Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/24/18 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    I'm told that when naked mole rats sit around shooting the breeze, they discuss how they are a clear aberration. Apparently domestic cats hold much the same viewpoint. Not to mention African Greys. It seems its a tendency of any reflective species to view itself as unique and special. You can probably eliminate any single species from the planet and the biosphere will continue pretty much as it was apart from some small, local readjustments. So you can replace the word "humans" in your statement with the name of any species . If you don't feel a Great White is not a super-fish would you like to take one on in unarmed combat. I suggest it won't be long before you are truly unarmed. Moontanman has mentioned examples of intelligence and tool use, etc. There are plenty of examples of animals that are faster than us, or anything else,have better vision than us, or anything else, can endure lower temperatures than us, or anything else. And so on. If we insist on comparisons that focus on our strengths and ignore our weaknesses it is difficult to not to consider us super, but that seems a biased approach. Overgrazing is common. Predators sometimes kill too many of their prey. The Great Barrier Reef is being destroyed by one of its inhabitants. There are, I think, numerous examples of this. We are better at it than most, but I don't think most of us want to boast about that.
  2. 5 points
    Grabbed this from a FB friend. Seems like a good clarification, but is probably too long to read for those who need to read it most. Enjoy. //“I would like all of my right wing, conservative friends and family members to read the following. It explains my beliefs in a nutshell. I borrowed this from my buddy, who borrowed this from another friend.This explains my views in an even tempered, logical way. Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: Not every Liberal is the same, though the majority of Liberals I know think along roughly these same lines: “1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period. 2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen. 3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt. 4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist. 5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. I'm retired and on a fixed income, but I still pay taxes. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare. 6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live. 7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine. 8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you. 9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I'm not opposed to deporting people who are here illegally, but I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc). 10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation. 11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past. 12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized. 13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is sensible policies, including background checks, that just MIGHT save one person’s, perhaps a toddler’s, life by the hand of someone who should not have a gun. (Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine). 14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person? 15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else. 16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be? I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.”
  3. 4 points
    Before when I clicked on the upvote, the number incread by 1 so a post that had no votes yet would change from displaying nothing at all to 1. Today I noticed that the click produces a number 0. If I leave the thread and return 1 is then showing? Also what is the point of/difference between 'likes' and 'upvoting', it's all to easy to get the wrong one if there is a difference.
  4. 4 points
    These 'negotiations' are nuts. We dance around like there's some give and take, so that gun owners can be happy and gun control advocates can be happy. Most of us on this forum can spot the correlation a mile away... People are dying because of easily accessible guns. Your hobby, whether hunting or target shooting, is causing unnecessary deaths. And the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself from all the others who have guns, says something about the magnitude of the problem. I like you guys, Zap, Moony and Raider, and have a lot of respect for you, but what would it take, how many deaths, how many schoolchildren killings, what size body count, before you can say " No more" ?
  5. 4 points
    So far the Big Bang theory is the most solid explanation for the birth of our universe, but i always found the idea of a singularity instantly spewing out a massive quantity of matter was uncanny. So i pondered upon it for a while, and came up with a theory that would explain events prior to that of the Big Bang, based on what we know about physics so far. In this theory, the Big Bang isn't t=0, but just an event in space. Just a quick warning first: I am no physicist, i am just an amateur that daydreams a lot and think about stuff a lot. Also english is not my native language, so i apologize for any mistakes. I also invite anyone and everyone to poke holes, deconstruct and falsify my theory. If not, to provide help on how to better construct it. Thanks! So here it goes: Snowball Universe: The Universe starts out as an infinite void, with nothing but infinite space and virtual particles popping in and out of existence. On really rare occasion, bits of matter will clump