exchemist

OK if you can indicate what measured differences you have in mind, we could perhaps take a look at what might be responsible. We would need to bear in mind @CharonY 's point that mixing of genes has some interesting results, e.g. that "black" Brazilians are more genetically similar to "white" Brazilians than they are to "black" Americans. (We would of course also need to bear in mind the effects of culture when it comes to evaluating measured behavioural attributes.)

As I understand it, one of the objections to attempting to correlate "race" (i.e. skin colour) with IQ is that skin colour is no more fundamental to the human genome than say eye colour or the presence or absence of ear lobes. So it would be a bit like correlating cancer incidence with TV ownership.

I suspect most of us have moments in which we wonder, fleetingly, whether what we seem to be experiencing is real or just in our minds. As far as science goes, we have a way round that issue by relying on reproducible observations of nature. That means others besides ourselves need to agree they see whatever it is too. So that gives us at least some reason to believe there is some kind of objective reality "out there", as it were. Of course we could be hallucinating what these supposed other people seem to be agreeing with us about, but going down that rabbit hole rapidly becomes paralysing, so there seems little point in pursuing that train of thought.

Yes that’s true but Marie Curie’s prize was about half a century earlier, back in 1903. Women’s emancipation had moved on a fair bit in the intervening years. I do dimly recall a rather catty comment in a lecture, from an old-fashioned (gay/misogynist) don at Oxford in the 1970s when I was reading for my degree, to the effect that Franklin’s contribution was the sort of humdrum, painstaking fiddly work suitable for a woman, as opposed to the brilliant insight of Crick and Watson. A bit shocking; perhaps there was a rather broader attempt to belittle the work that actually provided the data!

Yes that reference says Watson made this remark in a recent interview with Scientific American. So it looks as if no one at the time thought to put Franklin’s name forward. Maybe this was an attempt by Watson to put things straight at the end of his life, long after the damage was done. It’s such a shame she died so young. If she had lived longer, she probably would have had her contribution recognised.

That's not the impression given by the Wiki article on Watson, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin. According to that, Watson said she should have got the Nobel with Wilkins, but the prize could not be awarded posthumously (she died at 37, of ovarian cancer, apparently). But I don't know who wrote the Wiki piece of course.

Haha, then.

Yes there is. LLMs are programmed to tell you what you want to hear. You can get an initial idea from them but to confirm something you need to go behind the AI and get to the references it is relying on.

That’s what an idiot would do.

Why not both? Most people are a mixed bag. Newton was by all accounts an unpleasant man, Einstein was sexually unfaithful, Mozart had a scatological sense of humour….. This notion that famous people must be pigeonholed as either saints or devils seems very naïve to me.

Whut?

What you leave out though, is that we continue to see Io for about 10 minutes after it has actually been occulted, due to light already in transit after occultation starts.

Surely it is occulted for the same time, regardless of the distance from Earth? Where are you getting your information from?

If the thrower drops 2 balls 5 mins apart when he is next to the hole, then sure, you will time them as arriving 5minutes apart. But if he then moves 50 metres away to throw the next one, you will note that the 3rd ball arrives slightly more than 5 minutes after the previous one. And if he then returns to his position next to the hole before dropping the 4th one, you will note that the interval between arrival of the 3rd and 4th balls is slightly less than 5 minutes. The differences are caused by the time of flight of the ball when it is thrown from a distance. What Rømer observed was the difference in timing of occultation of Io, depending on whether the Earth was at its closest to Jupiter or at its furthest away. He correctly attributed this difference to differences in the time of flight of the light, according to the variation in the distance it had to cover between Io and the Earth.

As others have also pointed out, that is not what we would see. Leaving aside the complication of what would happen when Io passed behind Jupiter, we would see the light on for 30mins and then off for 30 mins. You have still not explained what you mean by real time.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY REAL TIME?

No, answer my questions, please, first of all, without adding further complications.

Yes it would show the time 10minutes earlier, because that is the time it takes for the light signal to travel to us from Jupiter. But now we get to it: you appear to have some notion that this conventional understanding is wrong, because “the format of the light is different”. What do you mean by that? Format of light?? Kindly explain.

I think you need to explain what exactly you mean by "real time". This is something you constantly refer to and you have not explained what you mean by it.

When I was a tiny boy I loved beetroot and my parents did in fact once call the doctor because my urine went pink. Betanin: A zwitterion, apparently, at least at some pH values. P.S. Diagram has an error, the O substituent on the ring joined to the sugar should be OH.

Yeah definitely a 1st World problem, I grant you. But in France, everyone gets in foie gras at Christmastime. And so do my (half-French) son and I, for Réveillon on New Year's Eve, accompanied by Sauternes. (We also do boudins blancs with apples and a chenin blanc on Christmas Eve - though I can't drink much as I have to sing carols, Gregorian chant and a motet or two at Midnight Mass.) I'm now over 70, damn it, and these traditions are something I hang onto increasingly tenaciously. 😄

I'm sure it is the vacuum inside that is the chief issue. But then the difference in difficulty of apparently identically-sized jars must be due to differences in friction in the threads and seal. By the way, as we are approaching that time of year, those rubber seals on foie gras jars from France are a bastard. Sometimes I have to resort to pliers to pull the rubber tag enough to break the seal.

I used to have a rubber band that could fit the rim of the lid with a bit of stretching. That improves the grip considerably and makes opening easier. For many years I had the strongest grip in the house as a result of years of rowing, but it is weakening now that I am over 70. Must get another rubber band, before the marmalade jar defeats me…..

In view of @swansont 's comments, perhaps it would be worth you checking and letting us know where your image comes from. The thing about the craters is odd.

Haha. He survived somehow but it was a sweaty evening and we went somewhere else the following night. I'm actually gradually testing myself to see if the intolerance to oysters that I picked up about 20 years ago has gone. I tried a couple at the Loch Fyne Oyster Bar the year before last and was fine. It wasn't a full allergic reaction I used to get, just nausea and diarrhoea. Suspect it was brought on by one in France eaten in summertime (they don't seem to worry about whether or not there is a R in the month) and then I found every time I had them I would feel lousy for 24hrs, so I gave them up. These things do sometimes pass. One of my brothers became intolerant to crustaceans for about a decade - but now he's fine again.