Leaderboard

This forum is a wonderful place to learn, the lessons may be harsh at times, but almost always valuable.

That’s a fair point… it was a shorthand description from me that may have been unclear given other existing uses of the term “trans humans.” My intent was to reinforce their human-ness more than their trans-ness… and as you rightly mention, they are just human like the rest of us… just like you and me and everyone else… and yet here we are… page after page after page of thread exploring why some people are totally fine including transgendered humans in sports… and why others cannot seem to overcome their psychological opposition to letting them compete unless we first define some sort of “separate but equal” bracket to place them into… and all due to what? Due to the risk that like 6 total female athletes MIGHT not win a cheap trophy or medal if we do so? I find this all so horribly trite and narrow minded TBH, and it’s doubly frustrating when I see it coming so often from so many otherwise extremely intelligent and capable individuals like you. I understand where your head is on this, but I also feel somewhat strongly that you’re on the wrong side of this issue and will realize the same for yourself soon enough once a few more years have passed. Oversimplifying my take, this issue overlaps tremendously with historical opposition to letting blacks and whites marry, or being against school integration, or against gay marriage… this is just the latest tribalistic cultural fight and… FWIW… I would also be here equally arguing against making transgendered individuals drink from separate water fountains or forcing them to use bathrooms that don’t align with the gender with which they identify. You surely agree with me those things would be anathema to who we wish to be as a society, but can’t seem to see the same once sports get involved… specifically female sports. It’s so needlessly paternalistic. Are their differences we should consider and account for? Of course, but are those differences so large as to justify the perpetuation of discrimination and exclusion? Absolutely not. No way, and no how.

Had to look it up...I was thinking "wouldn't that be during ejaculation?"😀

Q. What is the first thing a man does after ejaculation? A. Clear cache.

Many think that there are multiple environmental crises assailing the planet. Here is an article on a fresh report from the https://www.ippr.org/, by the BBC https://www.ippr.org/ The degradagation of arable land is cited in the New Scientist book https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1473629772/ref=asc_df_147362977258469057/?tag=googshopuk-21&creative=22110&creativeASIN=1473629772&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310865071345&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=18039469306525565984&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1007149&hvtargid=pla-563590850360&th=1&psc=1

This is a component of our disagreement, but hardly the fulcrum. Rather, the fulcrum seems to be that I accept transgendered humans as the sex they identify with. JCM, however, seems not to. He seems to see them as doing something wrong by “altering their chemistry” and “choosing to change” and even sometimes assumes nefarious motives suggesting that they’re intentionally trying to trick us so they can be more likely to win medals and plastic trophies when playing sports. Now, this lack of acceptance gets couched in terms of “protecting cisgendered females,” but that strikes me as being a smokescreen composed of horseshit, especially since it’s not being compared against the scale and scope of other existing risks cisgendered female athletes face. The fulcrum is that I and many others accept trans women as women and trans men as men, and this is subsequently why I have no problem whatsoever with them competing in women’s leagues or in men’s leagues based on how they identify. They are female and belong in the female league, and they are male so belong in the male league. They are also human and deserve to be treated as such with dignity and acceptance. It’s that lack of acceptance that they truly are who they say they are and it’s the suggestion that cisgendered fairness must be prioritized over transgendered fairness which constitutes the fulcrum of our disagreement. Incorrect. The foundation is that more trans women are being harmed by their EX-clusion than cisgendered women are being harmed by their IN-clusion. The foundation is that I reject the underlying theme here that trans women somehow aren’t women and I reject the premise that fairness in sports is the actual concern underlying the opposition. Any honest observer (honest with us and honest with themselves) can pretty easily recognize that this whole fairness in sports focus is disingenuous. Fairness in sports is merely being used as another regulatory cudgel to beat transgendered humans back into the shadows, to prevent them from getting too close to sociocultural activities that are part of our self-identities, and to remind them in yet another way (on top of the scores of other existing ways) that they are “different,” they are “other,” and they DON’T belong. I’m calling a spade a spade and suggesting it’s rather stupid and shortsighted to elevate this nebulous and arbitrary concept of athletic fairness above the very real and very meaningful concepts of social acceptance and understanding. This is about choosing to accept people for who and for what they are, even (especially?) in sports.

Energy efficient homes help but I don't have a problem with growing AC use, just with any growth of fossil fuel consumption to run them. And heat pump (including AC) technologies are amongst our most efficient. Building an abundance of clean energy helps whether homes are efficient or not - and that shift to clean energy is already happening, just not quickly enough. Similarly for Electric Vehicles; they are not a solution without a shift to clean energy sources to both build them and run them. It is not enough that people who care enough to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint at personal cost, we need solutions that will work equally well with people who are extravagantly wasteful and don't care, ie our primary sources of energy all need to be shifted to very low/zero emissions so that everything flowing from that, including manufacturing and running AC and EV's, is very low/zero emissions. There will be real limits on overall economic prosperity but I don't see the shift to zero emissions as a primary limiting factor; on the contrary, failure to adopt clean energy will be a major factor that hurts our continuing prosperity as climate impacts become more pronounced.

Inow and MacS... I wonder if the fulcrum of your disagreement may lie at the degree to which traditional female sports are impacted. INow said "Due to the risk that like 6 total female athletes MIGHT not win a cheap trophy or medal if we do so." This suggests a Spockian "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" ethos, which is often sensible, but here lacks foundation in establishing that a mere handful of cis women would be impacted. If more people are making the choice to transition for whatever reason, and so there are more trans-females who, with their XY legacy of aerobic capacity, muscle mass, fast-twitch fibers, bone density, etc. are looking for paths in which they can achieve distinction and success, it's worth considering that many could see competitive league sports as an attractive choice. Asking questions about such a possible future trend now seems like a good idea, especially in those sports that are NOT diving, ultramarathons, or volleyball. I don't think one has to enter into a culture war or wave an ideological flag to take a humane interest in the welfare of those who compete.

And the larger problem is that the people we need to implement such a change are the very same ones benefiting from its absence.

In the decades after Einstein's 'magic year' of 1905, physicists came to understand* that trying to set apart energy, \[ E=\frac{mc^{2}}{\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}} \] and 'dynamic mass', \[ \textrm{inertia}=\frac{m}{\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}} \] was quite futile, as they are proportional to each other with a universal constant as proportionality factor. Today, we no longer call mass this velocity-dependent quantity. We just call it kinetic energy. That's what it is. As to 'rest mass', it's just 'rest energy'. You can think of it as some kind of potential energy. If the body can't be broken apart by any process (decay, high-energy collisions), it still has this residual energy. As an example, if a body of rest energy mc2 (or \(m \), if you will; it's just a matter of units) decays into pieces of respective rest energies m1 and m2 , we know the liberated energy is (removing the unnecessary index 0 for 'rest', as mass is always rest energy), \[ \triangle E=\triangle mc^{2}=mc^{2}-m_{1}c^{2}-m_{2}c^{2} \] This is energy that we can understand as previously contributing to the internal cohesion of the particle that has just decayed, and no longer is contributing to forming the masses m1 and m2 , but contributing to the kinetic energy of the decay products, now moving with speeds v1 and v2 . Spacetime Physics; Edwin F.. Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler

I am not so interested in whether bioreactors and biofuels can work on the moon or Mars as whether it can help meet our near term and critical requirements for abundant clean energy here on Earth - but any technology to be used in space will have to be developed and proven on Earth first, so that isn't a conflict of interest. The advantage of PV is you just expose it to sunlight and it makes electricity. No moving parts, can be plug and play, is low cost and exceptionally reliable, and likewise for associated equipment. Available solar area isn't usually the limiting constraint, so energy yield per m2 is not a deal breaker; by all measures the yield from PV in most places is very good right now. There are biofuel successes but they tend to rely on the natural advantages of being on Earth - crops that grow readily in existing soils with natural rainfall, open ponds for algae cultures, availability of power and other supply. The concentrator type and other closed bioreactors are not as efficient and effective as claimed; the first link noted that getting tubular bioreactors from energy negative to energy positive is an ongoing challenge. Just the energy requirement for keeping the fluids well mixed seems to be a major hurdle. Failure to be energy positive is a big problem here on Earth, but would be a bigger problem on Mars. That doesn't sound like something that will make 5 times the energy production than PV to me. PV is demonstrably energy positive but biofuels from tubular bioreactors are not, which makes the claims of superior energy delivery look wrong. Not clear what nutrients would be required but sources will be essential. It doesn't look like any kind of plug and play kind of technology, but would need constant attention, ie farming. It is also not clear what the steps and requirements are between biomass or ethanol gain in a ferment fluid and usable fuels ie dry burnable biomass, diesel grade oil or distilled ethanol of purity suited to fuel cells but they will be there - at a cost to overall efficiency and energy output. In space you will need the Oxygen if you burn anything or use fuel cells; it may be from CO2 recycled, possibly by bioreactor, but in a closed system it will add yet more associated equipment and energy use. I like the enthusiasm for biofuels but it is a long way from being a replacement - let alone clearly superior replacement -for PV. Not on Earth, not in space.

