Leaderboard

From http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100641-trump-protestors/?p=957919 I think it would be more accurate to say that your caricature of Sharia might not be compatible with our constitution and separation of church and state, but even that would be a stretch I will copy this rather than rewriting it, from another thread So Sharia is not "compatible with our constitution and separation of church and state" in the same way that wearing a yarmulke is not, wearing a cross necklace is not, not eating meat on Friday is not (if people still do that) or avoiding pork is not, or avoiding getting a tattoo or eating shellfish is not (if people actually avoid the things in Leviticus) or even saying "God bless you" after one sneezes is not. That is to say, it is in no way incompatible. As I said in the quote, the Constitution protects us from any laws that do not have a secular basis. That applies to all religions. You can't pass laws that exclude, or promote, a religion. Nobody is going to be able to pass a law that will stand a challenge that forces you to "Islamic things" (for lack of a better phrasing) any more than you can get a law to stand up to scrutiny that makes everyone do something that is exclusively Christian — unless there is a secular reasoning behind it. Murder, as an example, is called out as a sin in the Bible, but that's not why it's illegal. The first amendment says you can follow whatever religion you want, and the courts have said this is up until your practices break some secular law (no sacrificing virgins, for example), though you can still believe what you want. Your belief is sadly not grounded in fact. It's a spook story being passed around to make you afraid.

You seem to be just trolling at this point.

Next time you are shopping and the cashier gives you change, you better make sure the change is in base 10. You don't want to get screwed!

I he didn't know, a 'reasonable' person would ask Studiot what he meant. Studiot would be more than glad to help, and explain further. A 'not so reasonable' person might start immediately making assertions about limits, derivatives, circular actions, angular momentum, and 'superimposing'. Which one are you ?

Or anywhere? 😄

! Moderator Note I'm feeling generous in the New Year, so I've moved this to Speculations (even though I can't imagine how the OP can be defended reasonably). Please support your assertions with evidence, and good luck. I'll give you two whole pages to persuade the membership your idea has merit. You get three more posts on your first day (automatic spam protection), so make them count.

Sounds like something my mother would do... she misses nothing.

Don't make absurd assertions, which a high school student can prove false. Post ideas beginning with " I think … ", and then provide evidence for your ideas, which we can rebut. on this forum, preachers and bloggers usually end up getting banned.

You should understand that your entire post makes no sense. Also this should not be in the science section, it should be in the speculation section.

Do you have a reference to material that have caused you to misunderstand physics? Your ideas does not match observations, examples: 1: If you were correct* then for instance a strong spotlight shining at an airplane at night would affect the airplane gravitationally. But searchlights does not cause airplanes to fall down. 2: Black holes does not give off electromagnetic radiation (light) yet scientists are able to measure gravitational waves from black hole collisions; gravity and light is not related** in the way you seem to claim. 3: Friction, strong enough to affect movements of celestial bodies would have a huge effect on their atmospheres and/or surfaces. We do not observe such an effect. *) You are not correct **) General relativity predicts behavior and interactions of gravity, energy and mass. It is a well tested theory that does not match your claims.

They'd be there for a porpoise... Happy New Year everyone!

Cells are generally replaced --except most neurons-- because they are the functional units. Chromosomes aren't. Chromosomes are packages of genetic material in gametes, which are haploid cells --some kind of random selection of half the organism's genes. Gametes in males are very much expendable. In females, they are more costly, but still. Gametes are cells for export, so to speak --I mean sex--, so they don't need to be replaced. When cells release stress signals --chemicals that inform about something not being quite right in them-- they are disposed of, so you can imagine that the genetic material inside is at least as expendable. I hope that helped. This is kind of my lowdown of the story. An expert will give you a more accurate picture. Edit: Welcome to the forums, Salik.

Humans are not good measurement systems. There are many layers of processing that are done which are complicated and not well understood. Even what seem like simple things are complicated when you investigate further. Mirror therapy is a good example of how the human mind can be trivially tricked, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_therapy.

