Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/15/18 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    Right, he is saying that the speed of light in both directions is the same with respect to any inertial frame as measured from that frame. So in the following example we have two observers. One standing along the tracks and the other traveling along the tracks in a railway car. Two flashes are emitted from two points along the tracks that are equal distance from the track observer. the light from these flashes arrive at the midpoint observer at the same moment as the railway observer is passing him. Thus both observers detect the light from the flashes at the same time. Like this: For the midpoint observer ( or anyone at rest with respect to the tracks) these flashes were emitted simultaneously, as shown by the expanding circles: However, for the railway car observer, events have to occur differently. He still detects the light from both flashes simultaneously, and they arrive when he is adjacent to the track observer. But unlike the track observer he has not remained halfway between the emission points the entire time. He is not an equal distance from the emission points when either of the flashes was emitted. But he must also measure the speed of light for each of the flashes as being the same relative to himself. But since the distances each of these flashes travel relative to him are not the same, in order for the light of the flashes to reach him simultaneously, they must have left at different times. And the sequence of the events for him occur like this: For the track observer, the flashes are emitted simultaneously, but for the railway observer they are not. This is the relativity of simultaneity: Events that are simultaneous in one inertial frame are not so according to another which in relative motion with respect to the first frame.
  2. 5 points
    We're working on it. http://indexsmart.mirasmart.com/IFCS2018/PDFfiles/IFCS2018-000128.pdf https://www.osapublishing.org/josab/abstract.cfm?uri=josab-35-7-1557
  3. 5 points
    Hello everyone! It has been a while since I was active in the forum. Sure, I post a song here and there, but I just can't participate like I used to. I'm still having problems with my left hip even though I had a hip replacement back in April, 2017. Since then, I lost my job and medical insurance because I simply can't sit and write code for hours on end due to the extreme pain in my left hip. I lost my job as a software engineer in the middle of being treated by my doctor and they want a $500 deposit to continue treating me. Unfortunately, I don't have any income, I'm unable to work, and I've blown through my savings on living expenses and doctor bills. Most likely, I will need a revision done on my hip replacement to fix whatever is wrong so that I can go back to work and be a productive member of society. So, I'm reaching out to the community and asking for your help! The following link is to my GoFundMe campaign. I've attached photos of how my surgeries went so you will understand how much pain I'm actually experiencing. It's ok if you can't donate. You can help me out tremendously just by sharing this link! Every little bit helps!!! https://www.gofundme.com/clevelandraymond Thank you all so much! I truly appreciate anything you can do. Not only does your efforts mean the world to me, but also to my family as well.
  4. 5 points
    Accusations of deliberate, widespread bias and falsification of results, across every major institution (in several different nations) doing climate science and climate modelling really does require evidence. Evidence of which, if this misconduct was really going on, would leave a much clearer trail than a couple of questionable phrases in one email exchange. There is no such evidence, just accusations or it would have come to light a long time ago. Does anyone really think successive governments across the developed world, many with demonstrated hostility to climate science's reports and studies, could not uncover that extent of deliberate bias and collusion? Or that level of incompetence not be noticed within long running non-secret institutions where high standards - with everything on the record - are essential to everything they do? The claims of bias and incompetence are all accusation and no evidence. We have agencies that can pick out guarded exchanges between anonymous terrorist conspirators but they can't catch out hundreds (thousands?) of published working scientists conspiring within and between legitimate government agencies? They haven't exposed this alleged conspiracy of incompetent science and world subjugation because it doesn't exist. Making casual accusations against ordinary people doing their job (better than some people like) is, itself, a serious kind of wrongdoing (slander), besides being very insulting to people who, so far as evidence goes, have been doing their jobs with all the appropriate care and attention and honesty. All that professional effort to work out how our climate system really works, only to be casually accused of being everything from colluding in incompetence to engaging in a global conspiracy! What upsets me almost more than anything else, is that climate scientists have given us an extraordinary gift in the forewarning and foresight they have given. The window of time to transform the way we do energy has been precious beyond price; that we have been squandering it is not the fault of climate scientists failing to communicate. The persistent counter-messaging by opponents and obstructors is indicative of a far more insidious conspiracy of biased incompetence than even their made up version of conspiratorial climate scientists and green-socialist-globalists. In the face of that kind of politicking, and given the seriousness of the climate problem it is climate scientist who do not resort to advocacy that I find questionable. Mistermack - I think you are too gullible and that you have been gulled. I don't expect you to believe anything from me even if you did give it due consideration. Or from Al Gore or from Greenpeace or whoever; however, I do think you should consider taking the Royal Society and National Academy of Sciences, the NOAA, NSIDC, NASA, CSIRO, Hadley CRU and so on, seriously.
