Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/26/20 in Posts

  1. 5 points
    When you arrive at point C, you will see the same light coming from both stars as someone who never moved from point C; Light that left both stars 5 yrs ago. You see both stars as they were 5 yrs ago.
  2. 5 points
    Three of those images imply too much power in the wrong place. The other is a horse.
  3. 4 points
    Hillary called Trump to concede on the same night as their election and their race was FAR closer than this one with Biden. Barrack Obama invited Trump to the WH a day or 2 later and made his entire team available to the incoming Trump admin to maximize their chances of quick success. Essentially every democratic leader and person with a national profile acknowledged Trumps win and congratulated him on his victory both privately and publicly. Nothing anywhere even remotely close to this has ever once happened before since George Washington as our very first president ever transitioned power to John Addams. Let’s not pretend for even one second that this is somehow a both sides issue.
  4. 4 points
    Recognize anyone ?
  5. 4 points
  6. 4 points
    Salute to 2020 Ice Cream Flavour:
  7. 4 points
    Translated by me from https://www.socomic.gr/en/2018/01/kourafelkithra-socrates/
  8. 3 points
    Oh absolutely I'd agree with that. I experienced it myself, except it was my mother that left. I was 5 and she walked out on us and was gone for awhile. That being said; she was still a lot more present and emotionally available than my father, who would essentially have arguments with my teachers using me as a proxy. It was like it didn't matter what I was taught, to him, he'd already decided that I was stupid and couldn't be right about anything. Kind of takes the genetic fallacy to a whole new meaning there. Irony. That's because I was working from memory and got a few details wrong. My bad. I've digged it up and attached it now. The subjective aspect of 'quality' would impact all demographics however. There is a strong likelihood that 1-5% of the present parents, from all backgrounds are abusers and I wouldn't even care to try and guess what percentage were avoidably negligent. I say avoidably as it has already been pointed out by others that it is much more difficult for working class parents to be able to spend quality time with their kids without sacrificing on their required time to earn enough for the basic needs of housing, energy, clothing and food on the table. Which I think brings us to the most important aspect of this debate. Class based demographics. I can accept that we might never have schools that don't unfairly discriminate, but I don't think I can accept a society where the ability to bring discriminating individuals to justice, is determined by how deep your pockets or your parents pockets are. Which bring us to something extremely important. Probably the barrier we should e focussing on most. Here is something that is definitely true; it is illegal to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, religion, marriage, sexual orientation, gender.. It is not currently illegal however, to discriminate based on class or caste. They are not protected characteristics. There would be little to stop me or anyone else from denying equality to people because of their socio-economic background. There are means tested scholarships available but it tends to go that either their aren't enough of them for everyone who wants one, or there is no guidance on how to apply for them when they are under applied for. It's why I really like the look of the University of Arizona in Tuscon. They are one of the few institutions that I know of that seem to go the extra mile and try their best to make sure your education is financially achievable and that funding is smooth and debtless. Sucks that it is so far away though. We'd have to uproot and move again and we are thinking of buying a house here in IL... Sorry, I'm rambling. Suffice it to say, I think this has been a constructive discussion for all involved. You know I study philosophy and ethics. So you must know by now that you've already opened up a whole can of worms in the subjects of power, control and responsibility, right? I think the stoics and taoists put it best with The Archer. You can draw the bow perfectly, do everything within your control to give yourself the best chance of hitting your mark, and still fail because you cannot control the wind. In this analogy, I see other people as wind. I know I can't control them, I don't want to control them. Yet I can't pretend it is raining when really people are pissing on all of our legs. nhsr071.pdf
  9. 3 points
    I agree with you, basically, that the Copenhagen interpretation is not satisfactory, and neither it is the many-worlds interpretation. But the Copenhagen interpretation works like a dream. That's the problem, actually. It works like a dream and mathematically, it cannot be the whole story. As Bell said, Copenhagen's interpretation is good FAPP (for all practical purposes.) As Bell also said, Mind you: He didn't mean classical-mechanical arguments; he meant quantum-mechanical arguments. I'm working on a miniature of explanation in 2-dimensional quantum mechanics, if you're interested. The many-worlds interpretation is not a corollary of the Copenhagen version. It's more like what @Sriman Dutta says: I totally agree with this. Conjugate variables are certainly peculiar. Their properties cannot be simulated by any finite-dimensional space of states and thereby cannot be completely understood with discrete mathematics. They are the domain of transcencental mathematics. Unlike the famous \( J_x \), \( J_y \), \( J_z \) that people use in all the completeness theorems, they always pair in couples, one of which is conserved, the other is not.
