Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


joigus last won the day on March 4

joigus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

386 Beacon of Hope


About joigus

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/04/1965

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Biology, Chemistry, Physics
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical Physics
  • Biography
    I was born, then I started learning. I'm still learning.
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

8706 profile views
  1. I'm going to insist on this point just for a little while. I'm not completely sure that I'm faithfully echoing @studiot's concerns here, but I think my concerns and his at least partially overlap. It is not enough to build analogical models of individual particles with every particle popping up in the model as an independent character in a play that could or could not be there. Kaons, for example, have known lifetimes, decay modes, etc., that must be accounted for. We know that kaons, and hyperons, and nucleons, are made of quarks. Where are these quarks, and the hadrons they give rise to
  2. Mmmm... To make do. To do. To make. To make love. To love. To love making. To do better. To make better. To make love better. To love making better. All of that in order to make do better.
  3. The terminology has changed quite a bit over the years. Look at this for an appetiser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_(disambiguation) (I think there are more.) The bone of contention to me is: What about quantum mechanics? Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony, Bell-Kochen-Specker and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-Mermin theorems --and their experimental confirmations-- tell us that it is not consistent to assume on the basis of classical logic alone a particular orientation of the particle.
  4. No, there isn't because those are just three numbers. The product of two primes is always a semiprime, because that's the definition of semiprime. Is that what you're on to? "Some denominator"? Oh, that' clear!!! Will you just state clearly what you're trying to get at? I don't get it. And I don't seem to be alone in this. "The graph is what's important" just doesn't cut it. Make a statement. If you don't make a statement there can't be "any thoughts". Except: "what's this all about?" Something like "the distance (or the quotient, etc.) between consecutive semipri
  5. Absolutely spot-on, @Sensei. On a similar vein, here's a couple of very interesting TEDtalks by Karen Lloyd, Hyper-slow metabolism microbes that live under the Earth's crust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2DzsgJSwcc Hyper-slow metabolism microbes that live under the sea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbgB2TaYhio 15 minute talks for the general public. Some catchphrases by Lloyd are priceless. Makes you think that the amount of microorganisms may have been, if anything, grossly underestimated.
  6. Well, yes but: (my emphasis) Also: (my emphasis) Also: This recurring point is what I mean by off-shell. Can you address any of these questions? You can get all kinds of weird things by adding 4-vectors, one pointing to the past light-cone, and another pointing to the future light-cone. You can obviously get the 4-vector, \[\left(u^{0},\boldsymbol{u}\right)+\left(-u^{0},\boldsymbol{u}\right)=\left(0,2\boldsymbol{u}\right)\] But that's unphysical. That's what we're trying to tell you.
  7. Exactly. And even for macroscopic objects, what they look like strongly depends on the kind of radiation we use to look at them: https://www.wired.com/2014/04/the-world-looks-different-when-you-see-in-infrared/ When you look at this person covered by a plastic bag, couldn't we say that "normal" reflected light is deceiving you, by offering a picture of the object that is actually less faithful than emitted infrared light? In order to get an infrared picture of the object, we also need to map these colours somewhere in our visual cortex. So there is a neurological aspect about th
  8. (my emphasis) I take it that humans are neither moving nor non-moving. Who invented the third? We, the weird ones? Before "we" existed? I disagree with @MigL: This is way past silly. It is a meandering nonsense.
  9. I don't want to be insulting but this doesn't look promising as the start of a theory about the Earth.
  10. If you can afford a long-night vigil, you can see it in the Summer too. Slimmer chance of an overcast sky, perhaps. At least in Spain, where I live. 7 years ago, I was stopped on the outskirts of the village where I lived by the rural police --Guardia Civil--, who asked me for ID, and had lots of questions for me, none related to Orion. They couldn't believe I was crazy enough to relish in contemplation of "lovely Orion" at past 5AM almost in the middle of nowhere, trying to catch glimpses of Betelgeuse. A kindred spirit.
  11. Politics aside, the Sokal affair still gives me food for thought, even all these years down the road. I knew it would interest you. Thanks for appreciating it. If you overlook the political implications, there's still a lot to be learnt concerning this topic on purely scientific/philosophical grounds.
  12. No way to get lost that way, unless you're a flat-Earth advocate... So what if so? Don't tell me you're a covert ageist. Marilyn Monroe never gets old.
  13. Trying very hard to picture Pope Francisco as a bouncer in a club --unsuccessful so far.
  • 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.