Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/25/20 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Element 115 (moscovium) has a half life of about half a second, so is not very practical as a target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium (And I doubt that element 116 can be produced by firing protons at the nucleus.) "Immediately decays"? It is true that the half life of livermorium is less than that of mosocvium; but it is not immediate. Livermorium decays via alpha decay. In other words, it emits a helium nucleus (a pair of protons and a pair of neutrons bound together). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livermorium It does not emit anti-protons. That would violate all sorts of conservation laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law And anyway, what would be the point? This can only be of interest to people who think that antimatter=magic. What are you going to do with these anti-protons? Presumably combine them with some protons to generate energy. But you can't get any more energy out of that than you put in. So the whole process of accelerating some protons, transmuting 115 to 116, then capturing the anti-protons and then generating some protons for them to interact with, then controlling their interaction and directing the energy ... all takes energy. And must run at less than 100% efficiency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics So you are going to get less energy out than just using shooting the original protons out the back of the rocket. Or using the heat from the rapid decay of the moscovium (you will be left with no useful fuel after a few minutes, anyway). There is nothing to critique here. This is just meaningless word-salad from a bad SF book. No references here because there is no such thing as "Gravity-A waves", "Gravity B waves" or "Gravity Amplifiers". Also, gravitational waves (which do exist) are not directly related to gravity. Gravitational attraction is not a wave phenomenon. Also, gravity is only attractive; there is no practical or theoretical reason to think that somehow causing gravitational waves (if that is what the ignorant author means) to interfere would cause any gravitational effect (either pull or push). Gravitational waves cause stress (stretching and shrinking) in directions orthogonal to their direction of travel. This effect is too small to be significant, unless you are a few miles from two merging back holes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave Gravity waves are something completely different. They are a phenomenon in fluid dynamics and have nothing to do with gravity (in the sense implied here; they are caused by gravity, not a cause of gravity). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave It is almost as if the author doesn't know what they are talking about. And are just stringing together a bunch of words they don't understand. See anyone can do it.
  2. 3 points
    We have already detected gravitational waves. However, neither gravitational or magnetic attraction is mediated by waves. A "magnetic wave", is just one component of an electromagnetic wave, or in other words, light and radio waves. Magnetism, as in the attraction and repulsion of magnets, is due to a field, not a wave.
  3. 3 points
    I shared that the Bible cannot be the source of morality since our existing morals allow us to pick and choose which parts of it are right and which parts are wrong. John reinforced this point in his own way. You suggested we were saying “what’s the point of books if we already know stuff.” I corrected you. That wasn’t the point. Our point was specific to the assertion that morals come from the Bible. You then made yet another different point, that we know before we learn. Sounds fancy, but is obviously both nonsense AND not what was being suggested by me or John. You told me I could explain better, so voila... see above. Hope this helps and hope we can now please for the love of Thor get back on topic instead of chasing fortune cookie one-liners from an unsober but otherwise easy going and enjoyable poster. ✌️
  4. 3 points
    I don't have Covid 19! test came back negative! Looks like just plain old viral pneumonia! That 104 fever was a bitch! Feeling better now! All I need now is a flight back to NC, CA is nice but home is nicer!
  5. 2 points
    Maybe some lie, maybe some don't really understand their own feelings, maybe being attracted to the same gender and getting excited by watching other men and having sex are not the same? Just because someone feels excited watching something, doesn't mean they are instantly INTO that thing, in the real world. There is a large difference between reacting to seeing something, and doing it yourself. Although there probably is a subgroup of people that may not know they are homosexual/bisexual, or they feel moral disgust due to stigma/upbringing and therefore say they aren't sexually attracted? So many reasons.
  6. 2 points
    That's one aspect of a social species. You're trying to say this is representative of all evolution, and that's extrapolating in the wrong direction. You can't go from specific to general based on one data point. To quote from The Logician: 'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bulls**t. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. IOW, all social behavior is the result of evolution, but not all of evolution deals with social interaction
  7. 2 points
    And even in conventional electricity, the net flow of electrons is slow. The current is caused by the massive numbers of charge carriers, and the fact that the interaction proceeds at the speed of light in the material. But the electrons themselves have a drft velocity far, far slower. To have electricity you need free charge carriers, and that's typically the electrons. You could do this with other charged particles, but you'd have to create a condition where they are the free charge carriers, and that just doesn't happen except in very specific circumstances. The fact that electrons are stable and much less massive than protons, and don't bind to other particles except via the electromagnetic interaction (unlike protons binding to neutrons and other protons) is the reason they are free to create currents in conductors.
