Leaderboard

It might help, if you @Angelo would first, in an objective tone, lay out exactly what you believe Tyson's argument to be, and the steps in his reasoning (as far as they are provided and assuming they are truthful). As far as I understand the simulation hypothesis, is that it is based on chance and likelihoods coupled with some very specific assumptions; however the things you say, and the way you ask your questions and/or comment on other peoples posts, to me seems to indicate that you (at best) don't know the full reasoning behind the simulation hypothesis (or you do understand it, but are wilfully creating strawmens). Additionally, it would be great to present the strongest argument(s) for the simulation hypothesis, and not immediately assume that Tyson and other people agree on everything. If he has some illogical reasoning or assumptions you don't agree with, then it may be good to find a better version of the argument, instead of immediately disregarding the entire hypothesis. If you are really interested in understanding Tyson's and other people's point of view on this, it would help to start with a detailed summary/explanation of the hypothesis, because I could explain it (as far as I understand it), but I doubt the explanation is similar to what you think it is. And if you aren't sure on WHAT people belief, then it is very strange to already think of it as nonsense, therefore (assuming you have good reason to think of it as nonsense) it should be easy for you to explain it (in your own words, please don't just link something, that doesn't test your current understanding). Kind regards, Dagl

It is very disingenuous to ask a question then assert the answers are wrong.

In line with the other reactions you already got: I distinguish between wild speculations and scientific speculations. Speculations are an essential part of scientific praxis. Our observations and experiments do not bring ideas by themselves: scientists doing them generate ideas, and when they are not tested (yet), they are speculations. But well-founded speculations. Scientists know the present theories, and about possible shortcomings of them. Speculations without sufficient knowledge about present theories, that are based on gut feelings, and contradict established science, are scientifically worthless. And yes, this is a science forum. Your illustration with Einstein is therefore as wrong as it can be. He knew about the problems of harmonising electromagnetism with classical mechanics (he was also not the first to work on this problem), and aimed at solving this, without using many additional hypothesis. This became special relativity. And if you meant general relativity: Einstein soon saw that Newton's law of gravitation could not be the last word, because it allows faster than light communication via gravitation. This turned out to be the harder problem, e.g. while a much more complicated mathematical toolset had to be used. But when Einstein succeeded, he immediately applied it to the orbit of Mercury, which shows an extra movement that Newton's law of gravitation could not account for, and Einstein succeeded in explaining it with his equations. So Einstein's 'speculations' were firmly rooted in his knowledge of physics, and he was aware of the necessity to check his ideas. So if you have a firm knowledge about the physiological basis of memory, can show why present ideas fail, and can show that your ideas fit very well in what we do know, please, present your ideas. But as said, why not publish them in a scientific journal? And if you are not sure: just ask if your ideas have any merit. But accept the answers, even if they are negative. And being polite always helps. Also, not throwing in conspiracy theories about science oppressing new ideas helps. Scientists love new ideas: but they should not be in clear contradiction with established science, or not testable at all.

Please elaborate. This strikes me as totally nonsequitur, but I trust you have a valid point here and I want to understand it. Just to be sure we’re clear, it appears you cannot name even one. Is that correct?

Not everything is about your President, guys. Iran has been destabilizing the region for years... yet everyone assumes it is the 'President we love to hate' who is destabilizing the region. Iran has been in a 'proxy' war with the US for years, Using the Hezbollah ( Shia ) political parties in neighboring countries to stir up trouble against Sunni controlled governments and US interests in those countries. Both England and Germany have sided with the US on this act, while Russia and France have condemned it ( China as usual, has been quite non-committal ) Funny how a country like Iran burns off enough natural gas ( byproduct of their oil extraction, called flaring ) to supply a small country, yet, can claim with a straight face, that it needs home-grown nuclear technology for reasons other than warfare.