  5. 4 points
    coffeesippin has finally tested our patience too far and is banned permanently.
  6. 4 points
    ! Moderator Note Daedelus approached us to coordinate this with the Admins and Mods. We've helped out a member in need before, so please feel free to participate (or not). We wish Daedelus the best of luck in funding his treatments. Thanks to everyone for spending your time here, in reasoned dialogue and intellectual honesty. SFN members are fantastic!
  7. 3 points
    Yes, what then? In my opinion they are intimately related. Let's take an example. Imagine a very weak photon source, emitting about one photon every minute. All around it, but at a distance of one light second (=300,000 km) we have photon detectors. Now according to Maxwell (no photons, just waves) every minute a circular wave front expands into space. According to QM however, we only have a 'probability wave', and the photon is detected at only one detector. At the moment of detection, I know immediately that none of the others will detect a photon. So the event 'measuring a photon' and 'not measuring a photon' are entangled. If behind every detector would stand a human observer, one could send a message to all the others when measuring a photon and tell them that at timepoint 5:09h she knew that nobody else had measured a photon, based on the fact that she already had measured it. So the entanglement follows directly from the wave character of the probability distribution. The power of real entanglement experiments (also known as EPR, or Bell experiments) is that we have positive measurements on both sides, not just a lack of a measurement. But they are expressions of the same phenomenon. So, what then? No. We do not need realtime measurements. If two detectors at a great distance of each other are in the same inertial frame they just can make their measurements, notice the exact time of measurement, and then later compare their measurements. There is no faster-than-light communication. See here. The mathematical theory of QM is unambiguous: entanglement must exist. Do not forget, it was theoretically derived before it also was measured. So there is no problem to solve. The only problem is that we, humans, cannot picture this based on our daily concepts.
  8. 3 points
    Well, for that last one anyway, they become POTUS.
  9. 3 points
    A LED proper connection to two cells in series should include a resistor also in series to limit the current. Lacking current limitation, the thermal properties of the LED can increase the current demand as the LED warms up with elapsed time on. The batteries can also change their internal resistance with temperature with the elapsed time on. As the cells deplete, the current should decrease as the battery voltage gets lower in time. The time can be many hours, depending on the capability and charge state of the battery. Unequal state of charge for each cell can also cause unusual readings.
  10. 3 points
    Nope. YOU have made specific claims in this thread. I don't believe them. So it is up to YOU to provide evidence for those claims. There is a high-level summary of some of the evidence here: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf Note that it is about 30 pages and only touches on some of the types of evidence. So, as I say, providing evidence in a forum post is not practical. This is a report put together by hundreds of experts (*) on the current state of the science and the potential impacts on the USA. I think it is about 1,000 pages in total. So feel free to come back with questions after you have read it: Volume 1 (the science): https://science2017.globalchange.gov Volume 2 (impact assessment): https://nca2018.globalchange.gov And then there is: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm https://climatechange.insightconferences.com/events-list/evidence-of-climate-changes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457037/html/ https://www.ipcc.ch/data/ And so on and so on But perhaps you think that all of these experts from different countries, universities, political beliefs, religions, sciences, etc are all in some massive conspiracy to trick you. If so, this might be more up your street: BBC R4 "A History of Delusions"
  11. 3 points
    Damn, busted! I guess it’s time to come clean. I suppose I always knew it would come out that I’ve spent over a decade at this site contributing nearly 20,000 posts on varied topics... and all just to bolster the master plan and ready the battleground such that one day when you ultimately registered at SFN 11 years later... when it finally all came together once you joined this community one month ago complete with your ironclad logic and inpenetrateble arguments... that I might hope to fool the flock into not taking you seriously. Well spotted, Mr Homes. Well spotted, indeed. You have clearly bested me with your awe inspiring genius. I concede.