  10. 3 points
    We don’t fully know since it’s not currently possible to keep a brain functioning and healthy once it’s fully severed from the body that grew it. Whether you put it in a vat or an entry bag of Cheetos, this is all hypothetical. Keep in mind, however, (no pun intended) that the brain doesn’t really care about the actual interaction of atoms (as you call it) that occurs when a touch happens between the body and something out in the world. All the brain cares about is what nervous signals are arriving to its various parts, how intense those signals are, the duration of the signals, and in what order those signals arrive. This information is then all combined to form a “narrative” describing the event in our conscious mind... the part we generally consider to be the self... the “me” behind the eyes. So something presses against our skin. This change in pressure causes certain receptors to activate, and those receptors trigger a cascade to the receptors around them (nerve cell 1 activates nerve cell 2, and nerve cell 2 then activates nerve cell 3, cell 3 activates cell4, and on and on all the way up the spine until the signal finally arrives to our brain...then some new signals cascade throughout the brain much like ripples travel across a pond after tossing in a stone). But that is all... the only thing the brain “sees” is that a specific change in voltage happened at a specific nerve cell or set of cells. It’s only later once those incoming signals have been put together that the brain concludes that this thing which just happened was a touch... it then compares it against previous touch experiences to determine specifically what touched us etc. Following this same logic, you could theoretically send a signal to your brain in a vat separately. So long as that signal being sent to your severed brain mimics the signals sent to the brain from the body, then we can likely assume it would be perceived as a touch no differently than touches get perceived today. You’d clearly need to tune the signals like musical instruments in a symphony to achieve the right “sound” and there are lots of assumptions embedded here (like the fact that we’re successfully keeping a functioning brain in a vat somehow), but that’s my take. Hopefully it gives you some food for thought.
  11. 3 points
    Many historical 'facts' are contested and debated by historians. Things like the cause of the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, which, along with Crete, comprised the 1st Greek empire, fought a war with Troy, and literally disappeared from the face of the Earth. Things like did the Roman Empire really fall, or did it just 'absorb' invaders and convert them to the Roman way of life and governance. Things like the cause and mistakes in execution of the 1st World War. And its contribution to the beginning of the 2nd World War. Things like Papal authority ( even over Emperors ) and the amassing of power and corruption by the Church, along with wars encouraged by the Church and the selling of 'Salvation' which led to splintering into differing 'sects'. Things like was the Vietnam War winnable, and more importantly, was winning necessary or of benefit. Things like the paradigm shift that brought about the Renaissance. How many did you want me to list ...
  12. 3 points
    You assume too much. Shi'a and Sunni Muslims disagree about 'the roots': Who are the rightful heirs of Mohammed, and whether Al Bukhari was right about him and his doings, and probably many more things. I'm sure you know much more about it than most of us here do. It's a 'sources' problem (both about the authenticity of books and/or translations, and about the line of authority) very much like what was for Christians several hundred years ago in Europe between the many Protestant offshoots, and Catholics, and Jews. That led to unimaginable bloodshed between Christians and Jews. We know. Actually, we know much better than you guys do. We've killed each other, we've hated each other for so many more years. Most of us seem to have taken home the lesson. You, unfortunately, haven't. That's a very big part of the problem, guys. A part of your community seems unable to take home some lessons from your brethren religions that are much older than yours. Jewish and Christians being at each other's throats for centuries. You're still obsessed with a couple of lines in a several-centuries-old book. That's, allow me to say, pathetic. Both in the most ludicrous sense, and in the most tragic one. Take a look at Mandaeans, Yasidis, etc., and how they've become victims of unspeakable violence in recent years in the Middle East, just because they follow the rituals that their ancestors did. Probably with the same amount of doubt that you do yours. But also take a look at how some Muslims brothers die at the hands of each other because of a difference of opinion. And ask yourself: Is the interpretation of some lines on an ancient book worth the suffering that we see in the world? The suffering of a child is not worth ten thousand lines of a holy book.
  13. 3 points
    I, for one, wish posts like these about god were less visible
  14. 3 points
    Infinity has an end? Infinity means many different things, depending on when it is used. The word is from a Latin word, which means "without end". Infinity goes on forever, so sometimes space, numbers, and other things are said to be 'infinite', because they never come to a stop. ... For example, adding 10 to a number repeatedly. Let me know when you reach the end...