together. I'm going to refer mostly about matter, but you can assume the same happens for antimatter too. The clumps of matter will interact with each other and merge. Clumps of matter that come into contact with clumps of antimatter won't mutually annihilate each other. When their surface come into contact, the burst of energy released will make them "skip" against each other. Much like how the Leidenfrost effect works. Clumps of matter will keep on getting bigger, eventually forming objects with a mass equal to that of a black hole or greater. This hapens in an uniform pattern in the infinity of space. Our pocket of the Universe starts when two black holes with each a mass vastly superior to that of our observable universe came into contact. I'm going to refer to those hypermassive black holes as "Nemesis". The collision resulted in a massive burst of matter, to which we attribute the Big Bang. Instead of being a singularity, it is actually a collision point. What this theory explains: -Where all the antimatter is. Our Universe is an agglomerate of matter. If we could peek further into the Multiverse, we could see agglomerates of antimatter similar to ours. -The missing mass in our universe. This theory explains the mystery of dark matter, the gravitationnal anomaly actualy comes from the Nemesis. -Where our Universe came from and where we are headed. This theory is based on what we already know about space and particles. Matter has a tendancy to clump together, and the Nemesis will keep on getting bigger and bigger and merge with each other. -The actual Multiverse is much less dense than our Universe. Our Universe is just an agglomerate of matter around a Nemesis, much like an accretion disk. If we could zoom out and see the whole Multiverse, it would be similar to our Universe, less dense, and instead of galaxies, it would be made out of multiple pocket universes made of either matter or antimatter. What we could look for: - Remnants of matter that orbited our Nemesis from before it's collision, the Big Bang. Since the collisions are really rare events, chances are that whatever matter was left was in a state close to that of "Heat Death". That matter has possibly merged with that produced from the Big Bang. -Presence of other universes or antiverses. If their existence is real, their light has probably reached us, but has probably redshifted to the point that we can't perceive it with our current technology. -If we really are orbiting a Nemesis, we should be able to detect its gravitationnal field and its effect on objects around it. Our universe should also begin to form an accretion disk around its Nemesis. -The possible "death" of the Multiverse. The Multiverse started with virtual particles merging together into clumps of matter and antimatter, and has been growing since then, at a very slow rate, even astronomically speaking. Either the Multiverse will reach an equilibrium in which it's growing density allows enough interaction between matter and antimatter to balance the creation of new matter, or it will keep on growing, becoming denser, to the point where the infinity of space itself is filled with mass with a density similar to the core of a black hole, at which point it will either stay completly filled, or will instantly vanish from all the matter and antimatter being forced together, starting the multiverse anew with a complete void.
  6. 4 points
  7. 4 points
    It is difficult to say that there is nothing if so far four people close to the administration and campaign have been indicted and/or plead guilty. In most investigations I would presume that this alone would create cause to look deeper into a given organization. Who in the Clinton campaign was arrested due to dealings with Russia?
  8. 3 points
    A scientist takes a photo of a single atom using an ordinary camera: https://qz.com/1205279/photo-of-an-atom-a-scientist-captured-an-incredible-photograph/ (Didn't we have someone here recently claiming that atoms don't exist!) Five ways the heaviest element on the periodic table is really bizarre: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/5-ways-heaviest-element-periodic-table-really-bizarre Discrepancy in neutron lifetime measurements might hint at new physics (but probably not dark matter): https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutron-lifetime-puzzle-deepens-but-no-dark-matter-seen-20180213/ (I wonder is this might be relevant to the discrepancy in the amount of of lithium predicted in big bang models) More here: http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/
  9. 3 points
    Pulling out of the Paris climate agreement? The whole world agreed to that. Now, it has to be re-negotiated - presumably costing millions to arrange for all to come up with something that will probably be exactly the same but worded differed, just so the USA don't feel like they are being pushed around. Great.
  10. 3 points
    I collect automatic watches, Raider. I would give it up instantly if someone were to draw a correlation between watch collecting and endangering human life. You seem to think there is a distinction between 30 rpm, 60 rpm, or even 700-950 rpm. Which of the reasons for owning a gun ( aside from 'bragging rights' ) require that rate of fire ? The mentality that it is OK to have a 'hobby' that endangers others, is what's gotta change.
  11. 3 points
    You mean we shall be ruled by pornographers?
  12. 3 points
    Yes, there is. Put a kid that can just walk and never seen a pond or lake by the waterside and I'll guarantee the first thing they do is pick a stone up and chuck it in. On that gene is written 'stone->water'.
