Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/25/19 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    Staff have decided to update the forum rules to include the following: This is in response to a number of threads and certain members who have made threads here under the premise of 'just asking a question,' only to reveal that they are in fact trying to peddle conspiratorial or otherwise nonsense ideas. While covered to some extent by pre-existing rules, we have decided to make it explicit that we will not be hosting these sorts of threads, if for no other reason than the fact that they are a waste of everyone's time.
  2. 7 points
    I am unsure why you would think that - you have never upset me in the slightest with anything you have said, so no apology is necessary at all. But just to set the record straight anyway: it is highly unlikely that I know more about GR than you do I am merely an interested amateur, and everything I post here - without exception - is entirely self-taught. Unlike Mordred, I have no academic credentials in any area of science; truth be told, I never even went to university at all. My understanding of GR and physics in general is cobbled together from a variety of textbooks over the years. I am on the autism spectrum, and one of the defining characteristics of people on the spectrum is that we tend to get totally absorbed by narrow areas of interest (this is called monotropism) - for me that just happened to be physics, specifically GR, at least in the beginning; so I did a lot of reading and self-study in that area. In recent years my interests have diversified somewhat, and I also got involved with certain areas of philosophy and spirituality. Also, understanding GR is natural and intuitive to me, in a way that does not seem to be the case for most neurotypical people; perhaps people on the spectrum find it easier to step outside established paradigms (in this case Newtonian physics) and look at things from a different angle. We tend to have difficulties with other aspects of life, though. I can only speak for myself here. I have no interest whatsoever in anything to do with politics; I stay as far away from it as I can. Anytime in the past when I needed to get involved in politics (workplace, family, etc) it ended badly for me in some way or another. The main reason would be that, as being on the autism spectrum, I am unable to read social cues and guess at peoples’ social intentions. Social interactions between neurotypical people are a complete mystery to me, I cannot understand them. I function reasonably well in daily life, but that is only because I have learned to mask a lot; it’s not the same thing. To me, politics is a bunch of people with strong opinions, who do not recognise them as being opinions, and mistake them for some kind of reality. So they get terribly agitated when others don’t share them; there is a lot of suffering it it, really, and no one seems to even see that. I have plenty of views and opinions as well, but I tend to be able to recognise them as such (or so I hope), and see how they are changing with time, so I don’t try to push them on other people. They are just constructs of my mind, so ultimately they say more about my mind than they do about the world at large. As for religion and ethics, they are areas of interest to me - but I personally don’t see them as something to be debated or discussed on social media, which is why I don’t participate in those threads. Religion - or rather: spirituality - in particular is something you do, not just some passive view on the world. I see lots of people who call themselves “Christian” or “Muslim” or “Buddhist”, but these are just labels - those same people may speak and act in ways that reveal complete ignorance of the nature of human suffering. And conversely, some of those people I have met who were most at peace with themselves and the world did not label themselves in any way; they just lived a truth that existed within them on a visceral, intuitive level. So religion and spirituality are never external things, they come from the inside; they are lived, not debated. That’s all I can really share with regards to this. Ethics, to me, is the art of finding the path of least suffering, for myself and everyone else who is involved, in any given situation. There is no such thing as “right” or “wrong”, there is only cause and effect. One can write down general principles for this that may hold true in most cultural backgrounds, but ultimately it is again something intuitive and visceral, something that happens inside. Intention has a lot to do with it - if we act from a place that understands the suffering inherent in all sentient life, and consciously choose to act in ways that minimises it to the best of our limited abilities, then the seeds of our actions will generally be wholesome ones. Again, I think it has a lot to do with one’s reasons for being here. I am on this forum for two reasons only - to expand my own knowledge and understanding, and to help others do the same; and very often, these two things are mutually co-dependent, and happen simultaneously. It is no longer about getting anyone else to adopt my own views on things. Ultimately you cannot force someone to understand something; you can only offer them the tools that might enable them to put the causes and conditions in place for such understanding to arise eventually. But different people come from different backgrounds, and they are at different stages of their own journeys when they arrive here on this forum; it does happen that someone just isn’t ready to listen, and then it won’t matter what you say to them, regardless of how rational and scientific it is. They will be unable to see the merit in it. It’s not even their “fault” really, it’s just that the conditions are not right yet for understanding to arise. Getting upset or offended will never help in these situations - most often it is best to simply disengage and walk away. After all, it is their journey, so I don’t need to loose my own balance over it.
