joigus

“Sixty is the worst age to be,” said the 60-year-old man. “You always feel like you have to pee and most of the time you stand there and nothing comes out.” “Ah, that’s nothing,” said the 70-year-old. “When you’re seventy, you don’t have a bowel movement any more. You take laxatives, eat bran, sit on the toilet all day and nothing’ comes out!” “Actually,” said the 80-year -old, “Eighty is the worst age of all.” “Do you have trouble peeing, too?” asked the 60-year old. “No, I pee every morning at 6:00. I pee like a racehorse on a flat rock; no problem at all.” “So, do you have a problem with your bowel movement?” “No, I have one every morning at 6:30.” Exasperated, the 60-year-old said, “You pee every morning at 6:00 and crap every morning at 6:30. So what’s so bad about being 80?” “I don’t wake up until 7:00.” ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A store that sells husbands has just opened in New York City,… Where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates. You may visit the store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the attributes of the men increase as the shopper ascends the flights. There is, however, a catch… You may choose any man from a particular floor, or you may choose to go up a floor,.. But you cannot go back down except to exit the building! So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband… On the first floor the sign on the door reads: Floor 1 – These men all have jobs, and will love their wife. She then goes to the second floor,… The second floor sign reads: Floor 2 – These men all have jobs, will love their wife, and love kids. She thinks for a while, and then goes to the third floor,… The third floor sign reads: Floor 3 – These men all have jobs, will love their wife, love kids, and are extremely good looking. “Wow,” she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going. She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads: Floor 4 – These men all have jobs, will love their wife, love kids, are drop-dead good-looking and help with the housework. “Oh, mercy me!” she exclaims, “I can hardly stand it!” Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads: Floor 5 – These men all have jobs, will love their wife, love kids, are drop-dead gorgeous, help with the housework, and are excellent in bed. She is so tempted to stay,… But she goes to the sixth floor and the sign reads: Floor 6 – You are visitor no. 43,630,912 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store. Watch your step as you exit the building, and have a nice day!

The similarities are uncanny. But I don't think he is.

Oh, boy. You are so mathematically illiterate this is gonna take some time... Edit: Ok. I'm sorry. I take it back. So what's your problem. You have a magic trick to divide 0 by 0? There is a "magic" trick, but you haven't set up the problem properly. Seems like you're clueless. Are you clueless about these things? When t goes to zero (in the denominator), the numerator goes to zero for at least three reasons: the integration range shrinks to zero, the integrand goes to v(0), which is zero, the v factor outside the integral is zero. So it's zero divided by zero. Your eq. has nothing to do with dropping a ball. It's a different eq. of motion. I can't disprove your derivation for the very simple reason that you haven't shown any. Edit: You don't know what hyperbolic motion is, do you? Otherwise you couldn't possibly be asking such dumb questions. Why don't you just ask?

We'll always be there for you. Next time I falter, I'm sure you'll be there for me too. That's a question for BJ and Yusef.

Brilliance and intelligence are no antidotes against the primitive equipment that's inside our brain. When our basal ganglia are speaking, our brilliance tends to be suppressed. Propositional calculus or C programming are no use against brutal, primitive aggression. If people harbour these primitive reactions when their life is not at risk, that's another matter. OTOH, knowledge or brilliance don't necessarily provide you with wisdom. So I think I at least partially see your point, although I'm not as surprised as you are. And I fail to see how this all bears any relationship with the concept of being re-born as a dog. Furthermore, justice, like religion, is human-made, not natural or divine.

This would be perfectly reasonable were it not for the fact that we are given a finite amount of time. So we must be selective to an extent with what we listen to. Where one sets the filter is a personal decision, though.

You're quite right, MigL, but, for some reason, religious types (some of them) are in the habit of approaching communities of scientifically-minded people and pestering them with their non-arguments --they know how annoying they are, let's face it. You or I wouldn't dream of entering a church or a mosque and start forcing everybody there to listen about the wonders of the big bang theory, or evolution. It's a different thing when you're entertaining them, so to speak. Somewhere inside of me there's a faint hope that a thinking person lives inside that brain, buried under many layers of millennia-old of spoon-fed myth. And that person is desperately crying out to be shown an exit. Maybe it's just one in a thousand. The rest, sometimes I think they're like special ops infiltrating enemy territory.