  13. 3 points
    No problem. The easy way to approach this is to realise that rolling one die twice or two dice together is the same in probability theory. Please note the singular and plural of the word die. So it we roll two dice together and list all the possibilities we can see that they are 1 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 2 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 3 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 4 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 5 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities 6 plus 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 or 6 that is 6 possibilities Adding these up we see that there are a grand total of 36 or 6x6 possibilities (or outcomes) though not all include a 1. Now this is where we need to become more precise in our wording. Because there are two situations where a 1 is rolled. The roll can produce at least one 1 (two 1s in this scenario) or The roll can produce exactly one 1 In the first of the above lines each of the six possibilities produces at least one 1, making 6 ways to get a 1 In the last five of the above lines one of the 6 possibilities is produces at least one 1, adding a further 5 ways to get at least one 1 So there are a total of (6 + 5) = 11 ways to get at least one 1 out of a grand total of 36 possibilities. So the probability of getting at least on 1 is 11/36. In the first of the above lines, five of the six ways will produce exactly one 1 and the sixth will produce two 1s, making 5 ways to get exactly one 1. In the last five of the above lines one of the 6 possibilities is produces exactly one 1; there are no ways to produce more than one 1. So this adds a further 5 ways to get exactly one 1. So there are a total of (5 + 5) = 10 ways to get exactly one 1 out of a grand total of 36 possibilities. So the probability of getting exactly one 1 is 10/36 This analysis is meant to help understanding and provide something to fall back on. You can always use formula, which is quicker, once you have the understanding. Does this help?
  14. 3 points
    That is a very silly argument.
  15. 3 points
    Being fair I think this is a strawman argument. Captain Kirk isn't a magnet (except for the chicks) and the planets he beams to aren't usually vacuums... lol.
  16. 2 points
    It isn't uncommon for members to correct each other humbly when mistakes are make - The bear simply pointed out your error and you lambast him. Boo!
  17. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note I'm not sure why this wasn't closed months ago and I'm not sure why OP necroposted it yesterday, but it's closed now.
  18. 2 points
    From the non-zero energy of the ground state of the vacuum. Why is the ground state not zero? Because the Heisenberg principle says the value must have a range of values, that range cannot go below zero and therefore the average value must be greater than zero. (I don't know if that is strictly accurate, but it should be close!)
  19. 2 points
  20. 2 points
    Chimpanzees! You mean those dirty, smelly, violent, deceptive, confrontational animals were outperformed by a chimpanzee!
  21. 2 points
    Then why do you keep referring to the whole country as having a single attitude or trait? You either think all Americans need to get over themselves, or you don't mind lumping the ones who do not have bad traits in with those who do have bad traits, simply based on their country of origin. You know, like bigots do. Would you find it offensive if I suggested Canada was a lawless country simply because some Canadians are lawless? You keep bitching that I am misrepresenting your attitudes, but you keep displaying the same attitudes over and over. As I said before, you just don't seem to have any understanding of what people might find offensive.
  22. 2 points
    All we can do, if we have any intellectual honesty at our disposal, is to remove as much subjectivity like "truth" and "reality" and "proof" and "what's really going on", and observe what actually happens in nature, and use those observations, along with accompanying theory and mathematical models, to make predictions about the rest, and keep testing those against nature. All your attempts to know "what's really going on" are just guesswork, and that's what the methodology is there to reduce. You don't know what science is for, so you're like a person trying to measure their driveway with a song and then bitching when you don't get a meaningful answer.
  23. 2 points
    I already told you I'm willing to take you at your word. I cannot help it if I feel the words you use (see below) strike me as off topic and/or angry commentary about the United States.
  24. 2 points
    There seems to be an up/down vote and also a like. I have no idea why. The latency in registering the vote appears in other features. When I spamban someone, their posts stay visible in the queue until after I've read some post and then reloaded the new posts list. It's not particularly dynamic. It is annoying, though. I wonder if this was just another instance of changing things that work fine because of the "we have to change things in order to justify a new release of the software" syndrome
  25. 2 points
    This may be useful to you. When I was evolving a business or sales strategy, before exposing it to other members of the team I played a little game. I took the draft propsal and imagined it was written by someone I detested, my worst enemy; an individual who was lazy, incompetent and foolish. Now was my chance to demonstrate how ineffective they were by dismembering this proposal, identifying all of its weakenesses, ferreting out the factual errors, highlighting the failures of logic. Then I got stuck into that heap of garbage with relish, ripping it to shreds. Consequently, I subjected it to more intense scrutiny and scepticism than was likely to come from the team and could now restructure it, remove the errors, consolidate the argument and produce a work I could not only be proud of, but be confident that others would approve of it too. You might want to try a similar approach.
  26. 2 points
    Not too dissimilar from the population density map below.
  27. 2 points
    As a long term active member who has made many positive contributions to the forum Studiot is well placed and fully entitled to state his opinion.
