Leaderboard

Once more, just because you’re not capable of comprehending the answer doesn’t mean nobody is. From an article published just today, for example: https://neurosciencenews.com/visual-event-processing-17459/

Is this another attempt to bash mass production ? Suppose you wanted (to build) a house. Would you make all the bricks individually one at a time or would you think mass production might be advantageous ? Furthermore would you follow the brickmaking instructions in your Bible when you made them ?

Hold on, there is an even smaller one?

As Swansont already pointed out, That is the incomplete Newtonian model. In the much more ( but still not fully ) complete GR model, it is the ground hitting you, as you innocently travel along a geodesic ( free fall ).

All agreed, but John, I'm disappointed, you didn't tell Bartholomew Jones (why do you have to have such a long name to write out ? ) about the Scottish verdict. In point of fact there are three increasing levels of proof required in an English prosecution ( and a different one for civil matters called the balance of probabilities). The Police require the lowest level of evidence to charge someone The Crown Prosecution service requires a higher level to take the case to court reflecting the likelyhood of a successful prosecution. The Court requires the ultimate beyond reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict. It is customary here for someone (usually Strange) to post the cartoon about peer review. I'm going to say +1 for being (I hope as well as appearing) open minded enough to ask a sensible question. In fact proof was not mentioned in you question. To proceed is not synonymous with to prove. In technical terms 'Theory' may include several 'Principles', which are the scientific equivalent of mathematical proofs. An axiom or principle is a statement offered without proof but in the knowledge that it is not known to be contradicted within the conditions of application. All too often the conditions part are forgotten, particularly in arguments (of the disagreement type). I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view emboldened. For instance shoe manufacturers (or is it shoe retailers?) have stopped offering half sizes - which is very difficult for me as I am a half size. Definitely a retrograde development. Other clothing retailers do the same thing with other garments. But my point to you is that, once again your approach is an all-or-nothing (binary) approach to something which has a scale from good to bad or black to white with many many shades of grey in between. It is therefore possible to proceed too far in either direction away from a comfortable middle way. And the greed of some humans feasts on this to the detriment of all others.

For the first question the acid concept of Brönstedt should be used. According him acids are proton donators. In the given equation is NH4+ / H2O the donators. Bases are proton acceptors. So its NH3 / OH- for base pair.

The first one is pretty close to being trivial! H2O is the only "acid" in the equation!

As t goes to infinity the exponential goes to 0. Because the exponential is always positive and is subtracted, the "limiting charge" is when that exponential goes to 0 so is EC. You want to find t such that Q= -exp{-t/RC+ ln(EC)+ EC= -ECexp{-t/RC}+ EC= 0.99EC that is the same as -ECexp{-t/RC}= -0.01EC or exp{-t/RC}= 0.01.

By the same measure, how can science exclude the ideal of proving a theory? In fact, when I was formally taught the definition of science as a youth it began as hypothesis, proceeded to a theory, and was perfected as a law; that is, a principle.

Many members here simply leave. I cannot recall anyone saying goodbye, except maybe @ajb that I miss. @Sisyphus @Spyman that I miss too @insane_alien @Martin And many more.

It is ironic the way in which the persecutors par excellence like to play mentally with the idea of being persecuted. No, not censored. You are just ignorant. "Virgin" in "virgin Mary" (parthenos, in the Septuagint) is a mistranslation from Hebrew almah ("young woman".) As the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, there is no trace of the Hebrew word bethulah ("virgin") referring to Mary. So for all we know from science (archaeology), Mary was not a virgin, but just a "young woman." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use El and YHWH (probably "Yahweh", archaic Semitic scripts had no vowels) were different deities. One came from Canaan, the other from the outskirts of the Sinai desert. One was a god of the Canaanite hills, the other from the desert. There were many Canaanite deities, like Ashera, or Baal. It was king Josiah who fused together El and Yahweh, decreed a unified place of worship in Jerusalem, and substituted all of them for the common name adonai as a conveniently ambiguous placeholder for "god". It is not Yahweh the name for "the lord" in Hebrew, it is adonai. All for political reasons well understood in terms of the decline of the Assyrian Empire and the political situation that resulted --need for unification of two kingdoms. Some of these points are debatable, and different scholars hold different views, but what seems to emerge clearly from the ground is that the Israelites and Judahites were not de facto monotheists until after the Babilonian takeover. There were many deities among the Nabateans too --the precursors of Islam, which is the reason why Ibn S'ad, Ibn Ishaq ol Al-Tabari mention them in the so-called Satanic Verses, but they were conveniently whitewashed by later traditions. There are still death penalties for those who dare talk about it. Whitewashing, abrogation... very common in faith-based religions. As I imagined, nothing whatsoever on this thread having to do with "the abstract vs not the abstract." You could at least learn a bit about where your book comes from.