  12. 3 points
    I had in mind things like carbon pricing that make the externalised costs part of the pricing of various transport choices, not forced vehicle confiscations. I want reasoned and reasonable responses to climate change from governments - preventing unreasonable responses as well as promoting reasonable ones is a legitimate thing ordinary people can do when they vote. Facing up to it - taking the expert advice seriously - should be the barest minimum to expect, not something an irate public has to demand from someone holding high office. Climate change is not about socialist versus capitalist, it is about accountability and responsibility. It is not anti-free enterprise to want accountability and costing of climate externalities.
  13. 3 points
    Interpreting the hidden meaning behind a person's statements is a fool's errand. His comments could have been exactly the same whether he is innocent or guilty. No matter what he says, some will believe him, some will not. Some will think it is thoughtful, some will think he is being aggressive. Some will find him credible, some will not. Discussing whether or not we believe him or what his intentions are may be an enjoyable pastime, but we shouldn't make the mistake of believing that after a long discussion we will be any closer to knowing the truth.
  14. 3 points
    The doctor compared my x-rays from the day I had my hip replacement to today and said that the socket has shifted, which may be the reason I'm having so much pain. He is ordering an MRI and another test, but said we can fix this so that I'm no longer hurting once we are certain what the problem is.
  15. 3 points
    I was quite confident that at some point this discussion is going to derail. Let's be clear about a few things. The current delay at the border is not due to an unexpected surge of applicants. It is the result of a rule set out by the Trump administration, which is currently facing lawsuits. Some points how asylum used to work: If someone tries to enter the US without proper documentation, they are subjected to deportation, unless they claim asylum. If they do, they are entitled to an interview with an asylum officer. If the officer determines credible fear of persecution (which is a defined term and has been further restricted by Jeff Sessions) , they can go ahead to a immigration judge hearing. However, that step can take years and asylum claimants can legally live and work in the US. Even if they are decided not to be eligible for asylum, but the asylum officer decided that they have credible fear of persecution, they can receive a withholding of removal that allows a stay in the US, but has not path to permanent legal status. Many Haitians were granted asylum under the latter category after the earthquake, for example. Note: none of these paths require detention. Detention originally was limited to folks that either have criminal convictions or other wise pose a threat to national security. And before anyone uses the same language as Trump to describe the process, the vast majority of asylum seekers appear to their court hearings. The Trump administration employed new rules to make this process more difficult and creates delays: Going back to detention. Typically, detention was not used in a blanket format. Folks passing the credible fear test were generally scheduled for release. Under Trump, the release rate dropped almost to zero and has faced a lawsuit this year. In other words, all the malaise of horrible detention conditions, and folks trying to enter illegally are the direct consequences of the policies of the current government. This includes the separation of children from their families, which has been reversed. But it is blindingly clear that the situation is not caused by external effects, it is not due to cost. It is part and parcel of a cruel strategy with the sole goal to curb asylum seekers and falls under the same vein as the Muslim ban.What is striking is the mix of indifference and outright cruelty towards those trying to claim asylum, regardless whether they are ultimately eligible or not. In fact the administration is actively working to revoke the Flores settlement, in order to allow for virtually unlimited detention until their status is resolved . And just to make it really clear, there is no material evidence that shows an increased need for detention during the asylum seeking process. The appearance rate of families, especially if they are provided legal counsel is close to 100%. The group most likely not to appear seem to be individual men with no legal counsel. Those are also most likely held in detention when they have no documentation in the first place. And while we are talking about deterrence, even with all the cruelty which should not baked into a process that was borne out of compassion, the actual asylum claims have been increasing. Let's make this part really, really clear. The policies that the administration enacts, specifically with respect to family separations, are targeted at those that usually have the strongest standing for asylum claims: family units with children. Apprehension of family units have been surging, by September 2018 the largest group consisted of family units with 90k total. This is the highest recorded number ever. So yes, the policy is not there to deter folks who may not have a claim. It is there to specifically reduce those who are eligible. And that is why tear gas on moms and kids was just a natural consequence in the progression of those tactics. Make no mistake, the immigration policies as created by the Trump-Bannon-Miller-Sessions strategies have been outlined early on and should not come as a surprise to anyone. It is not about a surge in immigration, cost, logistics or anything connected to that. The numbers clearly show that it is not the case. The policies clearly show that it is not the case, even if folks want to dance around them. It is all about keeping folks out from certain countries (Norway would be fine, though, so no worries) even, or perhaps especially if they have credible fear of persecution. By employing a tactic of making legal entry much, much harder and increasing the persecution of illegal entries, a home-made crisis can be presented to the public in an effort to outright undermine the right for asylum.
