Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/14/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    3. Ran out of white Legos 2. Nose from his Halloween costume 1. Weight Watchers merit pin
  2. 2 points
    I think it requires a rather profound misunderstanding of how science funding works to make that argument. To explain for those following - say I apply for a federal grant. The whole packet might be 50-100 pages of densely written technical documents. I will probably take me a month or more to put together. It has a 10-20% chance of being funded, and if it's a big one, might net $1 million dollars of funding. My institution immediately takes 55% as overhead. The vast majority of the rest will pay for the salaries of the people I employ. Some will go towards lab costs. If I'm lucky I might get to claim one month of summer salary (for the three months of the year the university doesn't pay me) for 3-5 years. Ergo, I might actually pocket a few thousand dollars at best. On the other side, Ian Plimer - a mining geologist who doesn't even work on climate science, pockets over $400,000 per year from the fossil fuel industry, and "coincidentally" is an ardent critic of climate change. If I'm going to make up data or espouse a false belief for profit, I'm sure as hell not going to be saying climate change is real.
  3. 2 points
    In various threads we have (albeit briefly) touched on the fact that resistant bacteria are starting to overwhelm our ability to treat them. Now the CDC has issued a new antibiotic resistance threat report, Basically every 4 hours a new resistant strain is detected and about 35k people die every year due to resistant strains. Countermeasures that have started since the last report came out (2013) were less effective than hoped. Among the biggest threats currently are resistant Acinetobacter, Candida auris, Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium), carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae. There are a lot of issues that have to solved outside the clinical environment, such as reducing or stopping the massive use of antibiotics in agriculture. There, antibiotics are routinely used to fatten animals which results in massive amounts of antibiotics released into the environment and enter the human food chain. Another aspects are procedures in health care (including elderly care) which are often not up to par to limit microbe spread. The challenge is that a single failure can lead to spread through the health care services. There are folks still hoping that we will find an alternative treatment that will be as useful as antibiotics (which we messed up badly) but so far not alternative golden bullet is really in sight (yes there are some developments which can be useful but for the most part they have potential and/or have not shown to be effective in vivo). As a result, it seems that we are indeed moving straight toward the projected post-antibiotic era. Personally (and of course biased by my own research), I think we need to accelerate our understanding of bacterial physiology in order to develop effective countermeasures from the bottom up, as in most cases we only have a very rough understanding how antimicrobial substances actually kill bacteria (which to some extent is also true for antifungals and fungi).
  4. 2 points
    Kind of misses the point. It's reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this" It is not reasonable for Trump to say "You should look into this or I will withhold US government support for your country" Do you see the difference there? Have you missed all the references to "quid pro quo or did you not understand them " ?
  5. 2 points
    My parents had 100 acres in the country with an old farmhouse and we'd have a party the whole weekend with lots of friends. We would just dig a pit in the ground for the charcoal and have the pig on a spit, turning it every once in a while. We'd usually have a keg, horseshoes, frisbees, weed, guitars, and it would run from early morning till late at night. Everyone would then crash inside or in tents. Brings back fond memories.
  6. 2 points
    Of course not. But it means that there is actually evidence of efficacy, even if only for select folks. And it is those trials were efficacy is actually being tested. I.e. if they show that they work (even if only for a subset) it becomes something worthwhile to pursue. I have a professional background in microbiology (with a current focus on infectious diseases) though I have been branching out in aspects of public health . However, I am not a medical professional (such as a dermatologist). But as a whole I am aware that hair loss related to infections is rarer than androgenic alopecia. And within the realm of infections, fungi are more common than bacterial infections. Ketoconazole, as well as other anti-dandruff components can address fungal infections, and have demonstrated relief from hair loss. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly ketoconzole was also shown to be somewhat effective for addressing androgenic hair loss, though only in a subset of people (there are also mice studies, but I am not sure whether it is clear why precisely it works, I have not followed up on that) . But ultimately, the important bit is that there are quite a range of different mechanisms of hair loss and with associated diagnosis (though some can be related). Dermatitis related hair loss requires a different treatment than androgenic hair loss. Both again are different from certain forms of diffuse hair loss, such as telogen effluvium. To have a targeted treatment, proper diagnosis should come first. Edit: I should add that in some studies related to androgenic alopecia folks also often found an increase in certain fungi and it has been suggested that treatment with with antifungal in addition to finasteride or minoxidil (the two components mentioned to treat androgenic hair loss) can be more effective in some patients. However, is not clear what the cause and what the effect is.