Any censor you receive will be for lying; failing to abide by the rules to which you agreed when accepting your membership in this community; breaking your promise to engage with the members here in accordance with the site standards and rules. As for the rest? It sounds like childish fairy tales to me. Meaningless and misguided pablum. I don’t suggest you not be allowed to believe any silly thing you want. In fact, I’d sacrifice myself in defense of your right to be autonomous and believe whatever you desire... but you likewise shouldn’t protest when I in parallel bluntly tell you it reads to me like silly nonsense equivalent to astrology or claims from children that the floor is made of lava, worth neither time nor merit within the mind of a critical thinker or honest human. More to the point, it has literally zero to do with the thread topic, namely which strain of bacteria is to be found in your fancy drinking yogurt.

In which case, God is subject to experimentation. Define it and we can test it Once again, you’re welcome to this view and I support you in it. I support freedom and democracy. Where we quarrel, however, is when you say you’d impose this view on to the rest of us if you were somehow able to achieve sufficient authority to mandate it. I find that mindset repugnant.

Uh huh.

Yeah, I figured you'd just dismiss the possibility that you could be part of the problem. Oh well.

Anyway, WTF does Jesus have to do with isolating kefir bacteria? You really jump around with your thoughts. It’s like playing whack-a-mole sometimes with you. So NOT in the scientific context? Uhm... okay.

Or start a new thread

Likewise, mate, but it would be several beers. There’s a few on a smaller site where I’m an admin with whom I’ve connected on FB IRL, but I generally don’t mix my real name and online persona if I can avoid it. A really long time ago I connected with Cap’n Refs for tacos and we were joined by another person posting at the time. That was fun. I also met up a former NASA employee I’d interacted with on yet another site long ago. He and I had cocktails and enjoyed many great conversations with him and his wife when they came to town. That was all before I got married and had kids, though. Life’s rather different now than then.

All three of the motions mentioned here are themselves subject to gravity. The Earth is in orbit around the Sun, the Sun orbits our galaxy, the galaxies in our local group orbit a common center of gravity, etc. This means that these motions are also examples of free-fall. The Earth is in a free-fall trajectory around the Sun due to the Gravitational attraction of the Sun. It undergoes a centripetal acceleration towards the Sun, which, due to its tangential velocity, has it following an orbital path. The object you drop is also attracted to the Sun, has the same centripetal acceleration, and same velocity relative to the Sun that the Earth does. So, since the Sun effects both equally, you only need to consider the force acting between them.* The Earth's force of attraction doesn't have to be any stronger than it would if the Earth were floating free in space far from any other gravitational source. Motion, in of itself is of no consequence, as the Earth and object are already sharing the same motion, and it would take a force acting on one and not the other to change this, The same holds for the Sun orbiting the galaxy, and the galaxies moving due to mutual gravitational attraction. * the caveat here is that if the Sun isn't on the horizon, the object will be slightly closer or further from the Sun than the center of the Earth is, so it will have a slightly different centripetal acceleration. However, even if the Sun is directly overhead, your object is only 1/23456 closer to the Sun. This is pretty insignificant. This difference results in what is known as a "tidal force", and is how the Sun effects tides on the Earth. The tidal effects due to the galaxy and other galaxies are magnitudes smaller than this.

It is only straight down from the earths perspective, from a perspective motionless relative to the earths rotation the thing would curve. Both perspectives are equally valid. The same is true for points 2, 3 and 4. No counter force is necessary. If you are moving in a car at 100 km/hr and toss a ball up and catch it you would say it went straight up and straight down. Someone on the road side would see the ball go up and down, but would also see the ball went laterally about 25 meters. The only difference between the 2 observers is that they are in different reference frames. Each perspective is equally valid. Hopefully you see now that this is not the case.

We can measure the strength of these interactions, and people have done so. As Eise points out, you discuss movement, not forces, and nothing about quantifying the strength, which is necessary to answer your question.

Congratulations ! You have discovered that all motion is relative ( I.e. relativity ) several centuries too late, In a couple of hundred more years, you might realize that our best theory says gravity isn't really a force, but a geometric distortion of space-time.