  16. 3 points
    You have pushed that the caravan poses a logistical problems and merely surrounded it with fairly petty questions which work as a sort of Gish Gallop. The Caravan is a few thousand people. Our border and immigration infrastructure handles that volume pf people regularly on an ongoing basis. There is no crisis here other than the political one being created by POTUS and his supporters.
  17. 3 points
    The big picture I was referring to was not the logistics you refer to with the rest of your questions, but our overall vision at the border with respect to humanitarianism, professionalism, and optics in the international community. I've also been trying to convey the point that the logistics involved in with implementing an empathetic and professional approach at the border are a relatively minor detail. We already have the skills, experience, and professionalism needed to implement a more empathetic and less confrontational approach. By changing our message from "invasion" and "responding to rocks as if they are guns" to "we'll get to everyone as fast as we can" and "why don't you get a meal and cleaned up while you wait", we decrease the likelihood of violence and soured international relations with minimal effort. Not to mention that it is the decent thing to do. In a similar vein, when protesters visit a site, we expect our officials to try to defuse any potential conflict rather than incite, and we render aid even to those who are breaking the law. I don't know why we would't want officials at the border and in government to also strive for a peaceful and respectful outcome. At the border, for as long as it takes to eat, shower, and rest their tired feet. Are you asking if we stop fights among the migrants, or if we take steps to keep them from illegally entering the US? If so, then yes, we keep it secure. Presumably there is an entry point to go further into the US already. As far as I'm concerned we can just put up a tent in front of it and let people rest and get cleaned up while waiting. I'm not suggesting any changes one way or the other with respect to immigration policy. Only that we act with respect, kindness, and professionalism while we are going about our jobs.
  18. 3 points
    I think I’m in love. Larva of a bluebottle fly (Calliphora vomitoria), under electron microscope:
  19. 3 points
    A very cool animation of the black holes that created the first detected gravitational waves (a simulation, not an "artists impression")
  20. 3 points
    One tip to go with all iNow's questions: Choose something which can be built in less than six months.
  21. 3 points
    I feel the real Scotsman fallacy coming... Who defines who is Christian? You? Or do Christians define themselves as Christian? Sorry, But I hate these kind of sweeping statements where you state what others should believe according the labels you use. Fascinating. The article is amongst others about Christians who accept evolution. Another one. If you had written 'most' I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, but you wrote 'all'. I know several people who also take Jesus' miracles symbolically. Yes, probably. Surely evolution made us prone to religious ideas. But religious ideas of individuals are mainly socially learned. So they may arise in the brain, but not necessarily caused by it.
  22. 3 points
    coffeesippin has been suspended 3 days for repeated thread hijacking
  23. 3 points
    You're a great one for stating the bleedin obvious. But the bleedin obvious DIFFERENCE is that I KNOW it's not safe to cross the road, I CAN SEE and HEAR the traffic. It's not a question of belief in heavenly cars that nobody has ever seen, heard, or been hit by. If I believed that god would keep them safe, I'd still be an LOONY to teach them to cross without looking. But according to your logic, that would be ok. You believe it, so teach it. The difference is between knowing and believing. Every single religious person with a brain had doubt. They may profess belief, they may never admit it out loud, but they know perfectly well that there's a real possibility that their religion is utter bollocks. But they still indoctrinate their kids, as if it's all true. That's why I call it child abuse.
