same for all receiving individuals or are there differences? -What happens at the sending side if there is no individual receiving the message? -What happens with the other people around, will they receive the message? -What happens if you do not know if there is a person in the receiving room? Can you tell? -Can the receiving individual choose to not listen to messages? -Over what range can the message be transferred? -What happens at maximum range, are some parts dropped? Some messages are not transferred? Other? -Are some recipients are more sensitive, receiving messages at longer distances? *) I'm of course completely convinced that this (and other) experiments will fail, telepathy does not exist. But discussing pros and cons of possible approaches is interesting.
  11. 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?
  12. 1 point
    Unless you expect it. Castles were built with staircases with an "odd" stepp in them to trip enemies who were climbing the stairs. I learned about this interesting fact in a talk about the safety of modern stairs where , as they pointed out, badly made stairs are still killing the unwary. Here's a trivia question for you ( the answer is at the end of the post) Roughly how many people are killed by falling on stairs each day in the UK? Interesting fact for the day. If you have a staircase where the steps are uneven you can always make it even by adding planks (of various thicknesses) to the steps. This is an important result because adding to the treads is easy but taking stuff away is hard. It's also (I think) always possible to make all the steps the same "length" as well. So there really is no excuse for badly built stairways. (About two, btw- did you guess right?) Our brains are pretty good, but we often rely on reflexes which don't use the brain. I'm not sure which category this phenomenon falls into . I'd be interested in finding out. I'd be even more interested in knowing how they found out.
  13. 1 point
    While there is an argument for putting one more color beyond blue, Newton's reason for adding 2 had to do with his religious belief that the number 7 held a special significance.
  14. 1 point
    I've been exploring fractals as part of a rather long term philosophy project and have had a good deal of success modeling the simplest structures of my system with the folded geometry of the mandelbox. In addition to meeting the logical constraints I've established it seems that the geometries of the Mandelbox are capable of recreating nearly every photo and representation of quantum holography I've come across. I've also found that generating interference patterns within the fractal allows me to model dynamic processes and larger scale concepts in physics like gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, fresnel distortion and general CAS emergence. You can see all of these properties in motion at my youtube channel url deleted This video is a general preview of my work. url deleted I would love some feedback on these findings, some representations are more obvious than others and the interference based visualizations are difficult to see with youtube's compression so larger resolution representations are linked in the description. Thank you for your time, I hope you find these useful
  15. 1 point
    The word Clinical has a similarly odd origin. It means bedside. It's related to words like recline and incline. It also ties in with geological "beds" as in syncline.
  16. 1 point
    Very rarely. It helps if you actually say something.
  17. 1 point
  18. 1 point
    Only your wilful ignorance makes it look like nothing. There are plenty of research pathways going on into flagella evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 1 point
    Slightly beside the point, but in some ways this thread seems like a microcosm of what postmodernist philosophers have predicted since the 80s. Instead of a common meta-narrative, knowledge is fragmented and used as a commodity by various actors (Lyotard refers specifically the issues of computerization and who determines which information is stored and disseminated- a thought that can be easily extended to tech companies as the new gate-keepers of knowledge). While we are dealing with exactly the same event, the associated strands of knowledge appear to be very different, resulting not only a different viewpoints, but in fact in parallel strands that do not cross over. It reminds me a bit on the concept of Language games where players agree to use certain rules to create meaning from uttered words. In the postmodernist world, according to Lyotard, we have created many parallel language games, each of which are legitimized by their respective institutions. So we may have politically affiliated language games, in which certain fragments of information carry entirely different meanings and which are self-referenced and amplified by the use of different communication channels (say, social media). Even when we discuss the same things on this board, we arrived to our conclusions using different lines of information. There is ultimately not thinking for oneself, unless one plays the solitaire equivalent of a language game.
  23. 1 point
    Wow. Where did I blame the left for MigL's question in his OP? You said my words had nothing to do with the discussion. I pointed out that they were directly related to the OP. I'm not really sure if MigL is on the left or right. He seems to think for himself. More should be like him.
  24. 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.
  25. 1 point
    The way things are going towards cars broadcasting data, you might not need to rely on motion detection.
  26. 1 point
    This looks so good! I am currently building a grill, this looks like a good debu cook!
  27. 1 point
    Light travels through a vacuum. We are a vacuum? And how would we drag these singularities around if they are non-reactive? ! Moderator Note This hand-waving isn't going to get you where you need to be. We need a model. We need to have at least one foot in the science realm, and you've squandered your opportunities to do that. Closed. Don't bring this up again
  28. 1 point
    As some of you probably know, the Square Kilometre Array will become the biggest radio telescope on Earth, with a collecting area of 1 square kilometre. The construction will start in 2021 and the first light is expected to take place in 2027. It will cover the frequencies from 50 MHz to 15 Ghz. But what I wanted to share with you guys is a new study about how far the SKA can 'listen'. A recent study points out that the SKA could detect extraterrestrial airport radars 200 light years away. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayqyb8XCtE0 What do you guys think?