  28. 2 points
    I learned nothing. You learned that you're heavily biased towards the explanation that makes the most sense to you (you did learn that, right?). Not a discussion, then, by the definition I gave earlier. Sorry about using such an obvious trap, but did you have to actually jump into it, eagerly? This is the essence of why it's pointless to guess about something we can't possibly know about. The heaven you made up will always seem right to you, better to you, more "logical" to you (as Strange points out, bad use of "logic"). Nothing anyone can say will dissuade you of that. Pointless to discuss it. And if I came up with something as detailed as you did (but completely different), it would make no difference. You wouldn't be discussing it with me, you would be listening to me tell you my fantasy afterlife (which I know you really aren't interested in getting to know, because it completely contradicts yours). You already guessed up the best heaven you'll ever conceive. Anything I could tell you would just be wrong to you. Why would I want to waste my time on that? As a Humanist, time spent guessing on an unfounded afterlife can be put to much better use.
  29. 2 points
    If your goal is to demonstrate that faith-based arguments don't work on a science forum, then you are doing well. Wasn't that produced by religious fundamentalists who have been disowned by their own church and who lied to people to trick them into appearing in the movie, and then edited what was said in order to support their delusions. Yes, I can see why that would appeal to you.
  30. 2 points
    @1x0 What Strange said. It is bewildering to me why you don't get it, but I am happy to persist in trying to help you understand. Consider again your question, why are there no physical signs of infinity? The universe is larger than what we can observe. Light from the unobservable portion cannot reach us, since space there is expanding, relative to us, at a speed greater than that of light. We do not know whether this unobservable portion is finite or infinite. Which part of this explanation, badly worded as it is, do you not understand? And if you want a physical sign of infinity, how about this one? ∞
  31. 2 points
    There s a theory which states that all jobs are ****, that's why you get paid to do them.
  32. 2 points
    I think it might be easier to understand if you consider that; Spacetime is inseperable, our 3 spacial dimentions are always glued together with our 1 temporal dimention. Gravity or velocity (its not only gravity which affects clocks) cause both time dilation and lenght contraction...apart from clocks running slower for a moving or gravity affectet frame also things change their size within our 3 spacial dimentions. It is not the clocks which run slower, it is time itself - clocks just measure the effect.
  33. 2 points
    Correction to Moontanman's assertion that most fossil fuels were produced in the Carboniferous era from rotting vegetation. Setting aside that if it rotted the carbon wouldn't be available, the Carboniferous produced a substantial part of the Earth's coal deposits, but oil was generated from marine deposits of plankton, primarily IIRC zooplankton. There are various sources for that oil, but most of them are post-Carboniferous. Natural gas (methane) is derived from coal, or in some cases decomposition of petroleum. On topic, @dstebbins , you have highligted an issue with popular science. It is rarely made clear enough that when scientists speak of life they are speaking of any form of life and more often than not very simple life forms, equivalent to prokaryotes. When they speak of complex life they are generally, at most, thinking in terms of sponges, or echinoderm like entities. And if they mention advanced life they might be referencing lizards, weasels, or politicians. Intelligent, "civilised" life will likely only be in the conversation if we are talking SETI.
  34. 2 points
    The French example started in 1880 , well before we could broadcast the information in real time to the rest of the world, and before there were tanks and missiles. If the US had been doing this on a regular basis all along we could point to tradition and precedent. As others have noted, we have the 4th of July, Memorial day and Veteran's day with parades to honor our troops and our history. Trump's parade idea isn't about that. It's always about him.
  35. 2 points
    There is a distinction between the kind of mass you add. Adding relativistic mass, that is mass due to relative motion, will not cause gravitational collapse. This mass is a frame dependent effect, i.e. not present in it own , or rest, frame. Adding inertial mass ( or matter ) to the Earth does have an effect. The Earth is not like a star, it has no radiation pressure to counteract gravity. Once a certain mass is reached, electron degeneracy will stop collapse. As more mass is added, neutron degeneracy is the last holdout. but once you reach the point of several solar masses, gravitational collapse to a BH is unavoidable. ( mass increases with the cube of the radius while gravity decreases with the square )
  36. 2 points
    I got this far and remembered about the "trickle down" theory... Great; and what better way to encourage them to be the best they can be than to ensure they have the best education they can get? Which is -kind of- the antithesis of Conservatism which thinks they should get the education their parents can afford. Stop using the internet; brought to you by government scientists... Me too; and that's why I can spot the cognitive biases that politicians exploit... Indeed; have a look at how the Conservative politicians have "improved" the world. "seem" is a very big word. Imagine, for a moment the idea of a democracy where the will of the people is strongly aligned with the will of the government. Compare that whith a world wher the will of the government is entirely defined by the will of the very rich- a plutocracy, rather than a democracy... Which one would support "big government" which controls the excesses of capitalism and he free market? I could carry on, but it's late.
