Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/19/18 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    So looking at the image below, it appears that Galagidae have recognizable soles, but Cynocephalidae do not : and when we look at a primate phylogeny, we see the split between these two groups is around 65 million years ago: So soles originated about 65 million years ago, give or take. You meant soles as in soles of the feet, right?
  2. 8 points
    So if I change the charge of one plate, somebody can measure an instantaneous change at the other plate. Wouldn't that be a violation of special relativity? @Menan You show that you do not understand entanglement. Let's go one step at a time. First a classical example. I have a bag of balls, they are all red or green. Without looking I pick two balls, and I put them in separate boxes. I keep one, and send the other far away. Then I open my box, and see it is a green ball. What can I conclude about the colour of the ball in the remote box? Right, nothing. And why? Because there was nothing special with my picks. It could have been two reds, two greens, or one red and green. Now I pick, looking of course, one red and one green, and put them in two separate boxes. So what I did here is 'entangle' the balls. Now I shuffle the two boxes, so that I do not know which one is which. If I open one, and see that it is red, I immediately know that the ball in the other box is green. And of course, this is independent on the distance. If I send the second box lightyears away, and only then open my box, I still know immediately what some alien sees when he opens his box. I know it because the observations are correlated. And the correlation already happened at the moment of my picks. That is the moment of entanglement. It is not when the boxes are opened. Now in quantum physics, there are processes where two particles pop out, which have e.g in one aspect always opposite values. Say the direction of spin. So if I measure the spin e.g. in a vertical direction, say it is 'up', then I immediately know that the other one will measure spin 'down', when also measured in the vertical direction. But as with the balls, the 'moment of entanglement' is when these particles popped into existence. But in quantum physics a few things are different: first, it is impossible to say which particle has which spin without measuring (it is as if I created the green and red balls, including their boxes, without knowing which ball is in which box). But as the two particles are entangled, if I measure both, the measurements will always be correlated. And there is nothing special with correlation: if I send one particle far away, and then measure my particle in the vertical direction, and the alien measures his particle in the same direction, I will always know what he measures: the opposite of my measurement. The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30o, 45o, 55.3977o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. But it still is correlation, not causation. As with the red and green balls, there is no direct causal relationship between my and the alien's observation. The causal relationship goes back to the moment of 'entanglement'. Everything afterwards is just correlation, and therefore cannot be used to transfer information. And because there is no causal relationship between my measurement of the spin of my particle, and the alien's measurement, I cannot use entanglement for sending information. And all this is very well understood by all quantum physicists, and is no secret at all.
  3. 7 points
    Just did not want to let this pass without a party (Dutch treat...). You are all invited at the lakeside! (Just Click on the picture to see it full size.) Thank you to all from who I learned a lot, and also thank you all who understand less than I do about certain subjects, but force me me to rethink, or make my viewpoint clearer, or force me to read some book or article (again). I noticed that much of what I read is influenced by topics here in these fora. And thanks to those who make this forum possible, moderators, administrators, sponsors, etc. Up for the next 1000!
  4. 6 points
    Implicit here is a false suggestion of equivalence. That’s not the case. If a kid walks down the hallway in school and gets punched in the face and has his lunch money stolen, is it his fault for carrying lunch money or walking freely down a public hallway? No, of course not, but if you think “both sides” need to compromise here then that’s precisely what you’re saying... that the kid is equally guilty as the bully. Trump last year said send a bill to my desk and I’ll sign it. Republicans were in control so drafted their version. Democrats agreed to vote for it and provide billions of dollars for this wall last year, and the compromise was that dreamers would get status. Trump backed out. He moved the goalposts. He said I want more. Funding ran out in December and Democrats said, fine... we’ll sign the republican bill yet again... we’ll compromise... but want money allocated to smarter enforcement options. A wall is not smart, and even countless republicans across the nation and some on Fox News itself agree. Trump said no. Eff you, a wall or nothing. Democrats said, Republicans still control all 3 branches of government. Since they’re in control, they need to get their president onboard. They couldn’t. President had a tantrum. Paper tiger in the Oval Office. Said he wants a shutdown. Shutdown began. Democrats took control of the house in January and on Day 1 passed a bill to reopen the government. Senate leader McConnell would not even bring it to the floor. Democrats later said they’d give more money for border protection, just not a wall. They compromised. President still refused. Wall or nothing. Eff the workers. Democrats passed multiple other bills to reopen parts of the government and agreed to negotiate terms on border security. They AGAIN voted for the previously passed republican funding bill from December. McConnel AGAIN wouldn’t bring it to the floor. Today Democrat senators continued to pressure McConnell to bring the bills up for a vote. He refused. He said it was pointless because the president won’t sign. Democratic Senators reminded him that they had the votes to override a presidential veto... that they are a co-equal branch of government and need to act like it. McConnell left. He just walked off the floor. Still no vote. Democrats will again pass a bill tomorrow to reopen the government. The bill will be the one drafted and previously agreed to by republicans. I agree there’s a lack of compromise here, but to say it’s equal across the aisle is absurd. The bully is trying to steal the lunch money. The other side has already offered to share their sandwich with him and are not at fault merely for having lunch money in their pocket.
