Posts posted by Drakes
16 minutes ago, MigL said:
It's a good thing most of us ignore your 'generally disagreeable' position, because it's as clear as mud.
Still my muddy position consist of Apple, Google, Netflix, Raytheon and about 800 other stocks.0
14 minutes ago, Area54 said:
I would simply like to understand the point you are making. At present it is not clear. Please state your position clearly, because at present I have little or no idea what it is, other than, apparently, being generally disagreeable. You state society is not to blame, but also imply it is to blame.
Also note, I have expressed no position whatsoever on the thread topic. My couple of posts have been directed solely at attempting to understand your position. So please don't assign me imaginary motives conjured out of your own psyche.
I did state my position clearly, your total inability to comprehend is not my problem.
Might be due to the alcohol
I love shrinking shrinks-2
8 minutes ago, Area54 said:
No, I am focusing on your assertion that "alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease. This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption." That reads, to me, that if there were not a large number of people (ergo, society) creating the demand for alcohol, coupled with many others meeting that demand, then alcoholism would not exist. Thus, as you have written it, you are blaming society. Your post has failed to address that ambiguity. Try again.
Duh, do you want cars banned because idiots get drunk and crash? If there were no cars there would be no drunk drivers
Are you an alcoholic or just a fed doing a stress test on yourself-1
6 hours ago, zapatos said:
Rumor has it that you should also avoid consuming or bathing in unknown chemical waste.
Or offering help to someone trying to skirt toxic waste laws0
9 hours ago, dimreepr said:
That's like saying, hay-fever is due to the number of people wantonly breathing in pollen.
Nope as alcohol is consumed by choice.
Very poor analogy8 hours ago, Area54 said:
So, you are arguing society is to blame, by providing the alcohol? That seems to run counter to your earlier position. I am confused.
Using the same logic you would appear to agree that responsibility for the use of guns in violent crimes is not down to the gunmen, but to the existence of many responsible gun owners and the gun industry that equips them. That thought would also seem to run counter to your bumper sticker position.
Nope society is not to blame because 99 percent of alcohol users do not become addicted. See all you are focusing on are the problems and not the larger picture, if there was no alcohol idiots would still sniff glue0
On 7/26/2020 at 10:50 PM, MigL said:
There is a certain simplistic truth to that statement.
( I did not downvote )
We all make choices based on our own priorities, and should be responsible for those choices.
The OP seems to believe a 'chemical imbalance' absolves the perpetrator of a crime from responsibility.
As an example, drunkenness is a temporary 'chemical imbalance' which affects judgement; are we going to absolve drunk drivers who kill others of responsibility ? I don't think anyone here would support that.
Even if you propose that the driver had previously made the choice to drink and drive, the counterargument is that alcoholism is a recognised disease, so he/she is still not responsible for their actions.
So where do you draw the line of accountability ?
Society has no choice but to consider most to have free will and to be responsible for their actions.
So, if you choose to steal ( and possibly hurt others in the process ), instead of making do with what you have, asking for government assistance, or even begging, because you are hungry ( or greedy ), you have made your choice, and are held accountable by society.
While drunkenness is a temporary condition alcoholism arises from a more permanent set of conditions that cause the disease. This is determined not by the alcoholic but by the vast majority of alcohol users who have no problems with consumption0
On 7/26/2020 at 11:09 PM, zapatos said:
How very paternalistic of you.
If you do not know what the waste is then someone who knows should be called. Unknown waste should not be handled as it can not be handled properly0
I already have Google and am hoping that their quantum division bets broken up into baby Googs like happened to ATT and the baby bells. So anyone have ideas about startup quantum players?0
On 10/22/2019 at 11:48 PM, wty said:
Recently my company has wanted to conduct waste testing to determine the composition of the wastes in concentration or wt%. This testing will help us to determine whether there are any excess chemicals in the feed of the process, which in turn can also be used to identify the effective composition of chemicals in the feed needed to produce the least waste or zero waste. However, we can't provide any testing parameter to the laboratory because we don't know what will present in the waste and too little information is given for the feed of the process. Besides, by referring to the material safety data sheet (MSDS) and certificate of analysis (COA) of each chemical used in the feed of the process, we can only know one to two active components of each chemical used in the process due to the confidential policy of the manufacturers. Thus, due to all these constraints, may I know if it is possible to conduct this kind of testing with the current technology available in the lab testing? If not, could someone please give me some suggestions to solve this problem? Thank you.
