zapatos

He needs to be gone. I'm afraid he's crossed over to some place that is no longer compatible with this site.

Just to reiterate, remember that none of the models are saying that in "reality" gravity is a force, and none of the models are saying that gravity is in "reality" the result of geodesics. What they are saying is "If you look at it this way, it will explain why we get the results we do...". There are multiple theories on what motivates people. Maslow says people are motivated to meet needs. Skinner says people are motivated by reinforcement. Those are two conflicting ways to look at human motivation. The two models of human motivation conflict because two different people worked out a model of human motivation that successfully predicted behavior. Similarly in the future a person may come up with another model whose description of gravity conflicts with QM and GR. If it turns out that this new model makes better predictions, is easier to use, or is in some other way superior to the existing two, we will then have a third way to describe gravity.

If I understand your question correctly... No, a model cannot describe anything to a fundamental level. A model is a representation of a system that describes the workings of that system in terms we can understand. It is not meant to represent "reality". Gravity is a force when talking Newtonian gravity, but not a force when talking about Relativity. Neither is "right" or "wrong" except in context of the model you are discussing at the time.

Did you just come here to fight?

Wanting to live with difficulty rather than being dead is vain? Glad you are not in charge of the medical system.

Can you answer my question first? What do you mean by "scientifically backward" and "scientifically senseless"?

What usual weapons can destroy missiles in silos in the middle of South Dakota, or on submarines? The whole point is that since you cannot destroy them all, some will end up successfully used. What do you mean by "scientifically backward"?

If it so common then why are we having pages of debate about it? No commonly used word means the same thing to all men. (And by 'men' I am not referring to just people with XY chromosomes. It also includes women. Although some say 'women' means what is on your birth certificate and others see it more broadly. But of course not everyone receives a 'birth certificate'. In this sense 'birth certificate' simply means how you were viewed by others at birth. But I fully expect everyone here to only use terms the way that I define them. Because that is how I "commonly" use them.)

Correct. It is arbitrary and subject to change over time. So perhaps you can try to understand how people are using it and stop trying to hold everyone to YOUR arbitrary definition.

Since I grew up Catholic I've been around a lot of believers throughout my life. I've yet to encounter a theist who didn't tweak the 'official' version of god to accommodate their own personal beliefs. "Well, god would make an exception if I was suffering." "I don't believe god would oppose contraception if wearing a condom prevents AIDS." "There is no way god would make someone doing a mercy killing go to the same hell as Hitler." And without fail the change a person finds in god from the 'official' version just happens to be in line with the thoughts of the person suggesting the change. Either an amazing coincidence, or people are making god in their own self image. I've never seen a person change religion from a god whose rules aligned with their own world view to a religion/god whose rules did not match their world view. But I've seen plenty of people move in the opposite direction.

I'm not familiar with this, thus my question: So that is what happened? The writer said essentially "don't believe what I am about to say as it is not true and only made up"?

What is your evidence that they are all made up?

The title statement is not true. Surely we don't need to exaggerate wrt the things McCarthy has said to make a point.

Tit for tat always feels good, which is why we'd all like to see it. Fortunately cooler heads prevail. Just as not sending that email when you are angry is always the better idea, not responding in a tit for tat manner is also the better idea. Whether or not attacks inside Russia's borders occur will likely be decided based on the overall view of the war at the time, and whether or not it is believed it will lead to the best outcome. At the moment, the people who are best at this type of thinking are saying 'no'. I don't know if they are right but they are in a better position to make the decision than me and I am happy to defer to them. Nukes have kept us out of a war with Russia and the Soviet Union for 75 years. I'd say it's been working well for defense.

The center line of the barrel in many guns is above the center of mass of the weapon resulting in the muzzle of the gun to rise.

What sort of privileged Russian access are you thinking of here?

Does that really matter? If a majority of the people in London decide they want to be an independent country, is their right to do that a 'grey area'? If I decide I want the land my home sits on to revert to Native American control, is anyone going to argue my desires should be taken seriously, and that perhaps my wishes should be allowed?

Ukraine cannot defeat Russia without help from the West. The West wants to help Ukraine, but not at the risk of a direct conflict with Russia. The feeling is that if Ukraine attacks Moscow while the West is helping them, that the risk of direct conflict with Russia will become reality. Therefore the West is doing what they can to prevent Ukraine from striking Russian territory by threatening to withhold support, and Ukraine is keeping their attacks in check so they don't lose support from the West.

Sounds a lot like a religion. Or maybe political party. Certainly not science.

You are describing an escalator but are using cannon balls instead of steps. How do you intend to get up to the speed the cannon balls are moving, which you will of course need to do before walking from one to the next.

Sure, sort of like a medical test that gives you a snapshot of their health at the time of testing and maybe that will hold up for a while. People's personalities will change just as their health does. And while a 30 minute personality test may be a blunt instrument, so is a medical test that simply screens for cancer cells; it doesn't tell you anything about pre-cancerous cells present or genetic disposition. I understand that many personality tests may be no better than a horoscope (like a lot of medical tests it turns out), but I believe one well done can be a very useful tool. So while I now know more about the weaknesses of personality tests than I did before I read this thread, I still think they have value.

After reading the Vox article and how MB is outlined I think perhaps I misremembered which personality test I took. My test included endless questions asking how you feel about or would respond to certain situations. Similar questions came up again and again, worded differently or with slightly different scenarios. At the end of the test you were given a chart showing where you fit into the different 'personalities'. Some of us were more or less evenly distributed across all personality types (perhaps as much an empathetic person as a logical person as a rule following personality), or you could be heavily focused in one area. The benefit as I saw it was that sitting in the room, you saw that while you might be a rule follower and data driven ("Of course we'll just change how we do everything tomorrow because management says that is the new way!"), your co-worker might be highly empathetic and a visual learner ("You can't just throw out how things are done without asking for feedback, allowing people to first express their concerns, etc.!"). Once you knew how you and your co-worker viewed the world differently, you understood that to influence others, you had to speak in terms that they understood and communicate more in their preferred learning manner.

So you don't think they do a good job of identifying personality types? Why do you think that?

I took the test years ago and don't remember the results for me, but I do remember that I thought they correctly identified me. I thought it was a great exercise as we took the test as a team and learned the personality types of each other which made for much better communications amongst the team members. I also remember I was kind of shocked that people looked at the same situations in such different ways. Here I thought everyone would think sort of like me. 😳

No but we had previous related experience with our alpaca fiber. 😀 Yes, but mainly because we already had the crates. Not sure what our solution would have been if we started from scratch. We had a broody chicken and had her hatch a dozen guineafowl chicks as guinaefowl are notoriously bad mothers. Sat on the eggs for 21 (?) days, took care of chicks and every night two or three would actually sleep on top of the chicken with the rest trying to get under her wings. The night before we were going to give the chicks to a friend as they were old enough, a raccoon killed 10 of the chicks by reaching through the 1" hardware cloth. That's why the rabbits got 1/2" hardware cloth, and why we subsequently modified the chicken coop. Did they have the run of the house or just the run of the storage room?