Lord Antares

You do mean cost will come down with supply, right? Because increased demand = increased cost. Yes but they were very inefficient. A lot of them were required as they couldn't travel far because of the loss of energy. Perhaps distributing DC to a whole nearby block was their biggest blunder?

QFT. This hits the nail on the head. This is the reason why crackpots quote him much more often than other scientists.

I just searched a bit for the claim, and I'm sorry. I read this in a Croatian magazine in high school and I either misremembered or they gave false info. Tesla never claimed to have done this. Other people did. For example, take this article: https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/books/nikola-tesla-and-secrets-philadelphia-experiment Wikipedia, on the other hand, says a completely different story about the experiment. It says that it was only an attempt to cloak the ship from radar and no gives no mention of Tesla, only Einstein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment Well, it depends. For example, as I understand it, there are claims that Tesla discovered and used radio waves before Marconi and invented or at least concepted the telephone before Bell. These are not unsubstantiated claims either like the unlimited energy ones, as I think he later got credited with radio waves by the scientific community. Surely, if he discovered radio waves and such, he should also be called a physicist, not only an engineer. My questions were more about these claims, rather than nuclear lasers etc. I agree, that plays a big role. Well, to be fair, most of what I've heard about Tesla is probably due to the fact that I'm Croatian. (whether he was Serbian or Croatian is an endless debate here. Never start that debate!) Here, he is considered to be a god. It is widely believed by the general population in the Balkans that all of his concepts like free energy and the death ray are correct and that he would have done them given the chance. Why? Because Tesla said so.

There you go again with addressing the most irrelevant points. Lol I most definitely wouldn't. Who would think to steal such nonsense? It would have been better for you if you claimed it was someone else's text. Imagine that. Requesting citations to evidence and experiments by scientists. We are such assholes. You can't trust the system nowadays, right? It's controlled by the illerminaty anyway. That's wrong as well. No one criticized your English. Your English is good. You said something that was wrong. That's what was criticized. Even if that's true, those persons are better scientists than you. How do you not realize that you need evidence for claims like these? How do you propose we should decide if this is true or not? Should we flip a coin?

Jesus Christ. Of course it does. Evolution makes no mention of any artificial modifications tens of thousands of years ago. Are you saying that because we cannot disprove it, it must be true? Then all the mythologies and legends must be true as well. The Minotaur must have really existed because you can't disprove it didn't, right? Makes no sense. I don't know what this sentence even means. Then what kind of evidence is there? Mental? Does that mean if you can think of it and it makes sense to you, it is as valid as physical evidence? You have to have a reason to suspect something like that happened, even if you don't have evidence. There is no reason whatsoever to suspect it. Evolution covers it pretty well. This is clearly a work of fiction. Can you prove the Lord of The Rings didn't happen?

Yes, exactly this. This is what is appealing to conspiracy theorists, ghost hunters etc. They like this mysticism and they think it must be true because it would be interesting to believe it is. He makes people wonder what could have been.I think it was because of his experiments where current was coming out his hands, his coils, his Wardenclyffe tower, the fact that his lab got burned down, his attitude etc. Interesting thought. Do you think it would work like that?

He's not criticizing your verbiage. You used a wrong term and that's it. A quote from wikipedia: So even an era, which is a subdivision of an eon, spans millions of years. The Origin of homo sapiens has most certainly not been a controversial subject for millions of years. You might be using a hyperbole, but still, why did you choose to address the most irrelevant of the points against your ''theory''? You failed to address questions about evidence or any inquiries about the origin of your theory. Seriously, you must know that you made that up. It sounds exactly like the preface of a fiction book. You find evidence first and then postulate. Or at the very least, you postulate based on something that makes sense and then you check for evidence. You have done none of that. You just made a story up and claim it's true. How can you even compare it with evolution, which has tonnes of evidence? And you signed your name and date at the end, like you want to prevent it from being stolen.