  3. 6 points
    A question about a sign convention that leads to a lot of confusion. This is not the only instance multiple sign conventions in Science. In this case it is a result of History. Thermodynamics was originally developed by physical scientists and engineers. They were concerned with making machines (steam engines) for the industrial revolution. Steam engines are heat engines. That is they thought in terms of input (heat in the form of fuel) and output (work). Both of these were thought of as 'naturally being' positive quantities. So they wrote their version of the Law of Conservation of Energy (The First Law of Thermodynamics) as ΔU = q - w. Chemists came to the scene from a different point of view. They wanted all forms of energy to have the same sign, whichever side of the conservation appearance they appeared so they could present the equation as a sum on both sides of the equation. So they wrote their equation as ΔU = q + w. By then it was also realised that, although all the terms are energies, there is a difference between ΔU , which is a state variable of the system, and q and w which are exchange variables of the energies crossing the system boundary. So they tidied up by stating that all energies crossing the boundary from the system to the surroundings are negative and all energies passing from the surroundings to the system are positive. Now they could add them up, move them about in equations and between equations in other parts of Science in a consistent manner. It is an improved system But it shows the importance of knowing the sign convention in use and the equations that go with it. This last remark also applies to other such instances of multiple conventions such as those in Electricity, Elasticity and elsewhere.
  4. 6 points
    This is my 1000th post! Time to celebrate, This is a fine moment to open the Islay Single Malt I got for Christmas. Cheers from Ghideon, to all new and old form members!
  5. 6 points
    It might help, if you @Angelo would first, in an objective tone, lay out exactly what you believe Tyson's argument to be, and the steps in his reasoning (as far as they are provided and assuming they are truthful). As far as I understand the simulation hypothesis, is that it is based on chance and likelihoods coupled with some very specific assumptions; however the things you say, and the way you ask your questions and/or comment on other peoples posts, to me seems to indicate that you (at best) don't know the full reasoning behind the simulation hypothesis (or you do understand it, but are wilfully creating strawmens). Additionally, it would be great to present the strongest argument(s) for the simulation hypothesis, and not immediately assume that Tyson and other people agree on everything. If he has some illogical reasoning or assumptions you don't agree with, then it may be good to find a better version of the argument, instead of immediately disregarding the entire hypothesis. If you are really interested in understanding Tyson's and other people's point of view on this, it would help to start with a detailed summary/explanation of the hypothesis, because I could explain it (as far as I understand it), but I doubt the explanation is similar to what you think it is. And if you aren't sure on WHAT people belief, then it is very strange to already think of it as nonsense, therefore (assuming you have good reason to think of it as nonsense) it should be easy for you to explain it (in your own words, please don't just link something, that doesn't test your current understanding). Kind regards, Dagl
  6. 5 points
    Interestingly, this too is mistaken. Decades of evidence shows rather consistently that the riots get more out of control and the property damage gets worse the more police are present. From 50 years ago: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/system/tdf/kerner_commission_full_report.pdf?file=1&force=1 From 5 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/01/when-police-ratchet-up-the-force-riots-get-worse-not-better/ And from 5 months ago: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/01/why-so-many-police-are-handling-the-protests-wrong
  7. 5 points
    The 'bowling ball on a rubber sheet' is a two dimensional reduction of a 4 dimensional configuration. It has multiple problems, one of which is that you can observe it from an embedding third dimension. Space-time has no embedding dimension; both the bowling ball and you, the observer, would need to be intrinsic to the rubber sheet ( i.e. also two dimensional ). A three dimensional representation would already get rid of some problems, but not all. Picture a three dimensional grid, where x, y, and z axis divide up the space into cubic elements. A mass placed in this space would curve the x, y, and z lines such that the elements are moreskewed, and smaller, as you get closer to the mass. That is 'space' curvature, and one aspect of gravity, but already much harder to visualize than the two dimensional example of the bowling ball/rubber sheet. Actual gravity is four dimensional 'curvature' of space-time, and I can't help you visualize that as it is impossible. Some problems are just not suited to visualization, but understanding even just the basics of the math goes a long way to clarifying things.
  8. 5 points
    At which point, I have to post this: https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/ Spoiler: it doesn't end well
  9. 5 points
    The 'economy' is not just a money making mechanism for the wealthy, Phi. It is the means by which most of us feed, clothe, house ourselves and our families; it's how we survive. I have no problem with the economy 'going for a sh*t' as long as it saves lives. But if it 'goes for a sh*t' for too long, people start losing their life for reasons other than the pandemic. That is the balance that has to be struck; dying by starvation is just as bad as dying by Covid-19. I believe that is what Danijel Gorupec meant.
