Leaderboard

Stephen Hawking has passed away at the age of 76 on Pi day, 3/14/2018. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43396008 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/14/stephen-hawking-professor-dies-aged-76?CMP=fb_us

You demand some sort of solid state reactor then offer me a liquid fluoride one ??????????????? or a gaseous helium one?

And perhaps the tiny issue that it would be foreign interference with elections and involve actually breaking laws rather than internal rules of an organization. Also there is this:

In this instance, I would take it that the compound is cAMP and that the column of data marked %max dose refers to how much cAMP is generated by a high concentration of the peptide, measured using a relative scale. Both 5 and 15 scored 100%. MT-II is only mentioned twice in the paper, and I am still working out what it means.

The fact that you find it difficult is all the more reason for you to do it yourself. You should definitely seek out someone to read through your work and provide feedback, but you aren’t going to learn anything from having another party write (or even completely proof read and edit) your essays.

Because there are a lot of people willing to lie and cheat to get a qualification. It won’t help in the real world when they get a job and can’t get someone else to do their work for them.

Exchange of genes, and genetic material, between people who are not close relatives, like it might happen in closed society (e.g. village, town, island, sect, orthodox religious people who forbade contacts with people from other religions).

At its heart, its the same question as ; Do we shape the environment or does it shape us? Without an environment, there is no "us", But without us, that space has no definition. We define it.

LMGTFY. I was referring to ‘the universe’ , not to 'energy', thanks for pointing that out, and excuse for being grammatically not clear enough. Energy itself isn’t expanding, a particle can’t expand, particles can however divide (which was the main point I was trying to make), and because they divide, the space between those particles expands. A long time ago I’ve read this book called ’13 things that don’t make sense’. If I remember correctly, there was a quote in it that went something like “Dividing matter will generate less and less, but dividing energy will generate more and more”. I’ve always thought that this was an interesting idea. Maybe it’s true after all, even though it doesn't make sense.

Hmmm...OK, here's my 2 cents worth, as outlined to me long ago by an Astronomer. The most important point I see is that the BB theory tells us that the universe/space/time [as we know them] evolved from a hot dense state, at a point t+10-43 seconds. Noting the high lighted parts, it can therefor be seen that this [the BB] applies to the observable universe, as detailed here.......http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html "The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble constant is Ho = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical density.) The size of the box in each view is 78 billion light years. The green circle on the the right is the part of the Universe that we can currently see. In the view on the left, this same part of the Universe is shown by the green circle, but now the green circle is a tiny fraction of the 78 billion light year box, and the box is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole Universe. If we go to smaller and smaller times since the Big Bang, the green circle shrinks to a point, but the 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe". <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my own mind, and in a way I believe can be best understood, I see this incredible story line like this. Space and time, [as we know them] evolved with a tremendous impetus we have termed Inflation, in the first early incidents of time at around t+10-43 seconds. Since that time, and up until around 5 billion years ago, the gravity from the mass energy density of the universe [stars, quazars, BH's planets etc] acted to slow the expansion rate. Then gradually the constant impetus behind the actual expansion of spacetime, [that which we now term DE] is slowly over taking the effects that gravity was having in slowing this expansion rate, so that now, today, we actually see an acceleration in that expansion. [Remembering that this DE is consistent everywhere, and the density within the universe is lessening] Any errors, alterations, and/or corrections needed in that summary gladly welcome. But I believe it is put in a way [dumbed down if you like] that explains the BB/Inflationary model so that even I can understand it.

I'm wondering what people have instead of brain, wasting time talking about celebrities...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=compreand+contrast+essays&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Not having to clean up after a solar or wind spill, perhaps?

Well, my apologies if your intentions are genuine. The style and content of your OP were reminiscent of many posts I've seen that are designed to promote some product or service by appearing to be a genuine appeal for help that "just happens" to "mention" a supposedly relevant site. I can see the potential benefits of having another party proofread your work. However, to even consider using such an entity to create your work from scratch strikes me as simultaneously ethically appalling and monumentally stupid. On what basis can you possibly defend the idea of having someone else do your work for you? Poor you! You find writing such essays difficult. What made you think the educational process was meant to be easy? It is by tackling the difficult problems head on that we enhance our skills and build our character. On the other hand, if you wish to go through life with major gaps in your skill set and a minimal moral fibre, it might be the right approach. Secondly, if you avoid developing this skill you are going to be at a loss if and when it is called upon in the real world. Worse yet, you will have habituated yourself to avoiding challenges. Hardly a sound combination for developing your career. You say you overthink things when trying to write such essays. Without the details any advice could easily miss the mark, but for what it's worth . . . . . Make a simple list of all the ways the two subjects are similar, grouped hierachically if appropriate. Make a second list for ways in which the two subjects differ. Rearrange the lists to reflect relative importance, or some other significant aspect of character. Write comments on each point, using progressively clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections depending on their importance. Add an executive summary at the front and a set of conclusions at the back. Job done.

Easily digestible? I disagree. Nature has no obligation to be understandable to anyone. To paraphrase Feynman, "I can't explain that in terms of anything else that's familiar to you" So one's lack of understanding can't simply be pushed off onto the person doing the explaining. One has an obligation to learn the underlying science. Your wanting an explanation of an advanced physics phenomenon should not require that several year's worth of physics (and it literally takes years of learning to gain the comprehension) be explained to you.