  29. 1 point
    The torque, yes, What do you think the rolling friction is equal to ? What do you think the normal force R is equal to ? What force do you think that is ? What have you learned from the FBD of the entire car?
  30. 1 point
  31. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please note the rules require you to provide support (math or evidence) for your claims.
  32. 1 point
    Isn't techology wonderful when it works ? Until it doesn't. I see there was a glitch in my last post. The scan gave you the correct equation (Newton's second Law) for the acceleration, but was cut off at the knees. My edit/correction I see missed off the acceleration completely. Sorry. So here we go 4F = W/g times acceleration or acceleration = 4gF/W So now we need to find a value for F. Which is why we need a free body diagram for a wheel ?
  33. 1 point
    Whilst I am not unhappy with the framework idea in your description - There are plenty of pictures of multidimensional 'singularity' arrays on the net, but I find one or two inconsistencies between your OP and later statements. Madelung theory is about as far as you can get from unreactive since it is basically the sum to infinity of multiple (but diminishing) charge interactions. Pilot waves are less interactive, but they carry momentum and are neither singularities nor asymptotic. I see no connection here. You also need to explain why pressure makes any difference to something that is absolutely unreactive. As an alternative to a multidimensional array of needles, you might like to look at Cantor Dust https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=WXfOXcv-H46mUIm7hdgH&q=cantor's+dust&oq=cantor's+dust&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l7j0i22i10i30j0i22i30.846.3822..4576...0.0..0.300.1868.6j3j3j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0i10.uOpLkawVaVI&ved=0ahUKEwiLj4fl-uvlAhUOExQKHYldAXsQ4dUDCAc&uact=5
  34. 1 point
    White light is known to be merged mixture of photons with wavelengths in range between 400 nm and 700 nm. Kids in primary school learn that you can split white light to rainbow, as well as rainbow can be merged to form white light back again.. It is known as Newton's disc or Newton's wheel experiment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_disc The rest is some word salad..
  35. 1 point
    Lights can be the fire from exhaust of turbines if you marry a Few $ modern controller ----> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32800900448.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.4c215d00OwAV4V&algo_pvid=853c72ae-6fc1-4ece-8745-b9e20f314347&algo_expid=853c72ae-6fc1-4ece-8745-b9e20f314347-18&btsid=d0e2a804-f916-4e48-9a2b-c5d17ee4760f&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_5,searchweb201603_55 With a -----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AglD7FnKIeE
  36. 1 point
    Why don't you tell us what answer you'd like, and we'll provide that instead. If you don't want a scientific answer, then don't ask questions on a SCIENCE forum.
  37. 1 point
    Apparently, Marcus Aurelius commented on Pascal's wager about 2,000 years ago:
  38. 1 point
    Does no one here actually read what the bible says about the soul? I may not be a biblical scholar but at one time I was religious, a christian, but always a "doubting Thomas" eventually the doubts become far too thick to be ignored but that is independent of the OT. If you want to discuss this we have to show some evidence of a god at the very least much less a soul... Yes Gees I am calling you out, I ate my bowl of stupid this morning and I am ready to digest it thoroughly... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_in_the_Bible In some translations or interpretations the soul is nothing more than air, the breath of life, once that air stopped moving in and out of the body it was considered dead. The soul having left the body. None of this makes any sense in the light of science, no evidence for a soul exists that I am aware of, and when "doG" put it in humans is a nonsensical question. Could we rationally argue about when during evolution did "doG" put eyes in Humans? At the very least we know humans have eyes...
  39. 1 point
    Which is irrelevant, since the quality of someone's posts is not at issue. The topic of the original thread is quoted in the OP. However, much of JB's discussion has nothing to do with that, and instead is a discussion about the nature of the soul, in his interpretation, and on other subjects. There's only about two sentences that pertain to the original thread, and there was much followup discussion that focused on the off-topic material. That's why it was split. I was being generous. The denial was in the interpretation of the soul, and he admits it was a personal interpretation, which makes it all irrelevant. Respondents do not get to redefine terms given by a thread starter, in order to advance their own agenda. They need to start a new thread of their own. Since he did not, it was done for him. And that doesn't matter because it was posted in a thread where evolution had been introduced. Vexen started the thread, meaning they got to define its scope. Nobody responding gets to take the thread over and redefine that based on their own views. The responses have to be interpreted in the context of having been posted in the original thread, and evolution was very much a part of that discussion. The context given in the OP rules these out, but you admit to not having read it. So this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. ! Moderator Note You are free to open up a new thread and back these claims up. As for the rest, this isn't a negotiation. Stick to the topic of this thread, and stop trying to litigate matters. And TO ALL: the sniping can stop. Implications about others' intelligence being low, etc. is all off-topic.
