Leaderboard

Repeating divisive conservative talking points are equal to judgement statements that imply affinity. Now look who is saying "‘I’m offended so stop doing what you are doing and start doing what I tell you". You point about the complaining liberals is undermined by your own "it upsets me" complaining.

Come on, Phi, this was never about religion; the baker simply did not agree with the lifestyle choices made by the couple ordering the cake. His religious beliefs were simply the excuse used to deny their business. And you simply cannot pass laws to make everyone like everyone else. If not religion, they'll simply use some other excuse next time. The only way to change their attitude, is not through legislation, but through their profits, or lack thereof. I'm sure this baker will soon realize his mistake when business drops off. ( or maybe he can move to the US south )

I taught my kids about sex and money in the same way and about the same time. I used every day examples to educate them, talking at the level they would understand. Most lessons were short and sweet, but it also gave them the opportunity to ask questions. I also felt that if they asked a question, then I should answer it, no matter what it was. When I would get cash at an ATM I would tell them how when I went to work my boss gave me money (which was just a bunch of numbers), then at the ATM if I showed them my card they would give me some money and take away some of my numbers. Buying a sandwich for a guy outside the Subway shop was a good way to talk about charity. I also asked them a lot of questions. Would you loan your friend Tony some money? Why not? What if he promised to give you twice as much back? Now risk and reward is covered. Same similar lessons on credit cards, loans, paying bills, retirement, etc. Kids are exposed to financial situations every day so it is easy to start the conversation. I skipped the age old lesson we're always told do with kids, about having them save 20% of their allowance, give 10% to charity, etc. I found it to be contrived. EDIT: My parents did no prepare me for how the financial world works (or sex for that matter). I read a book called Making the Most of Your Money by Jane Bryant Quinn. It is comprehensive and made a huge difference for me. Both my boys received a copy at the appropriate time. https://www.amazon.com/Making-Most-Money-Bryant-Quinn/dp/0684811766

So Rosanne Barr displays to the world that she doesn't just play 'white trash' on TV; she IS white trash. And she gets herself and a lot of others , on the unemployment line. Whether you think that's fair to the rest of the cast or others who worked on the show, is irrelevant, as the network has the right to protect its 'image'. Now Samantha Bee calls Ivanka Trump a "c**t' on national TV and no action is taken by the network. Is this the double standard Republicans are always complaining about ? Are TV networks trying to project an Anti-Trump image, so this is OK ? Is this a non-issue ( because it agrees with your sensibilities ) ? Or is hateful speech to be called out no matter what your political leanings ?

Where is the beginning? I have been probing the members here with my various posts in order to determine that. If you would like to understand where I am going, review my "Einstein was right" post... I did not get far with it, and rightly so. All of this will culminate I believe in our connection with other universes... I am not an academic, but my IQ is sufficient I think to handle what you might throw at me. Please continue to lambaste me, it is greatly appreciated. You all have taken me a long way, a very long way.

Is this what you meant when you said you have evidence of god? A higher power is a possibility so is a brobdingnagian creature that excretes universes and doesn't know it's own shit. We have no need of a higher power to explain the universe, no one is saying that random chance is responsible for anything and all science says about a cause is that we don't know. We don't know is honest, saying you know when you don't is not honest...

That incident sounds fairly isolated, and it's hard to trust "There was no racist intent". I don't know the context, but I've heard backhanded compliments before. "Nice dreadlocks!" doesn't necessarily mean the white person felt any admiration. I'm convinced it's partly all the labeling we do that makes us so susceptible to manipulation emotionally. Left, right, black, white, latino, Democrat, Republican, liberals, conservatives, we use these labels as if these groups do everything in lockstep. I'm very conservative about a lot of things, but politically my solutions tend towards spending tax dollars more effectively, so I identify as a liberal (and I think MOST people are a blend of stances like me). Instead of using the variety of economic tools we have available to us, we label public and state ownership as Socialism and Communism, implying that any attempt to use these tools is an attempt to use ONLY those tools. The media loves these words because they come pre-loaded with our prejudices and opinions, and they grab our attention with a minimum of effort. So it doesn't matter if you call them the "ultra", it's extremism, and these are the folks on all the outer boundaries of the spectrum who suddenly have the mic on the world stage. Their fringe fears and extremist solutions have been pulled out of deep storage where they belonged, and now they're parading around in the spotlight, thankful that US leadership has suddenly embraced crazy and their ideas have become relevant for the first time since they were finally run out of town on a rail by the civil rights movement.

