Leaderboard

I think you should reconsider the title of this thread and perhaps rename it ‘Let the shit hit the fan’.

If you aren't going to try to learn from discussion, why do you bother? The difference has been explained to you repeatedly, and you simply keep using your own misconception. There is ZERO scientific evidence for your higher power. Your belief in it is faith. Every bit of your belief in it is based on simple acceptance, AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY TRUST IS DEFINED! By doing so, you have removed all the importance of the distinction. When you're in a discussion, you need to think beyond your "personal level". Otherwise you're just blogging/soapboxing/preaching.

Here is the thing, though. a) we do not know (yet) the genetic basis that makes many Ethiopians great long-distance runners; b) as such, we do not know how frequent the respective alleles are in different populations, should they exist; and c) we also do not know the contribution of the environment. See, for example Wilber and Pitsiladis (2012): As such, it can make sense to state that Ethiopia has a high number of excellent long-distance runners, but it is difficult to state that it is entirely or even mostly due to genetics. Also, the secondary claim is often that these characteristics are unique to Ethiopians (or Kenyans). But rather obviously, even if we assume that there are such genes, it is very likely to find them also in other populations, albeit perhaps in different frequencies. In other words, one big objections it that such claims as "truths" is usually a strong overstatement of our knowledge. The motivation for that can vary and is often due to ignorance of the scientific literature. Those that actually reject those, however, may have other reasons. Edit: as an interesting side note, there is quite a bit of lit out there focusing on elite runner but relatively recent papers have criticized those. One of the arguments being that looking at the extremes does not inform on population effects.

The concept of electrostatic self-energy is the total of electrostatic potential energy possessed by a certain charge Q itself. Since Some charge Q is a set of infinitesimal charges dQ, it involves the existence of electrostatic or electric potential energy among these dQs and is the value of adding up these. The concept of electrostatic self - energy is the same as the concept of gravitational self - energy. Instead of charge, a mass enters, and electrostatic potential energy enters instead of gravitational potential energy. This is complete and utter nonsense. But since you chose to sneer at the rest of my input, even though I was the only one who has not flatly rejected your propositions, I will leave you to work out for yourself the plainly obvious reasons why you can't compare an assemblage of charges to and assemblage of masses.

Nope. For reasons explained repeatedly. (I almost admire your dogged refusal to acknowledge this.) Firstly, you have done no reasoning. Saying that you believe a god(*) exists because you believe in it/him/her, is NOT reasoning. It is circular logic and therefore simply a statement of what you believe. Secondly, you haven't provided a definition of synchronicity or any evidence that it exists. The only use of the term that I am aware of is as a synonym for coincidence. So no "higher power" required there. (*) Or whatever you want to call the thing you believe in: Higher Power, Superman, Hyper-Intelligent White Mice, Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. It's all the same to me. How do you know it has a very small probability of occurring without any interference of a higher power? You don't, do you. It is just something else you believe. Do you begin to see the circular nature of your arguments? Everything you claim as "evidence" is just something else you believe, not something that exists objectively. They are both the epitome of woo. Baseless beliefs presented as if they were facts. But given the fact you are only here to preach your beliefs and not listen to anyone else (and the fact that your "higher power" appears to be a pretty vile white supremacist) I think I will just put you on ignore.

I have a hypothesis: While this is a science forum, [meaning claims should be accompanied with evidence] many individuals laden with religious baggage, see the need to mount a white charger, and conduct a crusade against the evils of science that has shown their faith to be crap, and pushed any need for any deity of any persausion, back into oblivion.

Because you seem to ignore the link above and perhaps think that the value is a fixed measure. However, as we know IQ scores for everyone has changed over years, and the gap has been closing over the last decades (something that Rushton et al. tend to dispute). The fact that you do not see a connection does not mean that you can just dismiss them without informing yourself on that matter. Your quote above also highlighted the fact that the authors overstate their claims, again, by ignoring that among Asian groups these "consistent" differences they found are, in fact not consistent. On top of it, Folks like Wicherts et al. have found serious flaws in the data on African populations. There are a series of papers from them (and book chapters), but I would be honestly (and positively) surprised if you were interested in reading them.

You can say that as many times as you like and it won't ever change the fact that any mythical higher power or deity of any description, and any mythical claim re numbers synchrocity is unscientific bullshit...I equate both to woo. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo Woo, also called woo-woo, is a term for pseudoscientific explanations that share certain common characteristics, often being too good to be true (aside from being unscientific). The term is common among skeptical writers. Woo is understood specifically as dressing itself in the trappings of science (but not the substance) while involving unscientific concepts, such as anecdotal evidence and sciencey-sounding words. Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example: "Homeopathy is effective (even when no molecule of the active ingredient remains in the final product) because the solution retains a memory of the solute."—the explanation for these results, e.g. water memory, is woo. Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary batshit crazy.) The term implies a lack of either intelligence or sincerity on the part of the person or concepts so described.

