Leaderboard

Of course we do. It’s called the Trash Can

Yes, humans are inherently racist. However, some of us are fed up with that oudated, antiquated, destructive instinct-derived mindset and have deciced to say, loudly and clearly, fuck racism, fuck racists, fuck idiots who make a positive argument for racism. (If required, I can provide a lengthier and more eloquent justification for that position.)

If the girl hadn’t gone out w her friends then she wouldn’t have been raped. If the kid hadn’t stopped to get bubble gum then he wouldn’t have been beaten up. If that black man weren’t holding a cell phone in his backyard then he would not have been shot and killed by police. Your line of argument is ridiculous. It is a form of victim blaming whether you understand or acknowledge that.

Oi, who are you calling nutty? I have not followed the thread so some it may already have been discussed, The image in OP looks like banding. The reason is that light sources in your home usually have pulsing characteristics due to the 60 HZ AC voltage being used. For cameras that only have electronic shutters (such as phones) the common readout characteristics of the sensors will result in areas of varying intensities, i.e. banding. In this case it is vertical as the image is read out from the sensor in columns (either starting left or right). So why is there less or no banding in some situations? The reason is the exposure time. If your exposure time is a multiple of the utility frequency, you integrate over the whole wave(s) (again, the brightness of the light sources fluctuates with the AC waveform). Thus the image appears homogeneous in brightness. However, if you get close to an object you are likely to change available light and thus change the exposure time. If the corner is dark for instance, it may slow the shutter to a degree where banding becomes very noticeable (I suspect that most phones will use software tricks to make sure that banding or similar common issue are minimized). If you can, I'd try to take photos (or better, videos) with varying shutter speeds at the same light and look at the results. It may be difficult as phones have a significant layer of software that may alter them. And not, it is not the bat. If they had some sensor shattering powers, the folks in the department who document them clearly would have noticed and published something high-ranked with it. Also I hope that you made sure that in you area bats do not carry rabies or similar diseases and, if hurt, find someone who can take a look at it.

If this is your viewpoint, then you can start a topic in the speculation section. From there, you form a testable hypothesis, come up with a measurable experiment, perform the experiment, observe the results, and come out with a conclusion. Speaking of astrology, we have the same birthday.......

No, not really. The formulae v2 = u2 +2fs, and v = u +ft is taught to high school pupils who study kinematics of constant acceleration. When the constant refers to the velocity we have the simpler formulae v = u and s = ut. Maxim, since you say you have some higher Mathematics you should be able to cope easily with this modern book on University Mechanics which covers Relativity in the second half with really clear explanations and working. Dynamics and Relativity W D McComb Oxford University Press Here is a sample page on relativistic acceleration

In-laws not getting along is their problem. That has nothing to do with the couple’s personal life. “Siblings are much more likely to be matched than parents but only about 30 per cent of people needing a transplant will have a compatibly matched sibling.“ What about the other 70%? From strangers not even living in the same country (see article). Seems as if, regardless of whether or not one marries outside their gene pool, transplants are simply hard matches to come by as they are—even amongst family members...so it’s not that great of a reason to avoid an interracial relationship. Now we’re getting into the semantics of this notion of “belonging”. You belong when you are acknowledged, appreciated and loved. Do you have any pets, maybe a dog? They don’t communicate in the same language as you, let alone participate in the same cultural customs and traditions as you, but I bet you you’ll definitely feel a sense of “belonging” when you’re with your pet... How sad is that? The people you surround yourself with (certain family members, I assume) won’t allow you or your of-a-different-race spouse or interracial children to feel a sense of belonging just because they “can’t communicate in the same language”. Try hugs? Kisses? ...The idea that a dog can love better than most humans is just sad. As for your last point, I’ll speak from experience: I’m a “mixed race, third culture” person who grew up not feeling lonely and in fact have a beautiful interracial relationship with a Hungarian man who understands me completely. It’s a soulful union, and as different as he and I may often be, we complete each other. I will add, I’ve never spent much time with neither my paternal grandparents nor my father’s side of the family, but it hasn’t impacted my life even in the slightest. When love happens between two people, it happens. Let it happen. Interracial, opposite religions, whatever it may be, when it happens, let it happen. It’s a kind of experience that can’t be measured by your “weighing of pros and cons”...

