Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/26/18 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    In a sense, getting to massless SM particles could be achieved by increasing the temperature in some region. But it would be more like an activation of the frozen Higgs field than a blocking. It is easier to explain coming from the high-energy side (high temperature), since that is the standard explanation for the Higgs mechanism: The Higgs proto-field (*) can be considered as an additional particle class to a Standard Model in which all of the other Standard Model particles are massless (**). It interacts with most of the other particle fields. But it also has a weird self-interaction which causes the energetically lowest state to not be at "no proto field" but at "some value of the proto-field". At low temperatures, where the Higgs proto-field is just lying around in its minimum, this means that the dynamic interaction terms of the Higgs proto-field with the other particles become some dull interaction of those particles with some sticky stuff that seems to lie around everywhere (***). In the mathematical description of the Standard Model time evolution, the associated terms that originally were terms of a dynamic interaction now become the mass terms for the other particles. If the minimum was at "no field", they would simply drop out (****). This "low-energy" limit actually covers almost all of the temperature ranges we can create on earth, and only recently did we manage to even create and see a few excitations of the Higgs proto-field around its minimum in specialized, very expensive experiments (-> confirmation of the Higgs-Boson at the LHC). So technically, I think we are very far away from creating the "massless particles" state in an experiment. But there is no theoretical reason why this would not be possible (*****). But as described, I would understand it to be less of a shielding of the Higgs field and more of an activation. And as a state with such a high amount of interaction between the fields. So I am not even sure if the common view of a few particles flying through mostly empty space and only rarely kicking into other free-flying particles would still make sense. Remarks: (*) I would just call it Higgs-field(s), but since the paper you cited seems to explicitly avoid using the name at this stage I may be wrong about common usage of the terms. Haven't been working in the field for over ten years. So I have invented the term proto-field for the scope of this post - it is also easier to understand than "doublet of complex scalar fields". (**) This is not exactly true because the particles are mixed and get renamed under the Higgs mechanism. But I'll pretend that does not happen for the sake of providing an answer that is easier to understand than reading a textbook. (***) Sidenote: In this state, the few excitations of the Higgs proto-field around its minimum are the infamous Higgs Boson. (****) Which is why you can always invent new fields that just happen to have no effect on anything we can see but magically make your particle cosmology equations work at very, very high energies (****) Except for the fact that some people still expect new physics and associated new particles at such high temperatures, which then again would have mass from another Higgs-like mechanism
  2. 4 points
    Let's put it this way: the Relativistic Doppler shift only depend on the relative velocity difference between the source at the time of emission and the receiver at the time of reception. For example, if the source is moving at 0.5 c relative to you at the time of emission, but you accelerate up to 0.5 in that same direction just before the light reaches you, you will measure no Doppler shift because relative velocity difference between you at reception and the source at transmission is 0. However, with cosmological red-shift we are dealing with the geometric expansion of space between the time of emission and reception. This stretches the light waves. So lets; say there was zero expansion of the universe at the moment of emission, then during some period between emission and reception there is some expansion. the light wave will share this expansion. Now the expansion stops before reception so that it is zero again. However, this does not mean that the light wave reverts to it original length. For that to happen, there would have to been a contraction of the universe. This means that you the observer will measure the red-shift caused by this period of expansion even though it no longer exists a the time of reception. So to put it simply, Relativistic Doppler shift only depends on the relative velocity difference between emission and reception ( You could change your velocity to many times while the light it traveling towards you, but the only thing that counts is your velocity at the moment of reception.) Cosmological red-shift is dependent on what occurs during the entire period that the light is traveling and not just the conditions at the "end points".
  3. 4 points
  4. 3 points
    Kindly summarize Benjamin Franklin's contribution to the discipline of Philosophy. Also note that strangely, pretty much everyone reading your and Eise's post side by side, comes to the conclusion that Eise more likely knows more about philosophy. Reasons include differences in the clarity of writing (especially outlining the subject), stronger focus on the argument itself rather than building straw men or discussion peripheral aspects with no obvious connections to the subject at hand (including the need to remind everyone that one is a philosopher). Dismissal of a whole body of knowledge without any indication of having studied them is another serious blow to ones' credentials. Take this for example: Who has ever claimed that? What is the relevance (other than just being plain wrong?). Just like the other bio-inspired arguments in this thread they just exemplify a lack of understanding of biological systems. Even worse, if one at the same time claims expertise and the authority to define terms on that subject (i.e. defining what "philosophical" viewpoint on consciousness is, which, as far as I can tell, is pulled straight from nowhere). However, from the post it appears that your definition of "philosophy" is actually expounding on subjects one has little knoweldge about. In that case I declare myself a philosopher with special non-knowledge in astrophysics. And before the bloody toaster is brought up, I believe Bender was just trying to make the point that being reactive to stimuli is not a sufficient criterion for consciousness (though we could have left it at cells, too, same applies there).
  5. 3 points
    FFS grow up and start to think for yourself. As they say "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", I do get what you mean but the only moderate that's truly crushed is the one in a powerful but fearful nation.
  6. 3 points
    I don't usually give downvotes for content. But this post is so indescribably stupid ...
  7. 3 points
    That we know that Feynman really understands what he is talking about, because he was in the discursive network of physicists that were working on similar theories, that these theories were confirmed by experiments etc etc. From you we only know that you say you are a philosopher. But philosophy is, as science, not just a collection of knowledge, of justified beliefs, but it is also a way of thinking that has to be learned and trained. Without teachers and colleagues to confront your way of thinking and your ideas you will have a very high barrier to really become a philosopher. Therefore I take your claim that you are a philosopher with a huge crystal of salt. The topics you are engaged in are definitely philosophical topics. But philosophy is not just the contents, as science is not just its content, but also a praxis of critical thinking. But what I see when I read your posts is a lot of ideological thinking. You pick the ideas from philosophical (and non-philosophical!) discourse on basis of what you like, not based on ideas that can withstand rational scrutiny. I am also irritated by your snootiness, as is iNow, that you know better than everyone here what consciousness is, because you have studied it, and therefore are a philosopher. I don't know what the philosophical definition is. It surely is not the same as 'life', as you seem to propose. Consciousness is not simply reacting at stimuli. A thermostat is also reacting at stimuli, but surely it is not conscious. So I can understand Bender when he brings in the example of a toaster, even if it might not be the best counter example. It is obvious you did not study everything. Otherwise you would have found dozens of arguments against your views. That does not mean that all these arguments are correct. But a good philosopher is aware of them, and in developing his/hers own ideas, discusses them, and argues why they are correct or not. Normally, studying philosophy at a university helps, because you will be confronted by counter arguments, or pointed at authors that have good arguments pro or contra the ideas you would like to present. And I thought psychology is the discipline that studies emotion. And who is 'we'? I have very much something against equating consciousness with life and the capability 'to continue'. I've studied this many years, so I cannot suppose you understand this immediately, because I am an academic trained philosopher, and you are not. How does feel such an argument to you? It is not a valid argument, of course. It is a way to avoid really discussing of one's ideas. Except that you equate consciousness with life again, your entropy remark is beside the point. It is true that life opposes entropy, but it does so by using energy and increasing the entropy in the rest of the universe. The decrease in entropy is only local. Life is per definition not a closed system, and the law of entropy is only valid for closed systems. Dr. Ian Stevenson? Really? That is misuse of the word 'instinct' (bold by me): Possibly, yes. But to experience feelings and emotions, it needs a complex information processing, a complexity so far we know, is only realised in nature by complex nervous systems. Bacteria do not have such systems. Well, I would say some religions have ideas about life after death. But religions are not science, so that's it. Having ideas. No empirically proven explanations of something that only exists in our ideas. As said, religion is not science, and therefore has nothing to say about these topics, except nice ideas. And that spirituality is not studied in science is not true. The earliest work I read (there might be older one) to put the scientific research on spirituality on a scientific track was Exploring Mysticism. A Methodological Essay (1975) by Frits Staal. 'Evidence'? Really? I think you should say support. Nothing more.
