swansont

Which are still anecdotal. Observations being made by military personnel doesn’t change that. Plus, they admit “The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.” One thing missing here is an analysis of known aerial phenomena as a comparison. Surely birds and balloons, etc. have been detected and identified by aircraft before, without being categorized as UAP. What are those signals and how do they differ? There’s also no mention of any sort of systematic test of the sensors to see what kind of signals can be created from any of these mundane phenomena.

Are these peer-reviewed papers? Where were they published?

If you would review, you might see we were talking about the pay disparity between the USMNT and USWNT. The women play better soccer relative to their competition.

But not so much by people with a physics background, since the physics didn’t even start to exist until Newton. You also have to take into account the date and ability to investigate, including the speed and depth of communication. Vague reports of a rock falling from the sky from a place a hundred miles away isn’t likely to be investigated when there’s no science to be used and that’s a multi-day trip. That’s assuming the news traveled that far. These reasons why people didn’t investigate is a separate issue from the question I was answering. The issue was investigated after it became clear that there was evidence rather than anecdotes, and actual analysis could be done. Do these experts say they do, or do they qualify this by saying “could” i.e. if the objects are real, and other assumptions are valid. (Linking to your sources would be helpful when you paraphrase what others say) I’m sorry, I thought this was about a congressional hearing. What is this “real investigation”?

It was actual analysis and the weight of observational evidence. You actually had meteorites in hand, and could compare them to stones from the area. And a large number of eyewitnesses of the same unambiguous event, rather than isolated events. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1803-rain-rocks-helped-establish-existence-meteorites-180963017/ “Biot distinguished two kinds of evidence of an extraterrestrial origin of the stones,” Gounelle writes. First, the kind of stone that had fallen was totally different than anything else available locally—but it was similar to the stone from the Barbotan meteor fall in 1790. “The foundries, the factories, the mines of the surroundings I have visited, have nothing in their products, nor in their slag that have with these substances any relation,” Biot wrote. Second, unlike earlier falls, there were a number of witnesses “who saw ‘a rain of stones thrown by the meteor,’” Gounelle writes. They were from different walks of life, and, Biot wrote, it would be ridiculous to think they had all colluded to describe something that hadn’t happened. “One can follow Biot’s enquiry, village by village, step by step,” writes Gounelle.

Yes. That’s equivalent to what I said. Giving everyone the same rights means securing them for the people who are systematically disadvantaged under the current system. But the GOP likes the current system, because they are the ones who have the full rights and the power to exploit others. And they don’y shy away from the fiction that equal rights for all is a loss of rights for some.

The result is different, but it’s because the binding is different. I think perhaps it’s a mistake to try to use the same terminology.

Winning games, perhaps? The US women have won World cups and Olympic gold. The men haven’t had anywhere close to the same success. They didn’t even qualify for the WC in 2018, and their highest finish since 2002 was 8th.

Part of the money they get is from success in the World Cup, so maybe not.

Yes. See also “socialism” and “woke” and “Critical Race Theory” among others I don’t think the left is describing/re-defining populism; what I see is calling out the right’s use of the term for an agenda that is not populist. It’s a dog-whistle. A “progressive agenda” would secure rights for women and minorities, and reduce the ability for rich white men to exploit those groups.

My understanding is it’s related to asymptotic freedom. When you add energy to a “typical” bound system (e.g. ionize an electron) you end up with free particles. When they combine, you get a release of energy. But adding energy to bound quarks doesn’t do this - you can’t free a bound quark. Their potential energy at large separation doesn’t go to zero as it does with gravity or Coulomb forces.

You, from early in the thread (emphasis added): “if I am to assume God created us then God is able to touch the material world in some manner. I'm going to get slightly theological if I may, but if God created us then all that we are must be, at least, a part of God (but perhaps not its entirety). "Click-the-fingers" type creation isn't for me, so I'm going to assume that God can get its hands dirty in earthly material to make stuff” You may wan’t to disavow ownership of the assumptions, but assumptions were made, and it’s still circular reasoning

Physics describes how nature behaves, and since the theories match the observations and also allow us to make successful predictions, we can say the theory works. Using a metaphor where you aren’t matching observations is a bad metaphor. Actually, you’re telling me you don’t understand. If you did, you wouldn’t need to ask some of these underlying questions. Treating it as a substance didn’t work. There is kinetic energy, which depends on speed, which is relative to something else. You can’t assign a kinetic energy without that information Perhaps there is, but we have no evidence of it. The “charge” would also be a property of the photon (along with its energy, linear momentum and angular momentum) You may not buy the property thing, but what’s the evidence that it’s a substance? Mass and matter are distinct concepts. Matter has mass. Mass is a form of energy. “exist” and “conserved” are distinct concepts. Lepton number is a conserved quantity. Boson number is not. You can create particle-antiparticle pairs if you have sufficient energy