That is wrong already. Assuming you mean that 'objects you drop from a tower, without pushing them in any direction', due to the earth's rotation, objects will not fall exactly straight. The top of a (high) tower has a higher speed then the surface of the earth. So an object will follow a curve, closing in to a straight line more and more during its fall. In your citation there is no mentioning of forces, only of movements. The example I gave above might be measurable, but I think that the rest of the movements does not contribute big enough to the deviation of a straight line to be measured.

And while the British Empire did have a few redeeming qualities which benefitted some colonials, no-one ever benefitted from burning at the stake.

Built a chessboard for my daughters. Walnut and maple. Half lap joints held by pegs for the corners. Pleased with how it’s turned out

We don't know what the Conscious experience is for Blind people. Blindness is a degenerate case of Vison or non Vision. All we can do for now is explore and figure out what Redness is for normally developed Sighted people that can see Redness. I See Redness but I don't know what it is. It is some sort of Conscious Phenomenon. I say the Conscious Experience of Redness, to emphasize that we are talking about a Phenomenon of the Mind. So how about if I just say Redness. Can you see the Color Red? That's what I'm talking about. I like to say Redness instead of Red. I have found that if I talk about Red that people start talking about Wavelengths of Electromagnetic Light. If I say Redness it makes them stop and think a little Deeper about the Perception of the Red or the Redness of the Red.

You cannot know for example if a Blind person is incorporating Visual Experiences in with their Hearing experiences. If they were, then they probably could not possibly know that they are experiencing Conscious Light phenomena with their Auditory Experience. Just a thought, because we cannot know what their Experience is and they cannot properly tell us. Conscious Experiences are not explainable in language. They must be Experienced.

Aren’t the discoveries of science included within the umbrella of nature? Are you suggesting science is supernatural? Yes, if and when science discovers a truth, which in my view requires proof, not "mountains of evidence." What I offer is resistance, not imposition. If I had an office affording a prerogative to enforce it, that would be an imposition I would make. At the risk of being persecuted as preaching and violating a rule, I submit human testimony as evidence: Jeremiah 6:16. Never mind I thought you might be sincerely helpful. I have better kefir anyway.

I'm saying there's no such thing as supernatural. Everything God does is of nature. I'm not for cheap cobblers. I'm for shoe stores, custom built, custom repaired. I'm for the primary form of proper exercise: real work while maintaining proper posture. Proper posture may always be enforced and reinforced. Thank you for your ear.

In which case, God is subject to experimentation. Define it and we can test it God as axiom is equivalent with the ancient Hebrew, el, in singular, and elohim, in plural form. Singularity vs plurality in ancient Hebrew is more discrete than I understand. But our definition here is sufficient. el, is the same term, when used by ancient Hebrews as terms used equivalently for the gods of non-Hebrews, contemporary with them. It was used by Hebrews interchangeably, whether of the Hebrew God, or by non-Hebrews. Hebrews, however, and following with the people called Christian, also by tradition call the God beginning with the name, el, and elohim, by other, more discrete names: YHWH God ("the LORD God") being the first alternate name in the scriptural text (Genesis 2:4); YHWH being the first alternate name in scriptural history (Genesis 4:26). Names of God scripturally convey different persona of the one God. Far eastern notions shouldn't be elusive either. Of India, would equate with elohim. Of China, Bhudda, equates with atheism, as there's no notion of god. I'm not familiar with the other groups. Arabic stems from that language shared with ancient Hebrews, that being Aramaic. The Muslim religion (sic) came six or seven hundred years after Jesus. It contradicts the Biblical Christian God. The name allah, however is related to the Hebrew term, el. Muslim doctrine denies that Jesus died. This last entry is an attempt at defining God by name. I said if I were in an office, I would enforce older economy, not a particular view. God as it, is not common traditionally; rarely the Holy Spirit is referred to by his pronoun, it, usually He. This is my quarrel: I'm going to be censored for questions philosophical because they center metaphysically, particularly favoring the way called Christian. Science, removed from modern science, wouldn't discriminate. It might nonetheless be fractious.

This is morally unacceptable to society. The politicans that allowed a person to commit suicide must resign or, better, kill themself

Yes, you feel science is supernatural? No. I believe science is included under the umbrella of nature when science discovers a truth. I don't believe the things done by a divine nature are supernatural. My God, who created the world and everything in it, who is a person, three to be more perfect, is of nature. Jesus was born of woman, conceived of the Holy Spirit. I'll be censored probably for that.