There are so many different types of truth - historic truth, personal experience, scientific truth, mathematical truth, ... Historic truth is whatever the winner says? Personal experience is subjective Religious truth is objective and absolute. Scientific truth should be objective as observations should be repeatable, but theories can only be proved wrong, probably. Mathematical truth would appear to the most solid, but there are theorems that are true or false but cannot be proven (Godel). Even the tools we use are imperfect. Years were spent axiomatising maths (e.g. Frege) only for Russell to produce his famous paradox. The axiom of Choice and Set Theory itself is not beyond criticism. So this thread should be kept going for some time.

I don't think that was the point of Gees's comparison. Like if I said that 2 tons of cement is enough to crush a tortoise. And you argument is that I'm a monster who hates animals. Gees, I have followed this thread closely from the sideline and I can say that even though the members might not agree or might try to clarify your initial thoughts on page one, they have been very coherent and open to productive discussion, giving arguments, something that you started doubting on this forum in a previous post. And about the subjectivity of truth, and how it is viewed, there are many quotes by philosophers out there, you mentioned the Europeans and the Indians but after reading your examples, embarrassingly a quote from a fictional character from a kids show came to my mind. I can't say much about truth but I can definitely agree with other members that right and wrong are very situational and subjective. Absolute truth I think needs absolute knowledge. That would violate the laws of physics. If you could step outside space and time (bear with me) and you would see space and time as finite (let's assume they are), like a circle, I guess in this scenario there could be truth. It's the only way I can think of it.

Making more of the general public interested in and educated about physics and cosmology.

On Einstein's birthday. RIP

IMO the American people aren't like a courtroom. Doesn't work like that. In court, if evidence(DNC emails) is obtained illegally(through hacking), that evidence is to be thrown out and can't be used. However, since American people don't simply ignore evidence against the DNC simply because Russians hacked it, they meddled in the elections. My very honest opinion, if you want it, is that the best way to avoid being ambushed is to not be pulling BS like that in the first place. If the DNC hadn't been lying to people in the first place, covering things up, and rigging the democratic nomination regardless of how votes went, the emails wouldn't have caused anywhere near as much damage. The horrible crime the Russian hackers did was publish nearly 20,000 emails. On top of that, the DNC had ANOTHER opportunity to fix it. They could have said something like "We're doing an internal review. People were caught lying to voters, people were caught hiding things, people were caught rigging the elections, these same people will be investigated and probably fired. We, as the Democratic National Convention, do not tolerate corruption and will take all actions possible to get rid of it in our party." And then they could have followed through with it. https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html (unless CNN is controlled by Russian hackers and so are all the sources they've listed, the information I've posted here is in that link) And this link outlines some of the things the emails say. Racist things(Skip to the last one on the page for that one), corruption, trying to rig the primaries, etc. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

It wasn't a scientific formula. It was a formula based upon reasoning alone.

I already presented it in my opening post. Read my entire opening post and you will find it. You will also gain further insight by reading my whole opening post. As for my formula, this was it: "Positive and negative emotions are the reward wanting and liking as well as the disreward not wanting and not liking=something mattering to you=it having value from your perspective."

First of all, most people would disagree with the idea that our emotions are the perception of value. Second, I say that our morality, character, and intellect alone cannot allow us to perceive value. I already explained why that is in my opening post. It seems you haven't read my entire opening post.

Matt, from where I sit you have taken some simple, self evident facts, then complicated them by using words with somewhat distorted meanings to describe those facts, while simultaneously appearing to claim you have had some startling insight. Marks out of 10 for clarity, 0.5. Marks out of 10 for value -2. Emotional value to me of having read this thead -20. You owe me for ten minutes of my life that I shall never be able to get back. If I were you I would take up crochet.

There are the lower, basic emotions such as a feeling of excitement from getting a new movie, feeling sexually aroused, or a feeling of panic from being in a dangerous situation. I think we call these emotions the instinctive emotions. These emotions are actually the perception of value. In other words, they are mental states where we perceive things, moments, people, and situations as beautiful, horrible, good, bad, or disgusting depending on which emotion we feel. I have come up with a formula that attempts to translate emotions into value. Our pleasant emotions are the reward wanting and liking in the brain. When you want and like something, this means it matters to you. When something matters to you, this means it is something good or bad from your perspective. Our pleasant emotions allow us to perceive things as good and beautiful while our unpleasant emotions allow us to perceive things as horrible and disgusting. Therefore, my formula that attempts to translate emotions into value would be "Positive and negative emotions are the reward wanting and liking as well as the disreward not wanting and not liking=something mattering to you=it having value from your perspective." From there, I continue to explain how our morality, character, and intellect alone cannot be any real source of value in our lives by using a hunger and thirst analogy. There is no intellectual and moral form of hunger and thirst just as how there is no intellectual and moral form of value. Value is the same thing as our instinctive emotions just as how hunger and thirst is the same thing as the feeling of needing something to eat or drink. As you can see here, I have a purely biological perspective on value. I think value is reduced to our biochemical emotions and I do not agree with the idea that we can have value in our lives through our character, deeds, intellect, morals, and obligations/responsibilities alone. One last thing. I will present the study that shows how our positive emotions are the reward wanting and liking: Quote We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'. ‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders Kent C. Berridge 2009 Mar 29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717031/