Physics works, and it’s all intertwined. For me to explain why it works one way and not another would require you to meet me partway and have an understanding of physics; I don’t know what that level is, but I’m not prepared to teach you several semesters’ worth of it. Absent that, you just have to defer to folks who give you the big picture: Energy isn’t a substance. That’s been tried and it failed (e.g. caloric theory) “I have no understanding and I reject your science with no basis” isn’t an argument, either. BTW, convertibles and roofless cars exist. We could discuss how roofs keep rain out, because I presume you have an understanding of rain.

What is says is that we have a model - a very successful one - where energy is a property. If you want to hypothesize that things are made of energy, feel free to come up with such a model.

Hard to say what she’s getting at without knowing how she thinks how we are taught to see science. Presumably this refers to how non-scientists are taught.

Concur. We have a number of examples where the data show that the "conventional wisdom" fails spectacularly ("girls are bad at math" as an example) so why assume that it's true in general?

Or maybe that's how people are brought up. When title IX went into effect and forced schools to give women equal opportunity to participate in sports (among other things) in schools that got federal funding, there was an explosion of participation. What was holding that back wasn't "natural affinity", it was opportunity. “Since 1972, thanks to increased funding and institutional opportunities, there has been a 545% increase in the percentage of women playing college sports and a 990% increase in the percentage of women playing high school sport.” https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/education/title-ix-and-the-rise-of-female-athletes-in-america/

Yes, and that doesn't really change anything. Sometimes the change is in your favor and sometimes it is not. If you are right more often than you are wrong, you still make money. The point of "technical analysis" (as I understand it) is that you don't delve into the reasons and complications. You bypass that. (One of the reasons I don't partake)

But the stock market is not random in the same way a coin flip is, and what the analysis is leveraging is the response of people, not of the company. And people do research on stocks, so this is like a second-order effect of that research. Probably tied into the "efficient market hypothesis" (which is also partly bullshit) Stocks will move up or down based on news, but they fluctuate daily/weekly in the absence of it, and I think that's where technical analysis is used. Take the concept of resistance - stocks will tend to hit a ceiling or floor in the fluctuations, because the number of buyers vs sellers depends on the price of the stock, and you run out of one or the other when you hit some limit...in the absence of new information. It's all about the reaction of the people doing the trading. Technical analysis exploits certain patterns. And it only has to work somewhat better than random guessing in order to make money. And as Sensei points out, if you have a bunch of people doing the same analysis, you can create a trend by doing the analysis. But others may try and exploit this by using a different analysis.

If you're lucky as a scientist you get to have a few of these "Eureka!" or "It is alive!" moments. I had one - I was the first person to see fluorescence from radioactive K-37 and our lab was the first to magneto-optically trap it. It was, AFAIK, the shortest half-life atom ever trapped (about 1.25 s), a record that we broke a short time later when we trapped K-38m, which has a half-life just under a second. (I don't know if anyone has broken that record) But just figuring things out, getting past some issue that's stumped you - are these moments on a much smaller scale. There are always roadblocks in experimental physics (and, I imagine, other sciences) that you have to figure out. As my thesis advisor put it (when I felt stupid for not getting a result quickly because of a roadblock) "If we knew the answer it wouldn't be research"

You’re in a regime where classical physics gives a good description if it involves an antenna, but I think the “time of detection” concept has a classical application. If you don’t emit or detect for long enough the sine wave will be truncated, so it will have higher-frequency harmonics and you might detect that, or detect nothing at all.

Almost. We have brown laser goggles that protect against multiple wavelengths, yet there is no brown in the spectrum, because the response of the eye is a factor, especially once when multiple wavelength ranges are involved.

So when they both appear, you have to divide one by the other, and can’t say that the equation varies the same way that c does. So how does the fine structure constant vary? It’s not (1+Z)-1/3 right? It should vary as (1+Z)+1/3 If the variation depends on Z, then why do you say that c grows by 7.25 mm/s per year? There’s no redshift. Except that won’t work, because the Bohr energy levels depend on k2 owing to the Coulomb interaction, and k depends on ε0 So you have to account for the change in the energy levels (also the Bohr model isn’t right, but that’s a separate discussion)

! Moderator Note Posting to advertise your youtube channel violates rule 2.7. You’ve been told this before. Do it again and you will be banned as a spammer