swansont

No, I want someone with training. When I was in the navy, I had a couple of occasions where I was a victim of a corpsman-in-training getting some practice, and not performing very well. Injections may look easy, but that doesn’t mean any schmo can do it.

And you’re entitled to your opinion. But you keep specifically engaging me on subtopics I have not commented on. That’s rude.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 (emphasis added) Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos Links have been removed. You are free to discuss the methodology here, sans spam/advertising.

You persist in asking me about issues I’m not addressing. Your obsessions are not my obsessions.

There’s no guarantee that the OP means what everyone else does, and as this link points out, you need a definition of evil

! Moderator Note This is too vague. Clarify what you mean by “the problem of evil”

The force the floor exerts on a person in a rotating space station is toward the center of the circle, i.e. it is a centripetal force. But it’s your prerogative to be wrong.

Quantum entanglement could possibly be simulated if the proper correlations are in place. -- My reading of this is that the description is a little deceptive. There is no exchange of information after the fact, but the basis for measurement is agreed upon beforehand, which is information of a sort. It's just not information about the state of the particles. That's something entanglement allows that would permit instantaneous decisions without communication - we measure our entangled particles and if Alice measures spin up, she takes course of action A and if it's down she does B. Similarly for Bob. The information was shared beforehand so there's no superluminal communication. The actual decision isn't made until measurement, is still random, and the actions are correlated.

Outward is what you exert, but Newton's laws are about what is exerted on you. The force on an object moving in a circle (such as a rotating space station) is toward the center of the circle.

You say nope but then correctly point out that it’s centripetal force in both cases.

In freshman physics they point out that it’s centripetal force.

! Moderator Note The phrasing of “tolerating” a religion and casting this in terms of immigrants, the implication that they are not part of the “developed world” and other parts, are contrary to rule 2.1. Wake up. Islamic people have already emigrated to western countries, and this alleged “barbaric” behavior is not seen. Replace the target with “Jews” and I’m guessing you can find similar discussion in past (and present) nazi literature.

50-50 chance, 9 out of 10 is just under 1% chance by random guessing, which is less than three sigma.

The scientists who gather the data get first crack at them. They are public domain; I think they are made available to everyone after a year. https://hubblesite.org/copyright “Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and material on this site may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract. However, it is requested that in any subsequent use of this work NASA and STScI be given appropriate acknowledgement.”

And the person who asked the question, and anyone else, is free to draw their own conclusion from that. Once again, this is not what I was addressing. You are assuming that a lack of commentary means something more; this is a phenomenon on social media where someone says, “I like dogs” and the response is “Why do you hate cats?” I don’t much care if it’s a failure of logic or active trolling. You addressed me by moving the goalposts, insinuating that I had somehow defended a proposition that had not been made. AFAICT the information I provided was factual and on-topic. And yet you keep trying to draw me into a confrontation. Truth be told, I haven’t watched much of NdGT, so I’m not in a position to critique or defend anything. I don’t watch much pop-sci physics (unless it’s in my wheelhouse and I’m commenting on it). That’s a choice. Being a dick is a choice, too.

I don’t mind when assumptions are clearly labeled as such. It’s presenting them as if they were fact that I have an issue with. “If A then B” vs “A, therefore B”

The question I answered was “Can NdGT be called a scientist in your opinion, given that he's hardly published anything in 30 years?” I provided three papers he has. I didn’t attempt to address whether he’s a “working astrophysicist.” That’s not where the goalposts were. The thing is, my last first-author paper wasn’t much later than that, and have perhaps six of them. I’m on a few dozen papers total. I find this line of criticism kind of insulting. If someone used these criteria to suggest that I wasn’t a practicing physicist before I retired I would have told them to f%&# off into the sun.

Anders Agerbo Andersen has been banned for spamming and soapboxing

The COSMOS collaboration involves >200 scientists. I’ve been on papers with lots of authors (dozens, at a particle collider, so lots of people work on the experiment in various ways) but that doesn’t mean I had a minimal contribution, and being very late can be because of how they list authors after the first author (like, say, alphabetical? Looks that way. T is late in the alphabet) You don’t have to like the guy, but this is just manufacturing reasons to bash him.

! Moderator Note Locked pending moderator discussion

You don’t get to change the parameters of someone else’s question just because it’s inconvenient

! Moderator Note No, it doesn’t Feel free to ask questions to improve your knowledge, but we don’t have a WAG forum

Because they happen to be at distances from the earth that their angular size is approximately the same. They aren’t exactly the same; the orbits are elliptical so the angular size varies. The moon’s orbit has changed over time, so this situation wasn’t always the case. ! Moderator Note Please try to include some science in your posts. Otherwise they will be moved to the trash

“Normal” wasn’t part of this. The question was “What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?” Appending “normal” to this is a straw man (in case you’re not sure: that’s not something you should be doing)

And rape exists in humans. Human women sometimes kill their husbands. Being punished by law is irrelevant to the point. The question was “What barbaric things do other animals do that humans don't?” (and the part about eating their mates is an exaggeration. It happens in one species of black widow https://www.burkemuseum.org/collections-and-research/biology/arachnology-and-entomology/spider-myths/myth-black-widows-eat)