  10. 5 points
    Today I learned that skills improved by participating here on scienceforums can, at least in some minor way, be helpful in the current virus situation. I joined a local initiative where students studying from home can ask about math and physics. Debating science here has made me more confident regarding mainstream science and how to respond with useful hints (instead of solutions) to homework questions.
  11. 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.
  12. 5 points
    Thank you all for your insightful comments and helpful links, and sorry I didn't reply earlier but I just joined and hit the five reply limit. You've helped me see the flaws in my thinking and weak areas of understanding, especially misunderstanding space/time to have elastic potential energy (as this was just a misunderstanding of how the models are visually represented), not using accepted vernacular, and uniform expansion. In retrospect, I should've just left out the Quantum Field explanation as I'm sure most of you understand more of it than I do already and it's already discussed on these forums. It's all forced me into the frightening conclusion that if my thoughts in this area are to have any value I'm going to have to move from being interested to being dedicated and learn some math. Darn it.
  13. 5 points
    A better question is why [math] 10^{-43}[/math]. Would it help to recognize that number is one unit of Planck time with our current observable universe to the volume of 1 Planck length. The temperature being equivalent to Planck temperature. The Planck units are in essence boundary conditions on which our ability to mathematically describe in essence breaks down into Infinities and nonsensical results. You often only hear the space and time axis in essence flipping roles for the GR descriptive but cosmology must also include both macro and quantum effects. So its good to understand how the limits of the macro and quantum theories apply. (String theory also recognizes these limits) One detail as mentioned in this thread is were describing our Observable portion in essence the limits of shared observable causality with our current universe. Time being a measure of rate of change or duration you in essence need a dimension in order to have something to measure or even something that must be able to change. However one must also realize that the t=0 represents the collective worldlines of all particles in our observable portion extrapolated from the closest we can mathematically describe and potentially measure. In the closest to pointlike we can describe. It does not represent any time outside our region of shared causality. In essence [math]10^{-43}[/math] is the origin of time for all potential worldlines in our observable universe that are extrapolated to the beginning of our observable universe (as the emitter event).
  14. 5 points
    Thank you for all your feedback. I’m currently working on some mental health issues and cannot reply on give the answers the time that I would like to in regards to research and time and I struggle to express the concept fully and accurately, more to come but I have to work on my stability at this time kind regards David Wavish
  15. 5 points
    As swansont has already stated, dark matter is matter that is hypothesized to exist due to the apparent gravitational effects we see, but which doesn't interact electromagnetically like the regular matter we are used to dealing with. This means it does not emit, reflect, or absorb light either, thus the description "dark". And as he said, we don't really know just what it is made up of yet. There are a couple of possibilities. Massive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) would be objects like neutron stars and black holes. These are object formed from "normal" matter (or at least a far as black holes go initially from it), but compact so much mass into a small area that they are just to small and dim to see individually. However, we need quite a bit of dark matter to explain observations, and there are reasons why we don't think the universe could have this much mass in the form of MACHOs, as it would have effected how the universe evolved, resulting in one that looks a bit different from what we see. Another possibility is Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) These are sub-atomic particles that have a rest mass, but just don't interact via the electromagnetic interaction. (And pretty much everything having to do with how we interact with regular matter, from touching it or seeing it, to chemical reactions involves electromagnetic interaction) These "ghost-like" particles would pass right through you like you weren't even there. While this this seems bizarre, we actually already know of a particle that behaves like this, the neutrino; Billions of them pass through you every day with your ever noticing it. Neutrinos ( or at least the type we know of) don't work for dark matter for various reasons, so the WIMPs of dark matter would be something like, but not identical to neutrinos. It is also possible that both of the above play a role in making up the total effect we see. swansont also mentioned attempts to explain things by a modified theory of gravity. The problem with this is that a number of observations are not compatible with such an explanation. An example would be galaxies that appear to be identical but exhibit different gravity profiles. Even if the rule of gravity were different than what we presently think they are, they would still need to be consistent from galaxy to galaxy. So while its perfectly possible for different galaxies to contain different amounts of dark matter and thus as a whole act differently in terms of gravity, it is hard to explain why the actual rules governing gravity would change between galaxies. Having said this, it is still possible for a modified gravity theory to play some role, if combined with dark matter. A new theory of gravity which also incorporates a mix of MACHOs and WIMPs could end up being the final answer. Right now we are at the stage of continuing to make observations in order to narrow the playing field. We have eliminated some possibilities, but there are more to explore.