! Moderator Note Enough! We ask you to clarify what you're talking about and support it adequately, yet every new post makes everything less clear. It seems clear you can't understand the explanations the other members are giving you because you can't see beyond your own concepts. Your style of argument is polluted with conspiracy fallacies, and somehow you think questions you can't answer but also can't be bothered to research properly are interesting and meaningful. You clearly are not ready for the type of reasoning science requires. Please don't post any more threads where you suspect cosmology of some kind of intellectual coverup. This is a place of knowledge and learning, not pitchforks and leeches and ignorant fears. We wish you well, but you don't listen, and that's required in discussion. Maybe you should start a blog somewhere? If you stay, please read more than you post. You have a LOT to unlearn. Thread closed.

Just to add to what has already been said: there is, in principle, no law of nature that stops macroscopic systems from behaving quantum-mechanically. The problem is only that you need to prevent decoherence from occurring - meaning you need to prevent the system in question from interacting with its environment. This is relatively easy to do for very small systems, but becomes exponentially harder the larger the system in question becomes. Putting a single atom into a superposition of states isn't too difficult, given a suitable setup; doing the same with (e.g.) an elephant is - for all intents and purposes - a virtual impossibility.

I will answer this for you as many others have this false impression that QM only applies to the very small. This arises because the energy (transitions) involved are very small and therefore individually only affect very small particles. So an individual quantum energy effect (transition) can only affect a minute part of a (large) macroscopic object. However when lots of these small transitions all work together they can affect large objects. The effects include our everyday Physics so this if I push a large block of metal, it is all the small quantum effects working together that hold the block together so that it can move as a solid body under Newton's Laws. No esoteric Laws and effects are required. The whole of our macroscopic world works as it does because QM is the way it is. Hope this helps others as well. Season's Greetings to all.

Ferromagnetism,* superconductivity, and superfluidity are among quantum effects that can be seen with your own eyes. It is true that the context of QM par excellence is the very small, though. That's due to the smallness of the quantum of action when compared to ordinary experience. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism#Explanation

They aren’t. The premise of your question is false.

I can't unsee it. Eh?

Salik, in your pdf you open with these sentences: "The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. When we move our hand, we see the movement straight away because of the close distance that the light has to travel between the hand and our eyes. We also feel the movement straight away as the speed of the nerve impulses are very quick: they are not that quick compared to light." Based upon other remarks later in your pdf I don't think you actually mean what you say here. But I'm going to assume, for the moment, that you do think these statements are accurate and I am going to correct them. We don't see the movement of our hand straight away. The distance is small and the speed of light is large, as you say, but it still takes a finite time for the light to reach our eyes. It then takes time for the signal to be converted, sent down the optic nerve and interpreted by the brain. So, what you may have meant was "for all most practical purposes we see the movement straight away" Equally we don't feel the movement straight away, though you say we do. (And there are multiple possibilities as to what you might mean by "feel".) Before we proceed further with your ideas would you comment on these contradictions between what you wrote and reality.

Historically, they started as axioms, as said by Swansont. Those Einstein-DeBroglie axioms helped Schrödinger guess his equation, but he took a further step, because he involved the potential energy, which plays no role in the DeBroglie, Einstein, Bohr, etc. set of old quantum rules. Heisenberg used a more algebraic approach (matrix mechanics). Dirac proved that Schrödinger and Heisenberg's formulations are equivalent. But it was all guesswork. But in the modern formulation, you can deduce them by using the postulates. In particular, the canonical commutation relations. \[ \left[ X, P_x \right] = i \hbar I \] as well as the correspondence principle. Even today quantization of fields rests on the correspondence principle, which relies heavily on guesswork, because there is no unique way in general to postulate a quantum operator for a classical observable.

