Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/21/19 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Just did not want to let this pass without a party (Dutch treat...). You are all invited at the lakeside! (Just Click on the picture to see it full size.) Thank you to all from who I learned a lot, and also thank you all who understand less than I do about certain subjects, but force me me to rethink, or make my viewpoint clearer, or force me to read some book or article (again). I noticed that much of what I read is influenced by topics here in these fora. And thanks to those who make this forum possible, moderators, administrators, sponsors, etc. Up for the next 1000!
  2. 4 points
    Oh yes, I get it now! Thank you! Al2O3+Na2CO3 -->2NaAlO2+CO2
  3. 4 points
    Your right I spelt it wrong I had to look up an email from 2016. I should have copied and pasted. I'm glad to see that he is still on SFN he seemed worried then that he might not be. Now I'm worried about me. I tend to become aggressively competitive on occasion in discussion. I enjoy it. What bothers me is the effect it has on other people. I don't realize untill it is too late that that I have angered them. During a discussion of differences I do not exactly want them on their best game, but I don't want them angry either, so when I realize it has reached that point. I withdraw. I like point and counter point, and apparently I was too aggressive. When a person responds only with I am trying to pick a fight. Especially when all I did was respond to what I thought was an intentional insult with humor. So, into my shell I ran. I want to apologize to, and thank those who encouraged me. My head is clearing, I don't really want out. I may have mentioned before that SFN is is to me a weakness that I enjoy. Thank you ...
  4. 3 points
    I must say I was disappointed with both the premature closure of this thread on power generation and the immediately adverse and even hostile reception a new member received. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118572-i-offer-the-innovation-green-technology-of-generation-of-the-electric-power-by-means-of-a-new-renewable-energy-resource/?tab=comments#comment-1099130 I say premature closure because I have just looked at the thread for the first time and it is already closed. So I have no opportunity to offer some encouragement and perhaps a way forward to the new member. Any schoolboy with would be able to build a conventional model generator, perhaps powered by a hamster on a treadmill, for just his pocket money. So should we not be asking; " Can you build a small scale demonstration?" Pretty well every project starts with such a pilot.
  5. 3 points
    ... and then an ominous droning sound made the hair on everyone's neck stand up as the enormous flying power plant appeared against the backdrop of the dark and stormy night sky. Electricity arced down at the buildings and people below, its vivid lashes lighting up the sky like fireworks.
  6. 3 points
    Of course no one is listening to you. You say you have something great but you give no explanation as to what this great thing is. Why should anyone believe you?
  7. 3 points
  8. 3 points
    An international research team, including a member of the Complexity Science Hub Vienna, investigated the role of "big gods" in the rise of complex large-scale societies. Big gods are defined as moralizing deities who punish ethical transgressions. Contrary to prevailing theories, the team found that beliefs in big gods are a consequence, not a cause, of the evolution of complex societies. The results are published in the current issue of the journal Nature. https://phys.org/news/2019-03-complex-societies-gave-birth-big.html
  9. 3 points
    Intelligent Design is a brilliant marketing concept developed as a back door method of getting creationism into school science curricula in the USA. This was clearly and publicly demonstrated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case over a decade ago. Michael Behe's book is part of that attempt to bamboozle the public. A far better read for "the scientist looking at science for answers" in this field would be something like Kenneth Brown's "Only a Theory" which systematically dismantles the nonsense of Intelligent Design. Darwin formulated his ideas over a century and a half ago - there are bound to be errors and ovesights in his work. Breaking news, in the century and a half since he published his works tens of thousands of scientists have conducted research that has developed his remarkable insight into arguably the most solidly established theory in science. That said, I would be interested to know which particular ideas of his you consider to be "bad science". Perhaps I could then either agree with you that those ideas are outmoded, or show how you have misinterpreted their intent from the few excerpts you have read. (Warning: creationists routinely quote Darwin out of context in order to suggest he claimed something that supports their argument. When such excerpts are read in context their assertions are contradicted.) Note to moderators - I'm not sure if we are even meant to give breathing space to pseudoscientific nonsense by taking the time to denounce it. Please remove this post if it is counter to forum policies.