  16. 5 points
    Fake news! It was a perfect renewal! Absolutely perfect. In a world where even my fridge can give me reminders, I still managed to forget. Luckily Capn was able to social engineer his way through my answering service who sent a page out to me stating "CAPN REFSMMAT - RE: WEBSITE". They even listed a hospital he was calling from 😂. I wasn't on call today so when I heard my answering service text me I about lost my mind until I saw who it was.
  17. 4 points
  18. 4 points
    Ok, I get you now. This is not a trivial question, and the short truth is that we do not really know the answer, based on currently known physics. The trouble is this - the established model currently available to describe gravity (General Relativity, or GR for short) is purely classical, meaning it does not and cannot account for quantum effects. When we describe the process of gravitational collapse, then in the beginning stages of that process quantum effects can be neglected, so up to a certain point GR does a really good job in describing things. We can even cheat a bit, and extend the range for which our description is valid by considering already known quantum effects simply as classical pressures that counteract gravity. For suitable initial conditions, this may yield an equilibrium state such as a dwarf star, or a neutron star, or something more exotic like quark stars. However, once the total mass of the collapsing object exceeds a certain limit, there is no known mechanism by which the collapse could be stopped - in these cases the object keeps collapsing under its own gravity, and eventually becomes so dense that quantum gravitational effects can no longer be ignored. At that point General Relativity quite simply stops being a valid model. And this is where we get stuck, because we do not yet have a model of quantum gravity, so we simply do not know what happens in the final stages of such a collapse, and what happens to the mass of the original object. There are a few speculations, hypotheses and candidate models, but none of them is sufficiently well understood, or tested in any way. If we naively consider GR on its own, the end result of this collapse is a singularity - all the mass of the collapsing object becomes concentrated in a single point of infinite density, and infinite spacetime curvature. The ‘size’ of that infinity is always zero, regardless of how much mass you start out with, and regardless of how much mass falls into it later on. However, this is not to be understood as a physical prediction - in physics, when a model becomes singular and infinite, then that simply means that we have wrongly extended that model beyond its domain of applicability. In this particular case, we have attempted to apply a purely classical model to a physical situation that is decidedly not classical, so obviously the answer we get is not physically meaningful. Note that the singularity itself, for mathematical reasons, wouldn’t be part of the spacetime manifold, so counterintuitively the entire spacetime in and around a black hole of this kind would be completely empty. The mass of such a black hole is actually a global property of the entire spacetime, and cannot be localised anywhere. The volume of a singularity - in so far as that concept makes sense (it doesn’t, really) is zero. This is true for both point singularities, and ring singularities. Yes, in the purely classical picture of GR it would be matter compressed to infinite density. But we know (see above) that this is not a physical meaningful concept, since it cannot happen in the real universe. Even the already known laws of quantum physics prohibit such a state (ref e.g. the Pauli exclusion principle). Again, in the classical picture of GR the answer is no - the singularity remains point-like or ring-like. What does change though is the radius of the event horizon. When we look at current attempts to write out a model of quantum gravity (a very difficult problem!), then three main themes emerge, depending on which model is used: 1. Below a certain length scale, a new symmetry emerges that turns the collapse into a rebound - so the collapsing matter will never become singular, but instead begins to ‘bounce’ back out while the event horizon shrinks. However, due to the extreme time dilation in that region, this process would take a very long time (~100s of billions of years) as seen by an outside observer, which is why it has never been observed. 2. You end up with some sort of exotic degeneracy state below the horizon, such as a fuzzball. 3. Spacetime itself becomes quantised below a certain length scale, so the question as to what happens to the matter or where it goes becomes meaningless There is no telling at present if any of these possibilities describes what actually happens in the real world. Yes, but at the same time it will also continue to evaporate via Hawking radiation.
  19. 4 points
    Attitudes such as these have led to over 800 thousand deaths and counting. It also the reason why folks do not vaccinate against influenza and thereby needlessly increasing death rates. It would only be sad, if folks who adhere to these beliefs were also the victims. Unfortunately dealing with diseases is a community effort.
  20. 4 points
    Disclaimer: Black hole not visible, southern hemisphere required. https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/06/nearest_black_hole_earth/
  21. 4 points
    My little bother just ate all the Scrabble tiles and his poop made more sense than you do.
