Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/14/18 in Posts

  1. 8 points
    So if I change the charge of one plate, somebody can measure an instantaneous change at the other plate. Wouldn't that be a violation of special relativity? @Menan You show that you do not understand entanglement. Let's go one step at a time. First a classical example. I have a bag of balls, they are all red or green. Without looking I pick two balls, and I put them in separate boxes. I keep one, and send the other far away. Then I open my box, and see it is a green ball. What can I conclude about the colour of the ball in the remote box? Right, nothing. And why? Because there was nothing special with my picks. It could have been two reds, two greens, or one red and green. Now I pick, looking of course, one red and one green, and put them in two separate boxes. So what I did here is 'entangle' the balls. Now I shuffle the two boxes, so that I do not know which one is which. If I open one, and see that it is red, I immediately know that the ball in the other box is green. And of course, this is independent on the distance. If I send the second box lightyears away, and only then open my box, I still know immediately what some alien sees when he opens his box. I know it because the observations are correlated. And the correlation already happened at the moment of my picks. That is the moment of entanglement. It is not when the boxes are opened. Now in quantum physics, there are processes where two particles pop out, which have e.g in one aspect always opposite values. Say the direction of spin. So if I measure the spin e.g. in a vertical direction, say it is 'up', then I immediately know that the other one will measure spin 'down', when also measured in the vertical direction. But as with the balls, the 'moment of entanglement' is when these particles popped into existence. But in quantum physics a few things are different: first, it is impossible to say which particle has which spin without measuring (it is as if I created the green and red balls, including their boxes, without knowing which ball is in which box). But as the two particles are entangled, if I measure both, the measurements will always be correlated. And there is nothing special with correlation: if I send one particle far away, and then measure my particle in the vertical direction, and the alien measures his particle in the same direction, I will always know what he measures: the opposite of my measurement. The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30o, 45o, 55.3977o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. But it still is correlation, not causation. As with the red and green balls, there is no direct causal relationship between my and the alien's observation. The causal relationship goes back to the moment of 'entanglement'. Everything afterwards is just correlation, and therefore cannot be used to transfer information. And because there is no causal relationship between my measurement of the spin of my particle, and the alien's measurement, I cannot use entanglement for sending information. And all this is very well understood by all quantum physicists, and is no secret at all.
  2. 6 points
    I am pleased to now add CharonY and Strange to the list of gullible fools wonderful people willing to sacrifice their time for the greater good here at SFN. Congratulations!
  3. 5 points
    In previous threads, staff have mentioned that we have on occasion curtailed or removed the ability for people to use the reputation system. In previous versions of the forum software we were able to limit positive or negative reputation limits separately. This meant that the impact of people who wished to use the reputation system to target specific members was always low, and staff could easily reverse it. This no longer being the case means that the system is more open to being abused by people wishing to use it as a form of personal attack. Thankfully, we have had very few cases where staff have had to intervene. For those cases where we have had to do something, admin have created two new member groups with reputation point limits set to either 0 or 2, which limits the use of both positive and negative rep points.
  4. 4 points
    ! Moderator Note Menan was banned for breaking the rules, but for this sentence he should be banned from ever touching a computer again. This ignorance is willful.
  5. 4 points
    Yes, there ought to be a rule that you can leave those discussions, and just take part in the ones that interest you.
  6. 4 points
    I may be re-evaluating my 'fit' on this forum ( politics in particular ), but I still read occasionally, and can't stand lack of comprehension ( on both sides ). The confusion arises because Conjurer hasn't bothered to look up the difference between virtual particles and 'random particle pairs'. Virtual particles exist on 'borrowed' energy, in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle. As such, they are not like real particle pairs and when their time is up, they annihilate without resultant photons. Real particle/anti-particle pairs require the emission of photons in accordance with momentum and energy conservation laws on annihilation. When an event horizon removes one of the virtual particles from consideration, the other ( of the pair ) must by necessity, become real. The 'borrowed' energy that created the virtual particles, must still be repaid back to the vacuum, by the mechanism which 'stole' the virtual particle, the Black Hole itself. If you do the energy 'accounting', the BH ends up losing exactly one virtual particle equivalent of mass-energy, and the universe outside the event horizon gains one real particle. That is Hawking Radiation. Notice that there is no link to the Holographic Principle, other than the fact that the entropy of the BH is encoded on the surface of the event horizon, and this entropy is linked to temperature of the BH, and the resultant Hawking Radiation.