  24. 3 points
    I followed the discussion a little, but did not participate because of 2 reasons: - one very practical: I am not very versed in the philosophy of language, and going into 'deep thought mode' when my daily business already needs that capacity also, it becomes a little bit too much. I simple do not have the time - the discussion about these topics have shown (inductive reasoning?) that they become emotional very soon. Which maybe funny for people who both, in different ways, believe to be rational. I have not very much hope to alleviate the tension a bit, but at least I can give it a try. Reg clearly stated a few times that he does not question the results of science. What is discussed here, as far as I can see, is the self-understanding of science, not science itself. And that is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. But of course, one has to know what the daily praxis of science is. If one wants to reflect on 'how science works', or the even more philosophical question 'why science works' one needs to know when scientists accept new theories, why other theories are rejected, why and how scientists err, etc etc. Until now, I did not see that Reg is principally wrong in his philosophical musings. What I see is a lot of misunderstandings. I am still not quite clear what Zosimus' position is: when he says that 'science is wrong' and scientific theories do not play an important role in the development of technology, I think he is clearly wrong. Just to conclude from that it happens that (technical useful) discoveries are made without any theory does not question the relationship between praxis and theory completely (e.g superconductivity was completely unexpected, and the theory came much later). I just want to add that the problems of the relationship between language and reality are notoriously difficult, and a simple 'we know that science works' is not very clarifying in trying to understand how it is possible that science works.
  25. 3 points
    So, some of the things you mentioned that folks describe you (e.g. unmentorable, or getting accused of falsifying data) are quite significant red flags. But without knowing context, it is difficult to tell whether you got in some unfavourable situations or whether you contributed to them. The other part are unrealistic goals. As a PhD candidate it is not typical in biomedical research to expect publications within the first year, unless you finish up someone else's work. And even then the PI typically rewrites the whole thing, anyway. From the perspective of a mentor your description of the events mostly show that things happened and that you are upset with it. But it does not tell anything about your suitability for a science career (or any other career for that matter). From my perspective you have to deal with two things. The first is the emotional aspects, which Koti covered. The second is figuring out the tangibles that got you these evaluations. How was your relationship to your supervisor, what were the issues, how did you address them, were you dismissive... and so on.
  26. 3 points
    Interesting question. I think it is mostly about choice of words and I can't see it as a big problem - but is running climate models from the conditions current 100 years ago to see how well they "project/predict" climate changes only up to where we have real world data to compare to really prediction? Well, it does get called hindcasting to distinguish it from models that start with near-present known conditions to see what future conditions might be. Hindcasting is done to verify how well the models work given various inputs, such as including the known rise in things like GHG concentrations, solar input and occurrences of volcanic eruptions over the period. Or alternatively without the rising GHG to see how climate might have changed without them. Is it a prediction (or projection) if it only projects from further in the past up to when real world data runs out? I don't think calling it that is completely unreasonable, but it probably deserves clarification. _____________________________________ There are a lot of misunderstandings about climate model projections/predictions and, like claims of reasonable climate concerns being labelled alarmist, a lot of the claims about modelling getting it wrong originate in the counter-messaging by those opposed to climate action. The "pause/hiatus" controversy for example arose from mistaking - often on purpose and ignoring expert objections - the average of many model runs giving an 0.x degrees per year of warming as predicting that every year will be 0.x degrees warmer than the one before. Which is like saying because models of seasonal temperature changes based on Earth's axial tilt say that on average each Spring day will be warmer than the day before - and therefore, because we just had a string of cooler than that average days, the models are wrong and Summer won't be warmer than Spring. And then suggest it could be the start of a new ice age. Each individual model run actually show similar year to year variability that the real world does - ups and downs, pauses and accelerations, within the range of expected variability; that they do so is indicative of how well they work, not how badly. They just don't have those ups and downs in the same place each time. Which is why temperature trends