  22. 4 points
    Why is it apparent that small things determine how big things work and not vice versa? Why is cause and effect noncommutative with respect to "size". In the sense that CAUSE is due to some physical laws: Quantum fluctuations CAUSE real and virtual particles. Real particles cause leptons, quarks, bosons. Leptons and quarks cause protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons neutrons electrons cause hydrogen helium and carbon atoms. Hydrogen, iron and oxygen cause stars, planets, and water. Stars, planets and water cause galaxies, solar systems, and oceans. Galaxies do not cause stars. Stars do not cause hydrogen. Hydrogen does not cause protons. Protons do not cause quarks. Quarks do not cause real particles. Real particles do not cause quantum fluctuations. The direction of time is forwards? The direction of cause is bigwards?
  23. 4 points
  24. 4 points
    Citation needed. Maybe it is just compensation for the Flynn effect. I would guess the lack of a good definition of IQ and the corresponding arbitrariness of the tests accounts for a large part of it. Maybe modern communication technology and social media means that cultural change is happening faster and the tests can no longer be fudged quickly enough to compensate.
  25. 4 points
    I think you'd better take a good look around, Dim, and not how you imagine things. You might not like what you see.
  26. 4 points
    After 8 seconds it said "This film is not presented as fact." So I did not watch the rest. Correct. I am not interested. But if anyone provides reliable scientific evidence about progress in our understanding of gravity (and/or anti gravity) I would be very interested. Warning: Straw man ahead: *) Replace alien technology with "magic", "psychic powers", "spirits", "life after death". The scientific content would be the same (zero).
  27. 4 points
  28. 4 points
    Note that the spread was predominantly along trade routes. While there is decent evidence supporting the use of (black plague) bodies (which, btw. were already spreading in Asia and the Middle East), the entry of the plague was likely independent of that (or it may have contributed it, but was not the major driver). The narrative of the use of cadavers and the spread of the bubonic plague to Europe following the the siege of Caffa was strongly based on the account by Gabriele de' Mussi. Historians disagree whether he was actually physically present during the siege, but it appears that they think it is at least plausible that cadavers were hurled into the city. There is also the possibility that the plague arrived with the army and was subsequent transmitted by rodents, but despite overall uncertainties it is (from what I have read) not the favoured explanation. In the accounts de' Mussi also said that those escaped from Caffa were bound to Genoa Venice and so on and thereby spread the disease. However that clashes with what I think is now fairly well established understanding how the plague spread into Europe. It is well established that the plague spread over the Crimea, but cases in Genoa and Venice appeared well over 2 years after the siege of Caffa. Since even under unfavourable conditions the voyage should have not taken more than a few months, the timeline does not line up well. Another aspect that even if that timeline would have worked out, the time required would still have resulted in a substantial outbreak on the ships themselves. But again, around that time, there were no records of something that must have been considered to be a significant event. There are also folks who dispute that corpses were used in the first place (as there are no reports from folks fleeing from Caffa describing it aside from de' Mussi's account) or that there is no indication that it was knowingly used as a bioweapon (some dispute that bodies would be effective, they should have flung rats instead...). There is for example the speculation that the plague may have entered Caffa via the waterways. The Mongols were not able to fully block those and this where Caffa was getting resupplied. Also historians report that a step-wise entry of the plague into Europe is more likely which makes a spread over trade routes via Crimean ports even more likely. Well established reports pinpoint spring 1347 as the start of the plague in Constantinople, for example. I.e. there are quite a few reports that contradict the strong narrative of warfare-mediated spread, which is quite fascinating actually as not only historians have been working on it, but also epidemiologists and microbiologist, who use the documents to establish timelines and spread, not dissimilar to modern epi-studies (just with scarcer data). What is rather neat is that a fairly recent PNAS paper actually described genome evolution in Yersinia pestis which is consistent with repeated introduction via migratory and trading routes.