  10. 2 points
    "Scientists say they have discovered a "stunning" trove of thousands of fossils on a river bank in China. The fossils are estimated to be about 518 million years old, and are particularly unusual because the soft body tissue of many creatures, including their skin, eyes, and internal organs, have been "exquisitely" well preserved." From this BBC news item. The find is within a lagerstatte, a fine grained sediment in which fine detail, especially of soft tissue, is preserved. (Other famous examples include the Burgess Shale and the Solnhofen limestone.) We can reasonably expect signifcant understanding to emerge from further study of the find, and for more samples to be recovered in future.
  11. 2 points
    Alright, let's look at one sentence. This is a grammatical nightmare - but let's try to get through it. "The Big Bang a rapid inflation but then the slow then rapid increase in speed of dark energy" This does not make any sense. Energy is not a substance. You cannot have a bucket of energy - so the idea that energy has speed is nonsensical. "can be explained by the implosion effect the falling shrinking yet growing denser singularity theoretically implodes a rapid initial inflation of all the superheated information at x size then the cooling slowing down then speeding up affect of that information" Information cannot be superheated or cooled or speeded up. hypothetically explained by the initial singularity absorbing enough information energy from the field to have a drastic repulsive bounce effect spherically from the initial singularity by the fact that after x expansion of the matter state the fields either already were There at vastly to greatly x size or expanded much faster and pulls the matter universe layer faster and faster. Sorry but I cannot make heads or tails of this. If you are interested science take math and physics courses while you are in school. Good luck! Putting out ideas like this on a science site before you have understood the basics of science are only going to give you negative feedback. Don't worry about it we all had some funny ideas before we had a solid base in a science education
  12. 2 points
    And that, I think, is the problem. I think it is great that you are interested in science, but instead of wasting time watching Youtube videos, I would recommend using some of the excellent online courses and other resources to actually study and learn some science. Then you can come to a forum like this and ask questions to clarify anything you don't understand. I know it is hard work but, ultimately, it is much more satisfying than making up stories. Also, you might want to read up on the concept of "paragraphs."
  13. 2 points
    I have a solution to all this; How about Hyper reprimends whichever mod locked the thread, then I'll get really stoned over the next weekend and studiot & sensei will be forced to address all the ridiculous crap that comes to my mind for hours in a specially created thread for it.
  14. 2 points
    I think that we are hardwired for religion, and even that it is rational to believe in God(s). But latter is not rational enough. 'Rational' means for me that one bases one's opinion on arguments: these arguments can be bad, or not relevant, but everytime somebody honestly defends his position, he is rational. If one would reduce rationality to 'modelled-after-hard-science-only', whole discussions would become irrational: like in politics, ethics or art. It would lead to scientism, the view that only scientific based facts are worth something. Having said that, there is an important aspect that religious and scientific thinking share: looking for causes. I think that the capability of humans to look for causes, and to share what they found by means of language, was the evolutionary factor that gave humans the decisive advantage in evolution. But 'causal rationality' can go haywire when positing causes, without checking if these causes really exist. So natural science and religion in my eyes are based on the same human trait: the inclination to find explanations for what happens to us and in the universe.
  15. 2 points
    It's worth keeping in mind that many, perhaps most, of the members of a science forum have some kind of grounding in the sciences, or have educated themselves to a greater or lesser extent. Thus what has appeared to you as significant and exciting (which it is) is likely to be (very) old hat to most members. It's great that you see the remarkable importance of descent from a common ancestor. Just be patient with those members who have moved on to many of the other wonders of biology that hinge upon that fact. A book you may wish to consider reading is Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, but there are many other works both more or less detailed that cover the same ground. A visit to your local library would be worthwhile.
  16. 2 points
    The simplest way would be in my opinion asking this guy to tell you what he's talking about.
  17. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note Any discussion until this happens seems pointless, so I'm going to lock the thread. When the test is ready for review, send me a message and I'll re-open it.
  18. 2 points
    Lightning rod. When they tried removing it, all the horseshit landed in biology and physics (evolution and Big Bang arguers caught in a god fog)
  19. 2 points
    It’s interesting how there are over a billion Christians on the planet, with hundreds of individual denominations, yet you come here claiming to speak for all with one lone voice. Also, ever heard of a straw man?
