Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/16/22 in all areas

  1. Well, beecee, I hope you are doing well in your followup crusade against philosophy. I find it interesting that you, Krauss, Degrasse Tyson are heavily critisising philosophy, where it is clear to me that you and your scientific heroes have no idea what is actually done in modern academic philosophy. Don't understand me wrong: I have read several books of Krauss, and these are great in explaining modern physics and astronomy for the lay people; and I extremely like the Degrasse Tyson's work in the public understanding of science. However I also recognise without a shadow of doubt that they are fighting a straw man here: philosophy as it was thousands years ago, or hundred years ago. Should I condemn physics as stupid because Aristotle said that F = mv? 2500 years ago? Or astronomers that thought the cosmos is static and exist just out of the stars we see in the Milky Way, not much more than 100 years ago? Of course not, but that is exactly what you are doing when they, and you, are critisising philosophy: as if philosophy has not progressed in those thousands or most recent 100 years (Russel, anybody?). If you say that philosophy has still no answers to the most fundamental questions it asks since thousands of years, then I can only react that physics and astronomy have not either. True, we know much more, and cosmologists can describe the history of the universe until about 10⁻²³ seconds, but the original question 'where everything comes from' is not answered. Even Krauss does not know the answer. So if you would say, e.g., that philosophy still has not answered the thousands of years old question if we have free will, I would say 'maybe not, but we understand the problem much better'. The same as in cosmology: we understand much more about the origins of the universe, but we do not have the definitive answer. You are using different critera for the progress of science and philosophy. In trying to understand and accept the present scientific difficulties in answering this question, one is, eh... philosophising. Thereby: every science has its philosophical assumptions. See my present disclaimer ('There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.') Grappling with these assumptions is philosophy (at least of one of its subdisciplines). Doing unfounded assertions about philosophy is just bad philosophy. (Yes, when a scientist reflects about the status of his science, he is doing philosophy, not science.) Feynman shows a nice example of the ambiguity of scientists about philosophy: on one side, he finds it completely useless ("What is 'talking'"), on the other side you have his reaction on the question of what magnetism 'really' is (I think even you have shared the youtube of that interview here in these fora); there he is clearly taken a well argued philosophical stance, i.e. he is philosophising. Recently I have been reading What is real? The unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics by Adam Becker (Astrophysicist and philosopher). Its historical description shows clearly how heavily influenced the discussions between the 'quantum pioneers' by philosophical stances, and when it is about quantum fundamentals, it still is. With that it also shows clearly how important history of science and philosophy of science are, even for physicists. E.g. it shows how devastating the 'Copenhagen creed' was for an open discussion on the fundamentals of quantum physics, even so much, that you could forget your career, if you showed interest in fundamental questions (e.g. John Bell, working at CERN, helping in calculations for its accellerator/collider, but 'doing work on fundamentals on Sundays' Bell's theorem belongs to this 'Sunday's work'; he even warned Alain Aspect not to strive for doing entanglement experiments, unless he was tenured, (which he luckily was)). Read this book, maybe you get a bit more respect for philosophy and history of science. You will also see that the author himself is not the only one that has both studied physics and philosophy (often in that chronological order). All less talented than Krauss? In cosmology, sure. In philosophy? Definitely not.