  7. 2 points
    Has anyone wondered why most UFO sightings are objects with lights on them? It seems like the aliens want to be seen. If they were capable of traveling the distance to reach us, and they obviously haven't announce themselves, they why would they have lights, even blinking, colored lights, on their spacecraft? Could that be a diversion to allow a more stealthy spacecraft to fly in or out of their Earth bases? Is it possible that if aliens have been hiding here for a long time, they may have learned enough about us, maybe more than we know about ourselves. They could stay one step beyond our ability to detect them. As camera technology improves and becomes more common, aliens would be aware of that, and maybe the aliens have simply become more careful. So only blurred photos are ever taken of them? Also maybe they are very careful to pick up after themselves, so no undeniable evidence is left behind.
  8. 1 point
    Strange's approach seems good so I'll add to it. I think a detailed definition of "message" is useful. Some notes regarding definitions of message: -Is a message text only? -Can a message be numerical? -Can the message consist of random letters? -Can a text message be delivered in a different language? -Is a message delivered exactly letter by letter? -Will the receiver be able to distinguish "peace" from "peas"? -Does the receiver have to know about the subject or understand the words that makes up the message? -How does the receiver "know" that they have the message? What kind of sensation is triggered? -Is "intention" or feelings delivered with the message? Example: "Now that was just freaking awesome" could be a sarcastic comment or meant as a compliment. Some additional notes to start modeling the phenomenon*: -Is the effect exactly the same for all receiving individuals or are there differences? -What happens at the sending side if there is no individual receiving the message? -What happens with the other people around, will they receive the message? -What happens if you do not know if there is a person in the receiving room? Can you tell? -Can the receiving individual choose to not listen to messages? -Over what range can the message be transferred? -What happens at maximum range, are some parts dropped? Some messages are not transferred? Other? -Are some recipients are more sensitive, receiving messages at longer distances? *) I'm of course completely convinced that this (and other) experiments will fail, telepathy does not exist. But discussing pros and cons of possible approaches is interesting.
  9. 1 point
    What experiments are you talking about? And if you don't know, how do you know you can "prove" it? You should forget about "proof", and concentrate on how you can provide evidence of your claims. The more evidence to support it, the more persuasive your argument will be. Define EXACTLY what you mean by "I can do telepathic ability". Define what you mean by "send messages directly mind to mind". The most important thing at this stage is for you to decide what would show your claims to be FALSE. What test failed, or what message not sent would show that you CAN'T do telepathic ability? Your claims need to be capable of falsification before we can take them seriously. Once you can do that, then you should be able to take any standard test for ESP, using validated methodology. They'll be looking for results that go beyond statistical anomaly. Or if your definitions are different, perhaps then someone could suggest a way to test them. Based solely on your OP, I would expect you to be able to send a random phrase as a private message to one of our staff members, then send the same phrase directly to my mind with your telepathic ability. When the staff member and I confer, I should be able to tell them, "Blue peninsula hopping trousers twisted badly", and they should be amazed that I said the exact same phrase as you. That's when everyone here suddenly becomes very interested in your thread. Got anything like that?
  10. 1 point
    Unless you expect it. Castles were built with staircases with an "odd" stepp in them to trip enemies who were climbing the stairs. I learned about this interesting fact in a talk about the safety of modern stairs where , as they pointed out, badly made stairs are still killing the unwary. Here's a trivia question for you ( the answer is at the end of the post) Roughly how many people are killed by falling on stairs each day in the UK? Interesting fact for the day. If you have a staircase where the steps are uneven you can always make it even by adding planks (of various thicknesses) to the steps. This is an important result because adding to the treads is easy but taking stuff away is hard. It's also (I think) always possible to make all the steps the same "length" as well. So there really is no excuse for badly built stairways. (About two, btw- did you guess right?) Our brains are pretty good, but we often rely on reflexes which don't use the brain. I'm not sure which category this phenomenon falls into . I'd be interested in finding out. I'd be even more interested in knowing how they found out.