  20. 2 points
    Faith is perhaps one of the single worst reasons to accept something as true.
  21. 2 points
    It's never sensible to try to prove that a theory is true; but it's often reasonable to try to prove that it is false. If all the attempts to prove it false are unsuccessful, then it's (conditionally) presumed to be true. People have been busting a gut trying to show that SR and GR are false. (Not least because you would get rich + famous if you did it) Nobody has managed yet.
  22. 2 points
    If by any chance, this change of heart is due to the ongoing discussion in the Political forum, I hope you reconsider. People tend to get very passionate about their opinions, and refuse to even acknowledge that other points of view may exist. I have done it myself, but I make the attempt to consider other, even unsavory, viewpoints. And sometimes it can be a minefield to navigate. I find your questions, and your desire to learn, in the Physics forums refreshing. A lot of them have helped me learn new things also. Looking forward to many more of them.
  23. 2 points
    Nope, that is not how it works. The issue while it is contentious is that those statistics were used to implement policies that ultimately were found to solidify institutional racism, plunge predominantly (but not exclusively) black communities into deeper poverty and overall increased rather than decreased crime and incarceration rates. It is not the blanket issue of racism, rather because folks used those statistics carelessly (some would say that they knowingly weaponized it) with devastating results. With the knowledge of hindsight, most rational folks know that this issue needs contextualization for a discussion in good faith. There, however folks who still use this issue as a cudgel. Basically they are either misinformed or use it maliciously. Especially for policy makers the latter is a reasonable assumption as it would be their job to inform themselves before offering opinions, considering the power they hold. In other words, topics are not off-limits. But it requires careful investigation of the data and contextualization. Too often folks make simplified assumptions with far ranging devastating consequences. Equal standing going forward would be great. However, how would you do that considering that African Americans (but not so much for example recent immigrant Africans) have been systematically disenfranchised? Moreover, now that a conversation about it starts, folks are immediately afraid that it would turn into a race war (and it does fuel resentment and thereby the influence of the far right. Or rather, right wing groups have successfully stoked the resentments to make it part of regular policy). It do find it odd that there are calls acknowledge the worries of disenfranchised white voters, even if they are based on erroneous assumptions (e.g. immigrants taking their jobs). However, if black folks make some noise, everyone has to be calm down and pretend to be colour blind. Precisely that part I find rather disingenuous and I have a hard time seeing it anything else but belittling the issues plaguing certain minority communities. In many ways reparations are dead on arrival. The public support is pretty much nonexistent. However, I do find the discussion surrounding it, as well as the misunderstandings of the interconnection of race and class in the US system quite fascinating.
  24. 2 points
    If any reparations are to be made to 'correct' past inequalities/injustices, they would have to be sizeable. 20 dollars apiece and an apology isn't going to do squat to correct the inequalities inherent in the system. That being said, the government does NOT have any of its own money that it can dish out. It is all taxpayer money that the government re-distributes, and any that goes towards reparations either comes at the expense of other programs, or has to be re-payed by our children. So although Dimreepr is being his usual terse self, he makes a valid point and sizeable reparations could hurt others. Why not simply have equal standards going forward, that people are people, not black or white. Only those qualities which directly affect a person's performance/actions is to be considered, not their skin color, sexual orientation, ethnic background, etc. Even what Ten oz did in a previous post, breaking down voting and sports affiliation, while seemingly done to show the inherent inequalities, would be considered racist if done in other areas, such as crime statistics. So you can see the dilemma in trying to have a 'conversation' about reparations; you don't come off as being genuine if you make some areas of discussion off-limits. Some people ( not me, I'll be keeping my distance ) will no doubt want to discuss the role/influence black-on-black violence, and absent fathers, have on the current inequalities. It may start out as a conversation/discussion, but in the current political climate, it would likely degenerate into race wars. Does the US really need that problem also ?
  25. 2 points
    Consider a hamster wheel. The hamster is running along the wheel, so there is an excess of mass where the hamster is. But that mass isn't going anywhere. Therefore, it has no momentum, relative to the axis of motion, even though the wheel is turning. Your excess mass (owing to relativity) is not moving with respect to the axis. It has no momentum. It is like the hamster.