I am not offended, I am setting the record straight! Or do you think it is good practice to make a statement based on opinion, that turns out to be incorrect, and when you are corrected continue to perpetuate your fabricated statement? Especially when that opinion is formed form one post on an Internet forum? Sorry, I can’t see that. And regarding complaining, & I quote; I already said I had no problem with complaining! And yes, I did complain when you (incorrectly) inferred my stance on left/right. I think I am entitled to defend wrong statements about myself, in a polite and friendly manner. I assure you I am not at the extreme in the left or the right, I prefer the middle! And I strongly believe that tolerance is the best path for all humans to conduct their interactions with others. Sorry of I have overstepped the mark or upset anyone here, but I have to set the record straight when assumptions about myself are incorrectly stated in case others believe it as true. I am sure you understand that and I apologise again. I enjoy this forum as there are a good bunch of clever people here and I like to hear what they have to say. I don’t want any Endercreeper01 type dramas thank you very much! Sincerley, Scott

Though it's obvious that the blue particle is the opposite charge from the gray line and the same charge as the red particle, perhaps add a notation to show their charge? There're two scenarios that would give the effect described in the field diagram. Scenario 1: The red charge is positive, the blue charge is positive and the gray line is negative. Scenario 2: The red charge is negative, the blue charge is negative and the gray line is positive. Also, there's a very minor graphical issue, the electric field acts beyond the gray line: https://gyazo.com/619ff9861c89b9bf9aa09d30195c12e3 You could also show the field lines acting from the charged objects. Or show that the magnitude of Force applied to the blue particle changes inversely proportionate to the distance squared between the blue particle and the other charged object (the gray line or the red particle) by making mock acceleration, velocity or force values for the blue ball.

I think only the words AFTER the misconception is spotted and corrected should count. Being wrong, or being misled by pop-sci articles, isn't a crime. Ignoring corrections to bulldoze your way through a sermon on your pet theory, that's cracked. Willful ignorance should be punishable by incarceration at a local community college.

If you really mean "all" fairness, you should rethink the whole "I'm offended" routine. There's nothing wrong with calling out intolerance, nothing wrong with wanting better when people's lives are affected, and nothing wrong with saying "This is wrong!". To call it "complaining" demeans the intent, which is to stop discrimination when you find it.

I think you should be aware that this is not a simply issue of business decision. The bigger question is in case of competing laws (anti-discrimination vs artistic freedom). While the service in this case is relatively inconsequential, it raises the larger question whether services can be denied on that ground. This can have significant impact on numerous levels, if e.g. medical professionals or other semi-essential services can limit access to certain groups. Even not having access to an affordable supermarket within a certain radius can have massive impact, especially for low-income folks. Remember that much of the US is a huge, relatively empty space and it can be difficult simply to go somewhere else.