Whilst I agree that the question is not clear, there is indeed an answer closer to what I understand the question to mean. No I would not mention photons and but you could mention the constant speed of light since it connects frequency and wavelength, both of which you are asked about. But I also still say you need to reverse your thinking and statements. Fig 3 says you can infer that change of frequency does not affect amplitude, so you can infer that there is no direct connection between amplitude and frequency. In other words change of amplitude does not affect frequency. But you know that the energy of a wave depends upon both frequency and amplitude, but independently of each other. Page 138 refers to electromagnetic waves and shows light from a light source being split into different colours (frequencies). So if you increased the power to that lightsource you will increase the light output - by increasing the amplitude of the lightwave. Increasing the amplitude will increase the lightwave energy but will have no effect on the frequency or wavelength of the light. But increasing the power to any real lightsource (with a spectrum as shown on page 138) is likely to also change the frequency spectrum of the light. This change will increase the relative amounts of higher frequency light. This will also increase the relative amount of shorter wavelength light since the product of frequency and wavelength is the constant speed of light.

Just to be sure we’re clear, it appears you cannot name even one. Is that correct? I'll be truthful with you, I find it a little dishonest of you to quote the first part of what I said, and entirely ignore the second. Even cutting the sentence in half. If you didn't wish to read into the link, and/or didn't take that to be as good as providing a name directly, you could simply quote the entire thing and say something like "I don't believe providing a list is as good as you personally giving some examples." If we're going to have a good faith discussion, I think this is a must. No. That is not correct. Allow me to pull a top name from the list, which was seemingly your justification for picking Mitch McConnell as an example (it seems like a reasonable way to do it.) In 2011, Nancy Pelosi did not believe Obama required congressional approval for his air operations in Libya. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/166843-pelosi-backs-obama-on-libya In 2011, Chuck Schumer also did not believe that Obama required congressional approval for his air operations in Libya, however he did believe they should remain "limited" in scope. https://observer.com/2011/03/schumer-cautions-against-expanding-role-in-libya/ Again, for reference, those killed well over 1,100 individuals, and injured around 4,500 more, and involved hundreds of US air strikes across a countries sovereign territory. Now, with Trump ordering a drone strike on an Iranian terrorist, both of them have stepped up saying Trump has crossed the line and violated the war powers resolution. This is hypocrisy of the democratic party. Note two things however. Firstly, I fully acknowledge that the GOP is just as hypocritical in this area. And Secondly, I fully acknowledge you never claimed that democrats are not hypocritical. This is in response to your request.

I think we all here suggest you do.

Yup, in fact the energy of a wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-2/Energy-Transport-and-the-Amplitude-of-a-Wave You question says But it did not say how. So you have two separate factors which can increase the energy Changing the amplitude Changing the frequency Your explanation should work the energy relationships backwards to explain how the energy was increased with each and therefore what the effect was on the frequency and wavelength.

As hypervalentiodine says there are many problems associated with Lewis structures. Originally they were simple dot diagrams, but some authors now connect this to also show bonds as valency lines. I suggest you stick to the dots. Because of the many exceptions the dot structure is taught and then students move on. So I also suggest you do enough to earn the marks (since you must and HI doesn't need to) but remember better methods follow. Here is a presentation going only as far as you need to answer your question (which it does). This does include Hypervalent's rules as she already set out, but the slightly different explanation may help.

What a mess of a question. Well page 138 suggests we are talking about electromagnetic waves and the comment adjacent to Fig3 mentions swansont's other variable - amplitude. In the text it also refers to the relationship between frequency and wavelength I mentioned. Does the book say anywhere what the relationship between amplitude and energy is? (there is a very important one) After this you will know this substantially more than other less diligent students on your course.

See Studiot also for more clues. I'm being picky, but there's a lack of information here. Maybe p.138 helps. Your answer is correct only if you are referring to individual photons. Is 'wave' in the question intended to be synonymous with 'photon?' It seems that a correct answer is 'not at all.' e.g. a laser produces a 1Watt beam with wavelength 441.6nm. Its power is increased to 10W still at 441.6nm. How has the beam wavelength changed?

No, it changes to "-ous". Sulphurous, nitrous etc don't have an "i".

