Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/24/19 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    What, pray tell, do you recommend one do when said offered benefit is repeatedly and consistently squandered? I doubt you’re suggesting we emulate Charlie Brown continuing to blindly kick at Lucy’s football. So, what then? In a vacuum, one would be silly to pushback against your point. In general terms and as an isolated point, you’re absolutely correct. In context and in respect to the history of this poster, however, pushback against this platitude is the only choice demonstrating any integrity. It’s about arguing in good faith, MigL. I have no quarrel with you, but I benefit from enough knowledge of our OP to doubt their sincerity and to lack faith in the goodness of their motives.
  2. 4 points
    They have nothing in common because you have chosen two different lines (with different values of m and b). As a real mathematician would know, if we have a single straight line, we cannot determine the value of m and b from a single pair of x and y values. However, if we have two pairs of x and y values then we can solve for m and b. One simple way of calculating b is to set x to zero. And then the value of b is just the y-intersect at x=0. Contrary to your ludicrous claim: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE VALUE OF b IS ONLY CORRECT WHEN x=0; it always has that value in the equation. So this mathematically proves that you claim that we cannot use a "special case" more generally is wrong. We can, of course, calculate the values of m and b using any arbitrary x and pairs (just as we can derive the the Lorentz transform using any combination of frames in relative motion). It just becomes slightly more complicated.
  3. 3 points
    There are many stunning photographs at APOD [Astronomy Picture Of the Day] some far more stunning then others...just type in APOD...a new one everyday. Here's another..... SEIS: Listening for Marsquakes Image Credit: NASA, JPL-Caltech, Mars Insight Explanation: If you put your ear to Mars, what would you hear? To find out, and to explore the unknown interior of Mars, NASA's Insight Lander deployed SEIS late last year, a sensitive seismometer that can detect marsquakes. In early April, after hearing the wind and motions initiated by the lander itself, SEIS recorded an unprecedented event that matches what was expected for a marsquake. This event can be heard on this YouTube video. Although Mars is not thought to have tectonic plateslike the Earth, numerous faults are visible on the Martian surface which likely occurred as the hot interior of Mars cooled -- and continues to cool. Were strong enough marsquakes to occur, SEIS could hear their rumbles reflected from large structures internal to Mars, like a liquid core, if one exists. Pictured last week, SEIS sits quietly on the Martian surface, taking in some Sunwhile light clouds are visible over the horizon.
  4. 3 points
    Join a science forum and post once...
  5. 3 points
  6. 3 points
    Your childish antics are fooling no one and they are taking away from the debate. We all know the meaning of what you've said and you trying to obfuscate their meaning with your hand-wavy tactics are just making you look foolish. It would have been much simpler to simply say "yes, that may not have been quite accurate" and move on.
  7. 3 points
    This is why solar electric utilities should be publicly owned. Forget profit and make super cheap electricity available everywhere, and it will benefit big business most (except fossil fuels). Anyone who claims solar isn't cost-effective these days is protecting established technologies.
  8. 3 points
    So can you tell me what this methodology is? Please also give a few examples, e.g. how does philosophy study the physical world in contrast with how physics studies it? I really would appreciate you answer this, because I think it is at the root of our dissent. Take your time, please. And how do you know what valid premises are? Where do they come from? Science? Philosophy itself? How is this validity established? And to paraphrase one of your following points: who decides which premises are valid? Well, I do not think that analysing our ways of thinking is the same as intellectual freewheeling. You seem to equate philosophy to a body of definite conclusions, where it is in fact a continuing activity, because in time our way of thinking continuously is evolving. It seems to me you do. You claim to be an 'Authority'. More seriously: why should helping to clarify discourses, its concepts and presuppositions lead to a dictatorial attitude? Absolutist regimes hate philosophers, because they are well equipped to debunk their world views, ethics and politics. Wow. Clarifying discourse helps finding answers, but does not necessarily provides the answers. If it would be that, then philosophy would become dictatorial. If philosophers would come to power, the result would be disastrous in general, because they confuse philosophy as an analysing activity with 'Philosophy' as a set of results (Leninism anybody?), and everybody should follow the 'Truth'. Loyalty is the last thing you need in philosophy. As in any other discipline one needs intellectual freedom, to go there where your honest rational investigation leads you. Eh? Me not loving philosophy? (Well, maybe I do not love 'Philosophy'...) You know philosophy and science made some progress since the times they were seen as the same? Yes. However I did not mean to say that philosophy must be science, but when it does contradict established science, it is definitely on the wrong track. I am not a genius. I have a university degree in philosophy, that's all. Most ideas I present here are not original from me: I just think these ideas are correct, and I know arguments against and in favour of them. But I learned a way of thinking that is still strong living in me. Just compare with any other academic discipline: when you have studied, you are a specialist, a good, bad or mediocre specialist. As I am not working as a philosopher, you can conclude that I do not belong to the upper ten. So I better wait till you get your Nobel price for your Consciousness Research. Is this an example of your clear thinking? An academic philosopher is somebody who studied philosophy at an academy. How many of those people you mention have studied philosophy at a university? Then stop being personally yourself: let your arguments speak, not your authority that you are a 'Philosopher' who studies 'Consciousness'.