Over here in England there has been a sharp increase in the liberal left becoming ‘offended’ by others freedom of speeches. By using the trope ‘in all fairness’, I was referring to the fact that our news hardly ever mentions these ‘religious bakery’ type cases (I can remember two over the last ~5 years), but our media is awash with the ‘offended snowflake’ types of case. So by using ‘in all fairness’, I was reflected that in the U.K. today, you are far more likely to hear of the liberals complaining than any religious types (I’m not sure we have many religious types here, it certainly seems to have taken a back seat recently). Hopefully that makes sense to you:) ‘Seems’? Respectfully that probably says more about you than me as it appears you have inferred understanding about me that I never stated. I never passed any judgement or statement of affinity for the right! Far right or far left are both intolerant in my opinion. In fact I likened far left intolerance to far right intolerance in my post; why would I have done that if I thought one was more acceptable than the other?!? I equated the two! It upsets me that a well respected member of a science forum can read a post and detect tones that were not present. Again, respectfully, I think that show your own bias sir. Complaining is fine if people want to; that is down to them and I have no problem with it at all. Personally, if that bakery didn’t want to bake a cake for me and my same sex partner, I would have gone to another bakery and not bothered wasting my time with a court case.

Lol...Their pathetic snowflake reaction at people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is bad enough

lol even after 30 years of study I still find the Yukawa couplings involvement in the Higgs field weak symmetry gauge frustrating to determine the mass of the gauge bosons. There is no truly easy shortcuts to understand how mass arises from coupling constants.

It's tough to compare a TV series with movie spinoffs with a movie-only franchise. TV offers much more chance for character and plot development just from the sheer number of episodes being broadcast, and the Star Trek movies would pale into insignificance if you didn't have the TV backstory. The lack of depth of Star Wars isn't a fair criticism IMO.

That is rather more philosophical than I think Prometheus intended for this thread since it's in the lounge. Start a new thread and I'd be more than happy to have a debate. I voted for Star Wars because when I was ten it made more sense than Kirk shagging a green alien.

It would certainly win the popular vote, and is maybe more embedded in popular culture. But though I've come across a few scientists who say they were inspired by Star Trek as kids, i've never heard anyone inspired by Star Wars to do anything except some half-hearted fencing. Baddies vs goodies doesn't have to make sense. We might have less wars if it did. But what role would you cast him in? I can only imagine him as the Emperor or Obi Wan. I'm not sure he'd get enough screen time in a film to develop a character beyond a trope though.

Patrick Stewart makes the difference. If Star Wars had Patrick Stewart instead of Star Trek, Star Wars would have won Also: most annoying characters. Jar-Jar-Binx vs Wesley Crusher

Quantum Field Theory: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsPUh22kYmNBpDZPejCHGzxyfgitj26w9

Can you imagine the outrage which would exist if a Halal bakery refused to serve Christians?

Many Christians interpret parts of the Bible as forbidding interracial marriages. Do you think it would be OK for this baker (any baker) to refuse to make a cake for a black man and a white woman who were getting married, based on this interpretation (or any interpretation) of his religion?

Better? Could you please choose a more ambiguous word? That one’s way too precise. Lol. Likewise with franchise. It suggests I should comment on which has done better with revenue and putting people to work, not which is a better reflection of culture, ideals, and well executed storytelling. They're both so good for so many different reasons. I’ll just choose the one I’m most sentimental about.

It is very, very unlikely that you have anything form the acid work up left.

Awesome! When I can make some time to visit friends and family I have in Fayetteville, NC, I'll have to stop by and say hello