  15. 3 points
    ...and after January 20... plus they have to get him out of there:
  16. 3 points
    No, the source of gravity is energy-momentum, which includes many more things other than just mass. For example, and electromagnetic field (in otherwise empty space) would also be a source of gravity, as would be stresses and strains in the interior of a planet (e.g.). It needs to be spacetime, not just space. It is not meaningful, in the context of gravity, to separate space from time, and vice versa. As to what spacetime is - it is quite simply the set of all events, meaning the set of all spatial locations at all instances in time. It is thus a mathematical model. No. When any test particle - irrespective of whether it has mass or not - is affected by gravity (and only gravity, for simplicity), then that means that its world line in spacetime is a geodesic of that spacetime. It is a purely a geometric phenomenon. When space is expanding, that means that the separation between any two points within that space increases over time. However, locally those points remain at rest - you can attribute a relative velocity to these specific points, but not to space (that would be meaningless). Relative motion is not a source of gravity, so it does not 'warp' spacetime. What GR does is model the motion of test particles in the presence of sources of energy-momentum; as such, its predictions are quite physical indeed. This is just what Newtonian gravity does, and such a model works quite well in the low-velocity, weak field domain. However, once you venture further into the strong field regime, the predictions of Newtonian gravity are no longer accurate. And even in the everyday low energy domain - consider putting an accelerometer into free fall (drop it off a tower etc). It will read exactly zero at all times while it is falling - and zero acceleration means no force is present. And yet, the falling accelerometer is very clearly still affected by gravity. So gravity cannot be a force in the Newtonian sense. There are also deeper, more technical reasons why gravity cannot accurately be modelled by a vector field. You cannot accelerate a massless test particle. You have every right to be, because the way GR is generally presented does indeed make it confusing, once you give it more than just a passing glance. Spacetime is not a mechanical medium, so curvature is not any kind of mechanical 'bending'. As mentioned above, spacetime is simply the set of all events, and the geometry of spacetime can be thought of as how these events are related to one another. If the geometry is flat, then that means the relationship between any pair of neighbouring events will be the same, regardless of where/when in spacetime you are (like on a flat sheet of paper). If spacetime is curved, then this is no longer true - the relationship between a given pair of neighbouring events depends on where that pair of events is located in space and time. That's the meaning of curvature - a change in the relationship between events. It's a geometric property, not a mechanical action. This is analogous to the longitudinal lines on a globe - at the equator, they are spaced apart by a specific distance, but as you go north (or south), that distance will change, even though these lines are perfectly straight within the surface. That's because the relationship between points on those lines changes depending on where you are, since the surface has intrinsic curvature. Spacetime is the same, just in two more dimensions.
  17. 3 points
    It has nothing to do with 'spinning' the death toll, JC. His policies, such as pressuring State Governors to re-open, and lack of policies, such as not making medical supplies available to certain States, have led to the situation in the US. Canadians and Americans are generally very similar, and our own response has been far from perfect. Yet Canada, with 1/10 of the American population, has 42x less infections. And 23x less deaths
  18. 3 points
  19. 3 points
    I recall when I was a teaching assistant there was a lab on Faraday's law. You had a coil with some number of turns, and you flipped it and looked at the induced current in a circuit. Students used it to deduce the earth's magnetic field. And it worked reasonably well. One fun part of this was that students on one corner of the room got a different answer because there was an NMR lab one floor up, and when that magnet was on, it was strong enough to affect the field in that corner of the room. So they got a number noticeably larger than students at the other side of the room.
  20. 3 points
    Volcanic lightning is hard to beat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_lightning Calbuco, The Awakening.” ... Calbuco Volcano is located in the lakes region south of Santiago, Chile’s capital city and is one of the 10 most dangerous volcanoes in the country. After more than 40 years of inactivity, the day April 23 the volcano erupts, spewing more than 200 million tons of ash https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/photos/national-geographic-photo-contest-2015/image-gallery/a2afa2087ecd4f4d62475d231b129e31
  21. 2 points
    This example is not one of wisdom, but did give me great hopes that my son had developed the same warped sense of humour. At a dinner to celebrate his 11th birthday I was pontificating about the supposed origin of the name America from that of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci. Quick as a flash my son said, "That's quite something. Having a continent and a fairground a attraction named after you." I looked at him, puzzled? "A fairground attraction?" "Yes," he replied "A merry-go-round."
  22. 2 points
    That's something I imagine happening to Silvio Berlusconi.
  23. 2 points
    Out there, just out there...
  24. 2 points
    Get a ball'n'stick box and remake two compounds with different chirality. It will visualize you the difference. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/organic-chemistry/stereochemistry-topic/chirality-r-s-system/v/chiral-achiral-jay
  25. 2 points
    As am I! I've a few historical ones of myself to suggest in the future. Yes, the treatment worked wonders. Turned out all I had to do was try to bathe in a field of cacti and listen to Dostoyevsky insult me five or six times a sentence. Half-True story, everyone should try it! Disclaimer: The cactus stunt suggested here is fictitious and should only be performed by the professional idiots out there in the world... To YouTube!