I hope that you are aware that many if not all chemicals change during processing and that harmless chemicals can become very dangerous even when properly handled.
So the real answer here is that you should not be handling anything that you are clueless about
20 hours ago, nec209 said:
I know there is not much information out there and there is lot of talk but not any hardcore science. But the theory why some people do crime and not other people is their brain yes the way their brain is wired and well some other people say chemical imbalance problem that these people have well really hard time to control his or her own self.
And there seem to be this debate among people that some people say low IQ and other people say chemical imbalance. But is there well any agreement among doctors and scientist today?
And well people who are poor may well steal or go around asking people for money at the 711 they are not normally violent or have hard time controlling his or her own emotion and pulled out gun, shoot some one or fight some one because you said some thing or looked at the person the wrong way or road rage or some one cheating on the lover.
If it is the way their brain is because of the way their brain is wired or a chemical imbalance are they really responsible or because of low IQ?
Unless the person did not take his or her meds to me normal are they responsible for such crimes?
Do all poor people steal?
If you can't do the time, do not do the crime-2
On 7/4/2020 at 7:26 AM, NeverAGenius said:
Hello, good morning. I am a biology student interested on immunoloogy field and I found a question in a book (Kuby immunology, 7th edition) I really can't understand why it is like that. I would be grateful for your help.
Clinical Focus Question: Hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) were transplanted from a woman into a genetically unrelated man whose hematopoietic system was destroyed by radiation. Some of the received HSC cells differentiated into pancreas, liver, and heart cells. T lymphocytes that resulted from the same donated HSCs do not attack the host, nor do they attack the pancreas, liver, and heart cells that resulted from the same HSCs1.
I don't understand why T lymphocytes don't attack pancreas, liver and heart cells, because I understand that T cells go through a process of tolerance in the recipient's thymus, causing them to attack by not being part of the host to which currently belong. It is as if HSCs granted tolerance to developing T lymphocytes from the start, without even going through the thymus.
Again, I would be really grateful for your help.
PD: I'm from Colombia, so English is not my native language. I'm sorry about the mistakes I made.
Owen, J. A., Punt, J., & Stranford, S. A. (2013). Kuby immunology. New York: WH Freeman.
I'll take a crack. Your approach is wrong, because if the t cells do not attack certain organs this is an observation that like many medical topics is no where being close to understood. You are asking why a cell does something, do you expect the cells to answer questions0
7 minutes ago, Strange said:
You really ought to learn about the concept of "metaphors".
Nah I bought Apple and Google, because real science pays0
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:
How are scientists delusional when they will reject any established idea in the face of new evidence? Nothing they do is written in stone. Your narcissism is showing through with thinking if you can't comprehend something, nobody can.
It is delusional at the least to say that humanity must from the Earth understand the Universe. One thing that I can tell you for a fact, is that 85 percent of the Universe is NOT missing, 100 percent of the Universe is right where it belongs, the fact that minuscule and irrelevant humans do not Understand this fact attributes to legal sales of alcohol, cigarettes and dimwitts babbling that climate change began 150 years ago when 20000 years ago half the Earth was glaciated
But but but scientist say
36 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:
Not true. The equations work great. Predictions can be made that are accurate based on them. We can send space craft to mars based on those eqations. When looking at the larger structures like galaxies the equations indicate there is more matter than can be seen.
Assuming that people know what a galaxy should be composed of or how they should move in the first place. No one has this info, so they work out a math equation and then say the Universe is 85 percent missing. It's also a delusional assumption to say with impunity that gravity is the same everywhere as it is on Earth as 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is unexplored, and no looking at billions of year old light does not count for exploration0
16 hours ago, Janus said:
Have we jumped back to dark matter again? If so, then what you said is again completely based on misconception. No one claims there is more mass than exists. Dark matter has mass. It just a type of matter with mass that doesn't participate in the electromagnetic spectrum, and thus doesn't emit, absorb, radiate, or block electromagnetic waves of any frequency.
Despite what some people seem to think, this is not some bizarre thing. The neutrino, an already known subatomic particle, has these properties. It is even possible that a type of neutrino, the sterile neutrino, is what makes up dark matter.
What is it that makes people that know very little about a subject feel like they are qualified to lecture others on it?
Wrong dark matter is absolutely nothing except a value that makes an equation correct. Try making up values on a final exam and see if you pass because you can not complete the math and just pop in the number that makes the equation correct.
I triple dog dare ya, see if you make the Deans list7 hours ago, Strange said:
Thanks. That seems to confirm what I said.
3. Einstein and the expanding universe
Einstein was uncomfortable with some of relativity’s implications, including one of the biggest — that the universe isn’t a static thing but an entity that must expand or contract. This was unthinkable to Einstein, who believed the universe existed in a “steady state.”
So Einstein added a fudge factor to his equations, a kind of energy associated with empty space. This cosmological constant allowed for a stable universe. But sure enough, astronomers in the 1920s confirmed that the universe was expanding. Einstein later called the cosmological constant the “greatest blunder” of his career.
Einstein's resistance to the idea of an expanding universe makes sense in light of his classical education, says Marcia Bartusiak, a science journalism professor at MIT and the author of several books on the history of physics. His schooling took place in the 1880s and 1890s, when the prevailing wisdom — based on physics going back to the work of Isaac Newton — was that the universe was static. An expanding cosmos simply "didn't fit with his view of how the universe acted," she says. But when astronomers showed Einstein the data, he came around.
“He listened to the evidence, from [astronomer Edwin] Hubble,” Bartusiak says. "He Einstein admitted his error.”0
14 minutes ago, Janus said:
There is no way to be still in an absolute, universal sense, But you can always find a reference frame that you, or whatever else you want to consider, is at rest relative to, and that all that needed.
Einstein did have an different way of approaching a problem. Instead of starting with an observation or experimental result and attempting to explain it, he would start from basics principles and would see where they naturally took took him. Often it led him to the same results as the observation/experiment.
But the fact that Einstein wasn't an experimenter himself means nothing, as he knew that other could and would perform the experiments/observations needed to confirm or disprove his theories. All he needed to do was to show them where they needed to look and what they should look for.
Nobody is now or has ever elevated Einstein to "Godhood". People tested his theory from the get go, and continue to do so to this day. They do this in order to see if it fails at some point, and if so, where and how. Einstein is revered because he "with just his pencil" and little experimental evidence to go on, came up with an entirely new way to view time and space, and one that has survived every experimental challenge thrown at it to date. I is one thing to take existing experimental data and come up with an explanation for it, it is an entirely other thing to be able to start from basic principles, and not only explain existing experiments, but to accurately predict the outcome for experiments yet to be made for another 100 yrs. ( one of his predictions was the existence of gravitational waves, something that has just recently proven to exist by experiment.)
As far as the expansion of the universe is concerned, when Einstein published GR in 1915, it wasn't even clear if the "universe" extended beyond our own galaxy. It wasn't until 1923, that observations of Cepheid variables finally confirmed that the Andromeda nebula was in fact a galaxy in it own right, distant and separate from our galaxy. A static universe was the accepted view of the time, and Einstein was just trying to make his theory consistent with this. Later, when observations showed otherwise, he admitted himself that it was his "biggest blunder". Ironically, his "biggest blunder" happened due to trying to force his theory to fit with accepted "wisdom", rather than letting it stand on its own.
The math requires 85 more energy and mass then exist. Much like getting a 100 megaton nuclear explosion from a firecracker, it doesn't happen, no matter how many times you try or how many thought experiments you do. So the math is wrong or the Universe is wrong and the Universe is not subject to fallible human interpretation or blunders.0
1 hour ago, Strange said:
Anyone who could see the sea, was well aware that the Earth was not flat. In fact, through history, very few people have believed the Earth was flat.
Actually, his math told him the universe was expanding. But as there was no evidence for that, he added a factor to keep it static. Hubble never accepted the universe was expanding, despite the law named after him and Lemaitre (who came up with the first model of the expanding universe using the red-shift data).
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/11/getting-einstein-to-say-i-was-wrong.html#:~:text=Hubble showed Einstein photographic plates,a phenomena phenomenon called redshift.&text=However%2C Nussbaumer argues%2C Einstein was,Hubble as common lore holds.
However, Nussbaumer argues, Einstein was not as impressed with Hubble as common lore holds. Einstein, from his interactions with other physicists, already superficially knew most of what Hubble was saying about the redshift of distant galaxies, and his meeting with the astronomer added nothing really new. Plus, the idea of redshift was so new, no one was sure that's what they were seeing.
On February 4, Einstein gave a seminar about astronomy where he mentioned the work of the astronomers at the Wilson Observatory. He commended their work, but was conservative about how their observations might affect his equations, speculating that likely the universe was still static, but he might have to refigure his equations slightly.
Except Einstein wasn't so impressed. His diary from that time period hardly mentions Hubble at all. A week later when he was at another seminar, this one specifically on redshifted galaxies he offered a much more nuanced and qualified view. He said it could be an expanding universe, or from a universe that expanded and contracted, or perhaps even that distant light got "tired" and redder the farther it traveled. His beliefs were starting to change, but it was hardly the instant conversion often talked about. When asked how he could explain the redshifts, he said "I don't know the answer."
4 minutes ago, MigL said:
Expanding on String Junky's example...
Picture yourself alone ( in a spacesuit ) in empty space with no other features.
ccan you tell if you are linearly moving at 10 km/hr ?
Can you tell if you are moving at 1000 km/hr ?
How about at 100 000 km/hr ?
NO ! You would have no 'feeling' of speed, no sensation that there was any difference from you being at rest.
And there is no experiment you can do to determine your speed.
That is an inertial frame; and they have been known about at least since Galileo ( never mind Einstein )
Now picture yourself sgain in the same situation but you accelerate from one seed to another.
Even though you have nothing as a reference to measure your speed against, you immediately know that it is changing because you are pushed back into your spacesuit.
And the simplest experiment, like dropping an object, will see it left behind.
You know that you are moving in many ways.
That is a non-inertial frame.
To re-cap, in a non-inertial frame you can always tell if you are moving.
In an inertial frame you cannot; in an empty space, you might as well be at rest no matter what your speed, and the only way to tell if you are moving is 'relative' to another object, which is probably itself moving. That means all our experiments and derived laws of Physics apply to these inertial frames where we actually have no idea what the 'true' speed is, as there is NO 'true' speed.
This is what Swansont told you at the beginning of this thread; you would have been further ahead asking questions about what you don't understand, instead of blindly insisting 'everything is in motion' ( irrelevant dead-end argument ).
Any questions ???
You can live your entire life imagining and never get anywhere, in fact lots of people do this quite well. Imagine what Einstein could really have achieved if he ever put his pencil down got out of his chair and did a real experiment like Von Braun instead of just imagining. At one time the Earth was flat because one could clearly see the edge where the ocean fell off, it took men with logs and sails to eventually never reach the edge and the spherical Earth was discovered. You can only go so far with a pencil then you have get up and test ones findings. Einstein is not and never was a God, his math told him that the Universe was not expanding, perhaps that math was right and Hubble's is wrong.