    3 points
  2. I would need to go through all of them again, but most of the time income as a measure is used. That being said, there are a few studies looking at wealth separate from income and overall it seems that income had a higher effect on improving health outcomes rather than incorporating wealth. An older study showed that African Americans had a 67% higher likelihood of dying than White Americans when accounting for age sex and marital status. Including wealth reduced it to 54% and introducing income (without wealth) the difference was "only" 43%. So while wealth and income attenuate issues, it clearly does not come close to closing it. The other observation in other studies is that whenever there is an economic downturn, black folks are more vulnerable to these effects. That is an interesting question, and there is no clear answer, mostly as universal health care system differ quite a lot. In Canada provincial differences are huge and depending on racial composition it could be difficult to compare national data. However, I do expect that with improved access much of the bigger issues we see in the US to be attenuated. A lot will also depend on the characteristics of the non-white population. In the US native black Americans fare much worse than recent black immigrants, for example. And in the UK and Canada, recent immigration of highly educated folks with high income would need to be separated out from these issues. That being said, there are still erroneous assumption and mistreatments in happening in universal health care system even fairly recently (forced or coerced sterilization, for example), but I would need to see what is out there in literature. I should also add that for about the last 10 years the medical community has become more aware of racial inequities and also has allowed more research in that area to happen. As such, practices are (slowly) changing relevant to racial disparities and I know that these conversations are also happening in Canada. I would need to take some time to find numbers but I will say that in order to uncover issues, it would be necessary to conduct research that actually tries to quantify inequities. As an anecdote, when I was doing more research looking at biomarkers of health, several of my proposals were shot down because the area I had collaborations with serviced more black folks. The reviewers contended that those were not representative of the majority white population and were therefore not of interest. I am moderately sure that today I had a much better show to have this cohort included. It depends on the definition of racism, and I think you might think of something else. Racism in this context is refers to a system that does something that somehow results in different outcomes, depending on your race. It may or may not have roots in some racists ideology and it really does not matter for this. Often, it is a mix. As I mentioned, wealth or income affect the outcome, but do not explain it sufficiently. Others include things like living in an area with little to know medical services or with underfunded schools or any of the dozen positive factors that even poor white folks have access to. The way to think about it is that we have a black box (the complete system that affects health) and if we put a white person in and a black person with same income wealth and so on, we get different outcomes. This is the issue with systemic racism. It is not about someone being shitty to someone or even someone thinks badly about a race. It is a system (such as a medical algorithm) that somehow and even inadvertently creates inequity, even if it was not designed to so. As such race-blind measures require at minimum non-race blind analyses to figure out whether they do create equity. Historically, we have been really bad at it. Of course, not political party in pretty much any country is free from blame. I am not sure why it seems to be a kind of revelation to you. The main difference I would say is that at least in recent times Dems try to say they are better than that whereas the GOP has weaponized racism to rally their base. So I think the way to look at it is that there is a weak hope that the Dems are willing to undo some of the harm they have done and the GOP is hellbent not to, as it seems to be their new identity fetish. Not sure, but the GOP has shown how powerful identity politics is. You can do whatever you want and lie the heck out of it and still escape repercussions. Meanwhile, Dems have to acknowledge that black folks exist lest they lose their elections.
    3 points
  3. Come on man, just because I was caught exposing my genitals to the Moon light before it was popular in conservative circles.
    3 points
  4. Every body appreciates the printed classics. A lot of the new printed stuff is garbage 🙂 . If you say so. Keep in mind that I mentioned two members who expressed a desire to re-purpose sports as 'games', and one of them has replied, and not objected to that characterization. Is that a 'strawman' ? I was not replying to you, I said 'some members', and then named them. I was not replying to an imaginary argument. So maybe by 'strawmanning' you mean someone doesn't share your worldview ?
    3 points
  5. Permanant dipoles are easy to explain. You have a molecule with partial +ve charge in one place and a partial -ve charge somewhere else. The partial +ve charge will attract a partial -ve charge in a neighbouring molecule and vice versa. So it's just like the attraction between oppositely charged ions but involving only partial charges. London forces, also known as dispersion forces, arise due to "flickering, fleeting dipoles" due to motion of the electrons in an atom or molecule, which induce dipoles in the neighbouring ones. The strength of dispersion forces is greater between atoms (or molecules involving them) that have greater polarisability, which tends to mean larger atoms with a more diffuse outermost shell of electrons. As I recall, the random fluctuations in electron density that give rise to this arise from the same quantum mechanical principle responsible for vacuum fluctuations - basically another manifestation of the uncertainty principle. The name Van der Waals forces is given to all intermolecular attractions that don't involve a chemical bond. So the term includes both London (dispersion) forces and the attraction between permanent dipoles. (But it would not include hydrogen bonds, as these have some directional bonding character and are thus not entirely electrostatic dipole attractions.)
