studiot

Fair point, I wasn't implying any disrespect. So what do you make of this ? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/chemical-substances/challenge/batch-7/1-4-dioxane.html

So what ? Mandelbrot worked on many things. Your response it a bit like saying Maxwell's theory of colour is wrong because he wrote the laws of thermodynamics.

In another thread you stated that you are not a Mathematician. Perhaps you might like to enquire of your favourite Mathematician if this claim is in fact true as there are non deterministic computations available in Mathematics that were first discovered in the 1960s by Mandelbrot and later by someone (I'm not sure whom) extending Ullam and Von Neuman's work from the 1940s.

Oh dear, I was going to say that about your answer to my last post. But now you have taken my lines. I'm glad to hear you have repented. How is that relevent to my comment that I don't know what the phrase means? That's more like what I said. But you haven't commented on the fact that no man can feel whatever a woman suffering (and it can be great suffering) feels when she has an ovarian cyst. I don't understand what you are getting at here. I must also confess my ignorance as to who Shania Twain is.

If you are not trans then you probably can't know what a trans person means by saying "I feel like a woman", though I can't say I have ever heard one use those words. But then you can't know what an ovarian cyst feels like either. So would you condemn a woman for having an ovarian cyst ?

So would you rub 1.4 dioxane on your face ?

an equation??? Here's a hint: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity starts of as 16 equations. Because of symmetries in the quantities this reduces to 10. Further relationships, described by....yes equations reduce this still further to as few as 6 plus the extra relations of course.

Yes you are correct dioxins are different but are they quite different ? Dioxanes have one (saturated) cycle formed by the links through two oxygens connecting two aliphatic chains. Dioxins have two oxygen links connecting two aromatic rings as in the diagram, and the dioxon concerned is also chlorinated. I did say So here are the formula for 1,4 dioxan and its isomers Wiki also says pretty much what I said in the other link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,4-Dioxane#Cosmetics

I'm neither sensitive nor insensitive. It's just that I don't see why if I were to compete in an athletic sport I would suffer the disadvantage that someone 30 years or more my junior would win and I have to accept this. But are you saying if a fit and healthy definitely and inarguably female competitor of that younger age were to come up against an similarly older trans person they would be at an unfair disadvantage. Every competitor (except perhaps one but not always the same one) is at some disadvantage compared to other competitors.

Fairness is one that I omitted from my list of competing parameters. Here we have the age old situation that it is impossible to be equal in all directions since one cannot have equality of opportunity and equality of result. This applies to many situations besides sport. When I was small I wanted to be a pilot, like my father. Unfortunately my eyesight was never up to the job so I i had to accept that I could never become one. When a make a plane journey, I really don't care whether the pilot is a she or a he or something in between but I really want them to have far better eyesight than I do. More directly in sport, whilst at university my two favourite sports were rugby and table tennis. My eyesight was adequate for rugby but not really good enough for table tennis. However I never expected an special category for people with poorer eyesight, although I would point out that they far outnumber these currently vociferous groups. A good example of why governing bodies can't be trusted to create 'fair' rules is this nonsense from the 2020 Tokyo Olympics https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-57687096

You are quite right to be concerned. Dioxanes are not a single compound but a class or group of them. Since the 1960s regulatory bodies have been steadily cutting back on what is allowed as more and more (potnetially) harmful effects are discovered, especially with the halogenated (chlorinated) ones. I would think the one you are describing here is 1, 4-dioxane or dioxan, which is banned in Canada, but definitely still used in the US. https://www.safecosmetics.org/get-the-facts/chemicals-of-concern/14-dioxane/ Here are some less desirable ones, used for herbicides, pesticides, funcicides and bactericides. What exactly are you using them for ?

It's not magic, just simple algebra [math]{e^{2i\pi }} = {\left( {{e^{i\pi }}} \right)^2} = \left( {{e^{i\pi }}} \right)\left( {{e^{i\pi }}} \right) = \left( { - 1} \right)\left( { - 1} \right) = 1[/math] Does this help ?

No I mean those who cannot distinguish between the word 'Science' and the word 'scientists'. Thank you for the support from whoever does not want to derail this thread.