Cell phones do not have lens motors. Also, if you mess with it, you will affect focus, not light transmission. Again, shutter speed is the culprit. The reproducibility is issue is based on the fact that most cell phones do not allow fine controls of shutter speed, nor is it often clear what they used. I assume you could check exif data to see whether it changed between banding and non-banding images. However, there is also software trickery that tries to circumvent it so that it only shows up (or becomes more visible) in certain situations. This includes e.g. closeup with little light, where shutter speed are non-ideal and iso is high. A very simple experiment, which does not require you to get an actual camera with controls is to take a picture in horizontal mode. The banding should also become horizontal as it is related to the sequential readout from CMOS sensors (i.e. the integration issues that you see column by column, will should row-by-row). Unless, of course there is some weird technology in cell phones not seen in cameras (which I doubt).

It is good to see you have the insight to see when you are holding a conviction.

I will try to answer your first question with a general observation. When doing mathematics,the names of the variables (time, distance, etc.) don't matter. For your first question t is a variable to be treated like any other.

This is true, but has already been pointed out by others, in-law tensions can occur because of other diferences: religion, income, educational background, work ethic, etc. If you want to experience true in-law tension go to Glasgow and find a Rangers supporter who has married a Celtic supporter. Do you wish to claim that the Scots and Irish are racially distinct? Such a claim would be inline with your other errors. I am not even certain this is true, but is the possibility of requiring a bone marrow transport really high on the list of critical concerns when deciding on your life partner? On the other side, as pointed out already, there will be distinct advantages of a mixed race marriage related to hybrid vigour. Breaking News: raising children is a complex process filled with challenges. These challenges can be viewed as limitations and threats, or as enriching opportunities. Then again, their exposure to diversity may well have broadened their minds, deepened their experience and made them more interesting and attractive. Tell me, do you actually know anyone from a different ethinic group or culture, or are all your contacts from Central Casting's Hicksville?

Spacetime and causality was, is and will be doing just fine without minds observing it. Spacetime is not just a mathematical abstract, we observe gravity, time dilation and length contraction as very real empirically detectable phenomena. I ron’t think that minds are in any way connected causally with physics, this notion is very troubling to say the least. The implications of this notion being somehow true would be ridiculous...physics did not suddenly change when first consciousness emerged and started observing whats going on around it. Physics was working just fine long before there were any minds observing it.

There are plenty of unsolved enigmas in life, I don't understand your point. Or is this a thread where we get to post random unsolved enigmas?

Us aquarians don't believe in that stuff.

You win that bet.

As you are so woefully ill-informed about the current state of science, I'm not sure why you are pontificating in this thread.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-reveals-startling-evidence-effects-climate.html New research led by U of T Mississauga geographer Igor Lehnherr provides startling evidence that remote areas in Canada's Arctic region—once thought to be beyond the reach of human impact—are responding rapidly to warming global temperatures. The study, published in Nature Communications, is the first to aggregate and analyze massive data sets on Lake Hazen, the world's largest lake by volume located north of the Arctic Circle. "Even in a place so far north, it's no longer cold enough to prevent the glaciers from shrinking," says Lehnherr, lead author on the study. "If this place is no longer conducive for glaciers to grow, there are not many other refuges left on the planet." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-reveals-startling-evidence-effects-climate.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03685-z The world’s largest High Arctic lake responds rapidly to climate warming Abstract Using a whole-watershed approach and a combination of historical, contemporary, modeled and paleolimnological datasets, we show that the High Arctic’s largest lake by volume (Lake Hazen) has succumbed to climate warming with only a ~1 °C relative increase in summer air temperatures. This warming deepened the soil active layer and triggered large mass losses from the watershed’s glaciers, resulting in a ~10 times increase in delivery of glacial meltwaters, sediment, organic carbon and legacy contaminants to Lake Hazen, a >70% decrease in lake water residence time, and near certainty of summer ice-free conditions. Concomitantly, the community assemblage of diatom primary producers in the lake shifted dramatically with declining ice cover, from shoreline benthic to open-water planktonic species, and the physiological condition of the only fish species in the lake, Arctic Char, declined significantly. Collectively, these changes place Lake Hazen in a biogeochemical, limnological and ecological regime unprecedented within the past ~300 years.