  8. 3 points
    Here is the finished product used a light oak stain with an outdoor gloss protective coat
  9. 3 points
    On top of it he is conveniently forgetting all the other agreements the US is pulling out of and the fact that allies have already stated that they cannot rely on the US anymore, which is a huge deal. You really need to improve your reading and perhaps a basic understanding of the context of the texts you pull. The JCPA was reached in July 2015. Your own link (which you apparently did not read) just describes the clandestine efforts Iran has made to circumvent sanctions. The JCPA specially addresses these issues and pretty much everyone (except the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia) have declared that they are abiding to the conditions. My guess is that you just googled the Joint Plan of Action which was an interim agreement but is not the one under discussion. Also note that pretty much everyone already suspected that Iran was developing capabilities- after all, this was the main reason for the sanctions and negotiations in the first place.
  10. 3 points
    ! Moderator Note NO! You have too many misconceptions you need to address before advancing more "ideas". And this thread is 8 pages of unsupported soapboxing, so it ends now.
  11. 3 points
  12. 3 points
    Do you understand that scientists also observe nature and explain it without invoking a God. And do you also understand that nature is entirely consistent with there being no God? And do you therefore understand that nature is not evidence for God. It's like saying that it is theoretically possible that someone deliberately planted weeds in my garden. The weeds are there. So the phantom weed planter must exist!. The presence of weeds is consistent with His existence, but it's certainly not proof of it and, given that there are other more plausible explanations, it hardly counts as evidence for it. So, while nature is tangible, it's not evidence.
  13. 3 points
    We ARE there to witness the Big Bang. It is happening at this very moment. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Big Bang describes how the universe began. It does not. It explains the large scale evolution of the universe over time. While some may offer theories of the 'beginning' of the universe, no scientists claim to 'know' how it began.
  14. 3 points
    And again, a small difference is still a difference. I can get my Nitrogen for free, so there is no added expense or effort on my part. The TPMS sensors in the valve stems came out once I started running Continental run flats. And the comment about you getting over yourself ( for which I should apologize, but won't ) is certainly not related to your knowledge/intelligence, but rather your condescending arrogance. In the time that I've been a member here, you've managed to nit-pick fights/arguments with quite a few of the members I consider most reasonable and level headed. Maybe telling others that they should not be posting on a science site is the wrong approach for passing on your knowledge.
  15. 2 points
    QFT. KJU has already gotten what he wants... He's been recognized as a world leader... He's been given a seat at the table among the "league of nations," and he's now been platformed as a peer. He's been taken seriously by the world, is meeting with the most powerful countries of US and China, and it has legitimized him as a powerful person who has made N.Korea a player. Everything else is just gravy at this point. Kim got what he wanted the moment Trump agreed to meet. Sure, KJU's been discussing specific industry investments from the US into NK with Pompeo, but that's all secondary to his push to develop nuclear weapons in an attempt to be taken seriously by the world. He's solidified his place, been praised by the POTUS as a great chairman, elevated instead of treated like the teapot dictator he is. They got what they wanted already, and the US keeps losing more and more credibility. Are you tired of all that winning yet?
  16. 2 points
    Some scientists think they have solved the mystery https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/ "Even with a power of just a couple of Watts, the EM-drive generates thrust in the expected direction (e.g., the torsion bar twists in the right direction). If you reverse the direction of the thruster, the balance swings back the other way: the thrust is reversed. Unfortunately, the EM drive also generates the thrust when the thruster is directed so that it cannot produce a torque on the balance (e.g., the null test also produces thrust). And likewise, that “thrust” reverses when you reverse the direction of the thruster. The best part is that the results are the same when the attenuator is put into the circuit. In this case, there is basically no radiation in the microwave cavity, yet the WTF-thruster thrusts on. So, where does the force come from? The Earth’s magnetic field, most likely. The cables that carry the current to the microwave amplifier run along the arm of the torsion bar. Although the cable is shielded, it is not perfect (because the researchers did not have enough mu metal). The current in the cable experiences a force due to the Earth’s magnetic field that is precisely perpendicular to the torsion bar."
  17. 2 points
    I agree. They shouldn't be. Like music and reason shouldn't be enemies. Because they are completely separate things. The problem comes when people insist that their faith means that reason must be wrong (e.g. Creationists etc).