Perhaps we should make this BBC presentation a sticky for members to point out to those not understanding how Science works. https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/why-getting-things-wrong-is-good-for-science/p09mb351

Good advice. Thanks. +1

If you are competing against someone in rubber waders and mackinaw and a Devon hat and do you care what category they fall into? Fishing is a fiercely competitive sport in the UK and one of the few that as far as I know has no gender based categories. Many of the record catches you see displayed (especially in Scottish castles and museums) were caught by Lady .... 🙂

Suprising how much ground such an old book (1912) covers in such a very modern (if elementary) fashion). Certainly gives a beginner a feel for the use of calculus. But I don't think it addresses Magnetar's basic problem in that he has mixed up the different sums involved in integration. However this is probably moot since he ahs not been back for a month. The book can be downloaded for free as a pdf https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33283/33283-pdf.pdf

This whole issue seems to me to be intractable so I offer no solutions. I am mindful of the recent David Attenborough Blue Planet series and the video sequences of clownfish. These are interesting because one particular sequence showed the clownfish, with the intermediate one showing a 'male' side to one fish and a 'female' side to the other. Male and female sides being quite distinctive amongst clownfish. I understand several other marine species have variations of the sex, sex change and hemaphrodite theme. Part of the problem appears to me to be that there are a number of different issues tangled up and these isuues are pulling in different directions. For example, but not an exhaustive list. 1) There is a biological input which we are now discovering is far more copmplex than was once realised. 2) There is a mechanical input since many sports rely on the quality of the equipment and staging or venue. 3) There is a question of 'what is a sport?' and more specifically does the gender/sex make a difference to the stated aims of that sport ? Are male jockeys, F1 drivers, village bowls players, orienteers, ............ any better than female or any other or does it make no difference? The most popular sport in the UK is fishing.

My reaction has nothing whatsoever to do with π . I already addressed your issue with the irrationality of π in the post you quoted. Did you not read it ? If you look carefully at the post you will see (as I and other members do) that the stupid forum software 'rolls up' a quoted post so you only see the first line of my quote of your reply. IT specialists call this 'convenience' but I'm sure it leads to much misunderstanding and probably has in this case. Here is a screenshot of what I see. It's layout shows my post I quoted (but you would need to click on 'expand ' to read the whole post) Referring to that post I asked why you had accused me of making two particular statements, when I had carefully stated the exact opposite. I then quoted your post where you had made these accusations. (again you would need to click on 'expand ' to read the whole post) Edit Sorry I missed out the screenshot. Nobody's perfect.

I completely fail to understand how my post above leads to your reply Where did I say that one must eschew either Logic or Mathematics in Science ? Where did I say that proof do not exist in Logic ? You are simply drawing the wrong conclusions from what I did say. The conclusions to be drawn are that there are matters in each of Science, Logic, and Mathematics, that are not in one or both of the other two. And, following convention, proof is one of these matters. A very easy way to understand this is to draw yourself a standard three circle Venn diagram. one circle representing the content of each discipline. Such a diagram will not show complete overlap. Such a topic is one of those ideal candidates for another thread, indeed we have had such here in the past.

I thought you wished to discuss the supernatural because you claim that ordinary natural analysis is inapplicable and/or inadequate. Is this not then your case ? "If we cannot discuss mathematics then we cannot discuss physics." Here is a typical example of you making a pronouncement, without any backup whatsoever. Whilst I agree the much if not most of Physics is mathematical in nature, there are important occasions when no Mathematics is involved. Indeed Mathematics cannot be used to express the reasoning involved. My favourite one involves Professor Swinnerton's description of what you see and can be deduced by looking down a microscope at the crystals in granite. I have already said that many of your pronouncements are sufficiently interesting propositions in their own right to deserve threads of their own. I actually consider many of them to be more important and more interesting than the OP here itself. An OP that we have agreed is flawed. I suggest that in future you consider rephrasing some of your 'pronouncements' so that they are not of the 'all or nothing' type as counterexamples can so often be found in the 'devil is in the detail' principle applied to totality statements made without caveats.

I missed that. We have several different perfectly good mathematical proofs that it is irrational, bearing in mind the full and complete definition of a rational number. Proof is the in the realm of mathematics and logic, not Science. Of course proof in those instances is clearly defined and means something different from the corresponding idea in Science, validation, which is why we have different words for them.

Yup that's what I said before. And of course, although a proposition can be true or false neither can be proved from false premises.

So you agree with the result everyone else has been saying is that the original argument proves nothing about God whatsoever.

What electric and magnetic field (for both particles ?) and how do you think this accounts for the interaction of each particle with an electric and or magnetic field ?