Right.Thanks. It's bad when people spoil a good song, isn't it? I'm haunted by that guitar now. Actually sounds like The Edge from way back.

Bleak but nice. The guitar in this one strikes a chord for me. What style is this group?

...on a science forum? I don’t think so, sorry.

Doing The Right Thing

A fair few people have consistently been defending religion. My position is that we cannot usefully quantify the harm or good religion has done and we cannot rerun human history without religion, all that seems clear is that religion has done some good, done some bad and maybe it would all be the same without religion anyway. Going forward though we can change this. We can identify the negatives of religion and remove them, accentuate the good bits. This would mean religions would have to change: and this is the stumbling block. Religions are generally not willing to change, especially, it seems, those blinded by god. I'm a Buddhist myself, so i tend to think religion really could have a positive impact on humanity. But then I see the utter reluctance of religions to change and I think maybe we really would be better off without them.

Whenever I watch videos like this… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfYf_rPWUdY …I’m amazed, and a little skeptical about the ability of these bio-molecules to magically find their perfect “soul-mates” – all, by nothing more than a lot of random, Brownian jostling, and ostensibly, good luck. Given that the apparent basis for the attraction between any two molecules is typically non-covalent bonds, and given the vast number of other similar (and non-similar) molecules to be found floating in the inter-cellular milieu, I would think it would be very common for “less-than-perfect soul-mates” to clog up the works. I.e., to get in the way, and prevent the perfect soul-mates from bonding. It makes me wonder if there isn’t some other mechanism going on. Some type of quantum tunneling, or “radar love”, by which two “perfect soul mates” have the ability to tunnel through any imposter molecules. Question: Is anybody aware of any others who are wondering about this? Any scientific articles? Studies, theories, experiments, or discussions about the mysterious mechanism by which bio-molecules, left simply to random Brownian motion are so successful at finding their perfect mates?

In Science Vosoughi et al published a paper showing that fake news on social media spread faster and wider than real news. This difference was not driven by bots, but by actual users. The spread of false news is also driven by network structure, but rather simply by the fact that most users seem to favour fake news. These findings, together with decreasing trust to mainstream media (Gallup: from 1998-2016, %great deal of trust: 59-> 51 democrats; 53->30 independents; 52->14 republicans), especially in the younger segment, highlight that it may become more difficult for folks to decide on what is fact or fiction.

Not unless you present it here, in the Speculations forum, no. However, as you have no model and no evidence you do not even have a hypothesis, never mind a theory. You have some incoherent drivel and some nice pictures of cats. This is not science.

1.) your Post seems to be your own Personal Subjective Speculation of a "contention/question" or Hypothetical Theory that goes Against the Mainstream "thought that galaxies start their lives as blobs of DM." - Is it your speculation, proposal, theory or contention for "galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter"? 2.) An actual working Link to the nature.com article (Abstract) "A galaxy lacking dark matter" : https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25767 - Mentions in Scientific Articles, Blogs, etc of "A galaxy lacking dark matter" : https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25767/metrics 3.) At the bottom of the Article/Page you Linked in your Post : https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html , under Related Stories is an article Titled "Scientists discover a 'dark' Milky Way: Massive galaxy consists almost entirely of dark matter". Link : https://phys.org/news/2016-08-scientists-dark-milky-massive-galaxy.html#nRlv 4.) After reading "Scientists discover a 'dark' Milky Way: Massive galaxy consists almost entirely of dark matter", at the Link, how does that information affect your speculation, proposal, theory or contention for "galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter"? Of Note : Both of these discoveries were the result of Observations and Data amassed from the the Gemini North and W. M. Keck Observatories, both on Maunakea, Hawai'i

Why not? It’s just as informative, technical, and accurate as, you know, the theory of gravity. I say, let’s add it in the Physics section!

