Leaderboard

Angela "opened borders" to help southern European countries to solve problem of illegal immigration, taking part of the ones that arrived to Italy and Greece and other countries. It was movement of solidarity with involved European countries. Flood of migrants, who don't know language, don't have work, don't have money, can disrupt any country, and nationalists or other populist parties can win the next election, promising people fight with immigrants, which won't do any good.. The situation of refugees is even worse in the Middle East. For example Jordan has 10.4 million citizens and 1.3 million refugees from Syria.

This is purely anecdotal, but I will present it anyway... During the 1950s ( after the war ) most Italian small towns and villages south of Rome were 'agrarian'. Very few businesses and even less industry ( mostly in larger cities ) and any paying job was extremely difficult to come by. My dad emigrated to Argentina for work in the early 50s, and returned to Italy in '55. He married my mom in '57 and I was born a few years later. He went to work in Switzerland for several years, and I only saw him during summer vacation and Christmas time. Finally, we came to Canada in '68, so the whole family could be together. My dad worked two jobs, and my mother also worked, but we purchased a home ( where I still live ), and both my brother and I were able to attend University ( we both studied physics ). I consider myself to be a productive member of society, even though I come from what you've labelled an 'agrarian' background. Where people come from doesn't matter; what matters is what they make of themselves.

Please don’t waste my time while you do so.

I think it's the difference, when embarking on research, between working from an assertion and working from a question. In the former, one will likely seek data that confirms ones assertion, with all the confirmation bias that makes one vulnerable to. When one researches from a questioning perspective, one is more likely to consider all the data, and see how that goes... with no preconceptions. An example might be: "All swans are white" vs "Are all swans white?".

As is, stoking the fire...

The content of the article. And tThe bit where he says “I am a racist” and links to another of his racist articles. Small clues, I know, easy to miss. What sources? (notice how that blog post didn’t give any? Another clue there.) And, even if true, what evidence do you have for your racist views of the cause? Oh look. Another straw man. Well done. Are you aiming to get one in every post?

Frankly, i'm very annoyed you made waste my time clicking that link. Regression to the mean is a PC concept, indeed. Taking this 'immigration destroys everything' stance to assessing the evidence is as useful as taking an 'immigration brings nothing but benefits' stance. It's a real shame because immigration is an important topic for many people, as shown by various referenda around the world.

Racist quotes racist for support. What a surprise.

I totally agree. In fact, in the topics of physics that are dearest to my heart, it is my conviction that we must overcome this concept. I see your point. I went back to my sentence and I think what I meant (or must have, or should have meant) is "The culprit of all this is the fact that thermodynamics always forces you to consider energy." Instead of, No, I haven't, but from perusing the first pages --although the energy arguments weren't there--, it looks like a very interesting outlook. It reminds me of what Perelman did to solve the Poincaré conjecture: consider the Ricci flow to prove a topological statement. That's using a physical idea to solve a mathematical problem. I would talk more about this delightful topic, but my kinetics is forcing me to slow down. Maybe later. It's been a pleasure.

I have to disagree with this. The OP implies that the system is not open by omitting n in the original statement. So mass is constant. So P, V and T are not all independent since they are connected by an equation of state. Only two of them are. The point of x,y,z, coordinates is that they are independent unless you are restricting the subject to some part of x,y,z space. That's a bold statement which merits some strong justification. What about the distinction between dynamics and kinetics? AFIK there is no mention of energy in kinetics.

In Trumps defence...the current pandemic isn't completely about him... Where was Bush when it really mattered?

A dimer are complex consisting of two full (sub)-units. In this case we are talking about a homodimer, i.e. two copies of the the protein interacting with each other and the substrate. It is related to the concept of quarternary structure.

! Moderator Note Note: 1. the rules require you to post here on the forum, not require people to download documents 2. Your document appears to be just text, so there is no reason for posting a file 3. I strongly recommend against downloading potentially dangerous file formats from unknown sources 4. Your inks appear to be the usual crackpot sites so I wouldn't even bother There is no such thing as an "official" theory. There are theories that are supported by evidence, and there are those that are not. (Guess which category yours fall into.)

If plastics are your target of choice, most EMR, from visible light ,through x-rays, to gamma radiation will degrade plastics in the following manner... Discolor or yellowing effect Change in mechanical properties (varies by material) Crosslinking – increased tensile strength, decreased elongation Chain scission – reduced tensile strength and elongation from https://omnexus.specialchem.com/polymer-properties/properties/gamma-radiation-resistance In addition to the tracks made by beta radiation ( mentioned by Swansont ), this should give you the means to discern between the three types of radiation.

It’s possible, but might require a large number of interactions to detect anything. High-energy electrons in a discharge leave tracks in plastic. They are called Lichtenberg figures.

No. Who said that? No one said that. Please stop making these idiotic straw man arguments. I am going to report this thread as breaking the rule about discussions in good faith. And, if anything, what evidence there is points in the other direction. The population is expected to peak around the end of the century. Any decline from there will be slow. It may be another century until the population drops to the current level. And another 100 or 200 years before it falls to a level that is easily sustainable without putting excessive strain on resources. So starting to promote population growth now seems just a little premature. Maybe you could hang on for another 300 years or so and see what the situation is then. However, I don't think these forecasts take into account the possibility of disastrous climate change or, say, a global pandemic.

What? No. Who said that? The average fertility rate has already fallen enough to limit population growth. It is predicted to grow to somewhere between 7 and 11 billion people. That is probably, just about sustainable. Unlimited growth would not be. If efforts to improve health and education work then it should start decreasing from there, which will put less of a strain on the Earth's resources. I don't know where all this nonsense is coming from. What is this "scientific evidence that all the Papuans are extremely talented" you are talking about? (I mean, maybe they are. I have no idea. But it seems unlikely.) And how is it relevant? The population of PNG is about the same as a large city. So what are you talking about?

I don't think there is any such thing.

Yes. Certainly the last few British Prime Ministers. I would be surprised about the others. (So, yes, citations definitely needed.) And Orban. And the Brazilian one. As I said, far-right populists. Why? Isn't the scientific evidence good enough? You prefer some anecdotes about celebrities instead? (One could find plenty of individual examples, obviously, but I'm not going to bother because it isn't relevant.)

The big problem is over population. So the ideal is to reduce fertility rates (which you do mainly by improving education, particularly for women). But, perhaps not surprisingly, some far right leaders do try to follow the policy you suggest. Yes, that can be a problem. But it can also be a benefit to the home country: many migrants from poorer countries send back money. Many migrants will eventually return with higher education and wealth than they would have had otherwise. But, again, the solution is not stopping migration. The solution is improving education, health and wealth in all countries. Well I thought you might ask that, which is why I provided links to the evidence. Which would you trust more: far-right populists and their “researchers” or the scientific evidence?

Arguably, it should increase. Immigrants are, on average, healthier than the non-migrant population (1) and tend to be more entrepreneurial (2) and do better educationally. Also, with an ageing population with a fertility rate of 1 or less, wealthier countries depend on immigration for the future workforce. I'm not sure what your point is? (1) https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol40/4/default.htm (2) https://hbr.org/2018/10/research-shows-immigrants-help-businesses-grow-heres-why You know how they say "there is no such thing as a stupid question" ?

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." Albert Einstein

So, it will stabilize at some level and freeze at that point forever? And modern post-industrial nations with their deeply negative population rates will be forgotten like a nightmare?

So, would you agree on unlimited immigration to Canada from any country? There is no limit to a number of immigrants Canada can accept? There should be no any selection? I was talking about entire civilizations rather than city/countryside differences. South Italy still produces not too much from what I know, but still whole Italy is a relatively successful post-industrial country, which was an industrial powerhorse in the past.

I do not claim I have proves that their claims are true. How do you know they are racist? I found their site accidentally and don't know they support some racist views. It seems dedicated to science mostly. But I meat this info in various sources that average German IQ have declined from 102 to 99-98 scores. Do you believe that all this IQ tests in different countries are conducted by racists only and they falsify the result to support their racist agenda?

https://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/german_iq_free_fall_5_years_to_stability_threshold_germans_on_the_run_and_the_reasons-180605 Developed countries need to change their model in order to increase domestic fertility rates and provide extensive help to developing countries to stabilize their population and help them combat extensive fertility rates which hinder their development and cause crushing impact on ecology. Otherwise soon there will be no rainforests anymore. And stop the brain drain.

Do you know the real reasons of her actions? Maybe there is something behind the scene and this is some dirty political games? Maybe she and some other country leaders are pressed by someone unknown to us?