  11. 1 point
    What is described is somewhat related to an interesting phenomenon called the size-weight illusion. It is a multisensory phenomenon in which, roughly speaking larger objects feel heavier, even if they are not. The interesting bit is that these studies look at the interaction between feedforward (anticipation of weight) and feedback information. In the case of OP it is fairly clear, the discrepancy between anticipated weight and experienced one is large, and as such the feedback mechanism cannot cope with the excess forces (the jolt may be a surprise reaction due to the perceived discrepancy). However, in cases where, for example two objects of same weight but different size are presented, the muscle stiffness may be different before lifting the object (as the feedforward mechanisms anticipates that the larger object is heavier) but then the feedback kicks in and adjusts closer to the actual weight. The perception, however, is still that the larger object is actually heavier. It should also be noted that anticipation is common to basically all animals with an CNS, not only to arboreal ones, as relying on feedback mechanisms is typically too slow for most dynamic situations. For example, catching a ball requires anticipation of its flight path. Some simpler animals have faster feedback loops in which locally for example legs convey information regarding the status to other legs, without need for central coordination. But even then in hunting spiders one has found evidence that they may anticipate to some degree anticipate prey behaviour.
  12. 1 point
    While there is an argument for putting one more color beyond blue, Newton's reason for adding 2 had to do with his religious belief that the number 7 held a special significance.
  13. 1 point
    I've been exploring fractals as part of a rather long term philosophy project and have had a good deal of success modeling the simplest structures of my system with the folded geometry of the mandelbox. In addition to meeting the logical constraints I've established it seems that the geometries of the Mandelbox are capable of recreating nearly every photo and representation of quantum holography I've come across. I've also found that generating interference patterns within the fractal allows me to model dynamic processes and larger scale concepts in physics like gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, fresnel distortion and general CAS emergence. You can see all of these properties in motion at my youtube channel url deleted This video is a general preview of my work. url deleted I would love some feedback on these findings, some representations are more obvious than others and the interference based visualizations are difficult to see with youtube's compression so larger resolution representations are linked in the description. Thank you for your time, I hope you find these useful
  14. 1 point
    The word Clinical has a similarly odd origin. It means bedside. It's related to words like recline and incline. It also ties in with geological "beds" as in syncline.
  15. 1 point
    Very rarely. It helps if you actually say something.
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    Only your wilful ignorance makes it look like nothing. There are plenty of research pathways going on into flagella evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
  18. 1 point
    What are you trying to do here? Equation 1 is an unusual way of writing the standard equation of a circle x2 + y2 = r2 (note you don't need LaTex to write this, just use the sub and super script icons on the text input editor, labelled x2 and x2) your way puts you into immediate trouble since if D is the diameter D = 2r so equation 2 becomes [math]\frac{C}{2} = \sqrt {{r^2} - {{\left( {2r} \right)}^2}} = \sqrt { - 3{r^2}} [/math] So you are trying for the square root of a negative number. Furthermore if C is the length of the circumference, you can't just replace y with half of it.
  19. 1 point
    That is not the equation for the circumference of a circle. That will give you the y coordinates for the (two) points on a circle (with radius r) corresponding to the given x value. You could, perhaps, integrate over a range of x values to get the circumference but it seems unnecessarily complicated because: C = 2 pi r
  20. 1 point
    Are you familiar with the Gish Gallop? Please, focus on the things that matter instead of introducing a bunch of bullshit irrelevant to the discussion taking place.
  21. 1 point
    Slightly beside the point, but in some ways this thread seems like a microcosm of what postmodernist philosophers have predicted since the 80s. Instead of a common meta-narrative, knowledge is fragmented and used as a commodity by various actors (Lyotard refers specifically the issues of computerization and who determines which information is stored and disseminated- a thought that can be easily extended to tech companies as the new gate-keepers of knowledge). While we are dealing with exactly the same event, the associated strands of knowledge appear to be very different, resulting not only a different viewpoints, but in fact in parallel strands that do not cross over. It reminds me a bit on the concept of Language games where players agree to use certain rules to create meaning from uttered words. In the postmodernist world, according to Lyotard, we have created many parallel language games, each of which are legitimized by their respective institutions. So we may have politically affiliated language games, in which certain fragments of information carry entirely different meanings and which are self-referenced and amplified by the use of different communication channels (say, social media). Even when we discuss the same things on this board, we arrived to our conclusions using different lines of information. There is ultimately not thinking for oneself, unless one plays the solitaire equivalent of a language game.
  22. 1 point
    Wow. Where did I blame the left for MigL's question in his OP? You said my words had nothing to do with the discussion. I pointed out that they were directly related to the OP. I'm not really sure if MigL is on the left or right. He seems to think for himself. More should be like him.