I am pretty sure that the studies in question will be from Rushton and/or Murray. There are a lot of counterpoints, a good overview is here. A major criticism to Rushton et al.'s work is that it does a lot of extrapolation and does not account well for non-genetic factors in his theoretical framework. E.g. he routinely ignored the fact that certain Asian groups from economically challenged regions as well as indigenous Americans have lower IQ scores. One interesting aspect that has come up in the last years are aspects such as the fact that the IQ gap is closing over the last years (essentially the Flynn effect is stronger for the black community than for the white) as well as other aspects including e.g. the role of literacy training. But no, stating the opinions of one research group as hard fact is overselling their results to a large degree. Marks Psychol Rep. 2010 Jun;106(3):643-64:

Where is the reference to intelligence?

Well, getting back to the topic "hate is hate no matter your politics", so unless you're suggesting a white supremacist is easily swayed by a logical argument while the doubtful remains adamant, I'm going to call BS.

Like wise one doesn't need to be Ethiopian to be an elite runner. The generalization paints with too broad a brush and isn't as good at determining things about individuals as it seems. For example many people have speculated that Jamaicans are such good sprinters because of their genetics. The ACTN3 gene has even been identified. All humans have it though the difference is possible in mutation: People of African decent generally have the lowest incidence. What does that really tells, lowest is none and highest isn't all. Which is to say a there are portions of every population which could have the same genetic potential for fast twitch performance. I my opinion when a large enough participation pool is applied the advantages even out. Soccer/Futbal is the most popular sport on earth and has the most number of people training and competing in it. In international play whites, blacks, Latinos, etc play side by side. In 2014 it was the German team with won the world's cup. In past year Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, and etc have all won. No race appears to have genetic dominance in Futbal and in my opinion that is because everyone plays so we get the best of the best from all groups and at the most elite levels all groups are evenly matched basically. In smaller more niche sports with regional popularity we end up with more regional ethnic dominance. Is that because those specific races are the best genetically or is it that the best athletes in those regional hyper focus on that regional sport? If Usain Bolt were from Germany rather than Jamaica he probably would have played Futbal and today would hold zero world sprinting records.

How is he talking about absolutes? He specifically said "general". Not all Ethiopians need to be runners for the best runners to be Ethiopian.

You don't understand that it's important to distinguish meaningfully between the very different ways we believe. Your definitions blend it all into a blithering mass of sameness and ignorance. If you'd read the thread before replying, you'd be less ignorant. What you call "giving yourself to it" sounds like "whatever you say, I'm good with". There's no trust in a stance like that, it's merely blind acceptance. Trust is built on evidence, history, predictability.

I don't agree with this. Some of the most broadly accepted stereotypes have nothing to do with hatred. I think stereotypes centered around hatred are the easiest to identify and knock down. Most people are sensible enough not to repeat hate speech. I have never had a person say to my face that black people are criminals but I have had countless people tell me black people are all great athletes. People aren't shy when the associated stereotype is seemingly positive.

And if you look at it more closely, you will find that this is exactly what happens in the field of physics; new ideas are constantly proposed, but the vast majority is rejected again quickly because they either don’t work, are based on false premises, or offer no improvement on existing models. You see, the trouble in your particular case is that you see a flaw where in actual fact there is none. The wave-particle duality - which, by the way, applies equally to all quantum systems, not just elementary particles or a specific kind - is really just that: a duality. That means there are two equally valid ways to regard the same thing, and what you see depends on how you look at it. The actual nature of a quantum system is neither wave nor particle, and it’s also not “both” or “neither”. It’s simply a class of object that has no equivalent in the classical world of human perception. That’s all there is to it. The trouble here is that you think “well, they claim it’s both a wave and particle...but that’s impossible, because in my experience nothing can be both at the same time!”. But that’s a fallacy - you are attempting to apply classical thinking and logic to a system that is not classical; you then (rightly) notice that there’s a contradiction, and hence (wrongly) conclude that there must be some problem in quantum mechanics. But in reality there is no problem, and so there is no flaw to be corrected here. It’s merely your own conclusion that is invalid, because it is based on the wrong premise that classical logic applies to the quantum world. But we have known for nigh on a century now that it doesn’t. The wave-particle duality is much like shining a light on a cylinder from different angles, and looking at the shadow. From one angle, the shadow looks like a rectangle; projected from another angle, the shadow looks like a circle. You could come along now and say: “Hold on, this is not possible!”. But in actual fact it is, because the object itself is neither a rectangle nor a circle, nor both nor neither - it’s a cylinder. There is no contradiction. The same in QM - there is no contradiction or problem in the wave-particle duality, it’s just two different projections of the same thing, which is in itself neither one of the two. So without wanting to appear rude or anything, I can still tell you straight out that what you suggest will not be taken seriously by anyone in the physics community, because you are attempting to solve a problem that does not actually exist - it’s based on a misconception, a wrong premise. The other thing then of course is that it is in direct contradiction to many things which we already know - as it happens, the various particles do not stand in isolation, they are part of an overarching hierarchy and scheme, called the Standard Model. This model is certainly not perfect or complete, but it works exceptionally well within a specific energy domain, and has been extensively tested for the past 50 years. And what you suggest is simply not compatible with that model.