Yes. Of course I could. And if I could not, I would openly acknowledge that and retract or alter my claim. Let me be clear though, are you asking me to name GOP congressmen who’ve regularly called for restricting presidential and federal powers powers in favor of state powers and smaller government... but who are now silent or even vocally supportive of Trumps executive overreach... or, are you asking me to name GOP congressmen who sought to limit what Obama could do militarily without congressional approval but who now vocally support Trump acting on his own? If it’s the latter (which is more thread relevant), then Mitch McConnell is the single most obvious example. You’ve maybe heard of others who’ve magically flip flopped on this issue like Orin Hatch and Marco Rubio or Jason Chaffetz, and there are scores of other congressional back benchers of whom you’ve likely never heard like Ted Poe of Texas who’s hypocrisy is on full display, too. There are more, and my position is NOT that democrats are never hypocrites (which would be absurd), but Raider made a pretty big claim there which quickly crumbled when it got even gently challenged. Regardless, I suspect this addresses the question more than suffiently and maybe now we can please return to the topic...

As it says, that is an artefact of the way black holes are defined. There is no actual backward time travel.

Sorry, I seem to have caused confusion or you have misunderstood me. When I said you only count the valence electrons once, I meant when you look at the Lewis structure and you are tallying up electrons you only count each electron once. You still have to compare that number to the total number of valence electrons from the molecular formula. When you are determining whether or not the octet rule has be obeyed, you have to look at each atom separately and look at how many electrons are around it. The oxygen has 6 in lone pairs and 2 from the bond to the C, which makes 8. The carbon has 2 each from the bonds to the hydrogens, 2 from the bond to the oxygen, and 2 from the lone pair, which again makes 8. Each hydrogen has 2 electrons around it from the bond to the carbon. They all check out. Then you have to count all of the electrons in the bonds and lone pairs and see if they match with the total number of valence electrons as per the molecular formula. You’re half way with this. You now need to count up all of the electrons in bonds and lone pairs in the Lewis structure (these are the valence electrons in the Lewis structure) and check that it matches with the number of valence electrons you have calculated from the molecular formula. Is it the same number? These are two separate actions and you should do both to check that the Lewis structure is correct.

You need to do two calculations here, one where you calculate the total number of valence electrons available, and other where you count all of the valence electrons in the Lewis structure (i.e. all of the ones in bonds and lone pairs). If the Lewis structure is correct, the numbers must be the same. If we look at my previous example in my post of formic acid, HCO2H. Each hydrogen has 1 valence electron, the carbon has 4 and the oxygens 6. Thus, there is a (1x2)+(6x2)+(4x1) valence electrons, which comes to a total of 18 valence electrons available. If we then look at the number of electrons present in structure A, we have 6 lone pairs and 4 bonds with 2 electrons in each, which is equal to a total of 20 valence electrons in the Lewis structure. The numbers don't match, so the Lewis structure (A) is wrong. See if you can apply that to your molecule.

No. I think the problem you are having is that when you count the two electrons between the carbon and oxygen in the question, you are only counting them once for one of the atoms and then treating it as though that atom has sole ownership over them, which is not the case. The question you have to ask yourself when considering the octet rule is how many electrons is each atom surrounded by individually. You are not asked to consider how many electrons the atom possesses in a formal sense (i.e. both electrons from a lone pair and one from each bond), just how many electrons are around it total. Look at each of them separately, count two electrons for each bond that atom has and two electrons for each lone pair. For carbon, yes, that makes 8 (2 from the lone pair and 6 from each bond). Similarly, for both hydrogens you should count 2 from the bond to the carbon. However, that also makes 8 for oxygen (6 from lone pairs and 2 from the bond to the carbon). Note that this double counting is only when you are looking to see if the octet rule has been satisfied. If you are then counting the total number of valence electrons, you obviously only count the electrons once. Does it help you to visualise it if the structure from your question is redrawn like this?:

There is a big difference between refusing to support your claim, and not supporting your claim until asked. Has anyone here not explained why they feel religion is nonsense when asked?

I never mentioned anything about how I feel or what I believe about the claim. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof on to me. I’m not the one here making assertions You said it was nonsense. Now you’re saying it’s fantasy, and further you are suggesting it’s not reality. What is your reason for doing so? Perhaps you have evidence in support of a counter hypothesis that you can share? Without evidence, you’re just another person with an opinion.

Seems fine to me.

Trolling is one thing, but notifications (no less threats) of war might be a violation of Twitter's terms of service.

I have no idea what you are on. I mean, I have no idea what you are on about.