  23. 1 point
    This has nothing to do with the discussion yet always lands at the end. There's a thread about that topic where you've abundantly posted yet brought it over here again and again. where you'll incessantly perpetuate the fallacy that the Dems are by default worse than the criminal running the place now. Anything but the substance is what we expect from American Republicans in this matter. Yet when Canadians repeat that nonsense ad nauseam, it's obvious we're already down the tubes and it's the conservatives instilling it. Conservatives would do well to clean up their own house before admonishing others. That's what's wrong with this continent.
  24. 1 point
    The way things are going towards cars broadcasting data, you might not need to rely on motion detection.
  25. 1 point
    This looks so good! I am currently building a grill, this looks like a good debu cook!
  26. 1 point
    Light travels through a vacuum. We are a vacuum? And how would we drag these singularities around if they are non-reactive? ! Moderator Note This hand-waving isn't going to get you where you need to be. We need a model. We need to have at least one foot in the science realm, and you've squandered your opportunities to do that. Closed. Don't bring this up again
  27. 1 point
    Run in safe-mode. Start regedit in admin mode. Find: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run Once HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run Once What do you see? Make screen-shots and attach in reply. Rename "Run" to "Run2" (this will disable them all at once), and restart. Did it help? If yes, one of applications which are started at boot time is responsible for this issue. Rename "Run2" back to "Run", duplicate/backup keys, and start deleting (or adding from backup) them one by one.. This way you will be able to identify which one app is responsible for this issue. Or you can follow this instruction (not sure whether it is possible when running in safe-mode) https://www.howtogeek.com/74523/how-to-disable-startup-programs-in-windows/ Alternatively, when in safe-mode, make second user account. And log to it after restart. Did it help? What is in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run is started regardless of which user you log-in at boot. What is in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run is started only when you log-in to user account (so after making 2nd user account, these entries will be not present, so apps won't be started).
  28. 1 point
    As some of you probably know, the Square Kilometre Array will become the biggest radio telescope on Earth, with a collecting area of 1 square kilometre. The construction will start in 2021 and the first light is expected to take place in 2027. It will cover the frequencies from 50 MHz to 15 Ghz. But what I wanted to share with you guys is a new study about how far the SKA can 'listen'. A recent study points out that the SKA could detect extraterrestrial airport radars 200 light years away. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayqyb8XCtE0 What do you guys think?
  29. 1 point
    The torque, yes, What do you think the rolling friction is equal to ? What do you think the normal force R is equal to ? What force do you think that is ? What have you learned from the FBD of the entire car?
  30. 1 point
  31. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please note the rules require you to provide support (math or evidence) for your claims.
  32. 1 point
    Isn't techology wonderful when it works ? Until it doesn't. I see there was a glitch in my last post. The scan gave you the correct equation (Newton's second Law) for the acceleration, but was cut off at the knees. My edit/correction I see missed off the acceleration completely. Sorry. So here we go 4F = W/g times acceleration or acceleration = 4gF/W So now we need to find a value for F. Which is why we need a free body diagram for a wheel ?
  33. 1 point
    Whilst I am not unhappy with the framework idea in your description - There are plenty of pictures of multidimensional 'singularity' arrays on the net, but I find one or two inconsistencies between your OP and later statements. Madelung theory is about as far as you can get from unreactive since it is basically the sum to infinity of multiple (but diminishing) charge interactions. Pilot waves are less interactive, but they carry momentum and are neither singularities nor asymptotic. I see no connection here. You also need to explain why pressure makes any difference to something that is absolutely unreactive. As an alternative to a multidimensional array of needles, you might like to look at Cantor Dust https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=WXfOXcv-H46mUIm7hdgH&q=cantor's+dust&oq=cantor's+dust&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l7j0i22i10i30j0i22i30.846.3822..4576...0.0..0.300.1868.6j3j3j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0i10.uOpLkawVaVI&ved=0ahUKEwiLj4fl-uvlAhUOExQKHYldAXsQ4dUDCAc&uact=5
  34. 1 point
    White light is known to be merged mixture of photons with wavelengths in range between 400 nm and 700 nm. Kids in primary school learn that you can split white light to rainbow, as well as rainbow can be merged to form white light back again.. It is known as Newton's disc or Newton's wheel experiment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_disc The rest is some word salad..
  35. 1 point
    Infinity is usually not thought of as a number; though there are some cases where you can think of it as a number, those cases treat infinity in different ways, meaning that to answer your question, I'd have to ask what you are trying to do with these "numbers".