  5. 6 points
    Right, he is saying that the speed of light in both directions is the same with respect to any inertial frame as measured from that frame. So in the following example we have two observers. One standing along the tracks and the other traveling along the tracks in a railway car. Two flashes are emitted from two points along the tracks that are equal distance from the track observer. the light from these flashes arrive at the midpoint observer at the same moment as the railway observer is passing him. Thus both observers detect the light from the flashes at the same time. Like this: For the midpoint observer ( or anyone at rest with respect to the tracks) these flashes were emitted simultaneously, as shown by the expanding circles: However, for the railway car observer, events have to occur differently. He still detects the light from both flashes simultaneously, and they arrive when he is adjacent to the track observer. But unlike the track observer he has not remained halfway between the emission points the entire time. He is not an equal distance from the emission points when either of the flashes was emitted. But he must also measure the speed of light for each of the flashes as being the same relative to himself. But since the distances each of these flashes travel relative to him are not the same, in order for the light of the flashes to reach him simultaneously, they must have left at different times. And the sequence of the events for him occur like this: For the track observer, the flashes are emitted simultaneously, but for the railway observer they are not. This is the relativity of simultaneity: Events that are simultaneous in one inertial frame are not so according to another which in relative motion with respect to the first frame.
  6. 6 points
    I am pleased to now add CharonY and Strange to the list of gullible fools wonderful people willing to sacrifice their time for the greater good here at SFN. Congratulations!
  7. 5 points
    No. Space-time should not be comprised of anything like dough. It is not substance-like at all. The concept of space-time is just the recognition that the measurements of space and time are frame dependent and not absolute. The analogy is that in Newtonian physics, space and time are treated like North/South vs. East/West. In such a situation everyone, no matter what direction they are facing, all agree on these directions. Everyone, for example, agrees that town A is 40 miles North and 30 miles East of town B. However the Space-time manner of treating this is that each person uses his own sense of Left/Right and Front/Back. Thus one person facing one direction will say that town A is 30 miles to the left of and 40 miles in front of town B, while someone facing in another direction would say that town A is 50 miles directly to the right of town B. It makes no more sense to think of space-time as being "substance-like" than it would to think of Left/Right-Front/Back as being "substance like". Now I also realize that in GR, it is said that Space-time "curves" in the presence of mass. And to many people this implies space-time being a "structure or substance". This is not what this means. "Curvature" of space-time really just means that the geometry rules governing it are non-Euclidean. In other words, the rules of plane, Euclidean geometry just don't hold.
  8. 5 points
    Glad to be back had some RL issues which are done with now
  9. 5 points
    thethinkertank has been placed in the queue for spamming the forum with an impressive amount of nonsense.
  10. 5 points
    Brevity and sarcasm. No wonder no-one knows WTF you're talking about half the time.
  11. 5 points
    It seems you have to know an awful lot these days not to offend people, other than not saying anything. Good manners, adherence to tolerant principles, and absence of mal-intent does not seem to be enough.
  12. 5 points
    Hello everyone! It has been a while since I was active in the forum. Sure, I post a song here and there, but I just can't participate like I used to. I'm still having problems with my left hip even though I had a hip replacement back in April, 2017. Since then, I lost my job and medical insurance because I simply can't sit and write code for hours on end due to the extreme pain in my left hip. I lost my job as a software engineer in the middle of being treated by my doctor and they want a $500 deposit to continue treating me. Unfortunately, I don't have any income, I'm unable to work, and I've blown through my savings on living expenses and doctor bills. Most likely, I will need a revision done on my hip replacement to fix whatever is wrong so that I can go back to work and be a productive member of society. So, I'm reaching out to the community and asking for your help! The following link is to my GoFundMe campaign. I've attached photos of how my surgeries went so you will understand how much pain I'm actually experiencing. It's ok if you can't donate. You can help me out tremendously just by sharing this link! Every little bit helps!!! https://www.gofundme.com/clevelandraymond Thank you all so much! I truly appreciate anything you can do. Not only does your efforts mean the world to me, but also to my family as well.
  13. 5 points
    It's pretty easy, and it's been done to death. Most of their arguments are strawmen, in that they make a false or misunderstood claim to attack, instead of a more difficult, legitimate claim. For instance, that the creation of proteins is astronomically improbable, therefore it couldn't have happened. Since they mistakenly think the universe is only a few thousand years old, they can't accept that evolution had millions of years to miss before it finally hit. Many of the arguments are nitpicking Darwin, as if the theory began and ended with him. They ignore what every scientist knows, that theories are dynamic, changing as new evidence shapes them into better and more accurate predictions. And they keep repeating arguments that have been refuted, which is seriously dishonest from an intellectual perspective. I still hear "If we descended from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" being spread to ignorant audiences. They study evolution only enough to cherry-pick the parts many don't understand, and then ask questions they don't want answers to. If they really studied evolution sincerely, with an open mind, they would come to the obvious conclusion that there's no other way it could work. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution describes how it works, with observational accuracy backed up by more evidence than almost any other theory.
  14. 5 points
    Trump has relentlessly insisted for 3 and a half years that Mexico would pay for a border wall. No nuance, no doubts, no maybes, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. He held rallies a;; over the country leading people in chants where he'd say "who's going the pay for the wall" and stadiums full of supporters when yell "MEXICO". Trump has given interviews and briefings where he'd cut reporters off and insult those who challenged how he'd get Mexico to pay. Now here we are with the govt shutdown as Trump demands a newly elected House majority give him the money tax payer money for his wall......and some people are actually trying to launch arguments blaming Democrats .
  15. 5 points
    Kidnapper abducts 50 of your colleagues. Says he will only release them if you let him have sex with your wife. You say, no. Are you now responsible for the 50 colleagues being held hostage? Of course not. The magnitude of stupid required to suggest such a thing is overwhelming. Kidnapper says, fine. Let me have sex with your wife, I’ll also return the many items I stole from your home last year, and will additionally agree not to steal anything else for 2 more years. Agree to this and I’ll release the hostages. Understandably, you again say, no. Are you now responsible for the 50 colleagues being held hostage? Of course not. Are you the one now at fault for “not compromising” with the kidnapper? Of course not. The magnitude of stupid required to suggest such a thing is overwhelming. “What if you just let him put it in the butt?? that’s a compromise” ... that’s where this conversation has devolved into. No. Not just no, but hell no. Yet that’s precisely what’s happening here when posters keep saying Democrats are the ones responsible despite their MANY votes attempting to reopen government and to get workers paid, and despite the obvious obstacle here being Mitch McConnel and the president for refusing to even allow a vote.
  16. 5 points
    We're working on it. http://indexsmart.mirasmart.com/IFCS2018/PDFfiles/IFCS2018-000128.pdf https://www.osapublishing.org/josab/abstract.cfm?uri=josab-35-7-1557
  17. 5 points
    Accusations of deliberate, widespread bias and falsification of results, across every major institution (in several different nations) doing climate science and climate modelling really does require evidence. Evidence of which, if this misconduct was really going on, would leave a much clearer trail than a couple of questionable phrases in one email exchange. There is no such evidence, just accusations or it would have come to light a long time ago. Does anyone really think successive governments across the developed world, many with demonstrated hostility to climate science's reports and studies, could not uncover that extent of deliberate bias and collusion? Or that level of incompetence not be noticed within long running non-secret institutions where high standards - with everything on the record - are essential to everything they do? The claims of bias and incompetence are all accusation and no evidence. We have agencies that can pick out guarded exchanges between anonymous terrorist conspirators but they can't catch out hundreds (thousands?) of published working scientists conspiring within and between legitimate government agencies? They haven't exposed this alleged conspiracy of incompetent science and world subjugation because it doesn't exist. Making casual accusations against ordinary people doing their job (better than some people like) is, itself, a serious kind of wrongdoing (slander), besides being very insulting to people who, so far as evidence goes, have been doing their jobs with all the appropriate care and attention and honesty. All that professional effort to work out how our climate system really works, only to be casually accused of being everything from colluding in incompetence to engaging in a global conspiracy! What upsets me almost more than anything else, is that climate scientists have given us an extraordinary gift in the forewarning and foresight they have given. The window of time to transform the way we do energy has been precious beyond price; that we have been squandering it is not the fault of climate scientists failing to communicate. The persistent counter-messaging by opponents and obstructors is indicative of a far more insidious conspiracy of biased incompetence than even their made up version of conspiratorial climate scientists and green-socialist-globalists. In the face of that kind of politicking, and given the seriousness of the climate problem it is climate scientist who do not resort to advocacy that I find questionable. Mistermack - I think you are too gullible and that you have been gulled. I don't expect you to believe anything from me even if you did give it due consideration. Or from Al Gore or from Greenpeace or whoever; however, I do think you should consider taking the Royal Society and National Academy of Sciences, the NOAA, NSIDC, NASA, CSIRO, Hadley CRU and so on, seriously.