https://newatlas.com/vanishing-star-skip-supernova-black-hole/49725/ Birth of a black hole witnessed as star vanishes without a bang: For the first time, astronomers have witnessed a star disappear right before their eyes. Known as N6946-BH1, the star appears to have collapsed into a black hole without the usual flair of a supernova, which not only marks the first time scientists have witnessed the birth of a black hole, but could change our understanding of the life and death of stars. According to conventional thinking, when a star exhausts its energy supply, it violently ejects most of its matter outwards in a supernova, before collapsing in on itself to form a black hole. But N6946-BH1 has bucked the trend, skipping the supernova stage and quietly collapsing into a black hole. These failed supernovae (or "massive fails", as the team calls them) could help patch some holes in our stellar knowledge. "The typical view is that a star can form a black hole only after it goes supernova," says Christopher Kochanek, lead researcher on the study. "If a star can fall short of a supernova and still make a black hole, that would help to explain why we don't see supernovae from the most massive stars. more at link..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/468/4/4968/3098190 The search for failed supernovae with the Large Binocular Telescope: confirmation of a disappearing star: Abstract We present Hubble Space Telescope imaging confirming the optical disappearance of the failed supernova (SN) candidate identified by Gerke, Kochanek & Stanek. This ∼25 M⊙ red supergiant experienced a weak ∼106 L⊙ optical outburst in 2009 and is now at least 5 mag fainter than the progenitor in the optical. The mid-IR flux has slowly decreased to the lowest levels since the first measurements in 2004. There is faint (2000–3000 L⊙) near-IR emission likely associated with the source. We find the late-time evolution of the source to be inconsistent with obscuration from an ejected, dusty shell. Models of the spectral energy distribution indicate that the remaining bolometric luminosity is >6 times fainter than that of the progenitor and is decreasing as ∼t−4/3. We conclude that the transient is unlikely to be an SN impostor or stellar merger. The event is consistent with the ejection of the envelope of a red supergiant in a failed SN and the late-time emission could be powered by fallback accretion on to a newly formed black hole. Future IR and X-ray observations are needed to confirm this interpretation of the fate for the star. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this bring into question the science of Supernovas? Could extra massive stars actually form a BH at their cores first, without any "rebound" and instead just consume the rest of the inflated star?

I suspect you are not long for this site.

Racist insults, regardless of context, is never about "someone." It's about using a false and humiliating opinion of a "people" as a weapon. Emerging from the least evolved among us, any and every expression of racism is an insult and assault on a people, on humanity itself.

If this idea that you won't bake a cake due to religious belief then any business that does this should be required to list the parts of society they will not serve plainly some place like the front door so the rest of us can know who these bigots are and not patronise them if you disagree with them... Personally I think this is just a way to bring back the ideas prevalent in some areas where they used to post signs proclaiming no negroes or asians. You can use this religious excuse to bar almost anyone from your business. Everyone should have the right to know who your bigotry encompasses..

That doesn't correspond to anything we see. So why did you say: How does it explain this? So you are just going to ignore all the conservation laws? What is it with anti-science crackpots and their dislike of any sort of education? I suppose it is too much like hard work to actually study science from a book? I guess it is easier to just make up stories, even if they bear no relation to reality. Do you think that studying science just mans memorising facts from books that must be true because "Einstein [or whoever] said so"? The whole process of studying science is learning how to test ideas to see if they work. This is, perhaps, the biggest problem with people proposing personal theories. It is not that they are ignorant of basic science (although that doesn't help) but they have no ability to question and check that an idea works before presenting it. Some may do. Many don't. It may surprise you to know, that scientists are a very varied bunch of human beings. Not that this is the least bit relevant to science or your personal theory. Well, obviously.Duh. The universe existed for billions of years before life arose. Why on Earth would anyone believe that? I guess some religious people might. But that has nothing to do with science. If the universe had an edge and a centre, then it would not be homogeneous and isotropic. And what would be beyond that edge? More space? Why wouldn't that be part of the universe? Having an edge makes no sense. Apart from that, we don't see the universe "imploding" (and your warped logic to "explain" how imploding means that things are getting further apart makes no sense, either). With that, I'll leave you to it. Maybe someone else will have something more constructive to say.

seriously ? I might not like the way Phi parts his hair, and if he wants to hire me to build a fence, I can refuse because I don't like certain lifestyle choices ( hair parting ) he makes. There is no law requiring a person to like everyone. Similarly there is no law requiring anyone to patronize that bakery if you don't like the character of the owner. If enough people vote with their wallet, that bakery will soon go out of business, and another problem will have been solved by capitalism.