  7. 4 points
    I apologize on behalf of Science that Dark Matter is not yet fully understood. By all means, feel free to not treat us seriously until we rectify this egregious situation. You would think that by now we would have everything figured out. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
  8. 4 points
    Why DNA manipulation? Why not just cut the fore-arm and stick a whip in there. Army of darkness style. Also: what are you talking about? That's the most random question I ever heard. Did you imagine that there is a whip gene? And you get it into your bloodstream and become whip-man?
  9. 4 points
    I am not a fan of general statements which imply parity between Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately here in the U.S. we only have 2 major parties and despite various attempts by many to pretend they are both puppets cut from the same cloth there are measurable differences on nearly all matters between the two. When it comes to electing women for example there are 23 women in the Senate and 17 of them are Democrat. There are 84 women in the House and 63 of them are Democrat. So of the 107 women elected to congress in the U.S. 75% of them are Democrats. There are 3 women on the Supreme Court and all 3 were nominated by Democrats. Democrats were the first to run a Women, Geraldine Ferraro, on a Presidental ticket as VP in 1984 and the first to make a women their nominee for President in 2016. Republicans may nominate a Female for President in my lifetime. I am not saying it is impossible but I think it's not currently in the cards. Meanwhile on the Democratic side I will be surprised if either Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, or even Oprah aren't on the ticket as the nominee or VP. 75% of elected women in Congress being Democrat is not a coincidental number.
  10. 3 points
    Just because forest fires have always existed does not mean humans are unable to start them, as well... yet this is the type of argument you're making... that humans are unable to start a forest fire. Strange is right. This is childish. Nobody disagrees the climate has always changed. What matters is the primary forcing agent, which human activity clearly is in modern times.
  11. 3 points
    Please refer to my very recent reply to studiot
  12. 3 points
    I wanted to post this comic somewhere as it is insightful about both science communication and quantum theory. This thread will do! http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3
  13. 3 points
    No, I just didn't feel it necessary to duplicate literature which already exists because you're too lazy to click a link, but I'll play: Here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00182388 Is an investigation of the genus Neisseria - which includes the pathogens N. meningitidis and N. gonorrhoeae as well as a number of non-pathogenic commensal species. Both pathogens have been observed in the clinic to be penicillin resistant. By reconstructing the phylogeny ("Darwin tree" if you insist) we can determine that the resistance genes are mosaic genes resultant of ectopic recombination rather than vertical transfer, and horizontal exchange with commensal species is a probable route for inheritance of resistance in pathogenic species. TlDr: by Making a Darwin tree of a genus of bacteria, we can show that they share and recombine genes that encode antibiotic resistance, and come up with better management plans for controlling the spread of drug resistance in those pathogens.
  14. 3 points
    Tell that to the farmers struggling under tariffs. Except, we are. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Niger, not to mention cyber and the cold wars being stoked with China and Iran Except the opioid epidemic, poverty, rampant inequality, and if you want our crumbling infrastructure. Busted v Philip Randolf Institute. Benisek v Lamone. Gill v Whitford. Jennings v Rodriquez. Jesner v Arab Bank. The list goes on. Just because you’re unaware of them doesn’t mean they’re unimportant or indecisive. Except, you know... the attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the 18 bombs mailed to democratic leaders, and the countless many other acts committed by white nationalists in the US. How are you unaware of the hundreds of protests and marches which have taken place in 2018 alone? That’s just the first paragraph. I’d reply to the other four, but at this point it really feels like a Gish gallop Except the very first sentence in the next paragraph. Can’t let that go. 1944. 1968. 1952 1951 1945 1943 1929 Shall I keep reading and correcting you?