  8. 2 points
    Well, we already had plenty that did not originate there (as well as a few pandemics) and we will have plenty of outbreaks within the next few years. It is mostly the confluence of factors that make a disease more likely become a pandemic, which includes e.g. effective human-human transmission, long incubation time, late/difficult detection, outbreak in areas with high connections to rest of the world etc. This time a lot of folks dropped the ball which resulted in a rather unprecedented situation. The question is whether the next one (which will come) will be contained better or not.
  9. 2 points
    Morality isn't a static thing - it's a living, breathing phenomenon - evidenced by the fact we now frown upon many practices considered tolerable many moons ago. But it only develops where there is a dialogue. Religious books are an important part of that dialogue, perhaps more so in the past. An eye for an eye might make the world blind, but at the time it was improvement on 'your families life for an eye.' The problem with religious books is that they can become a monologue when they insist upon themselves as the only valid authority. The minute you think any text is the definitive version morality dies. The problem with ignoring the fact that religious books are still part of the dialogue is that you ignore the historical and cultural processes that led us to our current understanding, and, perhaps more importantly, you exclude billions of voices from the dialogue.
  10. 2 points
    I think it's human nature to blame something about oneself that can't be changed for ones lack of progress in some aspect. I gave my deafness more weight than it deserved, in hindsight.
  11. 2 points
    ! Moderator Note Discussion has that advantage, certainly, but only when one listens rather than lectures. Unfortunately, you aren't discussing this, so nobody is learning anything they really need to. Discussion would mean you actually incorporate comments from others in your replies. Instead we see an outlined lecture series you obviously don't want any critique on. Please go elsewhere to do this kind of blogging. Nobody is interested in that format here. This is a science discussion forum. Thread closed.
  12. 2 points
    Don't worry, patience is not an issue, at least not in my case. But I think the forum rules still apply, you can't keep blogging and hope for questions to self-resolve in some distant future. I have reread the posts so far and I can't find that my questions are adressed. The addition of doppler in the last revision does not add clarification regarding issues raised earlier. Basic question: Can you please post the complete set of postulates used in your "related experiments"-idea? There is no need to repeat the whole "fresh look" stuff, just tell the postulates and, if necessary, how they deviate from the postulates used in SR. What you have posted so far does seem to match SR predictions, it is not a "fresh look" of SR and it is not an alternative point of view of SR. In my opinion clearly stating the postulates you use and how your postulates differ from SR may help bring the discussion forward. Since you state that SR is an offshoot of Electromagnetic Theory I guess that your postulates must differ from SR in some way; when deriving certain relativistic effects from your postulates we see how electromagnetism comes into play in some way that deviates from the mainstream SR.
  13. 2 points
    You are free to defend this in a thread in speculations You mean like stuff you posted in the other thread? That I debunked?
  14. 2 points
    The entire Neil Young archives free for streaming. https://neilyoungarchives.com/info-card?track=t1975_1129_01
  15. 2 points
    So there is a preprint that predicts about 80k deaths in the USA over the next 4 months with large uncertainties, though (MEDRXIV/2020/043752). See also https://www.reuters.com/video/?videoId=OVC6U1U23&jwsource=cl Edit: If true, it be more deaths than the deaths attributed to influenza (at least since 2010).
  16. 2 points
    I think there may a couple of wrong assumptions but I am not read enough in those areas to provide an immediate in-depth response. Let's talk about zoonotic diseases first. One thing of note is that at high population densities and contacts with animals there is a higher likelihood of a pathogen crossing species barriers. But even then they may not cause large outbreaks, as they may have low transmission or low virulence and either exist invisibly in a given population or do otherwise do not garner a lot of traction. Many viruses re-assort in pigs transfer to humans and then change further (e.g. by grabbing genes from other viruses in their hosts) before they cause outbreaks. Take the H1N1pdm09 (swine-flu) pandemic, for example. That particular strain has a bit of a mosaic structure, probably originating from three parental pig viruses and emerged into humans somewhere in North America, some assume in Mexico. There is also the MERS epidemic, that came likely from camels but were sufficiently contained not to cause an epidemic. Hantavirus is a deadly virus that has a case fatality of ca. 40%. However, it is spread by mice and not human to human (luckily) and was found in the USA. There are also plenty of zoonotic diseases found in India, such NIpah virus and has been slowly spreading. However as there is no human-human transmission the spread is not as rapid. Likewise, we had a Zika pandemic not so long ago, a mosquito borne disease, originating from Africa. Japanese encephalitis likely originated in the Indonesia-Malaysia region and while it is also transmitted by mosquitos, it causes outbreaks every couple of years with about 13-20 thousand deaths each year. Again, lucky break that they need mosquitos as vectors. So in a way