  18. 2 points
    Whenever discussing stars we also need to take into consideration all the other "stuff" that formed in addition to the star. I have no doubt that the first Population III stars would have had planets, asteroids, comets, and everything else we find in solar systems. However, it has been suggested that these first stars would have been massive, anywhere from 100 to 1,000 solar masses. If that is true then these first stars would have had very short lives indeed. Perhaps just a few million years. While that may be sufficient time to produce the first 26 elements on the Periodic Table, it is far too short a time for life to develop. At best life would just be getting started, only to be wiped out by the resulting hypernova when the Pop III star dies. I think life has its best shot beginning with Pop II stars. The metal-poor stars in the halo of our Milky Way, for example, have been dated to 12+ billion years. Since we only have one example to go by, it is rather difficult to say with any certainty how long it takes to evolve beyond primordial life. I would imagine that it very much depends on the conditions. On Earth it took just over 700 million years before life first appeared, and then another 3.3+ billion years before we get to the Cambrian. That is a long time for a planet to remain relatively stable. Too long for any star with greater than just a couple of solar masses. Given that Pop. III stars would have been short lived, the Pop. II stars would have formed shortly after the Pop. III stars. Certainly within the first billion years after the Big Bang. Therefore, I would not rule out the possibility of life being 12.8+ billion years old. Source: The Formation of First Stars. I. The Primordial Star-forming Cloud - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 564, Number 1, 2002 (free preprint)
  19. 2 points
    Ok magnetism is primarily due to the net magnetic moment alignment of electrons, which involves spin. Every electron has a magnetic dipole moment. In most materials the alignment cancel each other out. However certain materials such as hematite the net alignment is imbalanced. Here is a rather lengthy 633 page article that has excellent coverage of magnetism. This will greatly help you in your physics course. It will detail several highly important details such as the Currie temperature etc. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dsf.unica.it/~fiore/libricorsoptr/coey-magnetism.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj7puu4-pTbAhUeHGMKHVdgBO0QFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw01a_57WGwNznR89qLB3zxW The article is essentially a one stop resource for pretty much anything you will need to know or want to know about magnetism and why certain materials have greater magnetic susceptibility and others don't. How this ties into spin orbitals etc. It also details Maxwells equations etc. Rather than give snippets of details which would be unavoidable via strictly questions and answers on a forum this will provide you a comprehensive and rather detailed understanding of magnetism.
  20. 2 points
    An HGV is a different classification and need not be articulated. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211948/simplified-guide-to-lorry-types-and-weights.pdf Of course the term is made more difficult by the american pronunciation of the part word 'semi'.
  21. 2 points
    All you have to do to stop the property damage is get smart-- The volcano is not unknown or a mystery-- the mystery is why people insist on developing property in the path of the volcano.
  22. 2 points
    It'll keep you busy for sure. There are 4 considerations for sample size calculations, the first two are difference in means between groups and variances (standard deviations) of groups. Typically the bigger the difference between means and the smaller the variance the less samples you need. There is very little you can do about these - well designed/controlled experiments might reduce the variance a bit. The next two you can choose an acceptable level: they are your probability of seeing a difference in means (just by sheer luck) when really there is no difference and seeing no difference in means when really there is. (These are known as type 1 and 2 statistical errors). They are related so increasing one reduces the other so we seek an acceptable balance - what's worse, saying there is a difference when there isn't or saying there isn't when there is? Typically in biology and medicine we say an acceptable probability of a type 1 error is 0.05 and of a type 2 error 0.2 (usually stated as having a 'power of 80%). This means that if you repeat an experiment which you know has no difference in means 20 times, you can expect 1 experiment to (erroneously) say there is a difference in means. Hope that makes sense: in a rush.
  23. 2 points
    Well, if you're not going to discuss the contents of the doc with anyone who hasn't watched it, and I, and most other sensible members aren't going to be extorted into wasting 20 min watching a nutjob, conspiracy theory video, the mods might as well close this down right now. And, you're in violation of forum rules.
  24. 2 points
    The carbon we exhale as CO2 is a waste product of our converting the food we ingest into energy the body uses to run its metabolism. It is, in effect, the "ashes" from the "fire" that runs our body. To use this to build tissue would require energy. In order for the organism to use all the food it ingests for tissue building, it would have to have some other source of energy for running its metabolism ( plants do this by using the energy in sunlight) . For an organism to exhale Silicon Tetra-fluoride would require a metabolism in which this is the low-energy waste product, and this metabolism would need to be able to operate in the temperature range in which it is a gas. The challenges of Silicon life is that you need to be able to build complex molecules that are both flexible and reactive enough to run a metabolism yet robust enough to hold together at the energy levels needed to run that metabolism. Carbon seems to be particularly suited to this. Silicon is not quite as suited.
