Leaderboard

I'm gonna go on a slight rant that may pertains to the subject matter more or less. I'm sorry but this pisses me of. Where do you come off on pissing over the hard work of others who take the time out of their day to assist you with your "ground breaking" ideas. If it is so ground breaking then you should want to have it taken apart so that it can become more viable. If your idea is so "special" then prove it, if you think that ya got something amazing then bring it to the table. If you wanna sit on it then sit on it. 9 times out of 10 the idea is either some strange mix of religious nonsense or some fanciful delusions of people who cant understand what an atom is let alone time travel. I remember seeing this earlier but I will bring it here. A box cannot be thought out of if you do not even understand what the box is or its contents. If ya hate it then come up with your own system, but I'm gonna promise ya that your not gonna achieve it in your life time. It took hundreds of thousands of years of dedicated and amazing people to get to the point where we are today in terms of our technology and our scientific achievements. Got a little of track there but I keep seeing this on this website. These are human beings who are helping you, you should honored that these knowledge wizards even share a miniscule of there knowledge with you. Now I am unsure about this "scheme" you have mentioned and whether or not it has happend to you personally. If it has happend to you personally then I am sorry, however that does not mean it is happening here. Meet the people, re-read what they write, and learn something new. This is a science forum, it is just to share SCIENCE related ideas. Or to just hang with other fellow science enthusiasts. Your warning makes sense in terms of having some story/writing related idea or even a business related idea where people are searching to make a quick buck, however this is where knowledge is shared freely for the betterment of mankind. ok, that's all my three cents.

No, we have all seen your posts and know that your level of mathematical understanding is 'middle' school level. You don't know any calculus, or even grasp limits; I don't think you can begin to do any QM ( where the fun is ), never mind the 'way it's used in our modern day and age' ( ? time of use makes a difference ? ). And you don't seem to understand the meaning of 'numerology'. ( did you even read the link; where does it mention 'respected' applications and domain ? ) How many times must you be told to ask questions regarding things you don't understand, if you want to be taken seriously ? And these aren't even advanced topics; you don't understand the basic building blocks on which the 'entry level' stuff is based. People have tried to help, but you ignore their advice; they're starting to lose patience with you.

I'm shocked! How would anyone write such a thing. You forgot the apostrophe on cat's (or cats' if there's more than one cat) It's an apostrophe catastrophe. :-)

@curiousone So, you think you can bypass the the decades of study that it takes to achieve notability in scientific circles? Science is like any other endeavour... practice, practice, practice. It's my guess that the trmes amateurs have had their ideas 'pinched' on a forum by pro scientistists is vanishingly small. All scientists know that once an idea is 'out there' anyone can use it and they expect/hope it will be used.

Most of us don't do this for 'fame and fortune'. Others have their own reasons; I do it because I enjoy discussion with like-minded people. ( I don't even belong to any social media, and a couple of times it has 'scared' me when googling some science topic, that a link to MigL@Science Forums.net come up in the search. )

I guess I disagree with how you used predecessor; to me that suggests one basically became the other with a large overlap of membership and purpose. The articles seem to agree that the alt-right founders were not prominent atheists, and the ones aligned with the alt-right are in the minority of the atheist movement. They’re atheists who just happen to be bigots, with that having little to do with their atheism. I don’t find it all that surprising that one ideology that has a spectrum of ideas would have an overlap of adherents with another ideology that is largely orthogonal in its views. Indeed. The right in the US is often associated with being religious, and yet only about a quarter of liberals fall into categories I’d associate with atheism or agnosticism. It’s just that it’s only ~5% among conservatives https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/political-ideology/ And, of course, none of those groups are monolithic in their specific beliefs

I just did some calculations with this information and I must truly say thanks.. Calculus truly makes ""more"" sense now, and I'm hoping other science members whom had years of agonizing confusion read this thread. 0 and 1 uses the concept of "distance" In computer science.. i = 0 while i < length (' ') i = i + 1 It usually applies a distance in a string of characters, numbers or letters, the very 1st character is 0.. However, I see a relationship here to length or distances in general..

Another example of society adopting willfully sloppy definitions for issues they become passionate about. Get 100 people to define "leftist" or "atheist" or "socialist" and we see how badly aligned they all are.

There aren’t plenty of radioactive isotopes, and nothing formed that’s heavier than iron until after a star goes supernova. So basically no fission on the main sequence.

I do not understand, but I like how you did the graphics. It flows with the text very well.

No one knows. This will only emerge as those who have been vaccinated, either in the trials or in vaccination programs, begin to succumb to covid in the future. I have yet to see a genuine expert, in any country, offer a speculation - only various hopes. If I have properly understood some of the reports I've seen then this is definitely a possibility and is actively hoped for. At the risk of giving offence I wouldn't call it controversial, just silly.