  29. 4 points
    The plot revolves around a group of highly trained professionals who break into homes of elderly folks and aggressively cough into their faces for a few minutes. In a heartwarming twist one of their presumptuous victims confuses the terrorist with their grandchild to whom she had lost contact. After a furious intermezzo consisting of baking and copious amount tea the terrorist realizes that deep inside he is just longing for the love of a family. Meanwhile the grandparent realizes that the nightly visitor in stealth suit is indeed not her grandchild (the climbing hook on the balcony being a crucial hint- as well as a flashback highlight that the real grandchild had a fear of heights). But she enjoys the moment too much to care.Tragically, this human moment is also what ultimately resulted in successful infection. The terrorist becomes guilt-ridden when it becomes clear that the lonely grandma is not long for this world and he tries to reach her a last time to say his farewells. Meanwhile, his terrorist buddies consider him a traitor and try to stop him resulting in a highly choreographed fight scene involving lots of offensive coughing and running noses in slow-mo (the filmmakers did not consult experts as per usual and did not realize that this is not part of the symptoms). Finally, he survives all these ordeals and reaches the grandma, who turns out to be a special CDC/Homeland security agent in disguise (Jason Stratham) who have been delaying a rollout of coronavirus testing in favour of sting operations to catch corona-terrorists. PS: can anyone tell that I really, really do not want to read those student reports?
  30. 4 points
    The autism connection has been peer reviewed and the author of that has been discredited and struck off. He, to cut a long story short, had a financial interest in pursuing this position. Unfortunately, this myth has persisted and been magnified by the internet. Google 'andrew wakefield autism'
  31. 4 points
    What up! I know I am about 16 years late but, I just wanted to point out that (like others have) @Tesseract was incorrect in saying that salt and vinegar makes hydrochloric acid. I dislike the spread of misinformation. Next time make sure something is correct before you post it to the internet. Also I made this account to post this. But I'm sure nobody will ever see this. I put so much time and effort into doing something so utterly pointless.
  32. 4 points
    Great demonstration of why correlation is not causality:
  33. 4 points
    Your only questions are sarcastic and unhelpful. Your assertions have mostly been wrong, and have been pointed out to you, but you've chosen to ignore them. You're rejecting explanations without reason, simply because they don't seem intuitive to you. This isn't personal, it isn't about you. It's your approach to learning that's causing a problem in discussions. I have to ask, is there any way to reason with you on this subject, or is your incredulity always going to be an impassable obstacle? How can we turn this discussion into a meaningful one? Several people have tried explaining what mainstream science says on this subject, but it's hard to have a conversation with you when half the effort is spent trying to get your fingers out of your ears.
  34. 4 points
    The plane crash involved a Boeing 737-800NG, not the MAX but a previous version with stable aerodynamics and no computer override. The plane was 3 years old and had been in for maintenance on Monday. And Ukraine has suspended all flights into the area, but hasn't grounded similar 737-800NGs. I personally haven't seen it, but there are reports of a video showing the plane coming down engulfed in a fireball, and wreckage photos show puncture damage from either engine failure and breach of blades, or shrapnel. The plane was at 8000 ft when contact was lost and it disappeared from radar, but the ground elevation in the area is over 3000 ft, and it had made a sharp left turn as it climbed out at less than 5000 ft relative to ground elevation. At this point it would have been close to the Malard missile launch site. Given the circumstances, this does not seem to be a technical issue, even if there had been enough time to do an investigation ( usually takes months ), and engine failiures do not result in that type of a crash. I would assume, until evidence proves me wrong,, that the plane was warned not to overfly the missile launch site, but was mistaken by Iranian air defenses as incoming cruise missile or possibly even MANPAD launched in error at a low flying target. I have also seen reports of the 63 Canadians being mostly students from the Toronto area. Seems Iran's 'insignificant' response may have led to some very serious consequences, and the 'fog' of war has shown up again. May all 180 passengers RIP.
  35. 4 points
    It is very disingenuous to ask a question then assert the answers are wrong.
  36. 4 points
    A clock near a black hole ticks at “1 second per second”, a ruler near a black hole is “one meter per meter” long. A clock on Earth ticks at “1 second per second”, a ruler near Earth is “one meter per meter” long. Locally in their own small enough neighbourhoods, neither observer determines anything special to be happing. As the name already implies, relativistic effects become apparent only when you compare clocks and rulers in different frames - they are relationships between frames, not things in and of themselves that somehow happen to clocks and rulers. No clock will ever tick at anything other than “1 second per second”, and no ruler will ever measure anything other than “1 meter per meter”, within their own local frames. Time does not “slow”, space is not “stretched”, they merely become local concepts. It is crucially important to understand this point. So, in order to determine the geometry of spacetime, you need to either compare clocks and rulers at different events, or (equivalently) observe what happens when they traverse extended regions of spacetime. What you find then is that different observers may disagree on specific measurements of space and time, but they will always agree on how those measurements are related to one another. In other words - all observers agree on the geometry of spacetime. Mathematically speaking, the object that quantifies relevant aspects of the geometry of spacetime (in GR that is the Einstein tensor) is something that all observers agree on, regardless of where and when they are, or how they measure and determine it. The components of the tensor vary as you go from one observer to another, but they vary in such a way that the overall tensor remains the same one - that is the meaning of “covariance”.