to me the question is whether it is by chance that those originating from China have larger impact on global health and economy or whether there are factors contributing to it. I think one needs to think beyond sanitary issues, as you mentioned. One question could be for example how connected China is compared to India. But also for example how the meat industry looks like. Another perhaps simple question is also what types of potential zoonotic diseases are there that could for example mix with animals that come into close contact with humans. In India many are mosquito borne, but perhaps they are less relevant in China. In Europe and US industrial pig farming has a huge potential to recombine and spread viruses in pigs, but there are perhaps fewer animals around that can spread novel viruses into pigs. Regulating or closing those market can likely close some of the risk factors. However, ultimately my thinking is that the world is shrinking, for better or for worse. There will be more contact between each of us and there are diseases that not zoonotic. What it means is that otherwise local disease have a much easier to become epidemic and even pandemic. Without the willingness for rapid responses to detect human-human spread, I think that most of the measures will be insufficient. And I think it is somewhat wrong to think that in the Western world our measures will keep us safe indefinitely. We had prion disease entering the food chain (sure it is not an infectious disease per se, but still). Farm animals often have to be culled due to various disease outbreaks. So far those have not managed to jump the species barrier, but it is not something that may so forever. On the other hand of course there is the tendency of diseases to become less virulent over time (as killing the host is generally not a good long-term strategy) but in the meantime a lot of harm can be done. Other man-made reasons for outbreak are for example anti-vaccination campaigns. HIV/AIDS now is well controlled, and we get complacent again (in the 90s it was for a time the leading cause of death in young adults). We have tons of pathogens that can mix, mutate and while there may be area with larger reservoirs than others, I do think it is dangerous to think it as an "elsewhere" problem. I think this is what lead to complacency when China was facing COVID-19 and that is why despite ample warnings the Western world only reacted when they had deaths in their midst. It may not be quite what you are thinking of, but I do think that this change in mentality is necessary to combat the inevitable occurrence and re-occurrence of diseases (and I apologize for all the typo and rantiness, it is more flow of thoughts without proper editing, may try to express it clearer when I got time again). Edit: had so many unfinished thoughts but wanted to include that global warming is going to increase the likelihood of many, especially mosquito borne diseases, so that has to go in there also somewhere.
  17. 2 points
    To amplify Mordred's statement ( +1 ) Mathematically and logically a relation is a particular conncetion between pairs of (mathematical) objects. Equality as represented by the equals sign = is characterised by three properties. Where A B and C are three mathematical objects 1) Reflexivity A = A 2) Symmmetry If A = B then B = A 3) Transitivity If A = B and B = C then A = C These may seem obvious but they are fundamnetal and very important. Another stronger reelation is identity. This is different from equality and should be carefully distinguished. All identities are also equalities, but not all equalities are identities. An easy way to see this is to compare the following [math]{x^2} - 1 \equiv \left( {x + 1} \right)\left( {x - 1} \right)[/math] This is an identity. Note the different symbol. It is true for all x or each and every possible value of x. But [math]{x^2} - 1 = 0[/math] is only an equality. It is only true for certain values of x and not true for many more. To pick up on the remark about chemical equations. You noted that chemical reactions represent a process as well as an equality (mass balance charge balance etc) These are more properly shown with various arrows for this reason [math] \to [/math] etc
  18. 2 points
    Again it doesn't count as a dimension. It is a relation not a dimension.
  19. 2 points
    The graph shows trajectories in the number of cases and it does show that in most cases they will rise further.
  20. 2 points
    Will you please tell me which other forums you post on? If you see Charon as typical, then I’d very much like to go visit them. They sound wonderful!
  21. 1 point
    I have posted in this thread, so not making this statement as a mod. However, it would be great if we could stay on topic. Please open a thread in politics for example if other aspects are to be explored.
  22. 1 point
    So worrying about who might die next of one thing means they won't worry about who might die next of covid-19? And when no one is well enough to go and work the fields and tend the animals, you think they won't care about the disease that is causing that? You are not making much sense. And not many people, even in the developing world, live in circumstances as dire as you seem to picturing.
  23. 1 point
    Not everyone in first world countries are rich and not everyone in third world countries are poor. Your statement remains inaccurate.
  24. 1 point
    And that's not even counting all of the other forms of sameness like adjoint situations. There's so many different forms of "eh, that's sort of the same as this other thing in certain ways".
  25. 1 point
    Got mad? That was an actual withering curse on a single tree. I think the writer was throwing some shade at future politicians. Beware those who're all leaves and no fruit!
  26. 1 point
    Please provide a reference to support this claim. Everything I have ever read about evolution says it is based on natural selection (of heritable traits that vary in the population). There are hypotheses that social activity and cooperation, altruism, etc can be explained by evolution. So your statement seems to be exactly the wrong way round. Unless you can provide an example, I don't think anyone can answer that. You are a fine one to talk about "incoherent rambling".
  27. 1 point
    Regarding the original question Many organisations (an I guess also individuals with proper equipment and interest) try do discover, catalogue and track Near Earth Objects*. One such initiative is Spaceguard**. when an object is discovered potentially many individuals and organisations will know about the object before it is know if there is any danger due to the objects expected trajectory. My best guess is that since many are involved and have possibility to validate and confirm observations and calculations the chase that serious mistakes would slip through is reduced. Which on an abstract level apply to pretty much any area in science. (This also addresses (off topic) question about coverups; knowledge about the objects existence is likely widely spread before knowing if there is any danger or not.) *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object **) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceguard
  28. 1 point
    Sounds like a word salad. Can you argue that the equality sign is a relation ? Not a dimension under mathematical definition ? Mathematics doesn't require words. The proof must be based upon the math
  29. 1 point
    In a world consisting of anti-matter, moving positrons would be electricity.
  30. 1 point
    Had an upright freezer at my other house, that I had bought but never used as I couldn't bring myself to move. Gave the house to my sister after her divorce. And doesn't she put the freezer out to the curb, because she had no use for it. After I'd already put my chest freezer to the curb as I intended to use the upright.
  31. 1 point
    He's not the anti-christ - he's a very naughty boy.
  32. 1 point
    So I'm sitting here as rain is pouring down, collecting in puddles, raising the water table, and filling aquifers to the point of almost flooding and I'm just thinking about all the areas in the U.S. that are facing drought. My first thought is, do I really have this excess of water here that I think we do? Is the ground supersaturated with water or has it just not filtered through yet? My second thought is, if there really is all this excess water and flooding, why can't we send it to the drought stricken areas? We have oil and gas pipelines that crisscross our nation, why can't we do the same with water and fill up Californian reservoirs? Just some thoughts. I would love to hear expert and more well thought out opinions on the matter.
  33. 1 point
    I do several sweeps, usually. The first is as described above. Then I often (unless it is a narrow focus topic e.g. in a mini-review) want to expand the scope and provide a bit of synthesis from other viewpoints. Here I often use the discussions I read or sometimes ideas in my head to perform another round of expanded search, but often with a special focus. E.g if the review is about a certain host-pathogen interaction and their peculiarities, I might check other pathogens (or hosts) and contrast these interactions and discuss similarities and unique aspects. But you are right, if there are time constraints I might focus in just getting the core papers. I do find it less satisfying, though.
  34. 1 point
    What do you guys have? Perrier faucets? Regular treated water for households is nowhere near that cost.
  35. 1 point
    You seem to convince yourself of horrific outcomes for simple events, Bmpbmp1975. ( doomsdayscenariophobia ? ) Must be terrifying living in your world, so you probably don't leave the house much. Are we your only source of social interaction ?
  36. 1 point
    You mean the SR thread that was on its sixth page and was started in Nov of last year? The one where a number of people, including myself, were begging the OP to stop with their delay tactics and get to the point? As Strange has already noted, that's precisely how threads are treated, and more so in speculations. Going off on a tangent to have a discussion of some other point is hijacking. Tangents that persist more than a post or two are usually split off, or trashed (and possibly a warning issued) if it's egregious. The way it's supposed to work is that the OP posts something, and you respond to the OP. You're not supposed to raise questions not directed at the OP, other than clarification of answers already given. In speculations this is especially important, because the OP is typically introducing a new take on some science, and nobody else has insight into their thinking. People butting in to start new discussions will sidetrack things pretty quickly. A lot of times we do this. People were begging the OP to answer their questions and get to the point for some time. Plus, the OP posted their "last post on this topic" twice. This would seem to be a Fletch/Mr. Babar definition of sudden. Dr. Joseph Dolan: You know, it's a shame about the thread. Fletch: Oh, it was. Yeah, it was really a shame. To be closed so suddenly like that. Dr. Joseph Dolan: Ahh, it was dying for months. Fletch: Sure, but... the end was really... very sudden. Dr. Joseph Dolan: It was in intensive care for eight weeks! Fletch: Yeah, but I mean the very end, when it was actually closed. That was extremely sudden!
  37. 1 point
    A very good point that also applies to other nations right across the globe. I wish others would think like you. My view is there is a lack of politcal will / organisation not a lack of physical resources to achieve this. If you were dying of thirst in the desert which would you value more A pint of water or a ton of gold?