No, in scientific circles, he is rated precisely as per his achievements. That's how science works. By ''overrated'', I just mean he's usually given more credit than he has proof for. For example, I've often read that if the ''system'' let Tesla build his devices, the world would now run on free energy because he would have provided a source of unlimited energy. That's an unfounded claim and there is no evidence that there is such a thing as unlimited energy source. Right?

Yes, I know. That's why I started this thread. I never claimed he did. I did state I'm rightfully sceptical of all of these claims. I wanted someone who knows more to explain what he actually should get credit for and if his later ideas have any merit or basis in reality.

You often hear how Tesla is underrated and uncredited for his work. You hear how other inventors stole all of his work and presented it as his own. You hear how he had the key to unlimited and free energy It is somewhat of a mainstream opinion among non-scientists to think of Tesla as the greatest genius who ever lived. I noticed that no one mentions him here and that people are more objective. It can't be a coincidence that scientists have less regard for him than regular people. It can't be because they are ''jealous of his achievements and support the system''. That makes no sense. So my question is how much of this is true? Is he possibly overrated? Don't get me wrong, he was clearly a genius, but does he get more credit than he should? Is it known how many of these claims that other people stole his inventions are true? What is it that he was actually responsible for inventing but didn't get credit for it? At a later portion of his life, he made claims of having discovered unlimited energy, developed lasers and VTOLs and actually claimed that he teleported an army submarine. That's an actual claim. I would guess that there is no evidence for this whatsoever. He also claimed that he can develop a weapon so powerful, that it would end all war because it would be able to destroy the whole world. Was he possibly a crackpot in his later years? Anyways, there must be a reason why scientists don't talk about this other than this being a conspiracy cover-up. I would appreciate it if someone gave an objective answer. I wasn't sure where to post it. It might fit in other sciences or the lounge, but seeing how we are talking about his work in physics, I thought this was the most appropriate place. If a mod disagrees, then by all means, feel free to move this.

How does one write something like this and think ''yep, flawless theory, can't be wrong''? Seriously, aliens? And you have the audacity to list it as ''school of thought'' alongside evolution, as if it were equally credible. If you had any evidence of this, any whatsoever, you wouldn't post it in the religion section. It wouldn't be religion if it had evidence.

Actually, funnily enough, white resigned after Rg2+! So it seems they both blundered. This would usually never happen at that level of chess, but it did. She didn't even think of Ke1. She just thought she would lose a rook.

There is no Rg1 stalemate. Rxa2 is stalemate. It seems to me that, after 1. Ke2 ...Nc2+ 2. Kd1, black is forced to repeat the previous position, because his knight is attacked twice, and the only move that doesn't lose the rook is Ne3+ where white's king goes back to e1 and the position is repeated. Of course, the knight cannot move elsewhere as white would take black's rook. So it seems that black needs to use a different strategy if he wants to win the game.

Correct. That's what happened. It was quite surprising seeing how this was a championship game.

Yes, you can. K + R is an elementary mate. So that's not it.

A comical moment from the Women's chess championship: The last move played by black is Rg2+ Can you see the problem with this move?

''The ability of the drug to block the action of dopamine (DA)'' referring to atypical antipsychotics, so how would you guess that? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC167197/ I think this article might answer all your questions.

Seems so: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1130936 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/574284 https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/117686 Although it seems that female rats did not show any signs of hypersensitivity. Other than that, it looks to be true. But it seems like you already knew that.