  37. 4 points
    I think there are certain parallels between people believing in conspiracy and religious belief (religion being, from a certain point of view, the ultimate conspiracy) As folks have pointed out from time to time, when people do not use reason to arrive at a position, you will not be able to use reason to talk them out if it. Studies have shown that presenting such people with contrary evidence only tends to harden their resolve.
  38. 4 points
    As a silent reader not actively involved in this thread, allow me to offer an observation. Your initial post had one or two points in it that are relevant and worthwhile, but unfortunately your tone and general presence here comes across as arrogant and condescending, You made at least one good point (and some not so good ones), but you failed to communicate them in a proper manner. Please take this as constructive criticism, i.e. an opportunity for growth.
  39. 4 points
    This might be possible, if I may offer an opinion, for any number of reasons not apparent form the perspective of an 8-9 year old 20 years in retrospect. It's possible that your vivid recollection of what occurred 20 years ago isn't quite what happen. Time alters our memories and can create false ones that merges imagined experiences with those that are real. If your experience was real and you actually sustained "3 deep knife marks", scars of that experience would likely be visible somewhere on your body today, 20 years later, if they were truly as "deep" as you say. However, you've made no mention of such scars, which could suggest that the sleep injury you sustained was likely not as severe as you might have then perceived 20 years ago, which was likely precipitated and enhanced by the persisting fear an 8-9 year old could have experienced after a night of watching "scary movies". 20 years hence, your memory of the experience was embellished by time. Although, there's strong scientific evidence for the psychosomatic connection between mind and body, which can produce real physical injury, I do not believe this was likely your experience as a 9 year old child particularly without evidence of lingering scarification. I hope this helps.
  40. 4 points
    Artificial selection is not necessarily quicker than evolution, but using CRISPR Cas9 approaches, it is simple enough to produce antibiotic susceptible strains. Aseptic technique is still the most valuable tool in the prevention of nosocomical infection. Spreading pathogenic bacteria about an OR - drug susceptible or not, would have significant detrimental effects. So a few things 1) Often antibiotic resistance (AR) genes come with negligible costs to the bacteria, so do not suffer from negative selection. 2) They are often encoded on extrachromosomal transposable genetic elements (e.g. plasmids) or like the MecA gene in Staphylococcus aureus can be transferred by viruses - so you cannot prevent the spread of AR genes between your susceptible and resistant strains. 3) AR genes often, through selfish gene mechanisms, get crowded onto plasmids or prophage with other genes that confer a net benefit, such that they can piggyback on the positive selection of other genes to proliferate. 4) Resistance mechanisms like multi-drug efflux pumps, efflux many many other cytoplasmic contaminants, such they provided a benefit to bacteria in a wide array of environments. 5) Over 80% of antibiotics produced in the developed world are used as growth promoters in agriculture, rather than therapeutics. Therefore most of the interaction between bacteria and antibiotics is happening in the broader environment, not in the clinic. 6) Continuing from above, most of your patients present to the clinic having already acquired the resistant infection in the broader environment, so bacteria in the clinic are unlikely to have a positive impact. Dusting yourself with Staph/Klebsiella/Salmonella/Cholera etc, resistant or not is a terrible idea. You would wind up with far higher rates of infection and subsequent morbidity as a result, with a net negative public health outcome.
  41. 4 points
    This is the kind of problem that is more easily solved if you step back before turning the math crank. Look at y = x^2 and y = 16&x. y = X^2 is a parabola that passes through the origin. y = 16^x is an exponential function, and on the positive x side it rises faster than the parabola-- so it is obvious that there will be no solution for x > 0. On the negative side of the graph, 16^x approaches zero asymptotically, and is already 1/16 when x = -1 (while at x = -1 the parabola is at y = 1). Thus, it becomes obvious that the solution must lie in the region -1 < x < 0. I did a quick sketch of the two functions and it was equally obvious the crossing point had to be somewhere close to -0.5, as stated by Studiot. Understanding the shapes of functions makes trial and error, and heavy math, both unnecessary.