  9. 3 points
    Full Text: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2727726/measles-mumps-rubella-vaccination-autism-nationwide-cohort-study
  10. 3 points
    ! Moderator Note I think the thread has run its course as we full full-circled at least a half-dozen times. Closed.
  11. 2 points
    I cannot see how any of the above statements logically follow from the definition of Emotional Intelligence. Maybe I have the wrong definition?? According to Wikipedia: Emotional intelligence (EI), emotional leadership (EL), emotional quotient (EQ) and emotional intelligence quotient (EIQ), is the capability of individuals to recognize their own emotions and those of others, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, use emotional information to guide thinking ... Emotional intelligence - Wikipedia It seems to me that a high capability to recognize ones own emotions and discern the emotions of others would be very beneficial to relationships.
  12. 2 points
    You have chosen the worst possible person to troll about their efforts and ability when it comes to doing research. You are way out of line and digging the hole deeper with each post.
  13. 2 points
    It is an interesting question - the extent to which competing new technologies are bought out in order to prevent their use rather than to fully develop and commercialise them. Good ideas can be lost because of that as well as to inadequate funding and various forms of mismanagement. I once naively thought patent law was for making inventions and innovations widely available to others, with royalties ensuring a means for the inventors to be justly rewarded where it happens. It appear to be used more to prevent others using them - despite the potential for earnings from others succeeding at perfecting and commercialising them. It does appear that patents are for the big players - that without financial and legal resources the smaller players cannot defend against their theft of intellectual property.
  14. 2 points
    I was really impressed by this quick summary series on the Mueller Report done by PBS NewsHour. In 5 short videos about 5 minutes a piece, they give a summary of the nearly 450 page report in a way that’s easily consumable for those who have been paying close attention or even no attention at all. Here’s a link to the 5 video playlist:
  15. 2 points
    Reality (and the definition of what "reality" means) may be one subject of philosophical enquiry, but certainly not the only one. On the other hand, many philosophers of science would say that science cannot tell us anything about "reality", only about the things we can observe and measure. And who decides what we "should" think and what is "practical"? Not sure if this was a deliberate straw man argument or a genuine mistake. Read the statement you are responding to again. It is about how philosophy can tell us about "the ways we should think to come to valid or practical results" But your reply is about what we should think (and about who decides) which is irrelevant to the statement. These are completely different things. As a philosopher, you will appreciate that precision is important. I disagree. I think that finding the right questions to ask (and understanding that many questions do not have [easy] answers) is the most important part of philosophy. It is often not up to philosophy to come up with the "right" answers. It may be society, politicians, judges or scientists that need to make the decision; but they can be helped by being given the best questions to ask.
  16. 2 points
    Limitations in scientific skills and knowledge does not upset me at all, I might even be interested in attempting to fix that. Soapboxing in mainstream sections could be upsetting but moderators will fix that.
  17. 2 points
    https://www.sadanduseless.com/british-twitter-meets-donald/
  18. 2 points
    FlyerDave - I disagree. The (getting old) "solar and wind can't work at large scale" claims are collapsing in the face of real world evidence to the contrary. Not suited to everywhere of course but most of the world's population lives in places where it can. Most new electricity generation being deployed in the world is now solar and wind. Long running electricity generators are investing in them in preference to coal or gas or nuclear for sound economic reasons, and because they do work - and to some extent to avoid potential liability for emissions in the future. Including in France. They are not stand alone technologies - not sure any technologies are - and backup based on various kinds of storage as well as network interconnections and demand management will increasingly be a feature of grid networks that have growing amounts of them. Being based around energy storage, EV's can be a useful complementary technology that moderates demand variability within such a grid and better aligns it with variable energy availability. It is not uncommon for current EV owners to charge them using their own rooftop solar. Obviously this has limitations - yet I can foresee having an electricity supply contract that accommodates EV charging elsewhere within a nation's electricity grid, effectively allowing me to use my home PV contributions (with some surcharge) wherever I am. Car parking with EV charging I expect. It is likely to be a source of reserve storage for PV fitted homes - and vice versa. And home and EV storage may well be an emergency reserve for grid management to draw upon, under suitable contractual arrangements. What a climate responsible low to below zero emissions grid will look like is still uncertain but for a number of sound reasons wind and solar look likely to be prominent. Some nuclear is likely to be a feature but closer examination shows it is not the simple or effective or low cost emissions solution it is so often presumed to be.