  18. 5 points
    In previous threads, staff have mentioned that we have on occasion curtailed or removed the ability for people to use the reputation system. In previous versions of the forum software we were able to limit positive or negative reputation limits separately. This meant that the impact of people who wished to use the reputation system to target specific members was always low, and staff could easily reverse it. This no longer being the case means that the system is more open to being abused by people wishing to use it as a form of personal attack. Thankfully, we have had very few cases where staff have had to intervene. For those cases where we have had to do something, admin have created two new member groups with reputation point limits set to either 0 or 2, which limits the use of both positive and negative rep points.
  19. 5 points
    People are starting to argue with reputation points. I see more and more negatives, on both sides, even for valid points which deserve deliberation. It is a very sensitive subject but, I have come to know that everyone involved in this discussion is a sensible person. Discussion leads to understanding, so if you want your viewpoint understood, discuss it. Don't neg rep opposing views, they're just trying to make their viewpoint understood.
  20. 5 points
    You will find all relevant answers in this excellent resource: http://stopmasturbationnow.org/
  21. 5 points
    This is actually one of the few times there's a simple answer. Science describes god(s) as supernatural simply because they defy observation and prediction, two foundational tools of science. All of them. It's not an atheistic definition. Science describes what the natural world appears to be doing, and gods don't appear in the natural world. Pretty simple. By the way, one can be an atheist without rejecting anything. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the existence of a god if one decides to become observable. In that way, I think I'm actually much more open-minded than you.
  22. 5 points
    I'll let you know about a "rule of thumb" with regards to science and the scientific methodology. First and foremost, before you let your imagination run free, searching/looking for any new ideas that are not mainstream, please make an effort to get to know the mainstream product, and why it is mainstream and held as valid by most scientists...learn its predictions that have been shown to be valid...research the experiments that have supported its validity...check out all the observational data that support it. Then if you really and truly believe there is a serious fault with the particular incumbent model, start imagining why over so many years, the professionals and experts in that particular discipline, have not found this serious fault. You see that is the scientific method. Theories/models do not get established and then just rest on their laurels. They are conducting experiments everyday, testing the limits and accepted successes of the theories. Even long established theories are tested everyday...Even SR and GR are continually asked to live up to their deserved reputation. If you do that honestly, you will see why the chances of any Tom, Dick or Harry, coming to a forum open to all, to invalidate or propose some new model over-riding the incumbent is pretty close to zero. Best of luck anyway.
  23. 5 points
    Because the electron is not a classical particle (“little ball of mass and charge”), but a quantum object. As a first approximation, you can picture an electron as a 3D standing wave around the nucleus - you can only get standing waves of a given wavelength in specific places, which is why orbitals come in discrete levels. Crucially, there is a lowest energy level, which corresponds to the minimum distance an electron can be with respect to the nucleus (let’s assume here there is only one electron) - and that lowest energy level is not zero. Therefore the electron cannot fall all the way to the nucleus, it can only fall into its lowest energy level, which corresponds to an orbital that is still some distance outside the nucleus. This is a direct consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics, and coincidentally one of the questions that motivated the development of quantum mechanics in the first place.
  24. 4 points
    "On April 10th 2019, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) Collaboration will present its first results in multiple simultaneous press conferences around the world, and many satellite events organized by its stakeholder and affiliated institutions. Press conferences will be held simultaneously in Brussels (in English), Lyngby (in Danish), Santiago (in Spanish), Shanghai (in Mandarin), Tokyo (in Japanese), Taipei (in Mandarin), and Washington D.C. (in English), starting at 13:00 Universal Time [...] Major press conferences will be streamed live online via the following channels: Brussels: European Comission Youtube Channel Tokyo: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan channels on Youtube and Niconico Washngton: National Science Foundation Live Stream " Simulations and expected results can be found here : https://eventhorizontelescope.org/simulations-gallery More informations : https://eventhorizontelescope.org/science What do you think/expect, are you excited ? I surely am!