  15. 3 points
    Nonsense. They are completely different things, intended to solve completely different problems and with completely different properties. You should perhaps find out what their definitions are before spouting off like this and making yourself look silly. Of course it is. Do you think scientists just got bored one day and said, "hey why don't we pretend the expansion is accelerating; that'll be a laugh". The Big Bang model is nothing like an explosion. That is not what the evidence shows. Three guys got a Nobel Prize for this. Did you miss it? That "spring" noise you heard was my irony meter breaking.
  16. 3 points
    I’ve assumed nothing about your views, so this is little more than a red herring and/or strawman (funny given the actual thread topic). You said repeatedly Fox and CNN are equivalent, essentially two sides of one coin. Ten Oz pointed out why he felt this was a ludicrous position, provided paragraphs of examples and details as to why, and asked you to provide similar examples which support your position. Your suggestion of equivalence has been challenged. The onus now falls to you to support your claim or retract it. You instead evaded this direct ask and provided no (maybe 1-ish?) similar examples despite repeated requests. Even now you ultimately evaded once more and chose to act all self righteous and put upon in your reply to me above as if I insulted your mother or called your baby ugly. Here’s the thing... you can’t provide examples of equivalence because they’re not equivalent in the way you’ve suggested. Prove me wrong. Please! Like Ten Oz, I don't have cable and haven't watched CNN in a few years. Your claim was pro-Democrat, not anti-trump. This was already clarified before. If we accept your logic that anti-trump means pro-democrat, then we land in the absurd conclusion that folks at the National Review and the Koch brothers are pro-Democrat. Calling this absurd is being kind.
  17. 3 points
    Two boys are playing in a park in a very Democrat neighbourhood, when one is attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy takes his stick, wedges it down the dogs collar and twists,breaking the dogs neck. A CNN reporter who was strolling by sees the incident,and rushes over to interview the boy. "Young Democrat Saves Friend From Vicious Animal," he starts writing in his notebook. "But I'm not a Democrat" the little hero replied. "Sorry, since we are in this area, I just assumed you were into politics." said the reporter and starts again. "Young Boy Rescues Friend From Horrific Attack" he continued writing in his notebook. "But I am into politics, I'm a Republican." the boy said. The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes, "Little GOP Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet!" (adapted from http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?/topic/6048-some-good-ole-leaf-jokes/) Interchange Republican/Democrat and Fox News/CNN to suit and you have the state of politics and news in the U.S. right now.
  18. 3 points
    Good question. Out of curiosity I tried to read the linked article and found this: I'm by no means an expert in semi conductor physics but I believe the above makes it very clear why scientists are not interested.
  19. 3 points
    The whole situation is bizarre to me. In the U.S. among Conservatives taxes and regulations are synonymous govt overreach which burdens businesses and negatively impacts employment. Yet U.S. citizens are among the most heavily policed policed in the world with the U.S. boasting the largest prison population of any nation. Within the U.S. psyche people can imagine the way food labels may or not have an appreciable impact on the hourly wage of a hand full of factory workers yet can't seem to do the same for how put someone in prison for a few years over a non-violent crime might demonstratively have a downward impact on the person's family or community. The same politicians who campaign against regulation, bureaucracy, and govt overreach also somehow get away with also campaigning on Law & Order, capital punishment, and more prisons. It is nuts. Govt regulation into the lives of individuals is championed while simultaneous ridiculed for industry. If a man dates a woman and ends up killing her capital punishment is an option, applauded by millions. It a business produces a product that a person buys and it ends up killing them lawsuits are an option but broadly viewed in negative terms and people will argue that no one is was forced to buy product. Here in the U.S. it seems fairly obvious that we value businesses more than people.
  20. 3 points
    I can't figure out what that means, no. You're clearly using "+" to mean something different from how it is usually used. To answer a later question in your post, yes, since you are using "+" in a nonstandard way, I do expect you to define it.
