joigus

That's quite common between men my age. You just made me a primate, @MigL.

Neither have I, but it's just because of the lack of information about that lovely fellow.

can be argued to be true- as long as you take a figurative interpretation of "an incredible distance away". But having only one sentence that might be correct is, as you say, something of an achievement. Indeed.

Utter nonsense.

I tried to make them smaller or link to thumbnail versions... I would've thought you'd like them, given how fond you are of science fiction.

Ok. I have no idea what a cerafe is, but: (My emphasis.) The rest, I suppose, can be explained by the behavioural traits of flies.

Treehoppers!! (from Wikipedia.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehopper Oak treehopper: https://insider.si.edu/2017/08/beautiful-bizarre-treehoppers-suck-sap-can-spread-disease/8577969459_49866036ff_b/ (from Smithsonian Magazine online.) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/treehoppers-bizarre-wondrous-helmets-use-wing-genes-grow-180973713/

Nothing. You're going in circles and then playing a naming game. The definition of the fine structure constant, \( \alpha \) in SI units is, \[\alpha=\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}\hbar c}\] \( e \), \( \hbar \), and \( c \) are measured quantities. \( \epsilon_{0} \) is a convention. \( \mu_{0} \) is another convention coming from convention \( \epsilon_{0} \), and measured \( c \), \[\left(\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}\right)^{-1}=c^{2}\] Then you play with the identity, \[\hbar=\sqrt{\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}}\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}\alpha}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{0}}{\epsilon_{0}}}\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\alpha}\] And then you name, \[Z_{0}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{0}}{\epsilon_{0}}}\] the impedance of the vacuum. You have no operational definition for that as an impedance.

Was in response to: Not in response to @Anchovyforestbane. Sorry. It was the quote of a quote, and the quote function doesn't, or didn't, embed the quotes.

I agree with you, basically, that the Copenhagen interpretation is not satisfactory, and neither it is the many-worlds interpretation. But the Copenhagen interpretation works like a dream. That's the problem, actually. It works like a dream and mathematically, it cannot be the whole story. As Bell said, Copenhagen's interpretation is good FAPP (for all practical purposes.) As Bell also said, Mind you: He didn't mean classical-mechanical arguments; he meant quantum-mechanical arguments. I'm working on a miniature of explanation in 2-dimensional quantum mechanics, if you're interested. The many-worlds interpretation is not a corollary of the Copenhagen version. It's more like what @Sriman Dutta says: I totally agree with this. Conjugate variables are certainly peculiar. Their properties cannot be simulated by any finite-dimensional space of states and thereby cannot be completely understood with discrete mathematics. They are the domain of transcencental mathematics. Unlike the famous \( J_x \), \( J_y \), \( J_z \) that people use in all the completeness theorems, they always pair in couples, one of which is conserved, the other is not.

Yes, that's what I would expect from the acolytes. I suppose people elbowing for position are calculating their moves. That checks with what I was thinking. You're right that I don't know the American political landscape very well. But if I remember correctly Mitt Romney has presidential aspirations...

No serious Republicans taking positions to save face when all this pissing in the wind blows over? I'm sure it must be embarrassing for somebody in their ranks. Just curious.

You're quite right. There is a caloric part in \( G \) that is usable for doing work. Thank you.

Gibbs free energy, roughly speaking, means the energy stored in all the chemical bonds. The \( \triangle \) quantity means difference between products and reactants, and 'molar' means 'per mole' or 'per molecule'. x-posted with Studiot.

You would have to breathe through a mask. There's no coronavirus in Titan, that's for sure.

Among other excellent points here, I think this puts the finger on the most likely misunderstanding of such creationist pseudo-arguments. Chimpanzees and orangutan, e.g., evolved from other apes as we did. But they did in a different direction. They are not an accurate picture of our ancestors by any means. The march-of-progress picture, as the one depicted in this creationist site: https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/ Is very naive and known to be wrong. They (creationists) keep obsessing with Lucy as the grand mother of all human kind. When, in fact, we know now there was no linear progression. They (creationists) are looking for Adam and Eve, as we all know. Apparently upright apes were very common 3 million years ago. Human evolution is more like a huge jigsaw puzzle, changing with time. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/overview-of-hominin-evolution-89010983/ It would be interesting to see how they explain Homo floresiensis, probably not a Homo at all, but an autralopithecine offshoot. Remember that about 6 million years ago savannas expanded into a huge range that got to cover an enormous uninterrupted area from northern Africa to the eastern coasts of Asia. It is believed that upright apes flourished back then like never before. And yes, we are apes.

Saturn seen from Titan amidst lakes and rivers of methane.

Clinton and JFK are not precisely the spitting image. Although both have the facial expression they're best remembered for. The only one that came out perfect is Bozo!

Can there be a set with fewer than zero elements? If so, then there can be negative-dimension spaces.

There are many good books that explain Christoffel symbols. It's not a notation; it's a real object that you need to correct for the fact that your reference directions change depending on the point when you're taking derivatives of vectors. A very good classic book is Lovelock & Rund: https://www.amazon.com/Tensors-Differential-Variational-Principles-Mathematics/dp/0486658406

You can live a long, healthy, happy life without going down that road. Are you sure you want to go where the buses don't stop? It depends on what you want QM for.

Very interesting topics. Looking forward to seeing them posted. I've got some other historical topics to suggest. I'm glad to have you back, @MSC, after the pachi-dermatological treatment.

Amen. I don't find you the least curious. What's the new theory? Mind you, a new brand of word salad is not a theory. Strawmen at work sign.

You're welcome.