  25. 4 points
  26. 4 points
    Allright I'll bite a little, but from what I have seen it is mostly a misunderstanding of how DNA works that makes you make these "assumptions". While I do think you have SOME understanding of biology, you seem to not know enough and thus say certain things are impossible. Reason 1: the genome does contain enough information. Well do you have any evidence for this; cell type specific transcription factors, cryptic transcription start sites, alternative polyadenylation, alternative splicing, post-transcriptional modifications, RNA secondary structures and post-translational modifications lead to a whole lot of diversity, can you give some actual evidence that there is not enough information within the genome or is this just what you believe? Reason 2: The genome only says how to build parts. If we don't have said fats, or essential vitamins or whatever, then the end products cannot be made, so you can definitely produce blueprints and use things which are not within the blueprints but come from somewhere else. I would like to say that a better analogy is that the genome encodes for tools with specific use-limitations which, when combined with the genome, lead to the production of both the factory and the end products. Reason 3: The genome does not determine which of its genes are used and when. Yes it does... epigenetic regulation is a result of the tools encoded by the genome, so indirectly the genome contains information for when parts of the genome are to be used. I don't get why you don't think this is the case, for instance CpG islands are encoded by the genome and DNA methylation enzymes, when guided by cell type specific adaptors and/or by lack of transcriptional activity, will methylate these CpG islands which leads to reduced transcription. All of these things are encoded by the genome, right? Reason 4: The genome cannot guide its products. There's plenty of signals both within the RNA and amino acids (look up nuclear localization signal) which direct proteins, alternatively see the Golgi (which is encoded by the genome) and there's evidence that parts of the DNA codes and/or binding factors/histones lead to chromatin localization within the nucleus (see CTCF and Lamina associated domains, and see super enhancers and transcription factories). Reason 5: No way of reaching the next level. Take a course in genetic embryology, look up hox genes. I don't want to go and explain all of of biological development but for instance, go look at sonic hedgehog and its influence in the formation of your hands and then tell us why this is not encoded by the genome. Reason 6: The limited role of developmental proteins. DamID now I have to explain developmental biology anyway; so lets say the genome has a developmental program to turn cell A into cells that proliferate outwards. This program is activated by a signalling protein and the cells will proliferate away from the source of the signalling protein, the further away they are, the less they proliferate. This is how your fingers can grow. Now you may think, why is it only in 1 direction, and there are other gradients with signals coming from closer to your body which signal the cells not to proliferate, and in between each source of the first developmental signal source are inhibitory sources, thereby the cells will only proliferate in the shape of a finger. This is a super simplified example, but just shows that this can all be done by the genome. Reason 7: Lack of construction endpoint. Don't get what you mean, the genome encodes for both a functional embryonic cell as well as functioning cells in adults, but we get a functional cell from our mother's egg cells. Just DNA alone would not produce anything, there needs to be a factory present already, which has been evolving for SOME time. Reason 8: Diversity from the same genome. Why don't you just learn about histone modifications, DNA modifications, post-transcriptional processing and cell-type specific transcription factors, or just take a course in epigenetics before saying this are impossible. Reason 9: Designed systems can’t repair themselves. Chaperone proteins can sometimes repair themselves, but regardless, your idea of cutting your finger and it"repairing itself" is just plain wrong. The cells die and new cells proliferate filling the gap. You seem very keen on explaining how things work but then you also fundamentally misunderstand certain things... Reason 10: Development is not construction. Construction of the plans to build things (and when to use them etc), construction of the tools and construction of the required materials is all done by the genome, but these tools then interact further with the genome to change things so that developmental progress is made. See all the other points for a more indepth explanation of this. Just learn some biology or at least give real reason why you believe what you believe. You just say "this isn't possible" but then there's soo much evidence that it is possible... -Dagl
  27. 4 points
    I'll clarify for him. For the reaction mass to produce an upward force on the rocket, it has to be accelerated downward relative to the rocket. In order to return that mass to the top of the rocket, any downward velocity the mass has relative to the rocket has to be stopped and reversed. This is an acceleration just as much as the one producing the upwards force on the rocket (acceleration is either change in speed, direction or both). This action will exert a force on the rocket opposite to that caused by accelerating the fuel downward. The end result of this force will be counter any upward movement by the rocket. This ends up with the net movement of the rocket as being zero. There is no way around this. There is no "clever" way to "fool" the rocket into having net movement by recirculating the fuel/reaction mass.
  28. 4 points
    What, pray tell, do you recommend one do when said offered benefit is repeatedly and consistently squandered? I doubt you’re suggesting we emulate Charlie Brown continuing to blindly kick at Lucy’s football. So, what then? In a vacuum, one would be silly to pushback against your point. In general terms and as an isolated point, you’re absolutely correct. In context and in respect to the history of this poster, however, pushback against this platitude is the only choice demonstrating any integrity. It’s about arguing in good faith, MigL. I have no quarrel with you, but I benefit from enough knowledge of our OP to doubt their sincerity and to lack faith in the goodness of their motives.
