Leaderboard

We have already detected gravitational waves. However, neither gravitational or magnetic attraction is mediated by waves. A "magnetic wave", is just one component of an electromagnetic wave, or in other words, light and radio waves. Magnetism, as in the attraction and repulsion of magnets, is due to a field, not a wave.

That's one aspect of a social species. You're trying to say this is representative of all evolution, and that's extrapolating in the wrong direction. You can't go from specific to general based on one data point. To quote from The Logician: 'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bulls**t. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. IOW, all social behavior is the result of evolution, but not all of evolution deals with social interaction

And even in conventional electricity, the net flow of electrons is slow. The current is caused by the massive numbers of charge carriers, and the fact that the interaction proceeds at the speed of light in the material. But the electrons themselves have a drft velocity far, far slower. To have electricity you need free charge carriers, and that's typically the electrons. You could do this with other charged particles, but you'd have to create a condition where they are the free charge carriers, and that just doesn't happen except in very specific circumstances. The fact that electrons are stable and much less massive than protons, and don't bind to other particles except via the electromagnetic interaction (unlike protons binding to neutrons and other protons) is the reason they are free to create currents in conductors.

To amplify Mordred's statement ( +1 ) Mathematically and logically a relation is a particular conncetion between pairs of (mathematical) objects. Equality as represented by the equals sign = is characterised by three properties. Where A B and C are three mathematical objects 1) Reflexivity A = A 2) Symmmetry If A = B then B = A 3) Transitivity If A = B and B = C then A = C These may seem obvious but they are fundamnetal and very important. Another stronger reelation is identity. This is different from equality and should be carefully distinguished. All identities are also equalities, but not all equalities are identities. An easy way to see this is to compare the following [math]{x^2} - 1 \equiv \left( {x + 1} \right)\left( {x - 1} \right)[/math] This is an identity. Note the different symbol. It is true for all x or each and every possible value of x. But [math]{x^2} - 1 = 0[/math] is only an equality. It is only true for certain values of x and not true for many more. To pick up on the remark about chemical equations. You noted that chemical reactions represent a process as well as an equality (mass balance charge balance etc) These are more properly shown with various arrows for this reason [math] \to [/math] etc

Is it easier to understand if you think about 100 people of the same gender, and how many of the others each person feels attracted to? Person 1 might be attracted to 4 of the others, Person 2 doesn't like any of them, Person 3 is attracted to half the group, and so on, along a spectrum of attraction. Normally, there would be fewer people at the extremes. The number of people in that group of 100 who have 0% attraction to the others, and the number who are attracted by 100% of the others should both be small.

Got mad? That was an actual withering curse on a single tree. I think the writer was throwing some shade at future politicians. Beware those who're all leaves and no fruit!

Simple models utilising game theory show that 'social' strategies can be a part of the optimisation strategy over an entire population. There is no reason to a priori rule it out as a viable strategy - you'd need some evidence for that. This video explains it quite well:

Please provide a reference to support this claim. Everything I have ever read about evolution says it is based on natural selection (of heritable traits that vary in the population). There are hypotheses that social activity and cooperation, altruism, etc can be explained by evolution. So your statement seems to be exactly the wrong way round. Unless you can provide an example, I don't think anyone can answer that. You are a fine one to talk about "incoherent rambling".

Regarding the original question Many organisations (an I guess also individuals with proper equipment and interest) try do discover, catalogue and track Near Earth Objects*. One such initiative is Spaceguard**. when an object is discovered potentially many individuals and organisations will know about the object before it is know if there is any danger due to the objects expected trajectory. My best guess is that since many are involved and have possibility to validate and confirm observations and calculations the chase that serious mistakes would slip through is reduced. Which on an abstract level apply to pretty much any area in science. (This also addresses (off topic) question about coverups; knowledge about the objects existence is likely widely spread before knowing if there is any danger or not.) *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object **) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceguard

The black hole will not destroy the earth, just sayin....

Well, we already had plenty that did not originate there (as well as a few pandemics) and we will have plenty of outbreaks within the next few years. It is mostly the confluence of factors that make a disease more likely become a pandemic, which includes e.g. effective human-human transmission, long incubation time, late/difficult detection, outbreak in areas with high connections to rest of the world etc. This time a lot of folks dropped the ball which resulted in a rather unprecedented situation. The question is whether the next one (which will come) will be contained better or not.

Sounds like a word salad. Can you argue that the equality sign is a relation ? Not a dimension under mathematical definition ? Mathematics doesn't require words. The proof must be based upon the math

QuantumT has pointed out the main problems with using positrons. However, maybe worth noting that in semiconductors (so most of the components in your phone/computer) the current is carried by both electrons and “holes”, which are positive charge carriers created by an absence of electrons. Also, although nerves are often described as carrying electrical pulses, this is not like electricity running through wires. It is actually a cascade of chemical reactions that pump calcium ions through membranes. And in electrolysis, the current though the electrolyte consists of differnt types of ions. Not by a long way! As well as the examples above, one could speculate about a technology that used protons instead of electrons (they wouldn't flow through a metal wire, but you might be able to come up with some other way of using them). Or even muons; they decay after about 2 microseconds, but that might be long enough to do something with them.

In a world consisting of anti-matter, moving positrons would be electricity.

Positrons are very real, but difficult to contain, because they will annihilate when they come in contact with electrons, due to them being antimatter. That is one reason that they're useless as a source of electricity. Another reason is that we don't have enough antimatter to make an electrical system of it.

Why misrepresent what I said?

I’ve answered this already, both here and multiple times elsewhere. From just a short while ago: Now, this is NOT a thread on morality’s source. It’s about what made people stop believing in god. One good answer is: The immoralities which are so common in the Bible. People often stop believing once they actually read the Bible for themselves.

I shared that the Bible cannot be the source of morality since our existing morals allow us to pick and choose which parts of it are right and which parts are wrong. John reinforced this point in his own way. You suggested we were saying “what’s the point of books if we already know stuff.” I corrected you. That wasn’t the point. Our point was specific to the assertion that morals come from the Bible. You then made yet another different point, that we know before we learn. Sounds fancy, but is obviously both nonsense AND not what was being suggested by me or John. You told me I could explain better, so voila... see above. Hope this helps and hope we can now please for the love of Thor get back on topic instead of chasing fortune cookie one-liners from an unsober but otherwise easy going and enjoyable poster. ✌️

I don't think that religions are a guide to morality. A book that tells you where to get your slaves and how to treat them is not a guide to good behaviour. You can look at the past where churches opposed the equality of women and promoted homophobia. Or you can look at the modern world https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51701039 and see that religion is not the "force for good" that most adherents claim.

Again it doesn't count as a dimension. It is a relation not a dimension.

So this is real then? sorry fat fingered was I was typing. what I meant was so this is real then in your mind airbrush?

When discussing evolution with modern-day scientists one thing becomes apparent : Their need to view evolution as essentially a 'social' process, with 'cooperation' as its main theme. They do mention natural selection, but then quickly de-emphasize it in favour of 'social ... social ... cooperation ... social'. Evolution is based on natural selection because that's the rule that effectively counters entropy since it actually uses the fact that everything ends up destroyed; it is the fact that everything gets destroyed that allows natural selection to work. This is what answers the question why extremely complex organized machines like animals and humans can exist in a universe whose rules are that of increasing disorder. That's the essential observation behind the theory of evolution. DNA is an optimization of natural selection essentially, their gibberish on 'cooperating cells' notwithstanding. The true nature of social insects like bees and ants becomes apparent when the queen flies off and only one of the produced males gets to mate showing that the whole thing is also just another natural selection optimizing process. So what do they mean with their incoherent rambling on 'social ... social ... cooperation'? It turns out that their 'social ... social'-rambling isn't just a misinterpretation of evolution, but actually something even more absurd, a move against hierarchy in the workings of a machine, any machine, in general. It's a move against allowing the parts of a machine to become a functional whole. It's a move against a machine being ... a machine at all. This is what their 'social ... social ... cooperation' really is. It is nothing but the symptom of a degenerative evolutionary state and that's why this 'social ... social'-argument coming from the present-day materialists, and all arguments based on it, are just garbage on analysis.

Hi all some questions for the asteroid on April 30. According to NASA it will be 16 times further than the earth to the moon. 1- How can they know this for sure? 2- How do we know they are being honest with the distances? 3- are they the Only ones able to make these calculations? 4- Several news sites had articles that it would hit and this was secret info from NASA? 5- another site claimed that the Coronavirus was brought up to keep people isolated because of this asteroid to avoid mass panic, so how do we know what’s real vs fiction on this? These things make it hard to determine what is right dosent it? thank you