  25. 2 points
    Hello iNow, My thoughts (as worthless as they are) are that life/consciousness is a property of intricate systems that are natural processes within and by the universe. A device is a fabrication made by Man (or other life) that completes a function. A man-made toaster, regardless of how many functions it has, even if it had AI and self replicating nanites to create copies of itself, is still a device of men and not life/consciousness as generated by the propensity of this universe, in my humble opinion. And equating the two is kind of diverting the topic & not what Gees was referring to (although I can be wrong!). I would like to apologise as the post I down voted didn’t actually deserve it as it was 100% true; toasters do react to their environment in all the ways you suggest, as every inanimate object does; passively. It is just that you seem to be overseeing that Life/consciousness reacts and also acts; the compliment to passivity which is activity. Yes, we can ascribe the quality of toasting bread as an activity but this is a design of men, and it would not happen without actual life (us) making it so, whereas the universe just creates it naturally. That is the quality that I think Gees is referring to. I am new here and second apology is coming up; sorry if I have overstepped the mark; I was down voting the direction of the content, not the person. I will check the protocol for using the vote system in future!
  26. 2 points
    https://phys.org/news/2018-05-sagittarius-swarm-black-hole-bounty.html Sagittarius A* swarm: Black hole bounty captured in the Milky Way center: Astronomers have discovered evidence for thousands of black holes located near the center of our Milky Way galaxy using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. This black hole bounty consists of stellar-mass black holes, which typically weigh between five to 30 times the mass of the Sun. These newly identified black holes were found within three light years—a relatively short distance on cosmic scales—of the supermassive black hole at our Galaxy's center known as Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*). Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-sagittarius-swarm-black-hole-bounty.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25029 A density cusp of quiescent X-ray binaries in the central parsec of the Galaxy: Abstract: The existence of a ‘density cusp’1,2—a localized increase in number—of stellar-mass black holes near a supermassive black hole is a fundamental prediction of galactic stellar dynamics3. The best place to detect such a cusp is in the Galactic Centre, where the nearest supermassive black hole, Sagittarius A*, resides. As many as 20,000 black holes are predicted to settle into the central parsec of the Galaxy as a result of dynamical friction3,4,5; however, so far no density cusp of black holes has been detected. Low-mass X-ray binary systems that contain a stellar-mass black hole are natural tracers of isolated black holes. Here we report observations of a dozen quiescent X-ray binaries in a density cusp within one parsec of Sagittarius A*. The lower-energy emission spectra that we observed in these binaries is distinct from the higher-energy spectra associated with the population of accreting white dwarfs that dominates the central eight parsecs of the Galaxy6. The properties of these X-ray binaries, in particular their spatial distribution and luminosity function, suggest the existence of hundreds of binary systems in the central parsec of the Galaxy and many more isolated black holes. We cannot rule out a contribution to the observed emission from a population (of up to about one-half the number of X-ray binaries) of rotationally powered, millisecond pulsars. The spatial distribution of the binary systems is a relic of their formation history, either in the stellar disk around Sagittarius A* (ref. 7) or through in-fall from globular clusters, and constrains the number density of sources in the modelling of gravitational waves from massive stellar remnants8,9, such as neutron stars and black holes.
  27. 2 points
    Silicone refers to chains of silicon and oxygen atoms joined in a chain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone Silicon in this context refers to chains of silicon atoms arranged like carbon chains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silanes
  28. 2 points
    Science is a method of exploring the universe in a manner that minimizes the influence of our own biases.
  29. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note You have no basis for that assessment, and it is not on topic. I ask that you kindly stop with this line of discussion.
  30. 2 points
    Some Novels speak in a voice that is specific to their era and or following. I wouldn't expect an 18yr old (Generation Z) christian conservative to enjoy James Baldwin's "Giovanni's Room" for example. Many classic Novels are commentaries on society. Over time challenges change as do styles and language which make the underlining commentaries more difficult to relate with. If written in 2018 Capt Ahab (Moby Dick) may have been a special ops soldier looking to kill the world's top terrorist in a bid to end all terrorism only to realize terror exists in the mind and has consumed his life. If written today perhaps the Great White Whale would be a Great Big Border Wall. I think most books which are considered classics have been labelled such for the way they metaphorically represent social strife.
