MigL

If you are willing to do something other than Chemistry with a Chemistry degree, that's fine. There are no downsides to knowledge. I myself, have a Physics Degree, but work with chemicals. ( and if I had a Chem Eng degree, I would get a pay cut ) PS: I bet you wish you had M Thatcher back now, don't you !

All depends on how far you intend to take your studies. With a BSc in Chemistry, your job opportunities will be limited to 'glorified test tube washer'. Pharmacy, as Studiot has suggested, involves many more years of study. A BSc in Chem Eng, on the other hand, will still start off 'not very interesting', but opens up several more options as you gain experience. In a typical Chemical Company, all decision makers, from superintendent to plant managers, are former Chem Engineers, with a couple of training courses in Management. That ring opens a lot of doors that are off-limits to others.

What makes you think the center of mass is not the center of distortion ? Are you maybe confused by the pop-sci analog of the 'bowling ball on a rubber sheet' ?

Too bad Star Trek:TNG never did explain their system ... "The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity" - Captain Jean-Luc Picard Star Trek: First Contact

I didn't question the study or data, in fact, I agreed with it. What I questioned was generalizing, or extending the study, to other groups or situations. Sorry if I didn't make my meaning clear.

You guys go ahead and burn all your money. I'll see how it works out, and MAYBE I'll do the same. But I won't be the sucker who goes first.

As with everything else you see on YouTube, be prepared to do some research on your own ( in good old fashioned books ), to separate the wheat from the chaff, AND the 'made-up'.

Speak for yourself, criminal .

The balloon ( or rocket ) effect was discussed on the first page ( in January ), when there was confusion about the set-up. A pump's inlet does reduce the relative local pressure, so it isn't simply outflow. The pump is causing the flow by reducing the relative local pressure, then accelerating the fluid out. As such, it is the pump which experiences the reaction forces.

That seems a no-brainer, CY, you have to recognize a problem before you can take steps to fix it. If you don't realize there is a problem, the problem remains. However, I could post that Science Forums members are biased towards Creationists and AGW deniers, and I would get 15 replies stating that we are not, but merely following the evidence and the facts. Would that mean we are, and simply don't recognize it ? Is it a valid extension of this study to the above mentioned groups ? ( just demonstrating the pitfalls of generalizing )

I don't know what the purpose of a 'sticky' on Philosophy would be; to tell people 'how' to think ? As for dimension vs. degrees of freedom, I would think it would be sufficient to say that dimensions are degrees of freedom, while degrees of freedom are not necessarily dimensions, but can be other motions/aspects of the system. Or, would it be more simple to say dimensions relates to the space, degrees of freedom relates to the system ?

I don't think J McCain picked her; the choice was likely forced on him by the GOP. He would have done much better with J Lieberman. My choice would have been C Rice or C Powell as his running mate. Any one of those three might have gained him the Presidency.

There are at least three Republican groups ( one of the best known is the Lincoln Project ) who are actively campaigning against D Trump. They are actually raising money for J Biden's campaign, and are trying to get an endorsement for J Biden from G W Bush, who has publicly stated he will not vote for D Trump. I have even heard talk of J Biden picking a Republican woman of color as his VP. I don't think it will ever happen, although it would be a great way to end the polarization in American politics. Condolezza Rice was mentioned quite seriously, although if something were to happen to J Biden, the President would then be a Republican, so it will obviously never happen. It would be nice to have some sane Republicans become dominant again, instead of the nut-jobs and ass-kissers who are in control of the party now.

Have none of you guys ever been out at 3 or 4 in the morning, when bars let out, and belligerent drunks are looking to do property damage, start a fight, or get in their vehicle and drive off kill some unsuspecting pedestrian or another driver ? Are you saying cops shouldn't stop these people because they are 'citizens with rights in a free society' ? I'm fairly certain you cannot reason with those kinds of drunks until they've had a chance to sober up; but what would you suggest be done, INow, let them go on their way, or try to detain them ? If you think they should be detained, then you have to provide cops with the means necessary to do so. If they fight back should the cop let himself be beat up, or should he try to incapacitate him with a choke hold, or other aspects of his training ? If they try to wrestle his taser or gun away from him ( yes, I've seen that, in Niagara Falls, NY ) should the cop let him go with a weapon, or should he stop him by any means necessary ? If on the other hand, you think the cop should just back off, and let them do as they please, I'm not sure I wanna live in your "free society, where citizens have rights' but obviously no responsibility. ( Note that I ask a lot of questions as I'm genuinely interested in your answers ) That seems to be a major problem, and I attribute it to the prevalent gun culture in the US. No cop wants to get shot, so even traffic stops are conducted with their guns drawn ( yes, I've seen that too, in Buffalo, NY). It's gotten so that even when someone wants to commit 'suicide by cop', the cops oblige him and shoot him, when he actually needed to be talked to ( or more exactly, listened to ) The lack of training that I note, is the inability of American cops to do a proper threat assessment when doing their job; as Dim rightly notes, violence is sometimes warranted, but it should not be the first recourse every time. That is the kind of training that I would like to see money spent on. But I don't think it's a 5 hour refresher per year, or even a few months per year; the US needs to get serious about police training. I would also point out that Canadian police I'm familiar with, Niagara Regional and Ontario Provincial, are two of the best paid police forces in Canada, as a result they are exclusive and hard to get into; a simple College diploma will not suffice any more, almost all new recruits of the last 30 years have University degrees along with their Police Foundations College diploma. That Nordic model that Eise suggested sounds interesting ( and very applicable ).

They will not agree on the timing of events at O, from their respective frames, A and B. And they will need to know their relative velocities ( compared to the O frame ) to apply the transforms, and get the temporal ordering in the O frame.

Even the premise of your thought experiment is wrong. That premise is frame dependent; and is the same as the platform observer. None are absolute.

Incandescent sources, like the filament in a light bulb, are very 'dirty'. The light they emit spans a range of wavelengths/frequencies, in a 'lopsided' Gaussian distribution, peaking at the wavelength/frequency characteristic of the temperature of the filament ( see black body radiation curves ). What you want is an emission which is characteristic of a specific energy difference, which will give only that specific energy ( frequency/wavelength ). LEDs are one such source, as they emit light at the characteristic energy of their band gap, and are readily sourced in differing colors. Lasers would be another source, as they emit light based on electron orbital transitions ( again a specific energy difference), but are a little harder to source.

Mutations are random. The vast majority are detrimental ( think cancers ). The very few that help a species better cope with its environment, are passed on, and become an evolutionary trait.

Can you please explain your thoughts on this matter. I tend to agree with Halc, that a foliation ( Cauchy surface ) is a surface in space-time which is like an 'instant in time'. As such, a 'global' ( entire manifold ) foliation is non-sensical, as it implies a universal now.

It seems that Seattle's 'CHOP' zone is to be dismantled. https://6abc.com/seattle-will-de-escalate-and-dismantle-chop-autonomous-zone-mayor-/6261518/ Apparently, after one homicide, two other shootings, reports of assaults, robberies, rapes and multiple cases of arson, it was decided that society, in general, is just like cops; some idiots spoil it for everybody. Or should we assume that there is a systemic problem with 'utopia'. ( yeah, I'm being a little inflammatory; I enjoyed this thread, and want to get it re-started )

Or maybe, because of torsion, micro BHs cannot form at those energies ( if at all ), even if cosmic ray energies are much higher than is available at the LHC. Who exactly predicted these micro BHs ?????

So, D Trump's White House has 'thrown down the gauntlet' at the removal of Confederate monuments, something which most people couldn't care less about, yet now the news comes out that Russia was paying Afghan rebels 'bounty' for every American soldier killed, the White House has known about this for four months, and not a single word or tweet. Wouldn't want to offend V Putin, and the people that helped get you elected, now would we ? Or maybe puppet-master V Putin, and his oligarchs, really do have something on D Trump ? While this was already known by the White House, D Trump was still pushing for Russian re-admittance to the G7/G8. And not a word from any other high ranking Republicans either; can anyone see this happening in a R Reagan administration ? Does any sane person in America still doubt that D Trump and his administration are totally owned by Russia ? ( November can't come soon enough )

While there are specific symmetries in Topology, anti-symmetry is everything that is not symmetric, and, as such, there are infinite possibilities for 'anti-symmetry'. Dimensions are not 'alternate universes'. They are independent variables like length, width, and height, each of which allows for two degrees of freedom ( moving forward or backward ). Time is also an independent variable, as you note; you need a time co-ordinate to specify an event in space-time, however it is different in the fact that it doesn't allow for any degrees of freedom ( no forward or backwards motion. SString theory uses extra compactified dimensions ( variables or degrees of freedom ) to account for EM, color and weak forces. ( sorry if I'm stealing your thunder, Mordred ) A 'white hole' is not similar at all to the Big Bang event. While the Big Bang expands by separation between adjacent points increasing, a 'white hole' is a source, that continuously emits matter/radiation, and is more like a continuous explosion. IOW, there would be a specific spot in the universe where all matter/radiation originates, and expands from. A 'center' of the universe , if you will. That is clearly NOT the case

Are 'eddies' not an example of turbulent flow, which is extremely hard to model ? Would this be a good tie-in with the other thread on chaotic conditions, Studiot ?

12 Monkeys ( B Willis, B Pitt, M Stowe ) comes to mind.