Leaderboard

Can I take offense to that? I'm in that last demographic. I don't feel offended at all really, but reductio ad absurdum is fun. That's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from one of you Z people, he said in mock offense. Yet actions are also based on morality. I'm glad you brought up antagonism. Let's say the killing of George Floyd was an antagonistic act, which it probably was whether racist intent comes into play or not. Were the protests and at times riots that happened afterward also antagonistic or were they reactionary to a prior antagonism? I actually much prefer talking about class but then maybe that is because talking about race makes us all feel uncomfortable. I think we can all acknowledge here that racism does in fact exist and it is a major problem and can be a barrier to education, for everyone. As it can be a barrier to financial security. When we are talking about discrimination, there are two kinds worth mentioning. Implicit and explicit. When we discuss racism, we are discussing racial in-group biases specifically. This I feel, is where a lot of misunderstanding and poor use of language on both sides can make things a lot worse. We as a species have a habit of forming a dynamic multiplicity of in-group biases, implicitly and explicitly. What this means in legal terms, is that bias is a cause of the act of discrimination. It can be implicit or explicit, direct or indirect. To me, this means that not all who are guilty of racial discrimination or any other form of discrimination, are guilty of malicious prejudice or racism. Every human has biases to overcome and it is no easy thing, as it means admitting that you are flawed. Some people would rather die than face the truth that they or someone they idolise, can in fact be flawed. The best way to think about affirmative action, is to consider the social model of disability, wherein people are viewed as disabled by external environment. This means that with reasonable adjustments, a disabled person can be made just as able as everyone else. Affirmative action is just recognising the disparities between social mobility between different groups and building a ramp to those that need a ramp instead of making them walk upstairs. At least that is what affirmative action should be like, the ramp comparison isn't meant to call anyone disabled because of their colour and is just a metaphor. Now, one concept that is often discussed within education is the idea of universally inclusive and beneficial, structural changes to the learning experience and environment. Universal enrichment. An example of this can be anything from a ramp, to an app that teaches kids facial expressions, originally designed for autistic children but found to also be a useful tool for teaching their peers about body language in universally inclusive classrooms. One of the current barriers where class is concerned, is internet access. Due to covid, online learning is completely inaccessible to the poorest households. So maybe we should move on from race and discuss the financial and logistical barriers that does not currently allow for their to be a good quality education for everyone who wants one. I think we can probably all agree, that a world where there is a good quality education, available to everyone who wants one, is something that would eliminate the need for affirmative action in the first place. Even where higher education is subsidised or "free" like in Scotland, there are only so many places on every course offered by colleges and universities. Of those courses, not all of them are universally inclusive in setting, format, method, philosophy or individual staffing choices. At this point I'm probably rambling but this is something that really matters to me. It's extremely important to have discussions like these where we state an ideal, and ask how we can achieve it. What does the ideal school system look like and how do we get closer to that ideal?

There is a difference between saying something is a wave function, or something is described by (or has) a wave function. Quantum particles are not wave functions, they have wave functions. A wave function is a mathematical expression. They do not have a volume. But they might describe a volume. ! Moderator Note (note that this conversation can and must proceed without introducing any new particles, or new physics; such discussions should take place in their own threads)

Nice analogy The rambling actually began much much sooner than at this point, but it was a good post overall, so no worries 👍

! Moderator Note No chatbots, please. Members are required to make sense in their posts.

You need to quit focusing on race. They are just fixing a problem they caused with a group of people. Could have been blacks, women, left handed people, or those whose first name begins with "M". Let's say your parents had four children, two boys and two girls, and only gave an allowance to the boys even though all did their chores. If the parents finally realized the error of their ways and decided to only give allowance to the girls until they are all caught up, would you call that sexism? You are forcing the situation into the definition of "racism" even though there is no discrimination, prejudice or antagonism directed at white people. Doing things based on race is not automatically racist. If you give a white person money one week, and a black person the next week, have you been a white racist and black racist on alternating weeks? Your argument is similar to the kid who kills his parents then demands pity because he is an orphan. You are setting up a situation where no one can ever be compensated for wrongs done to them because someone will always be hurt by the remedy. For example, let's say I own stock in Pfizer and Pfizer is sued because they don't properly test a drug and people die. By your argument, those victims should not be compensated because that compensation will depress the value of my stock holdings. It is you who are on a slippery slope.

! Moderator Note This is a SCIENCE discussion forum. Don't open threads if you can't include at least a little mainstream knowledge.

You seem to be under the impression that physics is about playing freely with words and concepts, re-arranging the semantics, and such. That's for poetry or for literary fantasy, not for physics. The language that you find in popular-science books that you seem to be echoing here can be very misleading. Those are valiant efforts, shall we say, to dumb down what really are mathematical ideas related to experiments in the laboratory. Trying to do physics with words and, even worse, supersede the known physics with extrapolations from those words, is a recipe for disaster. x-posted with Bufofrog.

It’s not a mechanism, but a fundamental symmetry - the invariance of the spacetime interval.

Just the simple scan read is pretty comical when related to science. Calculus a art or fill in the blank with what this guy knows and add to what my guy knows so i can say this is what i know. As stated "Creationist" a misunderstanding of a moral guideline to create a perception that is formulated to create happiness even if at the bottom and the some of the high knowledge achievable through perception lost by unopenmidness. Before i start yes there is some glimmer of truth in known physics the successful creations by engineers are proof of that fact, however to all those that think the current physics will stand in time are being "silly". People have mapped out perception of the human mind and the processes in its timing as if it holds mysteries of the universe, but the reality they have studied the human perception for hundreds of years and the current most accurate form went back to 240bc to find a theory to create modern physics, a man who was executed for not believing in the gods of the state. The ass of the problem of a physics of relativity is what about the relativity to those things in the perception of the relative, a man perceives sees light from a star so that light is within his limits, if the relation was that of the light from the star the relative light is of different relativity, beyond a man's limits. The missing fact of natural science is that of time, it is hard for a man born to processes of timings based on our relations to understand that all things have relativity, many will operate beyond our limits of perception, do they still exist and their processes still effect our relative, yes. A man is born in 1965 a stars light reaches out x distance, a man is born in 1991 the same stars light reaches out to x distance relative to the reality of the time. a stars mass is x to our perception born year 2000, 2000years ago stars mass was x based on our time perceiving its process happening in its time. so much of science is completely ignorant to time in relation. I'm just going to state simply process of light to to bang in relative to the start is light out bang, to T=human time light stretch x for x human time bang for x human time entire process can last absurd long time through the relativity to T=Human time. I have a lot of work to do on this explanation and the higher point i was going to make out of it but its common logic to me I'll open eyes to it soon.