MigL

So are we to assume that you are either a professional level athlete or trans, as you seem to have a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion ? Or are you looking for an excuse to be indignant, Dim ?

The term for the volume of the universe in causal connection is 'observable' universe. It is the sphere that defines how far we can possibly 'see' at any specific time. Beyond that 'edge' light/signals/information will never reach us, and so they cannot affect us ( causally disconnected ). At the time, before inflation, the universe must have been causally connected, to account for isotropy and homogeneity, otherwise it could not be in thermal equilibrium. But after inflation, and as time progressess, the portion of the universe that is causally connected expands out of the observable universe, even as the observable universe is continuously getting larger, and eventually ( billions and billions of years into the future ) we may only be able to see galaxies that are gravitationally bound to ours, like the two Magellanic clouds and Andromeda galaxy.

Quantized field theories can be 'modeled' by the typical Feynman diagrams with their interaction connections ( in simplistic terms ). In QED and QCD, these interaction connections can be summed, the infinities cancel out, and you have a workable field theory. If the same approach is attempted with gravity, the infinities generated by the summing, do not cancel out because gravity is self coupling. IOW, it interacts with itself; gravity gravitates. That makes the standard approach to a quantized field theory unworkable.

'Quality' is sbjective perception. Especially if you are part of the opposing argument.

As I've said previously, Beecee is not the only one who's been repetitive in the last 47 pages. Not sure about the treatment, but we could all benefit from learning/teaching. That is what we're here for, the berating treatment I could have gotten by getting married. ( just kidding, all women love me ) You gotta do a better job of keeping up 😃 .

It would be nice to have women participating in this discussion to get their take on the matter. Especially any women in professional competitive sports. Unfortunately, they don't seem to frequent science forums ( any lurkers please speak up ). As for my opinions, I can only think of two obvious examples where they may have; in weightlifting and swimming, so not a particularly big issue at the moment. However, as it becomes more accepted ( there is still a degree of pushback from the public ) I can see more problems cropping up, and it would be wise if sporting bodies got ahead of these potential problems, keeping in mind that the public is the final arbitrer as it is spectator driven. If the public perceives the situation as unfair, they stop watching, and that could diminish, or even,end some women's sports.

I only jumped back in this thread because I did not like the way Beecee was getting treated. I would like to see trans kids participate in recreational sports and be accepted. I also want to see them participate professionally, but balk at the idea of setting cis women's participation back 100 years; that was my original objection. I would think you've had your ass kicked by women quite a few times 😄 .

Why, though... if they meet ALL other criteria and show the same prowess on those other metrics? Well for ditch digging it'smoot, because even though I may have that opinion, there are laws that prevent that kind of discrimination ( and I am a law abiding citizen ). As for competitive spectator sports, it is market driven. IOW, if nobody wants to watch, you have no expectation of equal pay, or even participation.

You''re gonna have to explain that one better, because in this thread you are opposing those who claim that urinary/sexual plumbing has nothing to do with performance, while in the other, you did not raise any such objections to those who did. You should strive to be more consistant. Would you mind if I quoted that next time the shoe is on the other foot, and some of us are the recipients of nasty labelling, direct or implied ?

Or maybe, you just want to beat up on women 🙂 .

The legislation of recreational sports for kids seems to be a problem with your elected officials; choose better Governments, and when you do, make sure they enact proper/appropriate laws. As for professional/hi-level sports, you and others are forgetting that these are largely spectator events, and people will choose to see what they want to watch. IOW if the national women's soccer team does not draw any spectators, or TV rights ( although that is certainly not the case ), they should have no claims for equal pay ( actually for the US, the men should be paid less, as they are the lesser draw ) And why do you claim thatwhen your, or a viewpoint you supported, is contradicted, and others point it out, that it's a personal attack ? My apologies if you wern't one of the ones who claimed J Biden had every right to call for a 'black woman' SCJ, after years of old white males, but you did not raise any objections in that case as you are in this one. In the case of skills, such as ability to interpret the Constitution or ride a horse,gender need not, and should not, be considered, but in the case of physical prowess, like ditch digging or Am. football at a professional level, my opinion ( for what it's worth ) is that gender should remain a consideration. ( IIRC, women's football was not much of a spectator/TV draw, even when the ladies were playing in lingere )

I chuckled upon reading this ... That would have been good advice to give J Biden when making his Supreme Court selection criteria announcement. Oh wait ... you were all for selection based on how people urinate in that case. And even the color of their genitals.