I wasn't aware of this, so pointing that out only made me feel stupid. It made me reflect on myself and realize I shouldn't go in-depth talking about things I don't understand. There is a lot I don't know and one cannot even know what he doesn't know. I would like to know a lot more but there is no shortcut to this. Everyone who knows a lot about something has spent a lot of time getting to that position. So I learned some humility. You could then ask ''so why did you assume that there are absolute and correct laws of physics?''. I wasn't aware that there was a second option to begin with. I now realize that this is a philosophical issue, rather than simply a logical one. I thought we agreed on coins so I did not know how to expand upon discussing them. I understood Strange's comment and it's in line with I was thinking. You do realize I understand we can give odds only if we don't know the result, but knowing the result dismisses any odds? Yes, I believe that's what I was getting at. I never thought of it as a philosophical question. I didn't think it could be. Sure. But I'm not sure what about coins we could discuss anymore so that it was in the spirit of this thread. I think we reached a simple conclusion. Nah. I +1'd you for the honest answers, even if they were harsh. Science does not care for demeanor, only truth. If you go back to my goblin example, that's exactly what I was saying. Sure, it's silly, but it conveys the point. I don't think it was fair to say I was talking about a god machine in THAT case. I have no objection for the other cases. The example was equivalent to what Strange said.

First of all, the issue of editing posts to add something of value is the possiblity of the other person not realizing that it was edited. I had seen you come to the thread and leave a couple of times and I wondered why you didn't respond. Only now I realize you actually did. That being said, there is an enormous shift in attitude by you. I am quite surprised by it with this last post. Reading through it, I agree that my thoughts and posts were all over the place and most likely pointless, at least from this sub-forum's perspective. However, your post made me feel bad, especially because I'm a person uneducated in mathematics seeking some clarification. You may not realize that some of the things you pointed out are not neccessarily obvious to someone illiterate in maths. I steered away again from the coin discussions only because you did. I had to respond to your last points regarding matters which do not concern the coin. I am also insulted that you (as far as I've gathered) concluded that I'm taking this is in a spiritual direction or pushing some kind of ''god'' agenda. There is absolutely nothing spiritual about me. I am not a crackpot. My ignorance is exactly that, and any misunderstanding we may have between us stem from it. No. You're oversimplifying it. And once again, there is no ''god theory''. Lose the idea, please. I am not providing or refuting any sort of god's physics law. I think you got irritated with me and chose to reduce my thoughts to stupid gibberish. Surely, by how I defined ''techical odds'' here, this is not a ''philosophical assumption''. This is a matter of definition, but essentialy true. Please don't assume now I'm trying to introduce some new law of probability here. Also, saying that someone's thoughts are philosophical is almost synonimous with saying they are useless, or rubbish, at least in my view. I'm not sure how to proceed from here. You were being rational and patient in posts prior to this one.

This article tackles opiod addiction. OP has specifically stated that he need to address opiate addiction. There is a marked difference. Opioid problem is addressable by law (i.e. via pharmacies, medicine etc.) while an opiate problem isn't.

It depends on what you mean by ''how they got it'' and ''where they got it''. Do you mean that you should ask them for the exact source of their drugs or how they got around to being in a position to acquire drugs in the first place? I'm not sure if you intend to deal with actual drug dealers or the source of a user's drug problem.

But wait just a minute. First you asked: Then you said: You just answered your own question. You said that Atypical antipsychotics ARE inverse dopamine agonists, which neccessarily means that they do inverse dopamine sensitivty. Then you stated that they: So what is the question here exactly? It looks more like a statement to me than a question.

What do you mean by atypical antipsychotics? I guess what applies to ''tyipical'' antipsychotics also applies to atypical ones, seeing how both are classified as antipsychotics.

There is a difference between opiates and opioids. Opiates are, generally speaking, drugs like heroine, opium, morphine etc. They are simply drugs exctracted from the papaver somniferum plant, otherwise known as the opium poppy. It is actually trivially easy to extract some of these, which is another reason opiates are so abundant. Opioids are generally pills or other forms of drugs synthethized from opiates. Pain killers would be opioids. So you would, generally speaking, use opiods to cure someone of their opiate addiction. Of course, opioid addiction is another problem. Anyway, OP, you didn't specify what was the purpose of this meeting? Is it to reduce the opiate epidemic or to better help the addicts? Because if it's the former, not much can be done. Possibly nothing. If it's the latter, it could be discussed.