We all want to know, however none of us does, in fact we know exactly the same as to what we are as the first Neanderthal did. Sad but true. The speeds I mentioned were not imagined they were calculated.
What is the imaginary power source for your imaginary space suit to keep you from freezing solid?3 minutes ago, studiot said:
Which has already been agreed.
but consider this question from another more mundane point of view.
The pistons in my car are moving up and down, the cams are going round and round and the followers are oscillating etc etc.
So, rather like your universe, everything is moving round and about everything else.
The motion of the pistons, compared to that of the cam followers is different from the motion of the pistons compared to the prop shaft etc etc.
They are all in relative motion vis a vis each other and each comparison is different.
But there is a further situation overlaid on this.
These relationships depend upon the throttle setting, not the motion of the vehicle.
They will be the same whether my car is standing 'still' on my driveway or moving down the motorway at 60 mph.
All of these motions are compared (ie relative) to the chassis of the car.
And even if that chassis is still on the driveway the driveway itself is moving round with the rotation of the surface of the Earth at around 650 mph.
But we don't normally consider that.
Underlying this build up is the fact that there is no absolute rest frame in the universe.
We just pick one and in Relativity it is normally called The Laboratory Frame.
WE also do not typically when thinking logically of piston movement lay train tracks into space. Screw the fucking thought experiment unless the thought is how to actually get there. If you wanna keep rehashing cats in a box go ahead, my thoughts go in one direction forward0
Just now, Janus said:
What is it going to take to get this into your head? There is no such thing as "true" speed. That term has no meaning in our universe.
There is also no way to be still which is what I said originally.0
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:
Picture yourself on a rock in empty space - you can see nothing until you see me sitting on a rock coming towards you. In my frame you are moving and I'm motionless. Who is correct?
In one plane alone we are currently moving 1.3 million miles per hour that is the linear galactic movement plane, the Milky Way is headed toward LEO, so if an Apollo type spacecraft is launched toward Leo it's true speed is 1,325,000 miles per hour if launched directly away from LEO it's true speed drops to 1,275,000 miles per hour but the distance traveled is in the opposite direction of the observed movement since the entire galaxy is moving in the opposite direction at 1,300,000 miles per hour at launch. So what is observed is just not what it seems to be, if the spacecraft were to attain a speed of 1,300,000 miles per hour away from LEO it would become still in one plane and the galaxy would appear to move around the spacecraft. So still in any way is just not possible. The above also ignores the 490,000 miles per hour orbital speed that we are simultaneously spinning around the galactic core.
I also know that in the early 1900's that a train was a lot more amazing than it is today, but someone imagining train tracks into space might actually have been exhibiting a grandiose lack of imagination.0
1 hour ago, swansont said:
The linear speed is irrelevant since inertial frames are equivalent.
Distance isn’t the variable in the relativity effects. Speed is. The only error term here is the deviation from a linear velocity, which is very small. Feel free to calculate the Sagnac effect results and see for yourself.
And if it’s small, the exact value doesn’t matter, since it can be ignored.
On the contrary, claiming that errors that are demonstrably smaller than your precision matter is what’s silly.
As with the numbers Janus used - if you are looking for a 100k LY effect, not accounting for 1.5 LY isn’t going to matter.
Again Einsteins observer can not remain motionless unless all motion to the observer is eliminated. I wonder if Einstein based this experiment in the period of time before Hubble demonstrated that the Universe was not static as Einstein once believed?
And as Drake predicted there are 3............................... the other 2 out of 7.4 billion on cue as predicted.
Another will soon be rustled out of bed
As in politics the effort to cover up the truth creates more noise than the truth itself0
10 hours ago, Janus said:
There is no such thing as absolute "motionlessness" to achieve. The Solar system orbits relative to the center of galaxy. we can give its speed relative to this center. The Earth orbits relative to the Sun. Our galaxy has a velocity relative to the center of gravity of the local group. The local group has a relative velocity larger galactic cluster it is a part of...