    3 points
  6. What if when the first cars were invented, there was a collision between two cars and both gas tanks exploded and killed the people driving the cars? Was that an indicator that the internal combustion engine was unsafe and could never be useful in cars? No. Something like that may be going on with nuclear power. Just because the early nuclear reactors were not safe enough, does not mean that they will never be safe. Here are some ideas for safe nuclear reactors, thorium molten salt, and the Natrium reactor. Comments to this video: "Advantages of thorium: Much safer than uranium-no pressure vessel, no fuel rods to melt down. Much simpler reactor. Thorium salt liquid is pumped from the reactor tank through a heat exchanger and back into the tank. Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium--in fact so plentiful it is considered a waste product from rare earth mining. Thorium doesn't need expensive enriching to make it usable. Thorium is of little use for weapons. If power goes off, liquid simply drains into a pit which stops reaction. No fuel rods to cool or melt down if power fails. This technology has been around for years. Why was it not developed long ago? Politics, methinks." "I'm a retired nuclear engineer and have worked on nuclear fuel and safety aspects. In those early years in the 1980s, Thorium was not utilized in NPPs. But its potential was always recognized, and India's 3-stage strategy included Thorium utilization in stage-3. Hopefully, good progress has been made in the last 40 years and would not be surprised if Thorium bundles are loaded in the operating heavy water reactors." "...Thorium reactor, which is usually called Thorium battery, has already been used for decades in both US and USSR satellites to power satellites. It's not unknown. It's in fact well-known in aerospace field, but the knowledge of it has been closed for public by big energy engineering companies." "A good talk but he has a number of small errors. The two biggest are: --- Current nuclear reactors burn only 0.5 % of the U235, not a couple percent as he says. --- Thorium is about as common as Lead. We have enough Thorium on the planet Earth to power everyone for 100,000's of years. You can take ordinary dirt, and the trace amounts of Thorium are equal to 12 barrels of oil. Energy wise, we can burn the Thorium in ordinary dirt, and make an energy profit." "The reason we don't use Thorium for energy is because it can't be used for weapons and isn't rare enough to monopolize the market so it can be controlled by governments. It's cheap energy which means no one makes money which means those making money on energy right now which includes renewable energy are not going to support this energy source." "Recycling the nuclear waste is a must and very doable, France is currently doing just that. Nuclear waste holds 90% of energy still even after 5 years of use. Especially with electric cars becoming very popular it will put a huge strain on our current energy grid so nuclear plants will be a necessity sooner than later." I know the consensus here is probably opposed to ANY nuclear power, but renewables have bigger problems. France gets 71% of its' power from nuclear. Finland is spending billions of US dollars on a new nuclear reactor.
    2 points
  7. I think you two should just get a divorce already. You’re traumatizing the kids and neighbors with your bickering
    2 points
  8. Definitely difficult to find a compromise. I don't at all think impossible. I don't believe we'll ever get truly fair and equitable inclusion of transgenders, but then we don't really have fair and equitable inclusion of anyone else either. We just need to get reasonably close.
    2 points
  9. I am totally open-minded, and there is nothing you can say to change that.
    2 points
  10. Of course he was being facetious. And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down! Let me say it again. And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down! (Just to be clear, I was being facetious there! 😀)
    2 points
  11. So this someone took offence that you did not take offence to someone not offending you? Thats some next level stuff.
    2 points
  12. Ok, In general sports as pastimes - "fun and games" then any differences, advantages, weaknesses... are less important since as the good PC brigade keep ramming down our throats "its the taking part that counts". Fine this works just dandy. But at the elite level where "professional" sports people are competing at the highest level and are earning their living from this then the distinction between differences, advantages, weaknesses become majorly important, to keep things as "fair" or rather, as equally opportunistic for those people. Ha ha, Nobody said they are, we are discussing why they should/shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to do so in the first place. How many times in history people have suffered the consequences out of ignorance? Me personally I couldn't give a shite since it doesn't really affect me if Mr Joe decides to become Miss Jo and kick everyone's ass. It just amazes me that people are so afraid to speak of such, even to ignore the very evolution of humankind just because it doesn't fit in within modern western society. Crack on if it fits in with PC, and makes everybody feel better about themselves. I had a discussion at work yesterday, I'm a middle aged man who's hair is now well receded and consider myself bald (though technically I'm only slightly bald). Apparently I offended a colleague. They were offended that I did not mind when somebody else, in jest, remarked on my hair. They asked why it did not bother me and why I had not reported the incident to our human resources department. I explained that I enjoy a little banter and that it was all in good fun. They were shocked and dismayed and proceeded to report this themselves. My point being that, in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC.
    2 points
  13. My understanding is it’s related to asymptotic freedom. When you add energy to a “typical” bound system (e.g. ionize an electron) you end up with free particles. When they combine, you get a release of energy. But adding energy to bound quarks doesn’t do this - you can’t free a bound quark. Their potential energy at large separation doesn’t go to zero as it does with gravity or Coulomb forces.
    2 points
  14. What's wrong with progressivism? Absolutely nothing!! In fact it is a desired aspect ofr any and all progressive societies. We have elections in Australia this Saturday and we have the present tired old conservative government now playing politics and claiming now is not the time for change, against the Labor party, the party that gave us probably the best universal health scheme in the world, compulsory employer and employee contributing superannuation, general wage growth instead of stagnation, and a party for the people, leaving no one behind. The party I have been presently handing out leaflets for and have been a member of. But progressivnism like political correctnness can reach a stage of going mad and silly and shooting themselves in the foot in the progress.
    2 points
  15. This is all part of the modern phenomenon of re-defining words to suit an agenda. Republicans are trying to re-define 'progressivism' as something bad; as simply change for the sake of change, or change to a worse outcome. Most people ( who don't watch Fox News ) know that is politically driven, and it actually refers to the improvement of the human condition.. I would also suggest the term 'populism', has been re-defined by a liberal agenda, to mean something just short of fascism, while in effect it means a government serving the needs, and representing all the people, including commoners; not simply the elite affluent/intelligentsia, who don't necessarily believe the 'commoners' deserve representation.
    2 points
  16. One problem I often see understanding philosophy is the notion that it is a single discipline, when it is really half a dozen (axiology, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc.), each with its own set of logical and analytical tools. As regards some scientific undertaking, an ethicist and an epistemologist might have very different concerns, and lumping them together would be a muddy mess. The branch that is actually called "philosophy of science" is the one that is usually most relevant here, since it is concerned with how best science can shape methods for observing and understanding the world, evaluate the reliability of theories, and find what are the boundaries of science. If science was your car, PhOS would be the mechanic who understands the car's functioning and how to make repairs and keep it running well. However, if you were wanting to understand the fundamental reality of cars, you might contact the specialist in metaphysics. Or, if you wanted to know where it might be wrong to drive your car, you might contact the ethicist. But mostly, you would be looking to the PhOS specialist. Anyway, main point I'm trying to make is, it's really important not to treat philosophy as some easily demarcated singular field; much better to pick a branch and try to understand that branch.
    2 points
  17. Philosophy has always been a bit of a mystery to me so please take what I say with a grain of salt. The way a philosopher speaks about philosophy and the way laymen speak of philosophy makes it seem like they are talking about two completely different fields of study. It is similar to the way QM sounds like two different fields of study depending on whether you are speaking to a scientist or a layperson. When a scientist says 'as it really is' he is generally speaking of a destination that cannot realistically be achieved, and thus philosophy may seem a bit cracked. But when a philosopher says 'as it really is' he seems (to me) to be speaking of a journey of understanding and exploration. So just as a group of laypeople discussing QM can miss subtleties and have misperceptions go unchallenged, I think it is the same way with philosophy. While what the scientists say about philosophy sounds reasonable, by reading the thoughts of our few resident philosophers I get the feeling that the rest of us are missing something when it comes to understanding what philosophy can really do for us.
    2 points
  18. https://news.yahoo.com/rights-violence-problem-184823155.html
    2 points
  19. Not quite: 'philosophy' was just the name of every activity that wanted to understand the world. (Was Newton a philosopher? His main work is titled 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.) It is our understanding of the musings of Aristotle that he was active at disciplines that we now distinguish: during my physics study in the context of the history of physics I learned about his 'laws of falling bodies', during my philosophy study I learned about Aristotle's logic (syllogisms, categories, etc), and I assume he would also appear in the history of biology. There are some overlappings, e.g. Aristotle's concept of causality that is interesting for the history of philosophy and physics alike. It is clear to us nowadays that to make methodologically justified statements about nature, you must study nature, not just sit behind your desk and start thinking. However, if you encounter problems, there may come a point where you have to think about the fundamentals of your methods or other assumptions, like in the early years of quantum physics. And that discussion is not over yet, but has shifted. E.g. the question if String Theory is still science, or just mathematically advanced metaphysics. And what about the Multiverse: proponents of some version of the Multiverse generally affirm that there is no causal connection between the different parallel universes. So the hypotheses about the Multiverse cannot be empirically tested. Is that still science? These are philosophical questions. In modern days, no, not so much. Genady is partially right: To simplify: if the topic is nature, it is physics; if the topic is methods and general assumptions behind physics then it is philosophy. And in this sense there are at least periods in which physics needs philosophy, even if it are physicists themselves who are doing the philosophising. But physics does not need music or sports; physicists might, but they are not special in this respect. There are a few reasons, why you got this impression. First, the irony, or even sarcasm, of one of these was just too much. As a science fan, you could get the impression that you are plainly stupid. (If you remember, I also asked him to tone down. To no avail, as he was even banned.) This made it impossible for you to take his points seriously. AFAIR his point was that the selfunderstanding of science (a philosophical topic!) of many scientists is poor, but you read somehow that he implied that science in general is wrong. But the second point lies clearly with you: your utter ignorance about modern philosophy, just picking a few bonmots (some nearly 100 years old) that fit to your prejudices. Here I have a few others by Mencken: Do you really want to call him in the witness stand? Philosophy is not science. In the natural sciences there is always an arbiter: nature itself. Philosophy is essentially reflecting on our thinking. But as the thinking changes, due to developments in science and society, the reflecting will change as well. Grappling with these assumptions is the scientific methodology, which is a part of philosophy. This is a caricature of philosophy. No doubt that Feynman heard these kind of questions, but the way he talks about them, I assume these were questions by 'would-be philosophers', i.e. fellow students who wanted to spread some 'deepities'. You do not find such questions when you look into the 'philosophy of physics' department. Yes, I notice you are pretty good informed about the contents of modern physics and astronomy. But, as you say you are not well-informed about what philosophy is presently doing. So why all these attacks on a discipline you simply don't know, and just take some bonmots, that support your prejudices? Forgot to add, there are physicists, who are much better aware about philosophy, a small list: Lee Smolin Sean Carroll Carlo Rovelli Albert Einstein From the latter:
    1 point
  20. Because of the Kronecker delta in the first highlighted equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronecker_delta Which is there because <i|j> is in the preceding equation. Do you see why that is?
    1 point
  21. Good question. This depends on the metric - in Schwarzschild spacetime there should be no net drift for this type of motion, but in other spacetimes that don’t admit time-like Killing fields (eg Kerr), there will still be a non-zero net drift, because the two sections are of different arc lengths in spacetime (!). Actually proving this won’t be very easy, since this path isn’t everywhere smooth. No, perihelion precession is different, because only the orientation of the orbit changes, which follows directly from the geodesic equation; deSitter and Lense-Thirring on the other hand affect the orientation of the spin axis of the body (these two precessions are in different directions). There’s also a fourth kind called Pugh-Schiff precession, which is essentially spin-spin coupling. Yes, rotating bodies in orbit within a gravity well experience this. I don’t know if it has been measured for Mercury, but there’s data on this for the moon: https://www.academia.edu/49380218/Measurement_of_the_de_Sitter_precession_of_the_Moon_A_relativistic_three_body_effect But again, this isn’t the same as perihelion precession, they are distinct effects.
    1 point
  22. I'll try to describe my question in a more concrete setting. Let's say we have two Stern–Gerlach apparatuses, side by side, and two entangled electrons as before. The apparatuses are parallel to each other. We measure one electron in one apparatus and find out that it moves toward the magnetic N of the apparatus. If we measure the second electron in the second apparatus, it will move to its magnetic S. If the second apparatus were set e.g. perpendicularly to the first, then the second electron could move there to the N or to the S with equal probabilities. Now, the second apparatus is in M87 and we want it to be set parallel to the first for the purpose of the measurement of the second electron spin. How do we determine the correct setting for the second apparatus? Wouldn't it depend on the path of the electron from Earth to M87 through the curved space?
    1 point
  23. The IOC is working on it for Olympic competition. I'm happy to let them work out the kinks. Imperfect rules to begin with is not the same as evidence that it cannot work. I think allowing the Olympics to set their own rules, like they've been doing since the Olympics began, is the right way to do it. The following is from November 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/international-olympic-committee-issues-new-guidelines-transgender-athl-rcna5775
    1 point
  24. I remember Robert Ringer (civil libertarian) translating this as "Ask not what the people in power can do for you, ask what you can do for the people in power" He was entertaining if nothing else.
    1 point
  25. I wonder whether using this term 'racism club' (twice) is indicative of a particular sort of pre-judgment of another poster's motivation. And I wonder whether the inclusive but unspecific phrase 'everything one does not like' indicated less than objective or incisive intellectual inquiry. Is the 'racism club' a hyper-inflated version of the old 'racism card'? 'Playing the racism card' was a charge that used to be levelled at anyone who mentioned historical bias in relation to the distribution of anything from baby clinics to public transport to polling stations to secondary schools. Now that the very same inequalities of distribution have remained unchanged or increased through space-age gerymandering, the not-very-effective card has grown into an equally ineffective club.... ....which, I'm guessing, is only ever used by "progressives" who still don't like everything they didn't like 50 years ago.