The rigorous theorem requires heavy-duty maths: field operators, states and vacuum, and representations of the Lorentz group. A relatively easy-to-follow discussion is provided by John Baez: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spin_stat.html In a nutshell, what the spin-statistics tells you can be stated as this: The splitting of particle classes into bosons and fermions, as characterized by their exchange properties (statistics): \[\varphi_{1}\left(x\right)\varphi_{2}\left(x'\right)=\varphi_{2}\left(x\right)\varphi_{1}\left(x'\right)\] (bosons) or, \[ \varphi_{1}\left(x\right)\varphi_{2}\left(x'\right)=-\varphi_{2}\left(x\right)\varphi_{1}\left(x'\right) \] (fermions) Can be obtained also from their properties under the Lorentz group (the rotation factor of it) by rotating the whole universe around the midpoint between them. If the vacuum is Lorentz invariant, we won't be doing anything to it, and particles will just be exchanged if the rotation is of angle \( \pi \). The name spin-statistics is because "spin" has to do with properties under rotations, and "statistics" has to do with properties under exchange. "Bosons under rotations are also bosons under exchange; conversely for fermions" is the content of the theorem. I hope that helped.

Define numbers. As is the question doesn't make sense.

I am not an expert on sharia law, but I understand it is the political half of Islam. Muhammed, as first Caliph of Islam decided all things legal and political. He was not just a spiritual leader, and a prophet of Allah. Muslims must learn the Quran by heart and travel to Mecca and circle the stone reciting such, as least once in their life. They must strive to live their lives as Muhammed did, and fight the disbelievers in Muhammed and Allah. ISIS has a Caliph and the main idea of ISIS is to establish a caliphate, initially around Raqqa in Syria, but including lands in Iraq. They have eyes on Libya and other locations around the Mediterranean. I saw a picture of the expected near term caliphate about three years ago, that had black pretty much surrounding the south and east of the sea. This was not religious in essence it was political. Sharia law would be the law of this caliphate, hence a law I do not want to see in my country. It is not compatible with our laws. Not the way it treats woman, not the way it treats gays, not the way it feels toward interest or Christians or Jews or apostates or idol worshippers or people that would mock Allah or Muhammed. It would not work here, it is not desirable here, and anyone bringing it here is not welcome here. That is, I will not accept a tower with a speaker calling me to prayer 5 times a day. It is not our way. What is left of Islam, if you take away sharia law? Not much. It is basically then just the old testament. Regards, TAR

Then I guess it is fair to say Islam is responsible for the current dearth of scientific discovery, honor killings, forced marriages and the subjugation of women. What happened to culture under ISIS? It's not a good idea to cherry pick only the good aspects as someone is sure to point out the bad.

"""A number between 0 and 1""" I'm getting this right out of """text books"" This is why i dont like to Google information and may explain confusions.. Proper fraction larger number on top smaller number on bottom. Improper fraction is this thing in reverse. So then, a number between 0 and 1 must be "a base?" I dont need to define anything, you either know or you dont... Do you know?? Yes or No?? Sounds like a product to me, not a number..

Not at all....You make it sound as though nature has no underlining order, im almost insulted by this.. I guess this explains random prices.. What a unique system of permutations we have..lol

""You Seriously Need To Be Jocking""" The premise of my question deals on the "Reconciliation" of Gravity "Macro" and General Relativity "Macro." Thanks for pointing this out, because I was under the assumption that this "could never" be visually scene...But for the most part it appears to be atomic based "unless there is more info in other discoveries." I'm glad im actually getting "positive results" thnks so much for this link.. I've seen similar videos but get very uttered with the narration and connection to my OP.. Very "Impressive Explanation!!!" Best I've heard in all my studies!!! My insight leads me thinking that... Particles have a "choice" they can either work together or not, in effect of this "union" they effect the physical world?? Particle Wave, rings that bell.. Is this what you mean?? Also, you mention effects """restricted only""" on a "minute" part of large macroscopic objects due to transitions "quantum of energy." "Sounds Like Limits dy/dx" to me But is this minute 60*60 = 1 minute? Sounds circular to me, ie angular momentum obviously.. This Minute...Earth time? Space Time? How do you put an atom in a super position?? And to point it out, are the atoms "vertual copies" of itself?? As in the elephant scenario?? If this is the case, "I'm so surprised" the science community hasn't figured it out yet, or may have already! Read exactually what you just said..🤣