  31. 2 points
    Another crackpot. If you cannot find any valid science to support your claim, perhaps you should reconsider it? In the meantime, how about answering some questions: 1) Please show that your idea reproduces the observed orbital velocities in galaxy clusters and galaxies. (Note: your reply needs to be quantitative: using mathematics to show the values predicted by your idea and comparing those with the observed data. Not just more claims.) 2) Please show quantitatively (using mathematics) that the gas around galaxies has the right density to cause the lensing predicted by GR. 3) Please explain why there is no dispersion if this is caused by refraction. 4) Please explain how gravitational lensing is caused by dark matter even in the absence of galaxies or any visible matter. 5) Please explain quantitatively (using mathematics) how the observed large structure of the universe forms in the absence of dark matter. If you cannot answer questions like this, then this thread is pointless (ie. you are not doing science) and we can ask the mods to close it.
  32. 2 points
    By that argument, the fact that we see satellites in orbit around the Earth means they must have been there, rather than us launching them from Earth. In other words, the current stable relationship says nothing, necessarily, about the past history. It doesn't require a collision. A near miss can change the direction of an object. And a number of small interactions over many orbits can cause an object to be ejected from an apparently stable orbit. And if that body then moves past another at the right sort of distance and speed then it may enter a new orbit. It can be fast and close, or slow and distant, so there is no "magic number" for it to happen.
  33. 2 points
    So far the replies assume industry as equivalent to what we see now, why should it be? Weren't the Romans, Egyptians etc. industrious?
  34. 2 points
    Unidentifowls.
  35. 2 points
    Pareidolian entities.
  36. 2 points
    The entire population could also fit in Rhode Island. But it wouldn't end well: https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/
  37. 2 points
    I didn’t think you were an idiot, at least not until I read this. You’re correct. You’re no Feynman, but you also didn’t state that years of training was required to grasp deeper concepts. What you did do (and do frequently) is to belittle others and tell specific individual members that they are specifically incapable of grasping your point. When there is a misunderstanding in a text based medium, the fault generally lies with the author. Feynman didn’t put others down. He lifted them up. You can comment on my attitude all you want. That won’t change the validity of my point. Focus on your argument. If people struggle to understand it, then focus on articulating it differently. I’m also not the only one that has asked you to be more concise. Perhaps start there. If you’re unable to explain something simply or in terms even a child can grasp, then it’s far more likely that you’re the one who doesn’t understand the concept well enough.
  38. 2 points
    Lasse has been banned as a sock puppet of 1x0
  39. 2 points
    Imagine a single ripple (centred on where the pebble went in) being self-sustaining. So that disturbance in the field is a "thing" (electron or whatever). It doesn't continually require energy to keep it going because it is not a ripple in water (water has mass and requires energy to make it go up and down). That wavelike disturbance can now move around and it represents the position of the electron. Actually, the square of the amplitude of the ripple represents the probability of finding the electron at that location (if I have extended your metaphor appropriately) so the electron is most likely to be in the middle but could be elsewhere. There is a really, really tiny probability that it will be detected on the other side of the galaxy. You can then do calculations by analysing the paths of these ripples. If you add together every single possible path the ripple could take, you will find that some of the waves will constructively interfere and some will destructively interfere and the most probable path ends up being the one that corresponds to a "classical" description of the path of the electron (or photon, or whatever). This is how quantum theory, with all its probability based things, can describe the behaviour of photons and reproduce the results of classical optics. (See the Feynman lectures on QED if you haven't already.)
  40. 2 points
    But the Abrahamic mythology does include a large act of betrayal: Lucifer, bringer of light, and a third of the angels. It's interesting to compare Christian and Greek mythology on this point because they both had 'bringers of light': Lucifer and Prometheus (of course). Christians interpret the snake in Eden to be Satan and encouraged mankind to take the knowledge of the gods. Prometheus stole divine fire from Olympus and gave it to mankind, thus sparking mankind's creativity. Quite similar, but generally in the former myth Satan is seen as evil, while Prometheus is a benefactor to mankind (although there are different accounts). If Jesus had been born in India and declared himself son of god, perhaps not much fuss would be made as Hindus believe we are all the divine spark, all 'sons of god'. It seems Christian mythology is particularly against the ascendency of man as a technological or spiritual being. Some historians argue that The Protestant Reformation was necessary if the Renaissance was to be successful in Europe, as the movement was more inclined towards mankind's own work.
