Leaderboard

0n the Origin of Species was published in 1859, after some 30 years in the making including round the world data gathering and study in the early 1830s. Hardly the work of a late 19 century chancer (do you really know any ? You have provided no references to your claim.) It is perhaps less well known that as well prominent male professors a number ladies carried out meticulous detailed observation recording and cataloguing of Natural World, every bit the equal of the tradition of Euclid. The names Marianne North, Mary Ward spring to mind. Of course there were cranks and charlatans then, as now. But I rather wonder if the tradition of attention to detail is waning in modern times with the growing desire for instant gratification and results. As regards the improbability of simultaneous occurrence of life in vastly different locations and environments think about it. You have the combination of two very low probability events that have to happen for this to come about. I think you really mean contemporaneously. Which one led to widespread life on Earth? Well consider the requirements. A supply of nutrients and energy. If an organism developed in hydrothermal vents and wandered away it would loose both and be a very long way from alternative sources. An organism in a rock pool would still have both if it translocated. So I favour the chances of the latter, but as you say I can't prove it. But then Science does not deal in 'proof', only consistencies with observation.

Your only questions are sarcastic and unhelpful. Your assertions have mostly been wrong, and have been pointed out to you, but you've chosen to ignore them. You're rejecting explanations without reason, simply because they don't seem intuitive to you. This isn't personal, it isn't about you. It's your approach to learning that's causing a problem in discussions. I have to ask, is there any way to reason with you on this subject, or is your incredulity always going to be an impassable obstacle? How can we turn this discussion into a meaningful one? Several people have tried explaining what mainstream science says on this subject, but it's hard to have a conversation with you when half the effort is spent trying to get your fingers out of your ears.

Short answer IIRC: erf(x) is defined for some random variable that is normally distributed with mean 0 and variance 1/2. The variance is the square of the standard deviation. So erf(x) assumes that the underlaying standard is constant and have this specific value. edit: If mean is [math]{\mu}[/math] is and deviation [math]{\sigma}[/math] then I think one could use [math]{erf}\left( \frac{x-\mu}{\sigma} \right) [/math]

aussie here. i think the biggest problem is people. the ones that know nothing of the bush putting their 2 bobs worth in. there should be some law that say that politician who live in the cities are exempt from adding their say in parliament regarding country issues. and then the ones that dont bother doing any research. just blurting out what they have seen or heard as if its a fact, when a little bit of research can easily put holes in it. while ever this goes on, we dont stand a chance. and history shows this. after the black Saturday fires the royal commission stated that biggest reason for the fires was lack of winter burning and the best prevention for future fires is winter burning. (yes, it does state that climate is a factor, but a very small factor compare to winter burning) .this has been completely ignored by all governments and even ignored by all the people who think the fires are scomos fault. then theres the people that say that this is the biggest fire in history. when a bit of research can find fires just as big, just as fierce. some of them a hundred years ago. but the difference between those fires and todays fires is how it affects people. more people live in or near the bush, they either cant or wont protect their propety and then when summer comes they wonder why they lost their house. how is their own ignorance toward how much fuel is outside their house scomos fault? i found a local map of my own area. its an official national park map of my local area showing the winter fuel reductions over the past few years. every part of this map is compete bullshit. they state that particular areas were burnt and they give the time burnt. and they are probably using these figures to justify their fuel reduction quota. but as a local i can tell you those places were not burnt at all. ever. until the last few weeks. the places in question used to be state forest. they were selective logged which employed hundreds of timber workers. (which potentially results in fewer timber imports). the logging process was overseen by a local. and the buck stopped with him. there were never any raging wild fires through this area. because if a fire did start, previous back burning and/or access trough fire trails meant the fire could be put out. animals had a chance to escape. until bob car wrecked it he went through and made everything national park. hundreds of people lost their jobs. the place was all locked up. it was never ever burned in winter against locals advice and against what nation parks service stated to their head office. and come this summer the whole lot burnt, meaning the animals had no chance of escape. the people who simply say that the fire are the result of climate change ignore the very basic concept of more fuel equals more fire. they wouldnt smoke at a petrol station so why do they think forest fuel is any different? FIRE HAS NOT CHANGED, PEOPLE HAVE

If you prefer not to code the distributions you could take a look at random, one of the standard libraries in Python: https://docs.python.org/release/2.6.8/library/random.html Pseudo-code example: random.gauss(mu, sigma) # Gaussian distribution. mu is the mean, and sigma is the standard deviation.

There is a classical algorithm, called Box–Muller transform, to convert sampling from a "flat" (uniform) distribution, say uniform over the interval \( [0,1] \), to a Gaussian distribution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box–Muller_transform

Darwin did speculate about questions that could not be answered definitively but I'm not aware of him claiming certainty for the hypotheses he mentioned or even favoured. His speculations on any specific matter being wrong does not detract from the central thesis he is famous for being right. I do think that lesser thinkers that came after have made too much of those speculations - from both directions; some extending their defense of everything he said further than warranted and others making too much of the things he got wrong, as if that proved evolution through natural selection must be wrong. I have had a long running interest in how humans came to be furless - initially aroused because I found assumptions or claims that appeared quite wrong to me, assumptions that seemed to originate with speculation by Charles Darwin, that were taken as definitive when they were speculative. Tracking down specific mentions of "nakedness" (as the "human hairless" trait was referred to) did not lead me to conclude Darwin was wrong about everything else or diminish my respect for his contributions to science.