I am a professional physicist. That is, I have a PhD and am employed as a physicist. You haven't explained what these alleged "flaws" are, or why mainstream physics is dogma, despite your hyperbole. Physics works pretty well. That you don't like some of it is not a shortcoming that needs to be addressed. If you have new ideas, present your model and explain how it works better than existing physics, or show what results you can predict/explain that current physics can't. No math = no model Doing the math part is perhaps 95% of the effort. You haven't provided any compelling reason to revamp QM, nor any reason that your approach is viable. It's called the Faraday effect (or faraday rotation) and happens to light in a medium, not free space. i.e. the light is interacting with a material, and that interaction is affected by the magnetic field.

When you feel like a Galileo it's time to take a step back and look at your idea..

I don't see it as oversensitivity prevailing over common sense, and I wasn't "blaming" the company. What should people do? Say "Oh, Roseanne, what a bigot, bless her heart!" and go on with their day? Or should they recognize that such an attitude is unacceptable, and it demands a proportional response?

Perhaps you could explain this a little more scientifically, as I am having trouble trying to figure out what you are talking about. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are talking about here, but ligands that bind to metal centres frequently are charged species. EDTA for example, is generally in charged form (Acetate groups posses a negative charge) when it chelates to metal centres.

Interesting (though the article is behind a paywall) - I didn’t think of Bach-Weyl spacetime, since this is normally used to describe a massive continuous ring, rather than two separate objects. I had never heard of the Israel-Khan solution, so thank you for pointing this out; a very interesting metric. I do not at present have access to any CAM system (I’m just an amateur), and the metric is too complicated to perform the calculation by hand, mostly because there are off-diagonal terms in it, so I can’t immediately answer your original question. I wonder if one could just treat the influence of the second object (approximately) as background curvature to an otherwise standard Schwarzschild metric, in which case the Schwarzschild-deSitter metric could be used as an approximation around the Lagrange point in question. That would not give the precisely correct numerical value, but hopefully a good approximation, and it would be much easier to do. This would give better results the farther the objects are apart from one another.

Well thank you, I shall do my best It must be said though that I am only an amateur/hobbyist, and that my main area of “expertise” (if you can call it that) is really GR and gravitational physics. I know about gauge theories etc, but not on an in-depth level.

[I would edit my answer above, but can't see how.] Maybe I've answered my own question at the start of this topic. By unbelievable coincidence, I just found out that the analytic solution for two static black holes exists. It's called the double Schwarzschild solution, also known as Bach-Weyl or two-center Israel-Khan solution. I stumbled upon it in the April 2018 issue of Physical Review D at the following link: https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.084020 Now if I can untangle the math for the metric, I should have the gravitational time dilation for two masses! If anyone's interested, please comment and I'll give more details.

Aww the mathematical detail is where all the fun is particularly the assymmetric relations you described above lol.

Start with a large cloud of dust and gas. It is a collection of particles with a random distribution of velocities, which also means a random distributions of angular velocities/momentum with regard to the center of the cloud. The Sum of all these individual angular momenta gives the net angular momentum of the cloud. It would be a pretty rare coincidence if all canceled to to zero. There is always going to be some net left over. this mean the cloud as a whole is going to have some net rotation about an axis. (even if it is not readily noticeable) As the cloud contracts to form a star and its planets, in order to conserve this angular momentum, the rate of rotation must increase and it becomes more and more noticeable. So basically, objects rotate because the original individual motions of the particles it was formed from didn't exactly cancel each other out.

Anti-vax march in Warsaw here today, looks like 30 thousand or more are there. Curious that the scum of the earth is associated with them and seem to live a symbiotic life - nazi preachers, agressive conspiracy theorists, extreme right preachers, etc. If I Firefighters should fill their trucks with hydrogen peroxide and use it on the protesters, scary to walk into town today.

Though most likely correct, people have been shown to be able to regulate there body temperature and heart rate (to non-dangerous level) at will so there is no reason someone wouldn't be able to control blood flow to their extremities at will given some concentration.