But none of these motions are with respect to some absolute state of "rest", as no such state exists, and it is meaningless to talk about one. You can only consider velocities as being measured relative to some reference. And any reference you chose is just as valid as any other. Thus you are free to choose whichever one is the most convenient to work from. If the one where you consider yourself or anything else as being at rest is best for your purposes, you are free to use it.
If you have a velocity of 100 mph relative to me, it is the same as I having a 100 mph velocity relative to you, and that is as far as it can go. There is no absolute rest frame that either or both of us are "really" moving with respect to.
Einsteins so called thought experiment is called a thought experiment because it can not be conducted as a real experiment. Now if you are in the ocean and the current is exerting a 10 knot force on the vessel and enough power is applied to match the 10 knot current and facing into the current then the force is balanced and the vessel remains motionless, or so it seems until you factor in the Earths spin, the Suns galactic rotation and then galactic linear travel. The error magnifies with each growing step. knowing the Earths spin, and rotation around the sun can be calculated because error checking to the previous time frame can be compared and errors worked out. When considering the Suns orbit around the galactic core the projected error is plus or minus 25 million years in a 225 to 250 million year rotation that can not be error checked to the previous orbit because humanity has never seen an entire orbit and may never and there is still at least one more movement thru spacetime not accounted for. Those who tried to work out the math have all concluded that the universe as observed is wrong as 85 percent is missing. Dark matter is at current not real, it is a variable that makes an equation correct, so without the right data to apply no calculations to remain still for Einsteins thought experiment are viable as there are just too many unknowns and as such we are actually lost on island Earth. However this will not stop the geniuses at the page with three entire users from controlling the flow of spacetime with their own distorted reality.0
Just now, Janus said:
But the question is, is this difference significant compared to what you are measuring. If the difference is between traveling at 600,000,000 miles per hr and 600,000,001 mph, the the difference in distance traveled in a billion years is insignificant compared to the total distance traveled (a difference of ~ 1.5 ly over 900,000,000 ly)
But more importantly it's insignificant if you are trying to test between two models that give answers that differ by over 100,000 ly, for example.
But the main point that swansont was making is that there is no object in the universe has an "absolute" velocity, All velocities are relative. There would be no difference in the answers you get by assuming the galaxy has zero velocity and the galaxy having a velocity of 180,000 miles per sec. The effects Swansont refer to are the non-inertial ones due to things like Earth's gravity, etc. And those can be directly measured and accounted for. With the experiments he is talking about, these things have very small influence compared to the size of the effect we are measuring. It's like gravity accounting for the 1.5 ly difference above, when you are looking for the 100,000 ly difference.
The orbital speed of the Milky way is estimated at one orbit in every 225 to 250 million years. We are in this orbit and the speed can not be guessed any better than that. Then there is the linear speed of the Milky way which can only be guessed with even less precision, however the actual speed is so out of frame to a human observer that any supposedly accurate speed can be popped in and called a scientific theory, it's not a theory it's a guess though I suppose the terms can be interchanged. Then there is the stability of the Universe itself which might be stable or it might be orbiting, moving linear or vibrating. My point is that from our frame and solo point of view there is no way to be still or know what speeds that would all need to be counteracted to achieve motionless. Claiming that errors do not matter, is completely silly, but is easy on the internet when your O2 supply is not limited I suppose.0
4 minutes ago, swansont said:
In experiments we get quantified results, with a limit on the precision. If the effect is smaller than that limit, it will not affect the answer.
IOW, if your result is e.g. 114 +/- 1, an effect that would change this by 0.001 can be ignored.
And what is the speed and direction of this galaxy and how is this measured with precision from a humans frame on Earth so that you can pop that speed into an equation and be certain that the speed is correct because without a correct speed the equation is meaningless. Would an error of 1 mile per hour effect the distance traveled over say a billion years?
Yes it would.0
Are people that do crime really responsible?
in Psychiatry and Psychology
What part of my position do you politely want clarified?