  21. 3 points
    The moment you stop believing that Darwin is regarded as some sort of scientific god, and therefore one has to believe or accept everything he wrote as scientific gospel, will be the moment you will be able to make progress.
  22. 3 points
    Gravity on a large body like Earth is not a trivial hurdle for life to escape, survive space and survive re-entry on another hospitable body, which would also likely be large. I'm not saying it's impossible but it's not a simpler solution than life starting on Earth. Executing Occam's Razor would tell us to start here, on Earth, for signs of the abiogenesis of life on Earth.
  23. 3 points
    Some of the negatives probably came from me. When you immediately dismiss someone coming forward with a claim of sexual assault as a liar, and ridicule/criticize the circumstances of their claim despite them being typical, you perpetuate the toxic environment which effectively silences victims of sexual violence and prevents them from coming forward. The way in which mistermack discussed ford's assault was toxic, and symptomatic of the animosity typically faced by victims of sexual violence coming forward.
  24. 3 points
    But "victim blaming" is based on the blamer assuming that the person was a victim. It's not a decision from the wave of a hand, it's a conclusion based on a premise that was already provided, even if it's provisional. miscasting someone else's position is another thing one might give negative reputation for, which is not opinion.
  25. 3 points
    ! Moderator Note This is not the place to grind an axe, nor the place to post non-mainstream science responses. Discussion of an aether, except as an historical reference, is completely off-topic. edit: upon further review, this was a massive hijack of the discussion, and the whole mess has been dropped in the trash can.
  26. 3 points
    I love how one or two Democrats taken out of context result in everyone’s parties getting in a twist, yet not a peep about years of screaming lock her up and saying people,should be carried out on stretchers or Obama tarred and feathered. Myopia, hypocrisy, who cares? Same result.
  27. 2 points
    It is because the climate system is susceptible to change that adding lots of CO2 is such a dangerous thing to do - it would take a climate that is unchanging to be unchangeable. It is the vehicle with bad steering that is most likely to run off the road and crash. Olin - The consistent expert advice - three decades of every institution that studies climate and every expert report governments have gotten on it is that this is a serious problem. Why should I set that aside and believe that you know better than they do? That the consequences of AGW can and will seriously impact human activities and prosperity. Not that it takes a genius to figure that destabilising something as fundamental as our planet's climate system is very unwise and - given that persistent expert advice - dangerously irresponsible. I don't ask or expect anyone to take what environmental advocacy groups are saying on trust, but I do expect them to take what the world's leading science advisory bodies, like the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society say about it very seriously. These organisations draw on the world's most accomplished and respected experts. My personal experience - of about 0.5 C of global average warming as experienced in this location - is that vegetation has been effected; perennial weeds that were kept in check by hard frosts are becoming rampant with warmer winters, leading to more work and more costs to deal with them. Bushfires are a real problem here - and that is not new. What is happening is that the 'fire danger season' is, on average, starting earlier and finishing later and the opportunities for 'controlled' fires to reduce fuel loads ahead of the high risk periods are becoming shorter with increasing risk of escaping containment, requiring more vigilance, labour and equipment. Fires could, by picking the right conditions, be expected to go out overnight as dew added a natural fire retardant - but less cool nights, less dew and more fires that don't go out on their own. More work, more expense, more risk.This means less of that hazard reduction is getting done and the consequences in the hot, high risk periods is intensified. That is with a mere 0.5 degrees of global average temperature change; the prospect of 3 to 6 degrees is something I find terrifying. Regions like this could become so unsafe that people cannot live here permanently without an added expense of fire resistant construction and endless vigilance. The appropriate perspective is needed - looking at too short periods, where normal variability appears to overwhelm gradual changes is a common way to get misled. So is looking at too long periods, where historic climate changes of great magnitude can make what is happening now appear inconsequential. Both blurr the reality and make it hard to see that gradual changes accumulate and will have serious consequences with dangerous economic and security implications.
  28. 2 points
    Menan has been banned for not modifying his behavior after his suspension.
  29. 2 points
    Yet here you are, a fly in the ointment. Might I suggest that if you find these discussions pointless, inane, boring, and not your cup of tea, that you avoid these types of discussions? That is how most people deal with those things they dislike.
  30. 2 points
    Incorrect. g ( gravitational force) is zero at the center, but the Specific(per unit mass) Gravitational potential is -3GM/2R where M is the mass of the planet, and R is its radius. At the surface of the planet (or any point above it) the Specific Gravitational potential is -GM/r where r is the distance from the center of the planet ( on the surface r=R) Specific Gravitational Potential Energy tells us how much energy it would take to move a unit mass from one point in the field to another. It takes energy to lift a mass from the center of the Earth to the surface, just like it takes energy to lift the same unit mass from the surface of the Earth to a point above it. It is the difference in potential gravitational energy is responsible for gravitational time dilation, not the difference in g. An easy way to demonstrate this is to calculate the gravitational time dilation factor for the surface of the Earth vs the surface of a planet with twice the radius and 4 times the mass of the Earth. You will get two different answers even though the value of g will be the same at the surface of both planets. A clock at the center of the Earth is at a lower potential than one on the surface and thus will run slower than one on the surface, even though it feels 0g compared to the surface clock at 1g.
  31. 2 points
    I do not understand what in the link you are referencing. The link is literally about the fact that it was not different. From the opening of the article: More over the result by group was basically indentical to 2016 yet neither Clinton or Trump were on the ballot and all the political issues have changed appreciably. If you are claiming the "moderate middle" is the key what numbers do you have to support it? By group everyone voted the same as last time. The Edison survey (previously linked) goes into to great detail breaking voters down by age, gender, race, education, religion, martial status, income, and etc. There were no substantial changes or surprises on Tuesday. That is statistically demonstratable. You seem married to an idea and aren't soberly looking at the cold dry numbers. I understand why one would feel differently. All over the media pundits are weighing in with their take on why voters did X, Y, Z. It creates a palpable sense that these matters are considerably more fluid than they actually are. The media is in the ratings business and not the accurate information business. Pundits say what they say for the sake of their audience. They play up on peoples bias's, desires, fears, hopes, and misconceptions.
  32. 2 points
    General Philosophy in a Science Forum is about formal Philosophy, and its relation to Science. As I said lifestyle stuff is not formal philosophy- This is not to denigrate your topic but I think ScienceForums is a unique scientific forum in that it provides a place for both of these in addition to straight Science. So take advantage of that.
  33. 2 points
    The "Climate has always been changing" argument actually has it backwards; like the vehicle with bad steering that is more likely to run off the road and crash, it is a climate system that is susceptible to change that is most at risk of change from things humans do. The planet is warming - multiple different measures and indicators all show it. And - " There are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. " (The US National Academy of Sciences). The nasty bit of personal slander has no place in these discussions; if you have evidence of serious criminal behaviour, you should inform the police. If not, it is your behaviour that looks criminal. Fake accusations from behind the safety of internet anonymity - I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted by moderators. I recommend the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences for non-partisan expert assessment; making sense of complex science for policy makers and public is their job. Their exemplary reputations are earned. The people they draw upon are not incompetent or biased. Or part of a conspiracy or driven by any political agenda apart from that of pursuing excellence in science for the benefit of humanity. I see the science getting it mostly right. I see real world consequences of climate change in the landscape around me - weeds that had previously been kept in check by heavy frosts becoming rampant because there are fewer frosts, bushfire hazard reduction made more difficult by warmer winters and the fire hazard 'season' coming earlier and finishing later - that's with about half a degree C of average warming (of personally experienced change in this location). 3 to 6 degrees is terrifying to contemplate. Sure, if your region is mostly cold, rarely hot, that might not seem so terrifying, but most of the world's (too large) population lives in places that get very hot, where a few degrees can make the barely bearable conditions unbearable. People ordinarily have a right to believe what they like, but if they hold positions of trust and responsibility ignoring or rejecting expert advice can be negligence. Should lives and fortunes be harmed, that can become criminal neglegence.
  34. 2 points
    Numerous FoxNews employees work in the current administration. Comparing FoxNews directly to CNN is a falls equivalency. When Democrats are in power they don't hire CNN staff members to come work for them as Republicans do with FoxNews. Plus FoxNews gets double CNN's ratings and has a more partisan audience. All things I have already provided you citiations for. CNN may very well be garbage news but it is not the media arm of the Democratic Party as FoxNews is the Republican Party. If you called CNN garbage and left it at that I don't think anyone would bother to respond. It is the equivalency between CNN and FoxNews which is being debated. Actually it would. CNN is a TV Channel and like all channels it needs ratings. If people stopped tuning in they would have no choice but to change or go out of business. You watching CNN helps CNN's ratings. You are literally reinforcing via viewership support (the only support they care about) the very thing you are against. I personally don't evaluate political issues that way. I don't care what anyone on television (NRA TV, CNN, HBO, etc) says about Gun Control. Everyone who hosts a show on TV is performer first and foremost. I don't care about their performances. I care about actual laws on the books, what additions or changes are being proposed, the legal challenges, and so on. I think you underestimate the impact of voter suppression and Russia's involvement in the election. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. Only Tens of thousands of votes secured Trump's electoral win in an election where over 130 million people voted. If you accept that voter suppression and Russia impacted even just .02% of the vote than you should understand that is what put Trump in the White House and not CNN.
  35. 2 points
    I don't watch CNN; I just read BBC, Reuters and Japan Times daily. I'm getting increasing disenchanted with the BBC though because it has some pretty obvious agendas, which it seeks to promote with quite unseemly enthusiasm. I like neutrality.
  36. 2 points
    This is pretty basic math, Raider. You cannot assert a percentage if you don't know both numbers in your calculation. You do not know how many hidden/secret/unknown nuclear sites exist in North Korea. This is true by definition, yet you continue to assert percentages despite not knowing the actual baseline for your denominator. I'm not attacking your identity. I'm not arguing against you as a person. I'm merely pointing out that you're pulling things out of your ass and asserting them as fact. That's where I've applied my challenge to your posts. You either grasp this or you do not. Just accept that's okay to make mistakes sometimes, use it as an opportunity to improve future posts, and we can then continue this discussion about the countless many other things about which we surely agree. You know, or keep digging your heels in farther and farther... I suppose that's an option, too.
  37. 2 points
    The modern rendition of the tree of common descent would be the phylogenetic tree. There are extensive practical uses of phylogenetic trees and theory. Some examples include epidemiology and outbreak tracking, conservation biology, forensic investigation and drug discovery to name a few. The foundation for modern phylogenetic inference is coalescent theory. Using coalescent theory, we can generate predictions as to how traits or DNA/RNA sequences should have changed if the assumption that they arose from a common ancestor is true. Contemporary genetic sequences and physical characteristics can be evaluated to determine if they meet the predictions of common descent under the coalescent. Huge quantities of genetic, phenotypic, biogeographic, etc data have been tested under a wide range of models, and to date, the vast majority supports common ancestry of most of the tree of life, with the caveat of some uncertainty of branching and wtf viruses came from.
  38. 2 points
    People are fantastically imaginative. And there are good reasons for thinking the moon is spherical (the phases, for example). So examples of early moon landings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landings_in_fiction The trouble is that the Einstein Field Equations are complex and non-linear. So the known solutions involve very simplified cases. A Schwarzschild black hole (perhaps one of the most commonly used solutions) assumes an eternal, unchanging spherical mass in an empty universe. Given how far apart things are in the real universe, this is still a good approximation. More complex situations, such as a pair of orbiting black holes, require massive simulations to find out what happens. Actually, he patented a refrigerator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator Janus is describing the effects of special relativity. If it weren't for special relativity, and therefore quantum field theory, you wouldn't have the computer you are positing this on.
  39. 2 points
    Except that there is everything wrong with being homophobic, for the same reason that its wrong to be racist. Views like yours that result in people from the LGBTQ community being and feeling marginalised and discriminated against. It leads to them being bullied in schools and in the community, and feeling like they are wrong simply for the unchangeable fact of who they are as a person. Do you honestly think that's ok?
  40. 2 points
    It's the same knowledge- but looked at from the other side. If I know " don't mix a with b because it blows up" then I know that, if I want to blow something up, I mix a with b. (And if you happen to live in a country where you can buy explosives at the supermarket...)
  41. 2 points
    Just to add that the reason that the original star collapses is that it runs low on hydrogen for fusion, and it was fusion energy that was preventing collapse. When the star explodes, the 75% that escapes takes most if not all of the remaining hydrogen, so the 25% that is left can't keep fusion going, so the star can't just keep burning at a smaller size. Without the release of fusion energy, the remnant collapses down to a super dense ball of neutrons, called a neutron star, if it's mass is less than about three times that of the Sun. If the remnant is bigger than that, it can't maintain it's structure, and it collapses further as a black hole.
  42. 2 points
  43. 2 points
    Can you cite some of Khashoggi's work? It is you who started a thread in here about Khashoggi and not Faisal Devji. You called Khashoggi a hack. It would be great if you could actively participate in the discussion you started rather than telling people to use Google and copying and pasting whole op-eds written by others.
  44. 2 points
    Voting is more than just an individual right. It is not intended exclusively for self interest (part of the reason we have constitutional democracy, not just majority rule). When you disenfranchise someone by taking away their voting right it is a very small part of their overall punishment, but the accumulation of this disenfranchisement is, or most certainly can be, punishing a group that extends to be much greater than the incarcerated themselves.
  45. 2 points
    Good summary (with a neat diagram) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Privileged_character_of_3+1_spacetime
  46. 2 points
    I am pretty certain that not all of them had cat heads. Bastet did. But Thoth had the head of a bird for example and Anubus of a Dog. I am not sure how many others had cat heads - I would have to look that up... but I am sure there are others with different heads that aren't cats. I would argue that you CAN build a loving bond between yourself and your cat. They can be quite loving as it goes... they just think and communicate a little differently. It is often said though about cats and dogs that "Dogs have owners.... and cats have staff". PS - I just found this - it looks an interesting read. I only skimmed it because I am a little busy right now, but might try to look at it more closely later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_in_ancient_Egypt
  47. 2 points
    Just went back in Reg Prescott's history as far back as 2015 where apparently then under the name SillyBilly, he was making exactly the same apparently rehearsed claims including the scientific method, his crazy take on the orbits of the planets in the solar system and Newtonian mechanics among his usual unmistakable attempt at humour when cornered or shown to be in error. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-886741 Just thought at this stage of this continued circular argument it might be an interesting observation.
  48. 2 points
    For the sake of transparency, we have decided to announce who has been added to the groups mentioned in the OP. Currently, they are as follows: 0-point (aka Curmudgeon) xyzt (now banned) et pet TED888 2-point (aka Malcontent) Itoero John Harmonic
  49. 2 points
    You need to define start. It's a vague term, that can mean lots of things. But without you defining it, this thread is a joke. When does a loaf of bread "start" ? Making it doesn't start it. It merely brings the ingredients together in a certain form. I asked you earlier to name something that had a start but you didn't reply.
  50. 2 points
    While research is well underway looking at role of the microbiome I urge caution of overinterpretation. The connection is still being examined and the link to complex traits such as behavior is still far off from being figured out. There are generally two basic issues with the question in OP. The first is we do not really understand the biological basis of the mentioned conditions. The second is that we also only have a rough understanding of dietary effects in general. Even basic things such as impact of diets on body weight and fat distribution is often not clearly understood (notwithstanding the confidence with which dietary recommendations are made). Thus, drawing a direct line between condition at diet, is simply not possible with the level of current knowledge. As a reference, studies with clearly toxic compounds such as lead took a long while to correlate it with neurological issues in populations (due to lead paint, for example). And even there it is difficult to quantify precisely the impact.