look at averages over enough time that the expected variability doesn't mask underlying longer term changes. That variability from year to year averages out to a very wobbly line if the period averaged over is too short, such as with "The Pause" which showed less warming than the 0.x degrees per year - and large parts of that variability can be attributed to known climate processes. The largest would be ENSO - el Nino Southern Oscillation - which causes year to year temperature changes much larger than the underlying warming trend - take a ten year period and if there are more la Nina years than el Nino then global average temperatures will be lower, despite an underlying warming trend. The other way about and they will be higher and it could look like warming has speeded up - it takes about 20 years or more for averaging for them to see past the global average temperature swings ENSO induces. Climate scientists most often use 30 years to be sure and routinely point out that looking at shorter periods can be very misleading. Of all measures of global warming I think this one most directly shows actual gain of heat by Earth's climate system - and whilst it has year to year variability a much shorter period for averaging is needed to see past it. Ocean Heat Content shows no sign of an early 21st century Pause in warming (and is not explainable as ".. a consequence of growth of a city, and paving over of land.") -
  27. 3 points
    Neither of those are true. I often wonder why people think their god approves of them lying like this. Arguably true. Depending on the definition of "abstract", "concept", "existence", "physical", etc. But utterly, painfully, irrelevant. The existence of mathematics does not prove gods exist. Some people who developed science believed in various gods and some didn't. And, again, it is completely irrelevant if they did. What does "confident in atheism" mean? There are still people who don't believe in gods, so yes there is still atheism.
  28. 2 points
    I always put myself in the other persons shoes. I am 6 years older than my wife (she says 7, which is totally wrong, as we met slightly over a month after her 24th birthday, and I was 30, and would not turn 31 for almost a full month). We met on a blind date so no PC concerns I know of at this time. But I always ask myself...what if we had met and I was subordinate to her, or she to me? What kind of perpetrator might I, or (I would hope) she, have been?
  29. 2 points
    Or maybe not. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirudo_medicinalis#Today
  30. 2 points
    Alternative history and speculations are virtually the same thing. Events alone are not really historic sciences per se and biographies are a small specialization. The Schlieffenplan was an "Aufmarsch" (Deployment)- and not an operational plan. Van Moltke ran into operational and logistical challenges. The claim that von Moltke messed with a glorious plan costing certain victory was basically a myth or narrative created by German historians (and officers) to deflect blame. Only post WWII historians have started to revise that narrative, though it has stuck in high-school classes for a long time.
  31. 2 points
    It’s a lightning rod to prevent religious discussion from littering up the other science based sections. When religion was removed as a subforum in the past, biology and cosmology became where these unavoidable conversations kept landing. Better to acknowledge these conversations will occur and given them a properly quarantined home. Also, like politics, the topic is inherently interesting to many of us and it’s nice being able to explore its various intricacies with other generally rational and intelligent members here.
  32. 2 points
    The transmission medium original question was air. Further alpha and beta rays are both charged and particulate. The particulate part says that it depends upon the nature of the source and the particle density. The charge says that there is interaction with airborn particles. In fact transmission through a medium usually follows an exponential decay type law. This also applies to EM radiation, but the coefficients are such that air is virtually transparent to gamma rays, over distances measured in less than hundreds of kilometers.
  33. 2 points
  34. 2 points
    Q-reeus and beecee have both been suspended for three days for not being able to lay off the personal jabs at each other.
  35. 2 points
    I think SJs point is more about the fact that this wasn’t a predator/prey situation. Human sexuality and attraction is complex. We are always both predator and prey (with the obvious exception of children or violence). She was uncomfortable, and it would’ve been better had it not happened, but it’s also important not to paint her as some vulnerable bunny in the jaws of a shark.
  36. 2 points
    Ignorance doesn't pop, it doesn't move, it doesn't try to do ANYTHING. Ignorance is simply a gap in your knowledge, a hole waiting to be filled with the correct thing, like pieces of a puzzle. Treat it this way and it's much easier to deal with. You aren't trying to overcome ignorance, you're trying to diminish it. Congratulations on the epiphany! The pursuit of knowledge is indeed a beautiful thing. And being able to trust the process from which your knowledge is derived is a huge barrier you've overcome. Good job, ALine!