It’s just reverse gravity, a Universe in which massive objects are falling inwards, and massless objects falling outwards. It doesn’t have an effect on the speed of light, there’s only one speed of light, it has effect on the particle. A mass “particle” can become a photon particle and vice versa. So it’s just an unbound mass particle, that is being emitted, which becomes “un-massed”, and its falling back speed makes it look like it is going somewhere really fast, and “has” energy, but that is just because it’s falling back at a constant speed. I’m trying to find out whether the forces in our Universe would still behave the same way if we had this edge. If something is not in accordance with this, then the hypothesis must be wrong. I wasn’t referring to the Universe right now having the same pressure as a star, I said “The first form of energy that came into existence must have experienced the same force that a star experiences right now”. So I meant that this first energy particle must have felt gravity, and resisted to it, which is what’s essentially still happening in every star in our Universe right now. Are you sharing your own personal thoughts, or are you merely citing knowledge that you’ve borrowed from scientific books? Not that there’s something wrong with that, but scientists are not gods, they are humans, and humans sometimes make mistakes. Scientists look at our world in a very mechanical way. Do you believe that physical energy could exist before life existed, meaning that no conscious or mental input has to be responsible for physical energy? Just like some kind of machine, it just happened? Not by some kind of consciousness with mental input, which must have come later? I think you might be looking at the Universe in a mechanical way too. I don’t believe that we are energy + something else. Life is only energy and attraction. Think about your own human existence, you feel that you want certain things, and you think about certain things. That’s it. Those are just attractions of certain chemicals, gradient shifts and voltage switches. You’re only experience something good, and the absence of good (we call ‘bad’) in complex ways, which is why we have multiple forms of good, and multiple forms of bads, which we are able to hear, see, taste etc., but there’s only good and bad. I don’t see why we would need anything else than energy and gravity to understand the dualistic natural world and our own human experience of it. Taken literally, no, we're not photons, but what about in essence? How can you be so sure that this can't be the case? The Milky Way is a galaxy amidst a complex Local Group cluster in the Universe, where life exists on a planet that is made up of complex layers and structures, where humans are walking around that are members of complex governed civilisation structures along with complex laws and rules, but we’re also individuals that are made up of a complex organisation of organs, tissues and an extremely complex brain, and these structures consist of their own complex arrangements of molecules that are working together in a complex way, which in turn are made up of even smaller complex structures called atoms, which themselves are complex structures of subatomic forces. Well, in one of my other post (about 2 days ago, in another thread) I have given a few reasons why all three forces of nature, in one way or another, could be seen as derivatives of electromagnetism, or has at least have something to do with electromagnetism, since they share a history, and still have the same (two) charges, and the same massless force carriers. Different, yes, it’s another kind of force, sure, but it’s not another kind of energy. No, we’re not photons, of course not, but it’s electromagnetism that is responsible for everything we call life, and it’s electromagnetism that makes up all of biology, so even though more complex life forms seem to behave differently compared to us, all organisms are made up of the same energy and the same forces. Animals follow their so-called instinct, but this is nothing more than a certain attraction. Humans have the same attraction, but we're able to control it. So, taking also in account that the two charges/dipoles of nature that we see everywhere can be annihilated back into one simple photon, could meant that it originated from it, and we could be closer to photons (pure energy?) than you perhaps might think.

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?

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.

Opinions of races don't have to be false. Often stereotypes of races have some truth to them. There is this idea that someone must somehow be held responsible for a racist comment, as if they should be held accountable for being a certain way. What seems to be happening is that instead of being punished for doing something wrong, it seems like people are being punished for being wrong in the eyes of others, for a racist or bigoted comment. The real motivation, however, lies in an emotional reaction of an attitude against racism rather than actually having reason behind it.

How about something like the moon and earth creating a phi ratio triangle with their combined dimensions? Or the fact that adding the orbital periods of the 3 other rocky planets in the solar system results in almost exactly 1000 earth days? Mercury: 87.97 days Venus : 224.70 days Mars: 686.98 days 87.97 + 224.70 + 686.98 = 999.65 Everything is created in a divine order, and the evidence is all around you. You only have to look a little further.