  37. 2 points
    Personally, I hope that I am, or at I least aspire to be, "Liberal" in the sense the Bertrand Russel defined it: “The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” ― Bertrand Russell
  38. 2 points
    Well, let's see if we can put our debate to rest. Given what measure of knowledge you may have of human physiology, do you believe you would still possess the means to physically express consciousness with the destruction of your brain after its removal from your body? Do you think you'd physically be able to ambulate, articulate, and live a meaningful life without even the thinnest layer of brain tissue? If you've bothered to review any universally accepted medical evidence--evidence derived through scientific methodology--your answer to both questions should be a firm no. You would be affirming that you cannot express consciousness without some brain structure. There is no evidence derived through universally accepted methods in medical science and research for the existence of human consciousness without the presence of brain tissue. In other words, unless you can produce real evidence of a live human being living a meaningful life indicative of consciousness without the slightest measure of brain tissue, then any answer in the affirmative to my questions would be clearly disingenuous. Your appear to be asserting that consciousness is independent of brain function without evidence supporting that assertion. Belief in an idea without supporting evidence is religion, not science. Are you discussing religion or are you discussing science?
  39. 2 points
    As I pointed out , the sodium vapour in a street lamp is blue, but what you see is yellow. So the yellow you see isn't the "source", it's the light you see.. If you look at an apple, it's red. If you look at an apple that's on a spaceship moving towards you very fast, you see it as a different colour, say blue. The apple hasn't changed, but the light has. How can anyone argue that you can't see light, when you can see the colour change? Yes, it's obvious. You can see light- that's why you can see the colour change. It's why you can see the yellow light from a blue thing (so it's not a matter of "seeing the source".
  40. 2 points
    Sorry did not mean to tread on your toes, Stringy. But the tariff did force Bombardier to negotiate a 'free', 51% acquisition of the C series jets by Airbus. ( Airbus builds some jets in the US and can get around the tariffs ) It has made Airbus, the only winner in this situation, an even greater challenge to Boeing. With their ( and the State Department's ) bullying tactics, both Boeing and Bombardier ( and Canadian taxpayers ) have lost out. Now Boeing is trying a merger/acquisition with Embraer, so as to be able to compete with Airbus' more complete lineup. ( Brazilian government has already quashed that idea, and unwilling to give up control )
  41. 2 points
    One point about this question is that everyone seems to be treating the issue as a static one. I think I pointed out that things change. Even within Science there have been a similar split or divergence. Many of the original scientists were engineers (some still are) though no distinction was once made. Engineering began to split off to a discipline in its own right about 150 years ago. A further split began within engineering about 50 years ago with Engineering and Technology. The question of what belongs where is a dynamic one.
  42. 2 points
    I'm pretty sure France uses them as well. Their lack of popularity at least in some respects, has to do with them not being good at producing weapons grade material...
  43. 2 points
    I really didn't think this would need an explanation... 'Seeing' is the brain's interpretation of information it gathers from certain detectors ( usually the eyes ). The detectors work by ( usually ) interacting with EM radiation. Whether something is 'visible' or 'invisible' depends on the ability of the information, the EM radiation, to get to the detectors, the eyes. This can be due to the path ( something may be in the way ). the intensity ( its too dark, I can't see anything ), or the type of information ( some animals can 'see' infrared, we cannot ). The point I'm trying to make is that light, or photons, are the information carriers. And while we 'see' by interacting with the information carriers, a photon itself cannot transmit any information about itself ( it would need to radiate light ) for us to be able to 'see' it. I.E. photons are invisible. everything else is semantics.
  44. 2 points
    Furyan, it works both ways I can also say "Unfortunately, you've been misinformed. Now you can either cling to your current, flawed belief, or choose to know the truth. It makes no difference to me what you decide. What I do hate, is wasting my time. So choose. A: learn the truth about the nature of light, colors and reality, or B: cling to your current, flawed beliefs." Do you see how it works just as well whoever says it? In order to distinguish whether it's right for me to say it or right for you to say it, we need to look at the evidence. Now, one bit of evidence is that your position relies on "not visible" being different from "invisible". But the dictionary tells us that they are the same. Since you are wrong about that- which forms part of the underpinning of your ideas- your ideas are, at best, unproven. Do you understand that?