  42. 3 points
    Always I see the same pattern. Brush aside explanations and equations as if you didn't even read them, but always latch on to any idea that justifies a failure to understand relativity as if that's just another equally valid viewpoint. I think Asimov's "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" quote applies. You say your view is "simpler" but it's just a misunderstanding. It makes me think that people who put effort into trying to explain things to you over and over are just wasting their time. You ask questions as if you want to understand, and then reply to answers as if your questions were only meant to demonstrate what you see as "problems with Relativity" and you had no interest in understanding how they're resolved. If you were interested in understanding it, you'd spend more time talking about what relativity says that doesn't make sense to you, and less about how much sense an alternative makes.
  43. 3 points
    All of them; but by proxy.
  44. 3 points
    No science here. Lounge, Trash Can, or close. @Strange: Don't even think about it to move it to 'General Philosophy'... 😣
  45. 3 points
    I'l try: The upward normal force from the table and the downward force due to gravity are two different forces acting on the same object. Action/reaction pair is the same force seen from two points of view. In the above case action/reaction could be seen as two separate action/reaction pairs: 1: Gravitational interaction Book-Earth and Earth-book 2: The books force pushing down on the table and the tables push on the book If everything is at rest then the forces will balance so numerical values of force due to gravity (1) and normal force (2) are same. Now try a case where 1 and 2 are not balaning each other: Accelerate the table upwards (for instance in an accelerating elevator). Then the normal force would change but gravity remains the same. (1) is still action/reaction pair and (2) is still action/reaction pair but (1) and (2) does not balance out.
  46. 3 points
    There is a lot of false information there. -Without testing you do not know what you had. Making medical assumption based on gut feeling is really bad idea. -Influenza is not 100% symptomatic. Estimates are difficult (for obvious reasons). Longitudinal tests based on serological studies tend to estimate above 75% of asymptomatic cases (e.g. Hayward et al. Lancet 2014) . Note that influenza is much better investigated than COVID-19 and there are still a lot of unknowns and with influenza there are widely divergent estimates. The only thing we know with certainty is that your assertion is entirely unfounded. - Asserting that your feeling trumps actual data via testing is utterly ridiculous. Of course MDs should order tests. One might call it evidence-based medicine or just common sense. Acting on anything else is basically endangering oneself and others. - The unknown regarding immunity is actually correct. We only have limited data suggesting that there may be immunity, but we need to collect more. Also serological testing (but not, say gut feeling) can provide additional evidence of duration of immunity.
  47. 3 points
    I know I am not supposed to get involved as I have already acted as a moderator (but hopefully in a fairly non-contentious way), but I can't resist the need to point out that there are two ways of defining something: 1. In terms of something else (which is, hopefully, simpler) 2. As an axiom (or postulate or "self evident truth" or whatever) in which case the thing is defined as simply being itself. (I believe this is what "Lawbringer" is referring to as a "circular definition".) All definitions must eventually bottom out to (2). I would not call that a circular definition as I think it is useful to distinguish fundamental concepts that cannot be defined in terms of anything else, from the circular definitions which are often the basis of a fallacy (similar to begging the question).
  48. 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. ✌️
  49. 3 points
    I bet those who support the president wish it was functionally different from what actually occurred. But alas... they’re so convinced it was a perfect call where this poor righteous saintly president of ours merely wanted to end corruption in the world that they probably don’t care. It’s called an analogy, JCM, and you’re attacking it for its lack of perfection.
  50. 3 points
    Presumably you already have a 'friend' network. A group you are loosely or tightly associated with, either from work, school, whatever. You weren't thinking 'network' when you gathered them but that is what they are nonetheless. Need to talk to someone? Probably someone in your friend network. Need help moving a table? Someone in your network. Business (or research, or construction, etc.) network is essentially the same thing. You meet people, stay in contact, and get to know them so that you can call on them when needed, and so they can call on you. Some of them may also be in your friends network. If you are looking for new people for work, then be sure to introduce yourself to people where you work now, ask them what they do, and get on a friendly basis. Talk to them when you see them. If you are in information technology for instance you can go to symposiums, take classes, join user groups. These are all opportunities to meet the right type of people. You may want to seek out someone who is in a position you'd like to achieve someday yourself. Ask for an introduction, tell them what your goals are, and ask if you can meet periodically to talk. Bottom line is that you want to get to know people well enough that you are willing to do things for each other. When people talk about 'networking' I believe they are talking about something more personal than finding a person in the Yellow Pages. You may very well do business with them, but you may use them to help you find information, tell you abut job openings, explain something to you, tell you about opportunities they know about, mentor you...
×
×
  • 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.