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    Prometheus; You might want to study Hume. He lived many centuries ago, is a well respected philosopher, and had a lot to say about "should be". Of course he called it "ought to be" because that was the terminology used in his time; you can find his work in Wiki under "is and ought". In a nutshell, he explained that people will take what "is" and replace it with what "ought to be" so they can always be right. imo No. The only thing I assumed was that when you used the word "pretence", you meant pretense. This is what you stated: "All this pretence at academia by 'religious' people seems to belie an insecurity and need for validation with science." "Pretense at academia" means that they are pretending to be academic. It is not real, whereas you validate with Science which you believe to be real. Do we need another English lesson? I am not sure what you are observing. Religion has been around for tens of thousands of years all over the world as validated by archeology and still permeates cultures and societies today. If that is failure, what would be success? One of it's values lies in the study of consciousness. Of course I would value another perspective, but it would have to be on topic. We already discussed this in another thread, and I did not find that you had more to offer on the subject of souls. Oh, but it is so much fun to watch you build your reputation on nonsense. Arguing with me is always good for an up-vote. Gee
  42. 1 point
    Strange; Philosophy is not Philosophy? What? Religion is not in the Philosophy section? What? So stop supporting them. A few points to consider: 1) You did not post in this thread prior to my comments, so I was not referencing your posts. 2) Pretty much everything you know comes from "educational sources", because that is what you trust. That is why you are a "science guy" because you only trust the "known" as being valid. Philosophy deals with the as yet "unknown", or not yet validated. 3) You recently asked me to prove a negative and even called it a "reasonable" request. Logic is not your forte, so you don't trust it, which is why you are not a philosopher. Philosophy uses logic, analysis, and critical thinking to put parameters around the unknown. 4) I have often wished that I could have a discussion with you, Prometheus, and even dimreepr, as you all have knowledge about Religion that I would like to learn about and discuss. But I can't get past the downvoting, bias, and ignorance that permeates this forum, so I gave up. There are other forums and other people, who have studied Religion. Gee Prometheus; What is wrong with laymen vehemently arguing a point with a person educated in the subject matter? Let's say that I took my layman's understanding of Physics to the Physics forum (like that would ever happen), and then I told Swansont that he had no idea of what he was talking about. What kind of fool would I look like? Well, that is the kind of fool some members in this thread looked like. Compassion is not the subject of this thread, and since you admittedly don't care (underlined by me) what the subject is, you are off-topic. Your inability to discipline your mind to the subject at hand is one of the reasons why I do not relish discussion with you. Your opinion is noted and worthless. It is based on the premise that "academia" belongs solely to Science. Nonsense. I just want to study consciousness. It is an elusive subject that has defied understanding by some of the greatest minds we have ever known. Early on I learned that a person has to throw out their biases, discipline their thoughts, and reexamine their "truths" in order to learn anything about this subject. I wanted to talk to Quiet in the NDE thread, as he made some interesting and intelligent comments, but I was loath to draw him into a discussion in a thread that quickly turned into a "witch hunt". I wanted to talk to John Bauer as he also made some interesting and intelligent comments, but I did not get to him before he left the forum. My greatest fear is that I will become as sloppy in my thinking as others have become. That is why I have been looking at other forums, because there is no one here who can help me. Gee
  43. 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.
  44. 1 point
    How about almond scrimshaw?
  45. 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.
  46. 0 points
    That's a pretty spectacular failure of logic. I defy you to find any science where this isn't the case: "informed guesswork" (i.e. predictions coming from mathematical models) and the science still happening and we continue to learn, because it's not "done".
  47. 0 points
    Apparently while we were sleeping, Ohio has passed a bill that students can't be penalized for mathematically or scientifically incorrect answers for reasons based on their beliefs. ( my religion teaches the Trinity; three goes into one evenly !!! ) https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-house-passes-bill-allowing-student-answers-to-be-scientifically-wrong-due-to-religion Can't offend their vulnerable sensitivities with facts and evidence now, can we ? When you combine this with right-wing hate groups, anti-vaxxers, and your politics, the once great America is spiralling the toilet bowl. Please come back to sanity; the world needs you
  48. 0 points
  49. -1 points
    Even a shit arguement has followers. see what I mean?
  50. -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.
×
×
  • 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.