YaDinghus

70ka ago the first now europeans supposedly left Africa, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened multiple times over again. Consider the Murish invasion of the Iberian Peninsula during the middle ages and the spread of Islam in Europe until the Reconquista (Wikipedia)

I wonder what they are trying to compensate

I should get a t-shirt that says I <3 Graphene

Thanks, @Mordred. I'll upvote once my reaction rights are restored

True, but afaik all fermions have a physically meaningful size, while this can't be said about Photons, and I'm not sure whether this applies to other bosons as well But we're sorta off topic here.

A photon is a particle that doesn't have a physically meaningful size, and thus can be considered a point in space. This way you can have a hypothetical 'photon-thick' layer of photons making a 2D object in 3D space. This is a hypothesized scenario by Stephen Hawking about photons orbiting a black hole on the event horizon, where they neither fall into the black hole but can't escape either. Note: a sphere's surface is also a 2D object on a 3D sphere

Same happens near a tesla coil - which is the coolest trick you will ever see a high school teacher perform

True, that's why I explicitly said it wasn't that. The 'opposite' phenomenon resulting in the same apparent paradox is a (very strong) laser pointer being aimed at the moon and the point moving faster than the speed of light from just wiggling the pointer a few arcsecs. The holes in a conductor only move in the opposite direction as the electrons filling it, but with the same speed as the electrons

a: read the rules. You may link to a video as a citation, but you should really describe what's going on in the video or what is essential to your question/statement/theory b: it's fake.

Yeah, seriously. See this: my serious face

As mentioned in linked post I would like to discuss pseudo-objects. I couldn't find a definition online that wasn't about grammar, linguistics or programming. Maybe they are referred to by another name in physics. They are definitely not quasi-partjcles like phonons or 'holes' in an electrical conductor. One example would be a shadow cast by an object. If the source of the shadow and the surface onto which the shadow is cast are sufficiently distant from eachother, it is possible for the shadow to break the speed of light (even though the information that the shadowcaster has moved only reaches the shadow with the speed of light). It's a rather well known phenomenon. I have attempted to define pseudo-objects in the 2D object thread, but I have a feeling that it's not a complete definition, only one that was sufficiently useful at the time. If you know a definition - also possibly a more official technical term - off the top of your head, or if you would like to help me find a definition for this class of objects any other way, I would be much obliged

I just submitted to a higher power: a forum moderator.

Psychology has become a 'solid' science in recent decades - it's come a long way since Sigmund Freud. Yes there is still a lot of guesswork involved, but this guesswork is now structured around evidence and falsifiable theories, and not just 'what sounds good'. Also IQ tests have been refined to reflect pattern recognition and logic as opposed to cultural knowledge and learnd skills. This might be one reason why black and latin particupants in IQ tests used to score lower than white people, because they couldn't compete on the cultural knowledge sections that were designed to test a white person's intelligence. It doesn't explain why Asians would have scored better than white people, though

Anytime Doesn't tan go 'straight' up once it passes x = pi/4? After all it has definition gaps every pi/2...

The ln function gets very close to a 0 slope rather quickly. What exactly are you trying to program? You could try and analytically continue a function with another one, and when its slope reaches 0 just replace it with a fixed value -k(x-t)^2+c for instance would give you a function that reaches a slope of 0 at it's summit, and you could then replace it by c when f'(x)==0

I try(angle) to be as coherent as possible Pseudo-object. Though I would prefer a standalone thread on this subtopic +1 nonetheless

A new study was published that reconfirmed the accuracy of Einsteins GR predictions to 0.00000022s in 14 years. That's an accuracy of 4.95×10^-16, or: the measurement was within an error margin of 5×10^-14% of what GR predicted. EINSTEIN WASN'T WRONG! https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/pavz5v/atomic-clocks-einsteins-elevator-nist

You've been leaving a lot of the wikipedia article on negative mass out - namely the parts that contradict your theory, and that's most of the article

Are we really entertainig this idea, even by contradicting it?

The ink or graphite from your pencil is like the wire frame, and yes it has a thickness of its own. It's not a 2D object in itself, but it is a good representation. That's all you need for math

XD XD XD

A two dimensional object is anything that can be described using vertices (points connecting edges) with only two coordinates. It also counts when vertices with more than two coordinates can be simplified to two coordinates (for instance when they are all in a higher dimensional space, but are located on a plane in this space). Our material world has no (strictly) 2D objects. You may be able to make a square on a sheet of paper or with a wire frame, but the sheet and the frame have a thickness of their own An object in our material world can cast a shadow on a plane surface. This shadow is 2D, but it is a pseudo-object I tried to add a reference to a definition of pseudo-objects, but could only find references to grammar and programming. My naïve, trivial definition regarding this case would be: A Pseudo-object is an object which is generated by another object by blocking or emitting directed rays (e.g. shadow or laser point)

I'm not holding my breath

My business will not serve bigots

I have a hypothesis as to why we are indulging this kind of BS instead of just banning people like them. We want to win. Just killing them would feel like losing, because we would have lost the argument due to a lack of tenacity, which this individual seems to have plenty of. This is not a compliment, by the way, in this case it infers that you lack of eloquence and logic to effectively change our minds so you just wear us down. Yeah, talking at you, @Endercreeper01. Honestly, I don't believe that anyone still cares if you get it, anymore. I for instance just want you to shut up already.