I think it’s got potential... Well, when I went heavy into thinking about astrology—but not just astrology I mean life and all in general—I somehow got into thinking, what if when we’re born during a certain point in space and time, all the stars (and not just the stars but the shape of the universe with all its laws that hold true rules about attraction, magnetism, etc.) are aligned in such a way that they do somehow have an effect in our genetic makeup and possibly our lifepath, the way we are and what we go through... I mean, in the end, all we are is a whole bunch of atoms that held together really well, right? And, in the same way that plants bend to the sun’s light, I don’t see why we, as by-products of say like the big bang or whatever and being that we are composed of atoms and molecules, can’t bend to the way the universe aligns itself. I mean I was teasing but I was also serious. (Now the world will never know. Muahahaha ha ha ha . . . )

As you can see above, I think Sensei (also) complained enough about those units NOT being correct. Nu is a wave number, NOT frequency. The (diffracted) distance where the spectral lines are found on film, versus (=wrt) straight thru without diffraction (grating, or prism). [Reflected photons can loose some of their energy as a bounce, but your question is wrongly put for what you want to know.] The film does NOT change the photon energy per se, (in what we're interested here). The amount, that the light is bent or deflected (i.e. diffracted) indicates the wavelength. We know c=f*L(ambda); & the energy is proportional to the frequency. Assuming c is constant. So f=c/Lambda; energy is inversely proportional to the deflected distance on the photo film. But it is NOT correct to assume that (either inverse or not inverse) distance nu (which I simply call x (=deflected distance) wrt y_distance (diffraction_grating to film, perpendicular_distance)) is the wavelength. Nu is NOT the wavelength; & it (=nu) is NOT the inverse_wavelength either (which physicists call wavenumber). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavenumber In spectroscopy, "wavenumber" (=nu_bar) often refers to a frequency which has been divided by the speed of light in vacuum: The historical reason for using this spectroscopic wavenumber rather than frequency is that it proved to be convenient in the measurement of atomic spectra: the spectroscopic wavenumber is the reciprocal of the wavelength of light in vacuum: which remains essentially the same in air, and so the spectroscopic wavenumber is directly related to the angles of light scattered from diffraction gratings and the distance between fringes in interferometers, when those instruments are operated in air or vacuum. Such wavenumbers were first used in the calculations of Johannes Rydberg in the 1880s. The Rydberg–Ritz combination principle of 1908 was also formulated in terms of wavenumbers. A few years later spectral lines could be understood in quantum theory as differences between energy levels, energy being proportional to wavenumber, or frequency. However, spectroscopic data kept being tabulated in terms of spectroscopic wavenumber rather than frequency or energy.

The law of conservation of energy in mechanics in its present form is the greatest mistake of physics during its entire existence. This error arose because of incorrect assumptions made more than 300 years ago by the Cartesians and Gottfried Leibniz. Correction of past mistakes is always the most urgent issue for any science, especially in the theoretical and methodological terms. See more: https://www.academia.edu/36208608/The_current_law_of_conservation_of_energy_is_greatest_mistake

Are there many? If so, do the pros outweigh the cons?

Yes Sensei, I wanted to say that formula is still wrong. E=h*nu*c/2 & still won't give you the frequency f, because nu is a photo film distance; NOT the (real) inverse wavelength. lambda=((2*d*nu)^0.5)/m wrt Wiki's diffraction grating syntax slit to slit width d, order m, e.g. 1.

I don't blame the Jews for the holocaust, I blame Hitler and the nazi's. it's historical science. If Judaism didn't spread to Europe then they could not be killed in Europe could they?

The frequency f=c/lambda (should be) f=c*m/((2*d*x)^0.5). As you can see that's NOT f=c/nu if nu is x (=photo film displacement). You might not be discussing spectroscopy but I am; & a (search for a) consistent (kinetic) energy; NOT a mixture of energy & vis viva.

Sensei, the photon energy formula also looks wrong. It's missing the "half"! I.e. The same failure, but in reverse! It really looks like this guy Einstein mixed things up! He makes 1 severe error, & then compesates for it elsewhere. The momentum is mom=h*nu (wavenumber nu; NOT frequency f!) for (Einstein's) Planck's constant h. Energy=mom*va. E=h*f*c/2, where the average_speed va=(vi+vf)/2 is between initial_speed vi=0 m/s & the final_speed vf=c, light's_speed. c=f*lambda for wavelength lambda.