  29. 4 points
    They have nothing in common because you have chosen two different lines (with different values of m and b). As a real mathematician would know, if we have a single straight line, we cannot determine the value of m and b from a single pair of x and y values. However, if we have two pairs of x and y values then we can solve for m and b. One simple way of calculating b is to set x to zero. And then the value of b is just the y-intersect at x=0. Contrary to your ludicrous claim: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE VALUE OF b IS ONLY CORRECT WHEN x=0; it always has that value in the equation. So this mathematically proves that you claim that we cannot use a "special case" more generally is wrong. We can, of course, calculate the values of m and b using any arbitrary x and pairs (just as we can derive the the Lorentz transform using any combination of frames in relative motion). It just becomes slightly more complicated.
  30. 4 points
    From my own selfish perspective, I typically learn the most from those types of threads and would hate to see them cut off. Following a discussion between only knowledgeable participants is often too narrow and too deep for me to gain much. When someone flails about with misunderstanding, the responses tend to be more at a level I can gain from, and the suggested links for further information are generally very helpful to me. Oftentimes I'd like to ask similar questions myself but after one or two curt answers I tend to back off. I'm glad others aren't so sensitive.
  31. 4 points
    Wow. I was wrong on so many levels here. Haha thanks for the insight
  32. 4 points
    Your right I spelt it wrong I had to look up an email from 2016. I should have copied and pasted. I'm glad to see that he is still on SFN he seemed worried then that he might not be. Now I'm worried about me. I tend to become aggressively competitive on occasion in discussion. I enjoy it. What bothers me is the effect it has on other people. I don't realize untill it is too late that that I have angered them. During a discussion of differences I do not exactly want them on their best game, but I don't want them angry either, so when I realize it has reached that point. I withdraw. I like point and counter point, and apparently I was too aggressive. When a person responds only with I am trying to pick a fight. Especially when all I did was respond to what I thought was an intentional insult with humor. So, into my shell I ran. I want to apologize to, and thank those who encouraged me. My head is clearing, I don't really want out. I may have mentioned before that SFN is is to me a weakness that I enjoy. Thank you ...
  33. 4 points
    With a 10 m diameter, your module would have to spin at ~1.4 radians/sec to get 1g at the floor. However, at head level, it will have dropped to ~2/3g, so you would have a 1/3 g difference between head and feet while standing. There is also the Coriolis effect to account for. If you are seated, the center of mass of your body is moving at a certain speed relative to the axis. When you are standing, in order to keep the same rotational rate, it has a smaller speed. If you go from a seated to standing position, your center of mass is going to want to keep moving at the same speed. The result is that you will feel a "force" that is trying to tip you over. Also, if you drop something, it will fall in a curve. This, and a changing g value, Would likely play havoc with your eye-hand coordination, especially if you are going back and forth between the spinning and zero g parts of the station.
  34. 4 points
    Okay so it's been about 15 years since I decided I couldn't be bothered to code an entire online game. For those of you who don't know (which I guess is the majority of you who haven't been stalking me) I've spent the past 5+ years publishing the Armada Wars universe as fiction. After four books the characters are in their stride, events are dire, and it's starting to get really fun. At some point I may well come full circle and - if the fan base gets big enough - look at game dev again. Also... one million necromancy points
  35. 4 points
    That's not a fact - e.g. polyploidy. If you aren't equally weighting all mutations, none of the math in the entire post makes any sense. This probabilistic numerology argument is not new and founded in foundational misunderstandings of genetics and evolution: DNA encodes amino acids in triplicates of base pairs called codons. There are 64 possible codons, encoding 20 amino acids, and stop. The translation of codons into amino acids is highly redundant, with numerous codons denoting each amino acid. 61 encode amino acids, and three encode stop. There are no untranslatable codons. This has a number of implications:  1) All possible DNA sequences can be translated into proteins. There is no such thing as a "gibberish" DNA code. 2) Because of the redundancy, multiple changes can occur without affecting the translation of the sequence. 3) Arguments from low probability are not apt. Given all possible arrangements of nucleotides can encode proteins, there are no null sequences. Consider it more like a dice throw. Rolling one hundred sixes in a row has a probability of (1/6)100 or 1.5 x 10-78. Except ALL combinations of 100 throws have this probability and if you perform the experiment, an outcome is inevitable. Claiming that the low probability makes the outcome impossible ex post facto is not sensible. If you're open to it, a major component missing from the argument posed is explained by the concept of fitness landscapes, which allows one to model the adaptation of a population given different likelihoods of each possible mutation proliferating in a population through time. The entire landscape would be all of your "unrealized genomes" but because of the weighting of selection on certain regions of the landscape, some mutations are more likely to fix than others. Step size on the landscape can change drastically if large scale mutation like translocation, duplication or deletion occurs (i.e. not all changes are incremental). See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519396900491 https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/106365602317301754 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(199712)29:4<461::AID-PROT6>3.0.CO;2-B etc.