  19. 2 points
    One problem: that of two frames in relative motion. I have. So have many others. Pointing out that you’re wrong, and making a first-semester algebra error, is not a personal insult. I can see that it’s embarrassing, however.
  20. 2 points
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-nasa/nasa-executive-quits-weeks-after-appointment-to-lead-2024-moon-landing-plan-idUSKCN1SU0A5 - excerpts : " NASA executive quits weeks after appointment to lead 2024 moon landing plan CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - A top NASA executive hired in April to guide strategy for returning astronauts to the moon by 2024 has resigned, the space agency said on Thursday, the culmination of internal strife and dwindling congressional support for the lunar initiative. Mark Sirangelo, named six weeks ago as special assistant to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, left the agency as NASA abandoned a reorganization plan due to a chilly reception on Capitol Hill, Bridenstine said in a statement. ... The latest initiative was dubbed Artemis, after the goddess of the hunt and the moon in Greek mythology and the twin sister of Apollo. NASA had aimed to return crewed spacecraft to the lunar surface by 2028, after putting a “Gateway” station into lunar orbit by 2024. However, the prospect of additional funding drew little enthusiasm from congressional appropriators. The two people with knowledge of the matter said Sirangelo’s ouster was sealed by increasing skepticism that 2024 was a realistic deadline for moon landings. In his statement, Bridenstine said the agency was still exploring what organizational changes were “necessary to maximize efficiencies and achieve the end state of landing the first woman and the next man on the moon by 2024.” “If the $1.6 billion does not materialize, we will fall back on the previous plan, which was to land in 2028,” the NASA chief told reporters at a news conference earlier in the day. " https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-nasa/nasa-executive-quits-weeks-after-appointment-to-lead-2024-moon-landing-plan-idUSKCN1SU0A5
  21. 2 points
    I doubt that it is about control per se. Folks are alright is only presented on of those options, for example (i.e. when they have no control whatsoever). Moreover, when presented separately folks were fine with either choice in such a randomized trial. I suspect that it is the thought of getting something worse than someone else is something that is at least one of the reasons. In various psychological (and economic) tests (such as the ultimatum game, where on person decides the share of a given monetary amount and the second either rejects or accepts the deal) folks have been shown that folks would rather penalize unfair shares rather than accepting any amount of money (which would be the rational choice). Some similar thinking may play a role here. The corollary is that theoretically people may have less misgivings if they were specifically recruited to either group separately. However, that would make blind trials and accounting for placebo impossible as well as raise the issue of non-randomized selection. Edit: A bit off-topic though it may be a similar mechanism: It is interesting to speculate what other impact these things have in other personal and political decision making. As recent studies have shown, economic loss is, for example, surprisingly not a strong predictor for radicalization (and goes against traditional wisdom, which assumes a rational decision-process). Instead, fear of unfair treatment and status loss or that someone could take ones share, are stronger motivators. I.e. the perception of potential loss seems to be stronger than the actual loss, which is somewhat mind-blowing bit also implies that many standard political assumptions are wrong.
  22. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note Right. The problem isn't that you have posted something that contains a few buzzwords but no real physics. It’s with everyone else for pointing that out. ! Moderator Note Terminology, as well an not including any real physics, and being wrong about some of your claims. ! Moderator Note If you were 15, I would tell you to take physics when you get the chance in school, and then when you go to college, take more physics classes. You can't hand-wave your way through this. You would probably be better served asking questions and learning how physics works.
  23. 2 points
    No, when has history ever happened twice? It's like trying to walk over the same river twice; at some point it didn't/doesn't have a bridge... Or water.
  24. 2 points
    Unlike motion in space, where you can move in the + or - direction on a set of axes, your motion in the time dimension is only in the + direction.
  25. 2 points