First you need to know that 0 and 1 are fractions themselves ! [math]0 = \frac{0}{1}\quad and\quad 1 = \frac{1}{1}[/math] Although we don't usually write them like that. Mathematics recognises a series of 'number systems' that are nested like Russian dolls. The outer one is the most complicated and the number systems get simpler inside just as the outer doll is the biggest and the dolls get smaller inside. For number systems the more complicated (outer) system contains or includes all the simpler systems within it. The simplest system is called the natural numbers or counting numbers. 1,2,3,4,5...... There is no zero in these. Then we have the positive inetgers if we want the same thing but with a zero 0,1,2,3,4,5...... The we have both positive and negative integers ...-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5...... These are all the integers. The we have the rational numbers : ratios of two integers ie fractions [math]\frac{1}{2},\frac{{25}}{{39}}etc[/math] We do not need another category for the ratios of decimal numbers since they can always be written as the ratio of two integers [math]\frac{{2.5}}{{3.138}}is\;the\;same\;as\frac{{2500}}{{3138}}[/math] Which is a number system as far as you have asked since it includes all the fractions lying between 0 and 1 that can be written. And it also answers you question about number bases. Simply it does not matter which base you choose as shown by the example of rewriting a decimal fraction as the ratio of two integers. But there are yet more important numbers that cannot be written this way. An example would be the reciprocal of the square root of 2, or the square root of 0.5. So we come to the what are called the real numbers as corresponding to our outer Russian doll, and includes all these numbers as well as all the fractional ones. I hope you can see nesting idea from this. There are yet more complicated layers of 'numbers' but I will leave it at that.

The quoted part of the text you provided seems correct to me. In particle physics, there is a concept of a parton. A parton is the thing that does the core interaction when a proton is shot at something else in a particle collider ("core interaction" is the part of the process with the highest energy, the one that you draw Feynman diagrams for to describe it). Experimental physicists have a very pragmatic approach to these partons: They define a probability to get a certain parton (a quark or a gluon) with a given momentum from the proton. These probabilities can be taken into account when simulating/calculating collider events. The probability function is called the parton distribution function (PDF). These PDF can be measured in experiments, and they also contain heavier quarks. Just Google for them yourself, the first hit I found (no guarantee for quality) is figure 1 of http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Introduction_to_Parton_Distribution_Functions. So from the perspective of someone doing particle physics experiments, it is probably correct to say that a proton contains all kinds of stuff. There are a lot of reasons I can think of why that could be missing the big picture (is this an effect of perturbation theory? How is the probability to heavier quarks related to the CKM matrix? How is the remnant of the interaction, the Underlying Event, handled? ...) but I lack both time and skill to write about this. Bottom line: Saying that a proton is more complicated than three quarks held together by a gluon pit is correct. There is at least one mathematical model that describes it as a magical box containing random objects which may well be the most-used mathematical proton model in the world. I agree with the author that specifically to understand LHC physics, "it is three quarks" is not enough. I don't think that "plus zillions of gluons and quark, anti-quark pairs" is the key to enlightenment, either.

(My emphasis) Real thinkers don't crawl; they glide. They also share knowledge. They are good listeners and readers of other people's ideas, as well as communicators of their own. (My emphasis) Oh boy, the box again. Real thinkers know the way back home, to the safety of the trusty box, and always keep handy the key to it, because it's where everything makes sense. And no matter how far away from the box they might venture, they never lose sight of the box's entrances, and have a good mental picture of its rooms and corridors. When they're back home, they meet people who live in the box, and they're quite capable of talking about box-related, domestic matters. But during their outings, they find people of all sorts, some of them are lost, barefoot, exhausted, paranoid about every little sound in the forest, following no line of bread crumbs, unable to find their bearings.

This was earlier, possibly before a thorough understanding of the dangers was developed

This is a very bad start. Photons don't need to be propelled. The rest of the sentence does not make any sense. Second sentence is badly, badly wrong. This belongs in Speculations. It is a speculation, and a awful one at that. It doesn't stand together. Let alone against physical reality.