  36. 1 point
    Lights can be the fire from exhaust of turbines if you marry a Few $ modern controller ----> https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32800900448.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.4c215d00OwAV4V&algo_pvid=853c72ae-6fc1-4ece-8745-b9e20f314347&algo_expid=853c72ae-6fc1-4ece-8745-b9e20f314347-18&btsid=d0e2a804-f916-4e48-9a2b-c5d17ee4760f&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_5,searchweb201603_55 With a -----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AglD7FnKIeE
  37. 1 point
    Today I learned that owl have really long legs (that they keep discreetly hidden) and that baby owls look just like aliens:
  38. 1 point
    It probably won't get through the Senate. The important conditional seems to be whether the hearings will help or hurt Trump's popularity.
  39. 1 point
    Why don't you tell us what answer you'd like, and we'll provide that instead. If you don't want a scientific answer, then don't ask questions on a SCIENCE forum.
  40. 1 point
    (1) Yes, see this extract from the latest version of 'Pharmaceutical Analysis' by Watson. Note the tolerance on the entry for the burette. As a matter of interest what tolerance would you ascribe when the buretter reads 0.00? Would you allow a negative volume?
  41. 1 point
    How about almond scrimshaw?
  42. 0 points
    Trust is not the same as faith. Trust in the institutions, practices and ethics of science is not religion. Given that the work of scientists is documented and widely accessible it is available for sceptical review and critique - but this takes knowledge and expertise. Being wrong is bad for a scientist's reputation - and when they are wrong it is documented. There are sound reasons to have trust in the error correcting nature of those practices and - because it is so thoroughly documented, misconduct or conspiracy is difficult to sustain. If, as a sceptic, you don't actually engage in actually doing the work of critiquing - which involves studying, in this case, climate science - any conclusion that it is wrong is a mere personal preference, a belief that lacks any sound basis. It is not up to people who trust science based advice to convince the doubters, nor the scientists either; it is within the body of their works that scientists present the evidence and reasoning. Meanwhile, as the initial post notes, we are experiencing weather events that are in keeping with a world with AGW. I suggest that when examined closely these are within the range of what climate model based projections have "predicted" - the middle of the spread outcomes may be being exceeded. That doesn't make it wrong any more than outcomes that are at the high end of the range not occurring - the worst case ones that, rightly and wrongly get extra public interest and attention - makes climate science wrong.
  43. 0 points
    ! Moderator Note If you reread the OP, you'll find your ignorant, misinformed stance is off-topic here. This thread is about how the climate is changing faster than the models predicted. Further attempts to troll this topic will be removed to the Trash.
  44. 0 points
    That's a pretty spectacular failure of logic. I defy you to find any science where this isn't the case: "informed guesswork" (i.e. predictions coming from mathematical models) and the science still happening and we continue to learn, because it's not "done".
  45. 0 points
    Apparently while we were sleeping, Ohio has passed a bill that students can't be penalized for mathematically or scientifically incorrect answers for reasons based on their beliefs. ( my religion teaches the Trinity; three goes into one evenly !!! ) https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-house-passes-bill-allowing-student-answers-to-be-scientifically-wrong-due-to-religion Can't offend their vulnerable sensitivities with facts and evidence now, can we ? When you combine this with right-wing hate groups, anti-vaxxers, and your politics, the once great America is spiralling the toilet bowl. Please come back to sanity; the world needs you
  46. 0 points
  47. 0 points
    I'm not just looking at forums, but studies, including things that are in trials. Furthermore, even the stuff that is FDA approved works wonders for people and does squat for others, so it's not like the only possible scenario is you hit on a cure that works 100% for 100% of people and you're a billionaire. There are many different remedies that have small effects, many of them are natural and available for cheap in supermarkets so you can't make a killing off them. The studies I read and that got results aimed at killing bacteria. It's possible that their anti-bacterial also had anti-fungal effects, but fungi were never mentioned. You seem to be knowledgeable on this topic. Are you a dermatologist or have you studied this? ??? I've already mentioned two natural substances that have those properties
  48. -1 points
    If I had discovered a substance like the requested one in the OP, would I a) Patent it and become a billionaire, or b) Post it for all to see for free in an internet chat forum. It's a tricky choice. I need to think about it.
  49. -1 points
    Even a shit arguement has followers. see what I mean?
  50. -2 points
    what do the unicorns do? I don't think this would work as a postulate. the problem with math is it has no locality, no starting point, other than arbitrary ones. things just don't add up unless you start somewhere. You can calculate the cannonball trajectory, but you have no cannon to fire it from. I don't think math works as a theory of the universe.
×
×
  • 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.