swansont

iNow has not, so far as I can tell, taken ownership of a binary system. Asking how you assign people to a category is a reasonable request. Yet you resist answering, as most others have resisted my request to define what they mean by sex. Because these definitions have proven inadequate in resulting in a binary system. At which point people stall, toss in red herrings and or get angry and lash out. That’s a false dichotomy You can use a binary classification as a first-order approximation and also acknowledge that it will fail to work when you delve deeper into the issue. IOW, you can use a binary system for situations where you’ve narrowed the scope of inquiry. Here, you’ve limited the application to reproduction, but not all humans are capable of reproduction.

Yes it’s the gradient, and to rephrase what studiot pointed out, the gradient of what? It’s not the gradient of r, it operates on the wave function. As to your question, what does the wave function of a variable-mass system look like?

The time is a factor; there’s a difference between a chronic and an acute dose. When the exposure is spread out, the body has a chance to heal; this is generally more important for higher doses than what you get in an x-ray.

I agree with the latter, but I don’t know what place opinion has in the discussion. It’s about science, and evidence. Or at least, it’s supposed to be.

No. Pu-244 has a half-life of 81 million years

What premise is that? I asked for a definition of sex, and asked what makes on male or female. How is that wrong, or absurd? AFAICT the only premise I introduced was that definitions are important. They’re a rebuttal to the notion that you must be capable of giving birth to be female. If you can’t follow the discussion, perhaps refrain from posting. It’s OT, but there’s no way for you to know this.

The question was about sex, not gender. No, they aren’t the same. This was acknowledged in the OP

What if you have both XX and XY? It’s not my thread. Part of this is an exercise in “you need to define your terms in order to have a proper discussion”

No, I looked at the definition you offered. Your sex is the sex chromosome. There are more than 2 possibilities. As I said, you need to revise your definition. There you go. New definition. What if an individual produces both? (chimera) What about “males” suffering from azoospermia (they do not produce sperm)? I am also far from an expert. But… finding flaws in the simplistic definitions offered up to show two sexes hasn’t proven to be difficult thus far. I know from my experience that physics is far more complicated and subtle than what you learn in high school, so it’s not difficult to imagine that the same holds for biology.

But you gave a definition: “The sex chromosomes you have, surely? You can be XY or XX. Or, in rare cases of genetic malfunction, you can be XXY or XYY.” That’s four, not two (and there are even more). There’s no wiggle room here - you can’t have it both ways. Either there’s more than two, or you need a different definition. Yes, exactly.

Having people wait 15 minutes before leaving. That suggests that adverse reactions like anaphylaxis are expected to be pretty much immediate. Those are side effects, which AFAIK are not anaphylactic-like reactions.

But two is two, and you acknowledge there are more than two. “merely defects” is weaseling out of it. It’s just ignoring contrary evidence that doesn’t fit with your definition.

So menopause is where a female becomes male? Puberty is the opposite? A hysterectomy or tubal ligation is a sex change? Which means the answer to the OP is “yes” according to this. —— Interesting we have already been offered two very different definitions

Define what you mean by “sex” What makes you male, or female?

! Moderator Note Why is this in religion? You seem to be making science claims here. Are you prepared to support them?

Der_Neugierige has announced they are leaving. We have locked the door behind them, so that their declaration doesn’t turn into a lie.

! Moderator Note Well, I do care about our dictatorial rules, and rule 2.7 says, in part 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. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone So you must assume people won’t watch the video. Your discussion must stand on its own. ! Moderator Note Yeah, that’s inappropriate.

! Moderator Note The title is problematic regarding rule 2.1, and our rules preclude opening a thread using just a video, without supporting discussion. From rule 2.7 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. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone Any re-introduction of this or any discussion must comply with the rules.

That’s faulty logic; there are a number of reasons that people downvote posts, and we know this from the many discussions on the topic. They could be downvoting for the same reasons that others post in disagreement - that you are e.g. posting faulty arguments. I’ve seen upvotes for good arguments from people who had taken a contrary position. To assume that they are downvoting because you are revealing some uncomfortable truth might be projection of your own motivation. People are more varied than that. Downvotes are not supposed to be a source of pride.

No idea. I wouldn’t be surprised if it impacted the motion of the ionosphere (the primary source of the magnetic field), since you’d expect a decent temperature gradient, but we have a decent temperature gradient here on earth. Proximity to the sun is another variable, and I don’t know how that all combines.

That’s my understanding. There’s a little nitrogen, and the oxygen is all bound up in heavier molecules.

The atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2, so it’s heavier. Venus also has a strongly circulating ionosphere, which creates a magnetic field - it’s not an internal source.

The protocol suggests that this is the likely result.

One objection I have is the suggestion that the fields are propagating well away from the wires. But those fields drop off with distance, and radiate in directions away from the load; they don’t turn around like they’re homing in on the light bulb. Also: What if you send the wire into a volume that’s encased by a magnetically shielding conductor? The parallel E field would be shielded as well. So yes, the energy is contained in the fields - you could calculate the KE of the electrons and see e.g. that 1 Coul of charge with V = 1V, moving at ~1mm/sec, does not have anywhere close to 1 Joule of KE - but these fields can’t be out in random open space

Can you give some more context to this? People do, so perhaps you just need to look a little harder. ! Moderator Note You started this thread. Nobody was pointing fingers.