  38. 1 point
    I think by now interactions will or should be severely limited. As others have said, it should be taken seriously, if not a a risk to yourself it poses to those you interact with. There are already a ton of good advise posted basically everywhere (keep distance, wash hands, do not touch your face etc.). Trying to remove infectious material should also help. One should try to avoid touching things with our hands (e.g. opening doors hands-free if possible, use elbows to operate switches or doors etc.). One of the habits I picked up during lab work is to use the non-dominant hand as designated "dirty" hand (assuming that you are less likely to touch yourself with that hand, which might not be true for everyone) and then make a fist with that hand whenever you are not using it (I often imagine holding something in the fist). I try to keep it up until I disinfect/glove/whatever needs to be done. What I also train students is to lock their hands when they are not supposed to touch anything (e.g. when they are gloved) to keep them from touching themselves, their clothes and so on.
  39. 1 point
    I like using a bookmark for 'Unread' myself. Avoid cluttering up your feed that way. Additional filters are available too if you want.
  40. 1 point
    e.g. while loop checking whether any of two threads is alife (rather than just for one). Use logical or operator.
  41. 1 point
    It does not seem random in my browser. If I show "all activity" and chose the expanded view (instead of condensed) I think I see "the reply to this status" for all status updates on members personal profile pages. And never for any posts in any threads.
  42. 1 point
    I would say that studies on synaptic plasticity and the molecular basis of memory (Kandel has a nice book on it, and some nice articles on the molecular basis of memories) , do definitely the notion that memories are the result of differing strengths between the connections of neurons (in my opinion). And although I wouldn't know how a study could 'prove' that personality is an emergent property of brain connections, I can't really see any other place where your personality would come from, especially based on all the neuroscience I know. One article: https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-6606-5-14 (the book is 'The principles of neuroscience)
  43. 1 point
    In the meantime some good news, especially for the OP. Free Fish and Chips for all. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-52047985
  44. 1 point
    @Dagl1 I and j are loop counters used as indexes to array. You need to compare array values instead of indexes. You need to find math equation giving f(x)=1+2+3+....n. It will be total internal loop executions. Use debugger to see what CPU is doing. It will help you understand issues.
  45. 1 point
    I guess that's why our previous discussion regarding B Lazar ended up in the trash. I remember seeing him on TV in the 90s, making those outrageous claims. The only thing I've seen of him more recently is on the Joe Rogan Experience ( podcast ), and, for someone who was hired by the Government to reverse engineer a 'gravity' drive, he did not have a clue as to the workings of gravity or its effects. I nearly fell out of my chair when he said the 'old' theory of gravity involved propagation by gravitons, but it is actually a wave, evidenced by the 2016 BH merger detected by LIGO. ( gravitons are manifested by a quantum field theory of gravity, which we don't yet have, and he seems confused about gravitational waves ) He also employs certain 'tricks' in his interviews, like having an associate 'surprise' him with some 'evidence', which he claims not to have known about, in an attempt to be more believable. However, some people, even on this forum, seem to fall for his line ( along with hook and sinker ).
  46. 1 point
    While I don't care for spiders they don't really bother me any more than big centipedes or other creepy looking creatures. Many years ago I let my boys both have aquariums with snakes. I was fine looking at them in the tank, and when the boys handled them it was a little creepy but no big deal. Then they talked me into holding their corn snake (see stock image below). It was a bit tense but fine while it was just wrapped around my fingers, but then it looked me in the eye and started moving toward my face. Boom! I couldn't get that thing out of my hand fast enough.
  47. 1 point
  48. 1 point
    The topic of the discussion is element 115, not whether we've been visited by aliens. So this suggests that Lazar's input is irrelevant. ! Moderator Note Irrelevant to the discussion (as I mention above) and basically using the lack of evidence to confirm that there is a conspiracy, because all the evidence has been erased. The antithesis of scientific discussion.
  49. 1 point
    B Lazar has been making these claims for over 20 yrs. I distinctly remember seeing him on TV shows dealing with UFOs in the 90s. Wouldn't the simpler explanation be that he has no academic records from MIT/Caltech, rather than the Government 'scrubbed' them ? And what makes us so special that they'd want to play 'cat and mouse' games with us ? You'd think they would explore the galaxy, not anally probe Americans from southern states.
  50. 1 point
    It's not intuitive. Another one not intuitive to me is cold bleach, it seems, bleaches better than warm or hot bleach. Edit: Lower concentration increases contact time so that the surface of the microorganisms protein coat is not denatured too quickly such that it prevents more of the alcohol penetrating deeper into them. Superficial denaturing may just initiate dormancy.
×
×
  • 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.