  41. 2 points
    I'm not a believer as the OP describes, but to me faith is the strongest of beliefs based on the weakest of reasons. Faith demands total conviction because there's nothing to trust. It's strong conviction about something either wishful or frightening.
  42. 2 points
    could have PMed you but I thought it would be better public... I apologize for my comments John. I have gotten along with other blunt people who speak their mind, such as Ophiolite and Dr Rocket, and I assure you, I respect your opinions as much as I did theirs. Its not much of an excuse, but you caught me on a bad day and I took it out on you. Incidentally ( to get back on topic ), enthusiasts do all sorts of things with negligible ( or even non-existent ) returns. That is the very definition of enthusiast. Do you think people collect stuff for its monetary value ? Do you think people can tell the difference between a transistor Amp and a tube Amp, or $1000 speakers and $15000 speakers ? So while you may argue that the difference between air and Nitrogen is negligible, to an enthusiast, it isn't
  43. 2 points
    It is possible to formally define, and prove, the properties of numbers, and the operations on them, starting from a few basic examples. One of the first examples was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
  44. 2 points
    Folks would be less inclined to perceive you as a self-important blowhard... aka aged annoying airhead... if you’d at least put a modicum if effot toward refraining from such passive aggressive unnecessary barbs like this (just one example among a countless many others you seem to seed into every post you make). /nickels worth of free advice
  45. 2 points
  46. 2 points
    Is the Bible the source of your faith? If so then you must believe these things are also true. I know this is just a meme but all of things are asserted as true or real in the Bible and it was easier to just post the meme. I know that is intellectually lazy but then so is an argument from ignorance which so far is all you have...
  47. 2 points
    TBH most of the members here don't really care if there's a God or your faith in it, but they will push back if you start a topic, on a discussion (science) site that basically states "I don't care what you say, I believe in magic." (that's fine for your blog); which begs the question, what's the point?
  48. 2 points
    Just to highlight how silly this claim is: if you combine sodium and chlorine, they will always combine in equal quantities to form salt. You will never "by pure chance" get sugar or a potato. The universe behaves deterministically. If you want to believe that deterministic and consistent behaviour is because of a god, then go ahead. It can't be disproved (because it isn't science; it's faith). That is a reasonable application of faith. But don't try and pretend that your faith trumps reality. (I did read once about a US preacher or politician who said that "if the Bible and Reality disagree then it must be Reality that is wrong." But that is not faith; it is pure insanity.)
  49. 2 points
    You don't know what the word "theory" means in the context of science, do you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory This idea is no more a scientific theory than saying monatomic gold is unicorn droppings. Incidentally, whether pseudoscience likes it or not, we do actually know about the properties of monatomic gold. People make light bulbs that rely on monatomic gold. http://www.perkinelmer.com/product/lumina-hollow-cathode-2-lamp-au-n3050107 albeit, for rather esoteric purposes. One thing we know is that it's only available at high temperatures, in a vacuum.
  50. 2 points
    I guess you must be using some kind of time series analysis, an ARIMA model perhaps, which assumes past information is sufficient to predict the future. This can work if the assumption is reasonable - if you are running an airline company and have observed a seasonality in the data (i.e. more people fly in summer), that can be usefully modelled. But this simple model can't take into account events like shooting down a plane (unless it happens regularly) which shocks the market. A better model might be something like the Black-Scholes equation which models market ups and downs as a Brownian motion (i think it makes the assumption that time is independent). As i understand it the important parameter is the variance (or market volatility) as it makes the likely range of predictions (under monte carlo simulations) broader. I'm not sure how useful it is in practice though, people in the business must already know more unpredictability means more risk. Horoscopes might work just as well for these decisions, i wouldn't call it a science. Interestingly, i came across a particular MSc course called Financial Engineering which costs £20,000, which with the selection of certain modules was identical to an Applied Statistics MSc which cost £8,000. People were willing to pay just for the name of the MSc.