[math]g_{\alpha\beta}[/math] is the metric tensor the indices run (0,1,2,3). The form will vary according to the spacetime being modelled it can have either or both the covariant and contravariant terms accordingly to the Einstein summation convention. In the above its specifying covariant.

I'm not so sure it was a bad decision ( but not sure it was a good one either ). Knowing D Trump, it was probably a decision based on ulterior motives, such as distraction from impeachment, wanting to 'stick-it' to Congress, getting NATO to spend more money, or simply one of many bad hair days. However General Soleimani has been acting with impunity through the last two administrations, knowing full well that no one would have the backbone to take him out. He flies into the Baghdad airport a couple of days after orchestrating an attack on the American embassy; pretty bold move. People like Soleimani, and Iran for that matter, keep on pushing, just like A Hitler did in 1939, and either you keep appeasing him and giving the bully your lunch money, or you push back. Whatever his reasons, D Trump has decided to push back.

I'm not saying it's right or justified, I'm just introducing it for discussion... You know why nobody f*cks with Russia ? Because Russia will be just as brutal, if not more so, in their retaliation to any perceived attacks. They even targeted hospitals in Syria, and they succeeded in putting down ISIS much better than the Americans. I suspect they learned this lesson in WW2, where the Germans were actually afraid of surrendering to them. The US ( and Israel ) have always been urged by their populations to take the 'high road' with surgical strikes instead of mass slaughters, and proportional responses that do little to deter. We are attempting to 'set an example' for how violence should be done. Does that even make sense ? And Europe, of course, for the last century has been all about appeasement, crossing their fingers that everything will work out without having to dirty their hands, while Dick-tators around the world do as they please and oppress people. America for better or worse, currently has a President who can be as big a dick as V Putin; in fact he idolizes him. I'm actually surprised D Trump hasn't already started a war, although I would have thought it would be against Mexico or Canada.

politics is more important than life, if we get it wrong, then humanity is in a bad state, if we get it right, then humanity is in a good state, then we forget how and repeat the wrong.

I consider myself an external observer to this, since I am not a citizen of either the US nor Iran, and have little interest or emotional investment in politics. It is striking to me that no one mentions the ethical dimension of this. This person - regardless of what he may or may not have done - was a human being, and as such has the basic right to life, and to a fair trial, as we all do. How can it possibly be ethically acceptable that anyone - regardless of his rank or position - can order the blatant killing of another human being, just like that? What Trump has done is akin to me hiring a contract killer to get rid of someone I don’t like; if I did that, I would be brought before a judge, and locked away for life, quite regardless of who the deceased person was or what he/she has done. And quite rightly so. Why do these same standards of law, justice, and human rights not apply to the President of the US? Why do they not apply to other heads of states, who commit similar crimes against humanity? At the very least, this Iranian general would have been entitled to a fair trial before an impartial judge. What happened here was premeditated murder, plain and simple. If this act was illegal under US law, then Trump needs to be held accountable for his action to the full extent of the law, like any other citizen would; if it was legal under US law, then that means the US has deteriorated to a point were human rights count for nothing, and lives are expendable for political gain and leverage. If someone is in the way, just have him killed, no need to bother with fair trials. Just to be clear, this is not exclusive to the US, it applies to anyone who acts with impunity in the face of basic human rights. If politics have become more important than life, then humanity is in a bad state indeed.

Thank you.....!

Actually you interjected without evidence of any type. That said since there is none, that is to be expected I assume

You said and I quote " Without evidence, you’re just another person with an opinion." So you agree that Tyson is merely expressing his opinion since there is no evidence that we are both computer simulations on a hard drive conversing back and forth on the drive

If you have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation, please grace us with your knowledge, or if you understand why Tyson thinks that people and planets are not real but computer code on a hard drive again please explain? Also why would the computer programmer that Tyson claims created the universe be different than the creator that most religions mention as God. Somewhat strange don't you think for Tyson to champion a universal creator after being such a devout atheist?

What makes you accept what you hear on a Larry King infomercial? I mean next we heard that fish oil cures impotence and prevents cancer

Yes I also listened to Tyson be forced into saying that if the universe were a simulation that there must be a creator of the simulation which means that he now believes in God after spending his entire life denying God. In other words he is a clown that does not know what he believes