Offense to a simple off handed comment is simply taking things too far. It's the general attitude that is being taken too far in general and causing things like this to happen. The idea that prejudice at all or the adherence to stereotypes is wrong is really being based on emotional opposition to racism rather than an adherence to truth. Stereotypes tend to be true a lot of the time or at least have some sort of accuracy. A desire to prevent racism, however well it may be, should not be held in higher esteem than an adherence to truth, no matter what that truth may be. Is canceling a show that affects the jobs of almost 200 people really the best course of action? Over reactions like this really do nothing but harm. It's not necessarily the companies fault. However they are still acting in compliance with a culture of over-sensitivity that prevails over common sense when it shouldn't.

Bignose Thanks. So indeterminate because it can be done there are just multiple sums. Undefined because it can't be "done". mmmmh....I agree semantics. As opposed to scientific. Thanks again.

Racism isn't exactly always a bad thing as is thought. Racism can be justified in certain contexts or situations, even if it is offensive to some.

The problem is not only with the company, rather it is with the general attitude against racism, and the general attitude of taking offense.

hello my advice also for you do not write grow up and learn algebra first you understand o.k and we use dear for as a respect not for affection .very well said i am insulting what you and others doing you are not aware of it wonder full .

So you are just going to ignore all the conservation laws? Isn’t Hawking radiation also ignoring conservation laws? Well, not if you assume that a black hole is an object/body, which I don't, because that doesn't necessarily have to be the case (but we've already had that discussion in another topic, so I won't get into that here again). The Big Bang isn’t testable in a lab, yet science is making statements about it, because we're able to logically deduct knowledge about rules and laws of nature without testing everything. By applying only science and scientific reasoning to explain the natural world around us, you're ignoring all human-ness and other aspects of life that could be attached to it. Take subjectivity for instance, by describing how human emotions and feelings work, you could argue that certain chemicals are responsible for it. But is that the entire answer? Really? You're not able to detect the feeling and meaning that goes along with that chemical. Does this mean it isn't there? Well, obviously.Duh. The universe existed for billions of years before life arose. So what’s responsible for this energy then, and for the change of the state of ‘nothing’ into something, if you insist on the notion that it can't be caused by a certain form of life? Does "life" have to be Earth-like anyway? We tend to think that life has to be carbon based, and all life forms need water, but that's knowledge regarding life on Earth. Is that really fair to do? Who are we to make statements about life in general? If all life needs water, then why does water itself has nothing to do with it? Or a hydrogen atom, if atoms are lifeless, and you consist only of atoms, what does that make you? That doesn't mean you're not allow to disagree with this, but what's the alternative you find more plausible? I mean, you have to be able to explain it in another way. If you don't agree that every change, the movement of anything, is due to some kind of input by a living creature (which is what we see around us), then why would you all of a sudden suggest that this couldn't have been the case if you go further back in history? On what grounds are you making that suggestion? Why on Earth would anyone believe that? I guess some religious people might. But that has nothing to do with science. Again, the only evidence that we have to make any change around us can be achieved by applying a certain mental input, by thinking, and as a result doing things, moving things, from one place to another. This means that we're not living in a pure mechanical world where gravity is attracting matter, and thus makes it change its position. We're also here, humans, with human input, you can't ignore that force of nature. It's not just gravity that is responsible for movement of massive objects, so why are you suggesting that that anything is able to move by itself, without any input that caused it? That doesn't make sense. All physical change you make is preceded by mental input. Not all scientists agree about that. There has been much publicity about analysis of results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck mission that show both expected and unexpected anisotropies in the CMB. If we would look at the Universe far from our location, we would not see the same concentric cell structure, or a non-homogeneous Universe. (There's about 250 million light years space between every shell in the picture below). There's still much debate regarding this subject (which is much debated in the movie "The Principle"), but the CMB map does indeed correlate with plane of the Earth orbiting the Sun. If the Universe can be seen as an implosion (which is why I started this topic), it would agree with these observations as well. How would you explain these anomalies without us being the centre?

It's an example the attitude against racism or bigotry that is being taken too far. Someone says something bigoted ans all of a sudden they are treated like some sort of bad person. So what if she was a little racist in her comment? Her intention was to insult a specific person, not a whole race, and it should be OK to be racist in this context if someone is trying to say something racist towards something else like using it as an insult to somebody.

You can call me a bigot all you want, and it still won't raise the black IQ above 86. According to this, it seems there is some genetic component to such differences. In fact, the gap only grows larger when looking at African countries. The IQ goes down to 70 for Africans. When such findings are paralleled by factors such as brain size, it becomes obvious that there are hereditary factors involved. And I don't see what environmental factors would lower the black IQ to 86.

The problem is with the idea of getting offended. The only thing that offense is rooted in is emotional reaction to a situation. There isn't any real reason behind taking offense to things besides emotion. As for Rosanne Barr, canceling her show was an overreaction, and it really doesn't accomplish anything. Not that there was anything wrong with what she said, because she really didn't say anything bad. It may be racist, but racism isn't really bad itself.