  26. 2 points
  27. 2 points
    That could work, if you use the right primers, of course. There are multiple ways to approach this issue all with different advantages and disadvantages. It also depends a bit on the subject. But given the details you have provided I would not see why a PCR would not work. Edit: It would not work if you for some reasons a mixed sample, for instance.
  28. 2 points
    What's the purpose of the project? Are you focused more on learning how programming a chatbot works, or do you just want a working product (or something else)? The full model has 175 billion parameters. Crazy stuff. I heard rumour that GPT 4 will have 20 trillion parameters. How much do you think just making bigger models and feeding them more data will improve outcomes?
  29. 2 points
    The connection comes from the Robertson version of the uncertainty relations. The one you can find on Wikipedia is the Robertson-Schrödinger version. I will give you a proof of the Robertson version which does not involve the anti-commutator. Say you have any two operators \( A \) and \( B \), which in general do not commute. Say your system is in a pure quantum state \( \left|\psi\right\rangle \). The mean square deviation is defined as, \[\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }A\right)^{2}=\left\langle A^{2}\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }-\left\langle A\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }^{2}=\left\langle \psi\left|A^{2}\right|\psi\right\rangle -\left\langle \psi\left|A\right|\psi\right\rangle ^{2}\] and similarly for \( B \). Now define operators \( A' \) and \( B' \) centred on their respective average values: \[A'=A-\left\langle A\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\] \[B'=B-\left\langle B\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\] It's easy to see that, \[\left[A',B'\right]=\left[A,B\right]\] Now you formally build the 1-parameter family of operators: \[C=A'+i\lambda B'\] This operator is not Hermitian, but it is always true that, \[\left\Vert C\left|\psi\right\rangle \right\Vert ^{2}=\left\langle \psi\left|C^{\dagger}C\right|\psi\right\rangle \geq0\] This gives you a polynomial condition in \( \lambda \): \[\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }A\right)^{2}+\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }B\right)^{2}\lambda^{2}+i\lambda\left\langle \left[A,B\right]\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\geq0\] If this polynomial must always be above the real axis, the discriminant must be negative or zero: \[\left(\left\langle i\left[A,B\right]\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\right)^{2}-4\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }A\right)^{2}\left(\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }B\right)^{2}\leq0\] Keep in mind that if \( A \) and \( B \) are Hermitian, so is \( i\left[A,B\right] \). This immediately gives you the Robertson version of the uncertainty relations for arbitrary operators \( A \) and \( B \): \[\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }A\triangle_{\left|\psi\right\rangle }B\geq\left|\left\langle \frac{i}{2}\left[A,B\right]\right\rangle _{\left|\psi\right\rangle }\right|\] So when two operators do not commute, you cannot define "dispersions" or "precisions" (mean square deviations) better than those given by the above. I hope that helped. It's the simplest demonstration I know of the more general Robertson version for arbitrary operators.
  30. 2 points
    That sounds even more stupid than my idea. Sorry pal. Please let the pro's give their opinion.
  31. 2 points
    The closest, Hipparcos 43587, is about 41 light years away, so we still have a number of years before the aliens come and eat us.
  32. 2 points
  33. 2 points
    My feelings on this topic are volatile and made harder by the way covid is moving though my community, but my take after a few days goes something like this: Trump knows he’s lost. He’s dragging things out as an act of theater for those who love him... like he’s fighting for them until the very end. Those supporters will reward him and continue giving money to “stop the steal” and this rage which he so expertly stokes will help them drive turnout in the Georgia runoffs in January. Keeping the embers of that rage hot also allows these individuals who dismiss all facts as fake news to be controlled by Trump and his allies for whatever other purposes they may wind up deeming helpful or fruitful to them later. As a possible side benefit, this obvious erosion of trust in the Democratic process itself that Trump keeps amplifying may inspire Russian oligarchs to thank him later by helping payoff or forgive his existing debts to them... he’s likely to gain lots of new friends offering him money in exchange for state secrets and insider information about US methods and sources, too. Republicans mostly know he’s leaving as well, but see no political benefit to themselves for pushing him out of the chair or speaking out... so they are silent and spineless. They can’t risk being considered anti-Trump by the base so waffle on about the right of candidates to challenge issues in the voting process and keep prattling about this all being normal... which it’s really not. Unless they’re already retired or about to retire from politics, they can’t afford to anger the base they’ve been enraging for over a decade if they hope to have any chance at a political career in the future of what is now Trumps Republican Party. ... but Trump will leave and he will likely start a new “news” network farther to the right of even Fox... propaganda undiluted and constrained will be piped into the fertile minds of willing and thirsty audiences. After all, his supporters are already lumping in Fox News with the rest of mainstream media and calling them a bunch of traitorous turncoats for simple things like calling the state or Arizona for Biden. They’re heeding the call of extreme right personalities and fleeing platforms Twitter and Facebook instead for far right “hate and bullshit are a-okay here!!” platforms like Parlor, and the information bubble is just getting thicker and more immune from piercing. Trump wants a larger share of the control of that walled off information ecosystem and more influence on this hardening bubble, and by refusing to acknowledge his loss to Biden he helps to further enable that. It helps keep him in the headlines, keeps people questioning news that doesn’t agree with their preferences, keeps them angry and donating money and showing up to vote, but it’s all just for show... catnip for the media... much like his recent leadership changes around national defense and justice. He knew it would deflect news attention away from him being a loser. I need to tighten up these thoughts a bit, but believe the outline above is pretty close to accurate.