    1 point
  26. I didn't realize rich white (and other) Democrats and their choir were the primary victims. I thought the primary victims were the ones they were claiming they wanted to help.
    1 point
  27. Alien shopping-bag ocean weirdo has glowing Cheetos for guts | Live Science
    1 point
  28. Brevity leads to more potential interpretations, potentially.
    1 point
  29. I cannot help but wonder: How often do you hear someone use the term Anglo-Saxon when referring to the English language? On now many of those occasions is someone referring to the English they themselves use? How many of the people referring to their own language as Anglo-Saxon rather than English are conservatives running for office in a climate of extreme political division? How many of the occasions on which a conservative candidate running for office in climate of extreme division call the English they use 'Anglo-Saxon' on a televised interview with a high-profile spokesman for the far right, whose audience is guaranteed to be predominantly far right? Just asking.
    1 point
  30. Certainly not. If you don't consider it commendable, I withdraw my commendation, even though I continue to approve of your moral stance.
    1 point
  31. @koti Given how incomplete our information is on all these people, I think it would be impossible to say who to believe. Family fights are often ugly and loaded with manipulation. There is a reason that some things end up in a courtroom - just accepting a bunch of "he said" and "she said" statements as a full account in hardly enough to make a rational decision. Also, as someone who has done counseling, I know that people may be "manipulative" because they have very little power over their own lives and can find no other leverage to make their needs known. It's entirely possible that the parents, if they had listened more and been more receptive to Ariel's feelings, would not have triggered quite so much manipulation.
    1 point
  32. Unless, of course, you're the transgendered person, or parent or loved one of a transgendered person, who's being needlessly discriminated against as a result of some not so humble yet extremely archaic opinions and assumptions. Categorize based on skill and ability and merit. Ignore gender, and sex, and how they identify or how they sit or stand when they pee. Why is this such an appalling and unacceptable idea to so very many? Why is it so hard to agree here that sports qualification criteria shouldn't care how you were classified at birth and how it should instead be focused on qualifications based on sport-specific thresholds?
    1 point
  33. It was actual analysis and the weight of observational evidence. You actually had meteorites in hand, and could compare them to stones from the area. And a large number of eyewitnesses of the same unambiguous event, rather than isolated events. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1803-rain-rocks-helped-establish-existence-meteorites-180963017/ “Biot distinguished two kinds of evidence of an extraterrestrial origin of the stones,” Gounelle writes. First, the kind of stone that had fallen was totally different than anything else available locally—but it was similar to the stone from the Barbotan meteor fall in 1790. “The foundries, the factories, the mines of the surroundings I have visited, have nothing in their products, nor in their slag that have with these substances any relation,” Biot wrote. Second, unlike earlier falls, there were a number of witnesses “who saw ‘a rain of stones thrown by the meteor,’” Gounelle writes. They were from different walks of life, and, Biot wrote, it would be ridiculous to think they had all colluded to describe something that hadn’t happened. “One can follow Biot’s enquiry, village by village, step by step,” writes Gounelle.
    1 point
  34. That will be funny - all the women in one room, watching a game; all the men in another room watching a game; everybody watching for the unfair advantage that one transgendered player might have; nobody watching the turkey.
    1 point
  35. Which side is that? Never mind; I realize that this part of the matter is far off topic. What I'm really curious about is why people occasionally suggest that substantive change, or progressive change, in any area of public life cannot take place until a certain generation has died off. Why is it considered more likely that a fresh young cohort will achieve what the youth of the 1960's and 70's failed to achieve, or regain what we did achieve that is now being destroyed? Opposite points of view on social issues are older than I am, older than democracy, older than sport.
    1 point
  36. Page 36, still strawmanning hard. I believe there are women out there who, if supported as athletes from a young age (the way men are), are fully capable of trying out for pro sports at virtually every level and qualifying for all the physiological benchmarks. Most assuredly, some sports would have a level of competition that would disqualify MOST people, men or women, and men may indeed dominate that league/class.