That's a nice one.

I use procrastination, rather than predestination, when it comes to matters of belief.

More comments: In special relativity it doesn't make sense to talk about a constant force. It's a constant 4-force what plays the role of a "constant push." In those conditions, velocity doesn't grow indefinitely; it tends to a limit, the speed of light in vacuum. It's called hyperbolic motion. Also, you should clarify whether you mean coordinate time or proper time.

Wait a minute. That's right. What derivation?

That was me.

Back to lemurs, then. As all primates use tools.

🤣

Then it definitely isn't "the optimal description of Nature." The equation is also dimensionally inconsistent. Then you have an indetermination of the kind \( 0/0 \). It still has nothing to do with \( E = mc^2 \). Solving it is not difficult, but it makes no physical sense.

Nice video. Is that a Brooklyn accent?

The devil is in the details. Show us some, please.

🤣 Happy Festivus.

I don't think Zaps, or John, are trying to get you banned. Sounds to me that they're trying to corner you logically. That is always something most people of reason, always in our hearts, thank our intellectual opponents for --or should--, and deeply regret if we ever don't, and get carried away. It's actually the highest compliment you can get from people like them or like me. It's like having it said to you: "You are no idiot, I'm sure somewhere in there is a reasoning agent". I think you came closest to getting banned when you decided to drop reason and started applying names to other users (namely, myself and John, "fools"). You got it completely wrong. We'll never give up on you as long as you try to use reason and evidence, if I know what their motivation is. And I think I do. I'm sorry, but the Bible, although a beautiful at times, valuable always, document, is not a valid source of reason and/or evidence in general.

You're absolutely right. I tried to convey that with, The energy dependence you're referring to would indeed be reflected in the \( \int d^{4}xe^{ipx} \) integrals, to which you'd apply the cutoff \( \Lambda \) for the given energy range. So, as you say, it'd be something like, \[e^{4}f\left(m/\varLambda\right)\] I was kinda fixing this temp-dependent factor, or normalising it to 1, if you will. At that energy, the \( e^2 \) terms would totally dominate the photon-photon ones. Low-energy photons are never seen to scatter off each other at room temperatures, let alone at cosmic-background energies.

For whatever reason, a question that has been in my mind for many years, "what ever happened to Laika?", popped up again yesterday. Maybe it's because I tend to feel sad in Christmas. It's a recurring theme for me. Christmas seem to be all about loss. And I'm a Cold-War kid. In recent years I've learnt from paleo-anthropologists that we probably owe much of what we are to the presence of dogs in our lives, that goes back tens --if not hundreds-- of thousands of years at the very least. https://phys.org/news/2019-02-prehistoric-humans-dogs-death.html We owe them so much. Anyway, I found this story answering all my questions. It's not a happy story, I must warn you. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/sad-story-laika-space-dog-and-her-one-way-trip-orbit-1-180968728/ I always wanted to know what ever happened to Laika. Merry Christmas

The QED matrix element for this process "goes like", \[\textrm{Tr}\left(A_{\mu}e\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\psi A_{\nu}e\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\nu}\psi A_{\rho}e\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\rho}\psi A_{\sigma}e\overline{\psi}\gamma^{\sigma}\psi\right)=e^{4}\textrm{Tr}\left(\cdots\right)\] There are space-time integrals involved, but roughly speaking the probability for this process is controlled by the number, \[e^{4}\sim\left(\frac{1}{137}\right)^{2}\simeq5.328\times10^{-5}\] Which, again roughly speaking, means that this process of photon-photon scattering takes place 5 times every 100'000 times photons cross paths. The internal legs of the diagram represent two pairs of virtual e, e- pairs once appearing and once disappearing, and two processes of electron-photon and positron-photon scattering. At large enough scales what you see is photons scattering off each other every once in a blue moon.

Going backwards in the Punnett square, taking into account possible restrictions on the parental generation (wild types, homo-/hetero-zygotes, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punnett_square#Dihybrid_cross

Why do you write "Dog" with capital D? Is this some kind of palindromic play with words? Why can't you reincarnate into a bat, or an eland, or a moss? Does it have to be a domestic mammal?

Sure it would in principle, those would be focalised beams of photons that would meet those completely thermal photons, here and there. But the chances of two photons scattering is completely negligible in QED at given temp. It is this process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics