studiot

Some of the OP is rather loosely worded, but seems to imply that this is about humans, though I agree Willy has not specifically limited this to humans. If a wider inclusion of lifeforms is allowed then the answer must be yes simply because we observe 1) Asexual reproduction 2) Male 3) Female In no particular order.

place At last a truly scientific observation. +1 However the OP was also defined to be not about gender. Perhaps the OP and others have been misled into thinking of a continuum, by the use of the word 'spectrum'. There can be no continuum since there have been a finite number of human beings in total throughout history so even if each and every one of them were a different sex, there would not be enough of them to form a continuum. So there can only be a finite number of sexes. Many biological (and other) scales are actually discrete, not continuous, but are called a spectrum. It is also clear from the SCIAM article I posted before that there is continuing ongoing debate amongst experts about definitions of what constitutes 'sex' or whether we should be even using the term scientifically these days. We are most unlikely to resolve the issue here. As always in a scientific debate/discussion it is wise to set our the definitions to be used in the discussion, otherwise it simple becomes one of semantics, not od substance.

I thought you were making some progress towards a useful level of understanding. Don't give up now. This is a science section, not philosophy or metaphysics. Please remember that: 1) Even Einstein and Lorenz got things wrong and made invalid predictions (I have given some examples). Even before them it was recognised that there were inconsistencies in previous theories. Einstein resoved some of these inconsistencies, but introduced some new unknowns as a result. That is all progress in Science and that process of progress is still ongoing today. 2) Spacetime is not the being, becoming or reality. It is a working model that has some characteristics the same as what we observe. We can use that model to extract predictions about (only) some what we observe and also to explain some observations that earlier theory failed to predict. 3) Spacetime has at least one characteristic not possessed by observations (reality ?) In order to have 'world lines' it's grid system imposes an orientation constraint, not inherent in the stucture of observational reality is models. So chin up and remember the way to eat an elephant - little by little.

I can't speak for the legal systems of other countries, but this thread is about legalities. In the UK we have two sorts of wrongdoing in legal terms. Civil wrongdoing and criminal wrongdoing. The concept of Justice applies to both, as does the burden of proof lying with the accuser. However the required level of proof in alleged criminal wrongdoing is much much higher than in civil cases. The 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' phrase applies to criminal cases The 'balance of probabilities' applies in civil cases. Scotland also operate the famous 'not proven vedict'. For cases that end in a guilty verdict, in sentencing and redress another balance of probabilities is also taken into account. This is 'the cost of being wrong', which includes both the probability of reoffending and the harm that could be caused be such reoffending. Sadly, being human, our system is not perfect and they do not always get it right.

Lots of physical examples of the P_T effect here https://physicsworld.com/a/the-invisibility-of-length contraction/

Yeay, pretty good. Here is something to consider about your question The Penrose - Terrell rotation. Perhaps @Markus Hanke or @Janus might be willing to offer more on this. The point is that real object occupy a real amount of space (that is they are not points). So a trace of their passage through the block is not a fine line somewhat smeared out. I am very sorry but the input editor is playing up again and will not let me put the two pages in the correct order. I would be very grateful to any moderator that can put this right.

But that is not what you said before. That seems to me to say that a particle is a world line. Please be more careful to state exactly what you mean. The first and most obvious characteristic of a world line is that it is a line. That is it is one dimensional. There is no problem with that, one dimensional 'lines' can exist in any number of dimensions greater than or equal to one. However being just a line also limits what a world line can represent. Did I say represent ? Yes, because the block universe is just a representation (or model) of the 'real' universe we are part of. It is indeed a four dimensional continuum of points. Lines are a one dimensional continuum of points that could be the points of our four dimensional block, making as you say a path. So here is something to think about. Take an ordinary suspended pendulum - a bob on a string. Let it swing freely, firstly just side to side, and then round and round in a circle. What does the world line look like in one, two, three and four dimensions ? You might be a little suprised.

So you are positing that at least some world lines have mass, momentum, kinetic energy, spin and so forth if they are particles ?

To understand this, you have have to understand what a world line is. What do you think a world line is ? : You have stated that particles exist as world lines - (static or otherwise whatever that means) - . Do this mean that you think world lines are particles ?

Is this just a repeat of your last thread ?

I fully admit I am far from an expert in this subject. But it seems to me that those who are much more expert than I am have yet to fully explore and understand the situation. This conference article in SCIAM is most interesting. In particular it seems that many definitions have been changing rapidly these days, particularly in the light of new chemical and biological discoveries. The article also discusses the medical implications of the subject. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/q-a-mixed-sex-biology/

I consider jumping to conclusions without ascertaining the facts, to be pretty poor Science.

I'm sorry I don't understand this. I was pointing out that Switzerland never has been mono-ethnic. In order to be helpful I listed the principle ethnicities. Ethnicity type 3.2 French origins. Ethnicity type 3.3 Western European or 3.4 Northern European origins. (German) Ethnicity type 3.6 Southern European Origins. Source Canadian National Statistics Office. https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=402936&CVD=402937&CPV=3&CST=18092017&CLV=1&MLV=3

Well I disagree. Last time I was in Switzerland, it was still divided 3 ways between the French sector, the German sector and the Italian sector. Maybe divided and sector are a bit strong but certainly there are three distinct cultures. I remember catching the overnight train from Freiburg (in Germany). The same conductor woke me in German, later offered me coffee Italian and when he walked back up the train checking tickets he did so in French as we headed for Geneva.

Perhaps you might think a bit harder before you post ? You might then be able to address the things I did say, rather than the things I didn't.

Yes and I mentioned a few cases and....? Totally agree. If The English establishment had not treated the Irish so badly over several centuries we would still be one country. But then the English establishment treated the English, along with everyone else, just as badly. Genoncide implies a deliberate murder in an attempt to exterminate. (Daleks ahoy) Indifference is quite a another matter.

Outside the USA ?

From the rest of your post I assume you are a US citizen. I think you are overdramatising the situation, partly by ignoring substantial parts of your own History, and like the OP, partly by confusing racial (the stated) subject of this thread with tribal and with personal discrimination. For instance I see no mention of the purchase of Alaska or the creation of the Indian Territories. There was no genocide. There certainly was tribal and personal discrimination that led to major hardship including starvation. This also happened in England. (Who were 'the Bits' by the way ? My family suffered as much under the same regime, but in mostly England and Wales.) Thank you for this reply to my post you quoted. I'm sorry but I can't see any connection to what I said ? Of course Science cannot do 'everything' That is why we have the Arts, Humanities, Sports Gardening and many other activities. It should be noted that Science can offer matters of note to enhance these subjects. I am unclear if this thread is meant to be about genocide alone or to include lesser forms of discrimination. It is a huge topic so I will leave a few examples of racial and tribal genocide and a mixed version of religous genocide to illustrate the difference. I am not aware of any personally inspired genocide, such activity tends to be limited to lesser discrimination. Racial Genocide: Carthage, Nazi jewish programme, Uighers Tribal Genocide: Ruanda Religeous Genocide: Cathars , Inquisition, Yugoslavia

About the greyness, I would agree with you, but what makes you think Science does not offer a multitude of approaches ? For example in considering a structure you can use Force-Displacement, Slope-Deflection, Virtual Work, Energy theorems, Graphical methods, finite elements, and quite a few more besides. But surely the issue here is that Politics at SF is whatever the powers that be deem it to be ?

Good, I can reply to both of you at once. In 1968, my hall warden at uni was head of 'Political Science' - whatever that was it was far more than statistics - but not really my subject, though I had my opinions like most callow youths of any generation. But surely here the subject should be more than just venting opinions ? And no I was not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

I wonder, have you been following the discussion with another member about the geometric interpretation embodied in Minkowski ? Why is the time axis in a space-time diagram a distance - Relativity - Science Forums Relativity without time dilation or length contraction ? That is Galilean or Newtonian relativity. The thread I linked to has got as far as that. The problem with Galilean relativity and why it had to be abandoned , except at low speeds and locally, some of its predictions are in direct conflict with observations that late nineteenth century scientists made and subsequently more recent scientists have made to much greater precision. It is too long to reproduce here but I can email an English translation of the paper delivered to the 80th assembly of the German Natural Scientists and Physicians at Cologne in 1908, by H Minkowski, shortly before his untimely early death from appendicitis. If you want a scan of the paper, let me have an email address that can accept jpgs of up 1M by private message. I would recommend reading the paper as I think you would find it accessible (ie not too mathematical or high powered, no offence) he was a natural at explaining his points.

I'm sorry, where is the SCIENCE in all this ? Forgive me, but I thought the rules here state that the politics subforum is for the discussion of scientific aspects of politics.

How does this work out with world vectors ? Minkowski was (is) famous for developing geometric solutions and explanations to mechanics / and dynamics problems (not only relativity), so departing from his 1908 presentation requires a lot of thought. In particular you can express Maxwellian vector electrodynamics directly in Minkowski's geometric representation, the vectors and especially vector-products, which still work using four-vectors. Note the c is conventionally lower case. It is not a good idea to start by choosing new and unusual symbols for something everyone agrees on. Particularly as Einstein's paper was entitled "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" As such it was about marrying Newton and Maxwell (metaphorically). And, of course, C is used conventionally for the electric field and the quantity capacitance.

Out of interest here is an example calculation I was recently sent for a much larger heat pump for a commercial building installation.

There's an unjustifed jump to a conclusion right there. Who or what the hell is FDA and what does reporting the FDA have to do with the price of bacon ?