    1 point
  37. The progressive element is essential in any society that pursues betterment of the human condition. Progressivism, as a tenet, is a good theoretical starting point. Problem is: Self-declared progressive parties vie for power and control of the budget, like everybody else. If under pressure, they will act in ways that contradict their 'theoretical principles,' provided working politicians really have some of those. Whatever their tenets are, and out of this pressure to out-elbow everybody else, they will not hesitate to re-define their concepts. As MigL said,
    1 point
  38. I find pretty much the same problem with any proposition including the words 'as it really is.' As if there's some bogus way, and then there's the 'really real' one. That's as much as I can say without actually reading the book.
    1 point
  39. Kendal Principles of Neuroscience was pretty good back in the days (good overview and easy to understand).
    1 point
  40. Here is a true story, from my memory of about 25 years ago. I worked then in Risk Dept of a big international securities company with NY headquarters in WFC, next to the Wall Street. The risk calculations kept showing that a risk of some investment that the management wanted to make, was unacceptably high. But the management wanted it really hard. So we, the financial and the system analysts of the Risk Dept, have spent hours adjusting parameters until the risk came down just below the threshold for the management to justify the deal. The deal went through. A few weeks later, the crash of 1998 happened. The company lost a lot of money. The management was fired. The analysts got big bonuses anyway.
    1 point
  41. There have been so many puzzles in theoretical physics, and so many more people working on it than ever before, that almost every conceivable idea of that kind has already been tried. Dirac tried with his sea of negative-energy electrons, but it was proven that Dirac's vacuum would be unstable, and wouldn't last. A vacuum in quantum field theory with negative-energy quanta is nothing like our universe's.
    1 point
  42. Or maybe that's how people are brought up. When title IX went into effect and forced schools to give women equal opportunity to participate in sports (among other things) in schools that got federal funding, there was an explosion of participation. What was holding that back wasn't "natural affinity", it was opportunity. “Since 1972, thanks to increased funding and institutional opportunities, there has been a 545% increase in the percentage of women playing college sports and a 990% increase in the percentage of women playing high school sport.” https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/education/title-ix-and-the-rise-of-female-athletes-in-america/
    1 point
  43. Dirac did, 90 years ago: Dirac sea - Wikipedia
    1 point
  44. You’re in a regime where classical physics gives a good description if it involves an antenna, but I think the “time of detection” concept has a classical application. If you don’t emit or detect for long enough the sine wave will be truncated, so it will have higher-frequency harmonics and you might detect that, or detect nothing at all.
    1 point
  45. Yes you have definitely got the idea. +1 F = k1m and F = k2a are simultaneous equations so we combine them as I indicated to form one equation F=k3ma Having got that out of the way a couple of small points It is not quite right to say that k1 'contains' a or that k2 'contains' m which brings us neatly to the subject of units. Nearly always in Physics, the constant of proportionality also 'contains' the tranformation of units. It is not just a number (as it is in pure maths) it has units of its own that are very important. F, a and m all have different units so k1 converts acceleration units to force units and k2 converts mass units to force units. Can you see why it is this way round ? Furthermore in SI units the constants are arranged so that k3 = 1 This is the basis for physicists saying that the force is proportional to the acceleration and the 'constant of proportionality' is mass. This is true for a particular body when mass is not changing. (again as MigL has already noted) and is the usual form of presenting Newton's second law (N2) This is combining the two constants k1 and k2 to form a new constant k3 . Factoring would be splitting a single constant k3 into factors (two factors k1 and k2 in this case)
    1 point
  46. Yes, except for the typo: you have 'a' twice and no 'm' with both k1 and k2. If you replace, say, F = k1a with F = k1m, then your k1 is what I've called 'x', your k2 is my 'y', and your k3 is my 'z' in the first comment above .
    1 point
  47. You promised to answer my question. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If you don't want us to assume you and another have an anti-trans agenda then stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda.
    1 point
  48. The phrase “become transgender” is problematic. I’m not sure it’s something you “become” Is that how trans people describe it? Are you presenting a scenario where someone who is not trans pretends to be? i.e. they are trying to cheat? No, that’s not a true statement. Men, on average, are stronger. But that statement is assuming there are just the two gender categories. Anyway https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbt-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked/
    1 point
  49. But it’s not an example. It’s a boogie-man. It’s a monster under the bed. A made-up scenario to frighten people. A slippery-slope fallacy. You can’t have an honest discussion if you aren’t properly representing the situation.
    1 point
×
×
  • 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.