First of all I will say that COVID-19 should not be lumped together with other known seasonal diseases. The reason is that for the latter the susceptibility is massively lower than for a novel disease. Ultimately, COVID-19 might eventually become seasonal, depending how immunity against it pans out in the population. The next question would then to look at known diseases and inspect their pattern of seasonality before we go any deeper in specifics. A lot of diseases not only have different patterns, but also different causes, for examples the properties of the causative agent (e.g. mutation rate, sensitivity to temp or humidity etc.), the way it is transmitted (e.g. seasonality of vectors such as tics) and/or human behaviour (e.g. travel pattern). Measles transmission cycles have been connected to congregation of children during school terms (see Fine and Clarkson, Int. J. Epidemiol. 1982;11:5-14). If we go for influenza, for example, Vitamin D is one of the factors that have been discussed in terms of seasonality (which falls under host health status) that is potentially one element. But while the seasonality in tropical and subtropical areas does not follow seasons, it still has (short) cycles, which could for example be related to immune responses (e.g. new mutations, followed by infection/vaccination cycles). But indoor heating and ambient temperature have also been linked to contribute to seasonality (or cycles in outbreaks in general). There are quite a few papers and reviews out there looking especially at these issues. But again, COVID-19 (or spread of SARS-CoV-2) is a special case and would need more time to figure out whether there is seasonality or not. But perhaps a concise answer to OP, we know to some degree, certainly not for all diseases, and chances are is no universal pattern.

The church did. It improved compliance among the flock. That's why the church kept doing it.

Another Dali factoid: He doodled on the cheques so they would never be cashed: https://theuijunkie.com/salvador-dali-cheque-restaurants/

I think this poll confuses two concepts: philosophy as a discipline or process (a way of thinking about problems, definitions and questions) and a philosophy (a worldview or set of beliefs; e.g. I am (apparently) a naive realist). Both of these can be good or bad. The former (the "process") is highly valuable when done well. So I guess there is some sort of objective-ish measure of how good it is. For the latter meaning, I suspect good or bad become much more subjective.

All energy reaches equilibrium All energy including heat reverses order to equal to zero (equilibrium). In engineering the process of air conditioning for creating cold air is to expel hot air. Eventually the hot air in the environment merges with the cold air to reach equilibrium. The law of conservation states that hot air motions towards the cold to reach equilibrium. Therefore the hot air with positive temperature reduces in the negative direction and the cold air with negative temperature increases towards the positive temperature to equal zero (equilibrium). That is why in my reverse order math, the graph of all physics equations motions in both directions only to reverse in the negative direction to reach equilibrium (zero) asymmetrically in the middle. All functions move asymmetrically in the opposite direction from the point of origin. For heat in the case of burning wood, heat is released from the fire. That heat was made from the wood that was generated from cold. The tree came from the elements of the earth, air and sun. These elements first created the cold. When you touch ice your fingers become cold because the heat is pulled out of your fingers. Likewise the earth let’s say made from feces that supported the tree came from the digestion of food in animals. The energy to digest the food was pulled out of another source making it colder. So in essence many processes back, the heat from the burning wood was derived by something getting colder. You cannot generate cold without heat and heat without cold. The reverse order has taken place in the graph of the equation in the law of thermodynamics where heat eventually travels and merges with the cold to reduce in temperature in the negative direction. Electromagnetic energy traveling in a loop from a point of origin will red shift away to loss energy and loop back around to blue shift which gains energy. To lose energy in red shift is negative and to gain energy in blue shift if positive. The negative followed by the reverse order of positive reaches equilibrium to approach the point of origin, energy conserved. In circuitry, electricity loops away in the positive direction and comes back to the point of origin in the negative direction to satisfy the math of reverse order. In optics, there is a positive variable side of the lens and the opposite negative side of the lens. The path of the light travels from the positive to the negative value on either side of the lens. The image is then transmitted back to the eye which is the point of origin. This is carefully calculated in physics equations and reaches equilibrium equal to zero as the reverse order. Bending the spacetime continuum involves space in the positive direction followed by a loop back to the point of origin in the negative direction. The math that describes this is reverse order. Negative must interact with the positive to equal zero (equilibrium) in any physics application to make it successful. This falls in line with my reverse order mathematics. Time as time frames has an equation for the forward positive flow of time, it must reverse order in the negative flow of time to make it a complete equation. Remember all functions on graph moves in both directions to equal equilibrium at the center of asymmetry. This terminates the universal book world and result in an opposite reaction. For every action positive there is an opposite and equal reaction negative. It might be the case that the time frames approaching towards infinity in the future will reach full potential and cause a halt in the progression of time to reverse order. On a pendulum there are 2 potential energies on either side, one negative the other positive. The kinetic energy of the ball travels from the negative potential energy to positive potential energy. The time line of the past is negative potential energy and the future is positive potential energy.

I can totally relate, "trust me." If you don't know of any "from your science to knowledge endeavours" then its pointless telling you. Well then, when ever you want to share your "perfect" world where everyone is equal, loving healthy, "all get paid equally for their jobs, "where women are not objects of sex but rather thinkers like everyone else" and everywhere you go others have not one single judgement on you---------> please let "the rest of us foolish people" know the location...lol...