  37. 2 points
    Misogyny is a horrible poison. I'm sorry your life is filled with such pettiness and hatred. It shouldn't happen to anyone, and affects so many around you, but it's worse when it's self-inflicted. I don't mean to get too personal, but I've always thought negative behavior was a magnet for negative thoughts. I hope you aren't attracting the bad to yourself with your attitude. I hope you can find some forgiveness in your religion. I feel really sorry for you, and I wish you well even though you were invited in to our home and decided to be THAT kind of guest. Merry Christmas.
  38. 2 points
    It was not necessarily that one single post that triggered my mod note, it was also the few posts of yours that preceded it. The post you have quoted of yours does leave a lot to be desired, and I mentioned this in my note. Specifically, the idea that the opinion of one scientist is equivalent to what is known from science is absurd, and does you a disservice. You were preaching in that thread, and you will be banned if you continue to disregard moderator warnings and the forum rules. Do not pretend as though we have sought you out simply because of your beliefs in God, or that I have ever done anything towards you in anger because of your stated opinions on God when I have not. Frustration perhaps, since you continue to break the same rules time and time again, but not anger, and not for your beliefs. I have to believe that this is purely disingenuous on your part. You have acquired 1 suspension and 7 warning points since joining less than a month ago, most of which were not given to you by me. Are you genuinely suggesting that those are not as a result of you not being able to follow the rules here, or that I am the cause of your troubles here rather than your own behaviour? Furthermore, I have not wanted you out. Indeed, I do not really wish for anyone to be "out". What I would like is for everyone to follow the rules and play nice; unfortunately, that is not in agreement with the reality of a publicly available, web-based discussion forum. As such, we have rules and staff to enforce those rules so that this place is able to meet its primary intention - to discuss science (and other topics surrounding science) in a rational, intelligent, and respectful manner. If you are unable to comply with the rules we have designed in order to do that, then yes, you will find yourself banned. You would not be banned purely because of me, since no one is banned at the sole discretion of one staff member. We discuss things. We have minimum quotas to meet before action is able to be taken.
  39. 2 points
    I often do discuss such nuances in fiction: was the last thing in Pandora's box hope or deceptive expectation? was Smeagol smiling as he fell into Mount Doom ? whether the dark side really is stronger than the light side (Yoda never really answers that question). Fiction has much to offer us without being literally true. The Bible is one of the best collections of fiction and deserves its place amongst literary great works. As Hemingway put it: 'All good books have one thing in common - they are truer than if they really happened and after you are finished reading one you will feel that all that happened to you and afterwards it all belongs to you: the good and the bad, the ecstasy, the remorse and sorrow, the people and the places and how the weather was.'
  40. 2 points
    Why not do a little research? e.g. where is your evidence that in warm periods the temperature everywhere on earth is above say -5C so that the 'top ice' everywhere melts? No. Lots of independent checks before any ice core is considered to be valid evidence of anything.
  41. 2 points
    Where have we hunted invasive species to extinction? I know we've removed invasive species from the place they've invaded, but that is hardly the same as hunting them to "extinction". Typically invasive species are removed from an ecosystem because their lack of natural predators in their new environment allows them to do undue harm to the existing and/or desirable ecosystem.
  42. 2 points
    You even make the same careless spelling mistakes as Beecee!
  43. 2 points
    It cannot be a consequence of Relativity. Relativity is an explanation, it is not a cause.
  44. 2 points
    The powerset of the empty set is the set of the empty set, P({}) = {{}}. It has one element: the empty set.
  45. 2 points
    I don't know and doubt you really care. If you did your ability to research is probably just as good or better than mine. The U.S. has the highest prison population in the world with over 2 million people. The notion that we are not logistically equipped to hand them few thousand migrants which make up the caravan is absolutely ridiculous. We literally have millions housed long term in prisons. A few thousand is nothing.
  46. 2 points
    There are billions of options in between. Comments like this suggest a profound failure of imagination and experience, not some fundamental truth. Really, much of this is about which visual we choose to look at. THIS: OR THIS: I, for one, feel that as a country of nearly 350 million people and more wealth than the planet has EVER seen, we CAN find a way to include these folks within the population of “us.” I see neighbors and friends and colleagues in these photos and I don’t wet my pants when a mommy fleeing violence with her babies walks cross an arbitrary line looking to work hard and contribute, but YMMV
  47. 2 points
    To me it feels as if this is being mishandled by the US. Whether we allow the immigrants in or not, we should be able to set the tone and ensure the interactions at the border happen as pleasantly and professionally as possible. I believe if we start with a bit of empathy instead of hostility this could all go much better. Meet them at the gate, give them some food and water, perhaps a shower and a place to rest, then either let them in or turn them away. We can afford to show some kindness to people who have next to nothing.
  48. 2 points
    coffeesippin has been suspended for one week for abuse behaviour and preaching.
  49. 2 points
    As you're referring to the U.S., a major reason is the success of the religious right in inhibiting access to sex education, safe sex info, treatment for STIs, contraception and abortion. Maximising harm to those who do not adhere to their concept of morality is an aim of evangelicals etc.
  50. 2 points
    A few words on the dispute over "appeal to authority"... It seems to me there's nothing fallacious in appealing to an authority or authorities on matters where they are indeed authoritative. It's something we all do when we consult a doctor for medical advice, a civil engineer for proposals to strengthen a bridge, a theologian on matters of scripture, or a biologist on biology. These people are experts, far more knowledgeable than the layperson, and their thoughts or suggestions have to be given due consideration. What would be fallacious, of course, is to make the inference from "she's an expert" to "she must be right". But surely few of us do this. Equally obviously, to cite a team of elderly shoemakers, say, as an authority on questions pertaining to subatomic physics would be... well, a load of old cobblers. Then again, surely none of us are this gormless. Far more pernicious, I find, is when people who are authorities in a particular area drift into a closely related area where their "expertise" is no longer nonpareil, indeed may even be little more worthy of belief than the layperson. The danger here is that -- unlike cobblers pontificating on Hilbert spaces -- they will be mistakenly held to be authorities on the subject matter in question by those who know no better. With respect to our own particular concerns here, two culprits who leap immediately to mind are Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. Presumably the two of them are indeed competent to speak on their respective bailiwicks. The problem, though, is that they have this nasty habit of speaking authoritatively on what I will call "metascientific" matters. That is, not the nitty-gritty of any particular scientific domain or theory, but rather, science as a whole: questions about science, as opposed to scientific questions. The kinds of metascientific questions I have in mind include those pertaining to the nature of science, evidence, confirmation, falsification, theories, demarcation, progress, scientific reasoning, explanation, truth, knowledge, scientific realism & antirealism, and so forth. Now, there are people who devote careers to examining the kinds of questions I've alluded to above: they include philosophers, historians and sociologists of science. These are the authorities in this case. I'm never quite sure whether Dawkins et al are just blissfully ignorant of the fact that such experts exist, or else know this but are too contemptuous to deem their research worthy. It's always hard for me to convince others of this, but Dawkins, Krauss, deGrasse Tyson, and others like them are not authorities on metascientific issues. Quite the contrary, these men -- if I may be blunt -- are little more than utterly clueless on such matters. I assume that Zosimus groans and squirms as much as I do listening to these men as one screaming absurdity is proclaimed after another, one long-discredited doctrine after the next upheld in succession, one false assertion piled upon another glaring inaccuracy or hyperbole. As I said, it's rare that anyone is convinced by my saying this, though I'm perfectly willing to put my $$$ where my gaping maw is. Perhaps in another thread someone might post a Youtube video or something for purposes of analysis. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you'd be as well listening to those cobblers on matters metascientific. Probably cheaper, too. P.S. I must express how gratifying it is to see several new additions to the thread (Zosimus, et pet, coffeesippin), all of whom enjoy a healthy negative reputation count -- generally an indicator around here that some heinous critical thinking has been perpetrated.