INow has often said we agree on 99%, and disagree on 1%, yet we are very critical of each other's opinions; sometimes much more so than we are of extreme 'right' opinions. This came to mind ... And I like Elton John.

Many participants in this thread have repeated themselves, as is likely to happen after 40 odd pages; to single out one person as repetitive is hypocritical. And some in this, and similar threads, have been called way worse than 'Social Justice Warrior', or 'PC Brigade'. Just sayin'.

TThis is becoming sad, shameful and ridiculous. I guess Americans have decided they would rather protect their 2nd Amendment rights than their kid's lives.

Hypersonic is a classification for speed in the atmosphere, and usually means >M5, or 5 times the speed of sound in air at that density. There were certainly rockets which exceeded this speed previous to hypersonic missiles, but they mostly did so in very rarefied ( hi altitude ) atmosphere, or what is considered space. The main problem is having enough fuel, or burning it slowly enough, to be able to accelerate to M5, in a small enough package. But for big rockets the technology has been available since the end of WW2.

No way ! Then someone sees your history and you get accused of looking at weird porn. ( Just kidding 😄 )

At this level your idea is certainly workable, and, as far as I know, is common practice in most developed countries. I have to ask, why is the arguably most developed country in the world, the US, legislating recreational sports at the middle/hi school level ? Why don't they concentrate on implementing proper laws, for important issues, so that the Supreme Court doesn't have to ? Why is your bloated Government so disfunctional ? ( sorry for veering wildly off-topic )

I did say not specifically you, Peterkin. There have been others in this discussion. The ruling lineage was once Anglo-Saxon. The present lineage is actually German, of the houses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. That all changed to 'Windsor' in 1917, because of anti-German sentiment. ( I do know a little history ) No. I believe we were both part of the previous discussion concerning J Peterson's views, some of which I consider valid. Some of his other views ... well ... lets just say he has found his niche, and is milking it for all the profit he can.

Ahhh, but you left out the most important part, Beecee ...

The classification methods for nuclear incidents are based on thenumber of people evacuated, so while TMI was classified as a 5 and Fukushima also initially a 5, because of the earthquake/tsunami contributions more people were evacuated, and it became a 7 like Chernobyl. . Chernobyl was only a 7 since the Russians were reluctant to release information about the incident, and did not want to suggest the severity by massive evacuations. Of the three Chernobyl released the most radiation/contamination, but I think that was even less than the explosion at the Mayak facility in 1957, where only 10000 people were evacuated ( it was classified ). Three Mile Island was shut down and necessitated clean up for a couple of years, and Fukushima had the tsunami to contend with, that shut down its back up power to the cooling pumps, but Chernobyl will be encased in concrete for thousands of years.

Cute. But that was originally brought up because Stringy said the difference between 'Anglo-Saxon' and 'Native American' is that one is ancient/extinct while the other is current. And our buddy, Pierre, did not claim to be Anglo-Saxon, but use the Anglo-Saxon language. Would you have objected if he had said he used 'the King's English' ? There hasn't been a King since Feb 6/52. Why not just admit that P Poilievre is a Conservative, a 'weasel', and not very likeable ( and on a podcast with J peterson ), so some of you naturally assume he is also a racist, and hear everything he says in that context ? Almost 'prejudicial', isn't it ?

Unlike Eise ( and some others who have passed through ), I know very little, if any, Philosophy, but I like to pretend I know some science, and I'm very appreciative of the insights Eise has shared with us. The way I see it ( IOW, opinion, so I could be totally out to lunch ) both Philosophy and Physics try to answer fundamental questtions about the behaviour of nature. Physics asks questions whose answers can be tested, while Philosophy asks questions with untestable answers. At some point, before testing methodology is devised, or possible, for a Physics questiion, it is in effect, a Philosophy question. All Physics started off as Philosophy, and while the realm of Physics seems to expands as we are able to test what used to be Philosophical questions, it seem that the Philosophical realm shrinks. But not to worry, every question that has a testable answer gives rise to many more questions whose answer is yet untestable. That would make Philosophy essential for Physicists as it gives them insight into developing testable answers.

I didn't say he's not a jackass, and I certainly wouldn't vote for him. I said jumping to conclusions about his character and motives based on superficial information is the very definition of what some are accusing him of. So who are all these guys ? Category:Extinct Native American tribes - Wikipedia And is the heading of the Wiki article racist ?

Congratulations on your new Labor Government Beecee. i understand you helped out canvassing and spreading the word. I hope you will still criticise any mistakes they make. How else will they learn to do better yet.