We know which options exist, given the validity of the laws governing gravitation (this can be worked out analytically). We then take the observational data available to us at a given point in time, and see which of these options the data fits best; this then becomes the current consensus. But this is an evolving process - as new data becomes available to us, the consensus can shift over time, as the larger data set may better fit a different option. This is the whole point of physics - it makes models which describe aspects of the universe as accurately as possible, but it does not pursue some spurious notion of “absolute truth”. A model is “true” only in the sense that it fits available data, and makes accurate predictions. As such, it is really more epistemic than ontic in nature.

He’s just pathetically trying and failing to get a rise out of us

We are able to measure distances of tens of billions of light years, the brightness of variable stars at those distances, and recession speeds of galaxies at those distances, with less than 10 % error. And you think that means we don't know what the universe is and need to scrap current cosmological models in favor of 'new Physics" ? Despite people's best efforts, you have learned nothing in the last few days.

The point of determining the oxidation state is really just so you can determine what number to put in brackets. In your case, so you know that it is iron(III) oxide and not iron(II) oxide. You've already shown how you got to the oxide part.

One positive outcome of the Black Death hundreds of years ago is a more effective immune response carried in genes of the descendants of survivors. One might speculate that despite the mass death toll of the infection, subsequent generations "died less" than would have occurred if the pandemic had been circumvented by the eradication of the responsible pathogen. But I'd consider mosquito, housefly, tick....

Headlines are not usually written by the authors of the articles. The editor may be a creationist, a sensationalist or just ignorant.

When I do not post the article I am accused of copyright infringement. Now do you agree or disagree with the article, remembering that if you disagree that you know more than the entire rest of the science community combined. Actually the article is about the newest most accurate measurement that invalidates physics as it is currently known. This is the crisis referred to

1+1+1+1+1-1-1-1-1-1 without adding = symbol to it

y=y or y+y=y+y

You are determined to argue with me, however I am just referencing NASA observations. If you know please contact NASA, they will accept your input because they are stumped https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1187112/nasa-news-albert-einstein-wrong-theory-relativity-hubble-telescope-messier-87-spt Do remember that Galileo accepted NOTHING and was right about everything PS. The Navy just admitted that UFO's are toying with F18's

Actually if the big bang were real all of the information in the form of moving galaxies could be reversed to the beginning point. This is elusive however as there seems to be no such point. However to determine the true center of the universe one would need to know what the boundaries are. Without this info finding a center is not logically possible, also are you referring to a geographic center or as typically proposed the beginning of expansion which can not be found. Technically the Earth is the center of humanity in the known universe, so there are many ways to express center Wrong, as Neptune was and is not moving at 5 to 6 times the speed of light as NASA has observed. Also Einstein can not be correct as is now accepted which agrees with the current observations

https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html See it takes a bigger man to say "I do not know" than it does to know the unknowable No One Can Agree How Fast Universe Is Expanding. New Measure Makes Things Worse. By Adam Mann 2020-01-09T20:37:47Z We just might need new physics to get out of this mess. HONOLULU — A crisis in physics may have just gotten deeper. By looking at how the light from distant bright objects is bent, researchers have increased the discrepancy between different methods for calculating the expansion rate of the universe. "The measurements are consistent with indicating a crisis in cosmology," Geoff Chih-Fan Chen, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, said here during a news briefing on Wednesday (Jan. 8) at the 235th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Honolulu. At issue is a number known as the Hubble constant. It was first calculated by American astronomer Edwin Hubble nearly a century ago, after he realized that every galaxy in the universe was zipping away from Earth at a rate proportional to that galaxy's distance from our planet. ... The problem is that, in recent years, different teams have disagreed over what exactly this constant's value is. Measurements made using the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a remnant from the Big Bang that provides a snapshot of the infant universe, suggest that the Hubble constant is 46,200 mph per million light-years (or, using cosmologists' units, 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec). But by looking at pulsating stars known as Cepheid variables, a different group of astronomers has calculated the Hubble constant to be 50,400 mph per million light-years (73.4 km/s/Mpc). The discrepancy seems small, but there is no overlap between the independent values and neither side has been willing to concede major mistakes in its methodology. So whatever you know...……………..it's wrong, when you know that you are right

What work exactly did Einstein do to determine that the universe was not expanding? And I am being quite serious, Hubble observed, Columbus sailed. Einstein sat down with a pencil and claimed to know everything about everything that he never even saw. Hubble looked and had to correct the pencilneck

You are correct but you said that this has never happened and I assure you that it has The 80's before computer imaging. What has resolution increased since the 80's Well to steal a line, resolution has increased billions and billions of percent since the stone age 80's. 80's like in Atari asteroid Are you serious

My assertion is that no one knows, do you know? https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html All the data I just received from you is 0 and 1's. They are irrelevant as it is your sentence in English that matters https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html Unknown https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-crisis-deepens.html