  34. 2 points
  35. 2 points
    But since the OP specifically used "BC" and "AD", which are not used in the Hindu calendar, that is not relevant here.
  36. 2 points
    Maybe it's just the timing, but I don't remember being this disgusted by a religious assertion before. It shows a myopic and desperate need for privilege that ignores reality. This is the stance that can justify wiping out species wholesale, because they were only put there "for us to enjoy". It's also intellectually dishonest to misuse scientific claims to bolster your shaky belief system. Please stick to your Iron Age sky spirit worship.
  37. 2 points
    Reporting suggests it was just another publicity stunt to help launch his own television network farther to the right than Fox News. He never expected to win or even go ice farther than the primary. We all apparently underestimated the stupidity and gullibility of the American voters.
  38. 2 points
    From a conceptual level, an understanding of basic neutral theory is also a good place to start. If you can wrap your brain around the concepts of how stochastic changes occur at the molecular level in populations, it becomes easier to layer on selective evolution, game theory and other increasingly complex models of evolution. The seminal paper is Kimura 1968. http://dosequis.colorado.edu/Courses/MethodsLogic/papers/Kimura1968.pdf but this review is probably more accessible. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.13650
  39. 2 points
    I find this non abrasive lobotomy to be relaxing.
  40. 2 points
    When a grid's misaligned with another behind, that's a Moiré https://xkcd.com/1814/
  41. 2 points
    You learn more from your mistakes than from your successes !
  42. 2 points
    Here's part of a post someone metaresearched on the composition on a vinyl record forum. Might give a clue to the chemists here.... More here: https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=99579
  43. 2 points
    Dinosaurs could certainly live in many areas of the earth today. Birds are direct descendants of feathered dinosaurs, so birds are actually the only remaining dinosaurs.
  44. 2 points
    Im not sure if this is the right place to ask, the right category, the righr dorum etc. Also im only 15yo so dont explain in too professionam terms please. But ive always wondered this... When people bring up searching for extraterrestial life its always about if water is present on the planet, why is this? I know we live from water and so do fish, where we originally originate from and the bacteria they originated from lived in water but i dont see this as proof. Cant evolution on a planet without water just work with chlorine for example, or an element not even present on earth and thus not known to humanity. Same applies to distance to the sun to have a temperature sweetspot, wouldnt another planet have life evolved to their temperature? I mean we have had animals for ice ages and, well, not ice ages... unless you really are able to prove me wrong here i feel lile we need another planet with this theory proven for it to be sure. Im not trying to start the next flat earth like community but im just trying to understand.
  45. 2 points
    Okunikko, Japan: Kegon Falls, in Nikko National Park, are surrounded by Mongolian oak, maple, azalea and other trees, making it a particularly beautiful spot in autumn. Ryohei Moriya/The Yomiuri Shimbun/AP
  46. 2 points
    I'm sure that would be a surprise to the Olympians who won gold medals back when competitors had to be amateurs.
  47. 2 points
    Mostly because; he/she/it has no idea what he/she/it is talking about.. Please do, however, I can't promise to shit in the right place...
  48. 2 points
    Are you implying that asking whether science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe is a ridiculous question?
  49. 2 points
    The shock wave in water would be an interesting phenomenon. A problem with streamlining a submarine hull is that it's not the best shape for a pressure hull. Keeping out pressures above atmosphere are a priority for submarines, whereas planes never have to deal with a static difference greater than 1 atm, usually it's even less, and when it's an issue it's about keeping air in rather than being crushed. An autonomous or remotely-piloted vehicle would be required.
  50. 2 points
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.