  36. 4 points
    I don't know who Christopher Hitchens was, but I came across this quotation from him, that would be a good "mission statement" for the forum: Any better suggestions?
  37. 4 points
    You’re making a fundamental attribution error. You worked for ONE corporation that had ONE type of culture, and you mistakenly assume ALL corporations behave that way and it’s just how business is done. That’s not the case at all. There is some overlap in needs, but culture matters most in large enterprises and that culture is set by leaders. Those leaders succeed by setting a vision and getting people to collectively strive toward it. Those leaders succeed by being competent, strategic, and not petty. Childish leaders, however, tend to be more like turtles on top of a fence post. You know they didn’t get there by themselves and only reason they’re there is because someone put them there. Vision. Competence. Strategy. An ability to recruit the very best people on to your team. Trump is none of those things. He isn’t visionary. He isn’t competent. He’s not good at developing relationships to accomplish big things. He can’t recruit even mediocre people to his team, let alone the absolute best. He’s had more bankruptcies than I can recall, and the suggestion you’re making is that he is good at business... which IMO is silly. While he is a poor businessman and while he is extremely childish and laughably incompetent, he very much IS extremely good at branding and steering the social conversation. Unfortunately, he’s not selling a visionary future. He’s selling flimflam and graft much like a modern day PT Barnum. He’s the snake oil salesman that rode into western towns and bilked people from their money, just on a bigger more modern scale. So, at the core of your question IMO rests a bigger question... What does it mean to be a GOOD businessman? Does it mean having an ability to successfully rob from the most vulnerable and navigate corrupt systems, or does it mean having the ability to grow something from the ground up, something that enhances the community, and to gain mass support by recruiting people to step up and help execute on and achieve your vision?
  38. 4 points
    coffeesippin has finally tested our patience too far and is banned permanently.
  39. 4 points
    Nope. YOU have made specific claims in this thread. I don't believe them. So it is up to YOU to provide evidence for those claims. There is a high-level summary of some of the evidence here: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf Note that it is about 30 pages and only touches on some of the types of evidence. So, as I say, providing evidence in a forum post is not practical. This is a report put together by hundreds of experts (*) on the current state of the science and the potential impacts on the USA. I think it is about 1,000 pages in total. So feel free to come back with questions after you have read it: Volume 1 (the science): https://science2017.globalchange.gov Volume 2 (impact assessment): https://nca2018.globalchange.gov And then there is: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm https://climatechange.insightconferences.com/events-list/evidence-of-climate-changes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457037/html/ https://www.ipcc.ch/data/ And so on and so on But perhaps you think that all of these experts from different countries, universities, political beliefs, religions, sciences, etc are all in some massive conspiracy to trick you. If so, this might be more up your street: BBC R4 "A History of Delusions"
  40. 4 points
    ! Moderator Note Daedelus approached us to coordinate this with the Admins and Mods. We've helped out a member in need before, so please feel free to participate (or not). We wish Daedelus the best of luck in funding his treatments. Thanks to everyone for spending your time here, in reasoned dialogue and intellectual honesty. SFN members are fantastic!
  41. 4 points
    ! Moderator Note Menan was banned for breaking the rules, but for this sentence he should be banned from ever touching a computer again. This ignorance is willful.
  42. 4 points
    Yes, there ought to be a rule that you can leave those discussions, and just take part in the ones that interest you.
  43. 4 points
    I apologize on behalf of Science that Dark Matter is not yet fully understood. By all means, feel free to not treat us seriously until we rectify this egregious situation. You would think that by now we would have everything figured out. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
  44. 4 points
    While that's not outside the realm of possibilities, arguably a plausibility, it is not "essentially" doing that. If he is getting neg reps for understanding the difference, where you don't, there is something wrong with that.
  45. 4 points
    By what you would visually see, then yes, you would see events occurring faster at Andromeda. Though you couldn't actually travel at the speed of light, just close to it. The equation for this relationship is fo = fs sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)) Where fo is the observed frequency, fs is the source frequency, and c is the speed of light. Note that if you make v=c then you end up with fo = fs sqrt(2)/0) And the division by 0 is undefined. ( but since travel at the speed of light is not allowed, this never arises.) However, just because you are seeing events unfold more quickly at Andromeda, does not mean that you would conclude that they were unfolding faster. Once you account for the effect caused by the decreasing distance between you and Andromeda, you would conclude that events were actually unfolding slower at Andromeda. For example, if you were traveling at 0.99c, you would see events at Andromeda as happening 14 times faster, but would conclude that they were happening 7 times slower. The 7 times slower would be due to time dilation, while the 14 times faster you see is due to Relativistic Doppler effect, which is a combination of time dilation and the effect caused by the decreasing distance. Even this is only a part of the whole picture. In order to understand what happens over the whole trip from Earth to Andromeda according to both Earth and ship would involve delving more deeply into Special Relativity.