  45. 2 points
    I’ll begin by informing you that use of multi-syllabic words won’t distract me, and follow-up by sharing that your inquiry is ignorant in the extreme. You suggest there were a bunch of unusable pieces that suddenly became usable. Implicitly, your assertion here is that components can’t become characteristics unless a dog...erm... sorry... not dig. I mean.., unless a “god” is involved. What your stance ignores... perhaps not intentionally, but it’s plainly bankrupt in this space... is how traits evolve even when they’re not useful. Something doesn’t require purpose to have expressed itself genetically. Sometimes, mutations happen. Sometimes, they’re helpful. Sometimes, they’re neutral. Sometimes, they’re detrimental. Most times, however, we see more of the beneficial mutations downstream through offspring and across the generations. Your question is nonsense. You may as well be asking if it’s logical to assume that the electromagnetic spectrum must be defined before X-rays and gamma rays and infrared radiation can interact with the matter around them (hint: they do, even if puny primate brains struggle to accept it). Evolution happens. It’s valid. It’s real. It’s true. Life did evolve and begin in an undirected way. You can ignore this and cling to fairy tales if you prefer, but that’s your problem to deal with... that’s your fantasy to create... not ours. I have no desire to join you in your childish and obviously flawed delusions. Now, kindly please go take a stroll down the Strand or the causeway and think about how you’ve wasted your life believing in a ridiculous Iron Age unsupportable fiction.
  46. 2 points
    https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/1/25/16934824/trump-report-firing-special-counsel-robert-mueller This is EXACTLY what I’d expect to see upon looking up the word “innocent” in the dictionary. Oops. Did I say innocent? I meant petty, petulant, and pathetic.
  47. 2 points
    Perhaps the problem is that you are coming at this as an architect, where you expect the final result to exist in a plan before work starts. That isn't how self-organisation and emergent phenomena work, though. Take an even simpler example: a snowflake. They are all different but they all have six-fold symmetry. How does a water molecule attaching itself on one side of the growing snow flake, know where to put itself so that it will match the six other water molecules that may have already or are yet to attach themselves to the corresponding sides of the structure? Can physics explain that or is it divine intervention? (Hint: it's physics.) As an organism develops, there are biochemical gradients that develop between cells that tell them if they are nearer the front or the back, on the inside or the outside, etc. These then control which genes are expressed and how those cells develop further (and which chemical signals they then generate to tell the other cells around them how to develop). This process starts as soon as the first cell division occurs. You say you haven't been able to find any explanation of these processes after 8 years of "research". I find that surprising (to say the least). Biology and evolution are not subjects I have studied since I was at college (and have worked in engineering for the 5 decades since then) and yet I have been exposed to these ideas almost continuously ever since. I don't wish to appear rude, but maybe you should spend less time watching videos (especially those by creationists) and more time actually studying the subject (you know, books and things; maybe even take some courses). BTW I haven't watched the video. I find videos to be possibly the worst medium for communicating serious information. I'm not going to watch even a 5 minute video on creationism and certainly not an hour or more. Tour tries to fudge the issue by saying he doesn't know anything about the theory of evolution and therefore isn't in a position to criticise it. And then goes on to criticise it. In his own way, he is just as dishonest as every other creationist. Tour signed a creationist document which concluded "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." This is a typically dishonest creationist trick. It sounds entirely reasonable (because it is) but is only stated in order to imply that the evidence for evolution is not being examined. Which is obviously untrue. Because, you know, science.
  48. 2 points
    A new type of virus has been found that could have a profound influence on ecosystems. https://phys.org/news/2018-01-virus-ocean.html
  49. 2 points
    That is a very silly question. Because it assumes that the default position is to believe in some random idea. It leads to obvious corollaries like: Why do you not believe in Thor? Why do you not believe in the Easter Bunny? Why do you not believe that the stars are the souls of the dead? Why do you not believe in Santa Clause? The rational default position is to not believe in something until there is evidence for it. On that basis, I see no reason to believe in Thor, or any other gods.
  50. 2 points
    Sure. I think one million years is more than enough time for us to drain the resources of the planet, disrupt natural ecosystems, and generally make the planet unlivable before we move on to the next one. Also, just happened to be reading this article when I came across your thread: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/23/trappist-1-planets-likely-life-water-earth-like