npts2020

Well for me it's e=mc2. The only variables are e and m, the rest is constant and just tells you the proportion between the two that makes them equal. Simple concept. Only one operation. Just three numbers.

The illogical part is the reason for prayer, after that it makes perfect sense, so for anyone like you or me it IS a waste of time. However there are benefits to focusing the mind, like in prayer or meditation, so it might not be a complete waste of time for someone else.

I was beginning to think the gov didn't like some of the discussions on here and shut the site down. Very happy it's back.

The simplest equation means what? The one with the fewest numbers? The one that's easiest to understand? The one with the fewest operations? Something else?

I'm not British but it seems to me the US and UK are fairly similar when it comes to values and morals and we hear the same line about "eroding our values, etc...". However, there are some of us who don't care for the hypocrisy of, "might makes right" unless it is against us or the hoarding mentality of too much is never enough, that is endemic in both cultures, so maybe change is not such a bad thing. People complain about "sharia law" without even knowing what it is. Seems to me most of the complainants would like sharia law in the civil arena since it prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation and really isn't that much different from laws anywhere else. It's mostly in the religious part where practitioners have to be hypocrites to allah instead of god that they differ. Other than that it seems both want to impose their own fanatical beliefs on anyone deemed worthy of not being killed...

Well, if you make the boundries only real life possibilities, then you have set a limit from which to start; i.e. quarks, neutrinos or whatever the smallest measurable bit of reality happens to be. From there it should be possible to calculate the maximum for any size circle. I am unsure of the reality of infinity but it is a useful concept for certain applications, not so much for answering the question in the OP, tho.

I wonder if any of the studies take into account how the cabbies are paid or are all of them worldwide paid on a per fare + mileage basis? I remember as a bicycle messenger in DC being paid on a per delivery basis so there were guys who (rarely lasted more than a few months) would take ridiculous chances riding and I wonder if it could be similar with cabbies. We used to say, "There are old messengers and there are bold messengers but there aren't any old, bold messengers."

Kinda sounds like the way things are now. At least with scientists the outcomes are usually logical and have some sort of factual basis. Even legumes running things probably wouldn't be very much worse and you could always eat them if you didn't like the way things are going. 😀

Half an amanita phalloides (the most deadly poisonous species of mushroom) is a pretty substantial amount to ingest. A small one will measure 5 or 6 cm across the cap and I have seen ones approaching 20 cm. While it doesn't taste bitter, I can't imagine many people liking the taste enough to mistake it for other mushrooms that are edible. BTW, I don't recommend tasting fish to see if it's poisonous, they are much easier to tell apart than fungi.

I've often thought we would all be better off if scientists controlled the government. If it happened overnight, though, there would be a lot of unhappy people who'd be told they can't live the lifestyle they like because it is unsustainable.

Is it any coincidence that the US is infected as well, being directly descended from the Brits?

AFAIK there are few fish species that are poisonous and you can learn them in a few minutes since fish are generally pretty easy to tell apart. Like mushrooms, however, If there is any doubt don't eat it. If I am gathering mushrooms and don't know what one is, I will taste a very small piece. If it doesn't taste good I spit it out, if it does I might eat it on the spot. Even Amanitas won't kill you unless you eat a pretty big one or several, you just might wish you were dead for a while until the sick stomach and hallucinogenic poison wears off.

Mathematics was never one of my strongest subjects but unless you define a minimum value for C, wouldn't the number of circles always be infinite (as pointed out by DavidWahl)?

It seems to me there are usually some small number who profit from chaos and do everything they can to sow dissent and ensure that institutions don't work the way intended. Pretty strange since very few people I have ever met fall outside a pretty narrow spectrum of wants and desires but many think their worldview is vastly different from a significant portion of the human race.

This is something you never seem to see politicians address. So what if we have made your country unlivable, you can't come here....

Doesn't this kind of call into question this assertion? Maybe dreams are rational?

IMO it is because that is the narrative people are fed every single day by the mass media and these days that includes unverifiable online sources.

IOW there is no such thing as unconscious thought? What about dreams? Do dreams ever have fact or truth in them?

That's a good question and possibly a different discussion but everyone has emotions and at least some hinge on prior experience. A toddler waking from a nap to see his mom making out with the mailman is unlikely to have the same emotions about it than as a teenager doing the same.

Before you go sawing off the limb you are out on, you may want to define what "thought" is. Doesn't ANY action taken by humans (or probably any other living thing) require "thought", whether it is conscious or not.

IIRC Audrey didn't evolve on Earth. 😜

Still. if any good science comes from the discussion, I think it is worthwhile. I rather liked Markus and KJWs' clarification of what I wrote since I was thinking on engineering scales rather than quantum ones. What I find hard to believe is that anyone who actually discovered something like perpetual motion or "free energy" would be talking about it on a science forum instead of making billions of dollars building and selling the machines. Even if they just licensed someone else to do that, they would become very wealthy.

Saxifraga candelabrum isn't newly discovered, just its carnivorous ability and it might not be the only one. A pretty good article for a non-scientific publication. Darwin might have proven this himself if he had lived in the eastern Himalayas. Modern methods have made the discovery more definitive, however. International Business Times, Singapore EditionDarwin Was Right: Sticky Alpine Flower Confirmed as Carni...Scientists confirmed that Saxifraga candelabrum is a carnivorous plant, validating Charles Darwin's 150-year-old prediction that some Saxifraga species digest insects for nutrients.

If true, how come MIT isn't shouting at the top its lungs about this monumental discovery that would completely solve all of our energy needs? In fact, I would bet that NOTHING published by MIT even calls into question energy conservation, much less disproves it.

If there was a post that actually disproved energy conservation, it would be here forever. In fact, I would be surprised to not see it pinned at the top of the physics forum because of its wider implications. However, I have never heard of a documented case where the law of conservation of energy was violated and never seen a plausible description of a case where it could possibly be so.