  46. 4 points
    Depends. Some space probes have a very small plutonium reactor (e.g. Voyager), but they are not based on nuclear fission, but the natural decay of plutonium. Plutonium-238 is so highly radioactive that the heat of this decay is enough to produce electricity with it. Then there are other types of fission reactors, e.g. aqueous homogeneous reactors, that are pretty small: But they also work just with highly enriched Uranium-235. In the article the KEMA Suspension Test Reactor is also mentioned ("the reactor consisted of a reactor vessel (ø310 mm, content 18.3 liter"): My father worked at KEMA (but he was not associated with the reactor laboratory). You brought back a few melancholic associations with your question... And last but not least, there are experiments in Germany with nuclear power for smart phones. Sorry, I only found a German video of its promo, but I think you can understand what it is about, just looking at the video. It is worth it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nezImUP0w
  47. 4 points
    I really wish you hadn't posted a link to that rag Here is a report from a slightly more reputable news source: http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20161010-driving-the-saltwater-sports-car And: https://www.theskepticsguide.org/salt-water-car-not-so-fast Here is the Wikipedia age on the technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NanoFlowcell Sounds rather implausible (and the "saltwater" claim of the Daily Scum is just stupid).
  48. 4 points
    Skepticism is only a bad thing when you sit on the fence and don't decide which explanation to trust most. You're testing and experimenting, so if you do it right you'll find evidence in support of the best explanation. Many people claim to be skeptics but simply remain incredulous all their lives. I don't want to take your thread off-topic, but it might help your perspective to make distinctions in your belief system. I've chosen to look at "belief" as the trustworthiness of the explanations you accept for various phenomena. Using the scientific method, we remove as much bias, faith, wishful thinking, and interference as we can, so the conclusions we come to are as trusted as we can make them. Faith always claims 100% accuracy. In science, theory is as strong as it gets, and even the most researched theories are constantly being updated as new evidence is discovered. I think when you talk about belief causing war, violence, and ignorance, you're talking about faith, not trusted science.
  49. 4 points
    I asked a sincere question and I’m here to learn. I assumed you being the forum chemistry expert you could lend a hand. And yes, since you’re the chemistry expert - it is your job John.
  50. 4 points
    If only it was as simplistic as you think it is First of all, quantum physics is both completely deterministic and stochastic. What is deterministic is the evolution of the wave function - given any initial wave function, you can predict with certainty how that wave function will evolve over time (assuming you know the respective boundary conditions etc). However, what is stochastic is the relationship between the wave function, and physical observables - observables are represented by hermitian operators, and which of their eigenvalues you actually measure is - in general - purely probabilistic. For example - you send a stream of photons through a double slit. Given knowledge about the initial conditions (slit separation, photon frequencies, etc) you can predict with certainty what kind of an interference pattern you are going to get on your screen at the end of the experiment. However, you can not predict precisely where each individual photon will hit the screen, that is purely probabilistic. And we’re not even talking about the question which slit each photon goes through. So this is your third possibility - it’s come to be called “determined probabilities”. That’s the first thing. The other thing then is that determinism does not imply an absence of free will, and conversely, indeterminism does not imply that free will is necessarily possible. There are four different philosophical positions that encompass the four possibilities here: hard determinism, compatibilism, hard incompatibilism, and libertarianism. You can look these up yourself. The main point here is that this an ongoing debate, and there is no consensus about which is the correct one. And just to top things off - the human brain is a macroscopic system, and as such classical. So one would expect it to be deterministic. In reality however, in spite of its classicality, it is an example of a complex non-isolated, non-linear, chaotic system. So even if it were completely classical (which actually it isn’t anyway, since it’s fundamental building blocks are quantum mechanical), you still couldn’t predict its precise state very far into the future, because it is extremely sensitive to initial and boundary conditions, never even mind way too complex to mathematically model with currently available technology. It’s also an open feedback system, since it continuously receives external inputs, and generates responses that can modify those very inputs. So is the brain deterministic? You decide yourself, based on the above. Whatever your conclusion, what does that imply for free will? Again, you decide yourself, based on the philosophical positions on this subject matter. I think it is safe to say that there are no straightforward answers either way here.