But the god part is just being shoehorned in because you want it there, not because there’s a good reason to put it there or a logical sequence / chain of reasoning landing you on that conclusion. You can see how invalid and irrelevant the god part is by simply replacing the word god in your exact sentence and you could just as easily (and just as validly) say, “because there is no universal truth then a belief I that Harry Potter is a real being from another dimension doesn't seem as silly.” Or… “because there is no universal truth then a belief that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns doesn't seem as silly.”

I don't see how one follows the other. Why believe in god just because we'll never understand the world? Why not believe in fairies, or meditation, or Tex Mex cooking instead? Or perhaps we should take up pilates because we will never really understand the world. What exactly is the reason to believe in god given that we'll not understand the world? Seems to me you are just searching for any conceivable reason to believe in god.

One of those topics which it's almost impossible not to greet with double entendres and such. I'm unsure if any serious studies have been done of male physiology post-ejaculation, so what most of us have mouldering in our mental attics are various old wives tales, or mystical allusions to chi, vital essence, all that kind of blather. And all the subjective anecdotal stuff about feelings of lethargy and fatigue. Of course, one man's fatigue is another man's blissful relaxation. If I come across (ha!) any research, will post here later. Duty calls, atm.

It would depend on h1 and h2 v2 - v1 = sqrt(2g(H-h2))- sqrt(2g(H-h1))

You have mv = sqrt(2m^2g(H-h)) You need to divide both sides by m (sqrt m^2 is m) v = sqrt(2g(H-h)) at h=H it's zero. At h = 0 it has its maximum value

Then "speed" would suffice. p = mv, so as I said, you divide by mass and the mass term goes away. We already covered this.

You will notice that the mass cancels, since the speed of a falling object is independent of mass.

I think you misunderstood...the 17 minutes time frame only applies as from the time you removed the screen, to when you first see the reflected light back in your eyes...as per what I said earlier "you certainly would then see the Moon as it was 17 minutes earlier, at that instant, from the time you first removed the screen". Otherwise "the actual reflected light from the moon will only show the moon as it appeared 8 mins ago" as per DrmDoc Every time we look into the night sky, we are looking into the past...I can just make out M31 [Andromeda] from where I am, as it was 2 million years ago. When I look at the C4entauri system tonight, I am seeing it as it was 4.5 years ago...theoretically it may not be there now, [my now that is] having gone nova. Bingo!

Given that you have weighed in on much more complicated physics problems, one might expect you could solve a physics 101 problem At the top of the travel the KE is zero and PE is mgH, where H is the top of the travel. The sum remains constant, so KE = mg(H-h) at all points (this assumes g is a constant) KE = p^2/2m so the momentum will be sqrt(2m^2g(H-h)) The details of the collision aren't given; this solution doesn't apply to the impact itself and assumes a point particle (again, details are not given)

A priest, a minister, and a rabbit walk into a bar... The rabbit says, “I think I might be a typo.”

ps -- I follow everything up to this line. If you can please put in proper parens and show exactly how you got this I'd find it very helpful. Also please note that the [math]y_i[/math]'s are presumably taken to be all distinct from each other, else you can't be sure they contain a linearly independent subset. And also note that when ask us to consider the equation you need to specify that at least one of the [math]c_i[/math]'s is not zero. There's no reason they couldn't all be. When you say, "We cannot have all c_i=0 [individually]in an exclusive manner since that would make the space N dimensional," that is not true. With all the c_i's equal to zero, that equation is true in any vector space no matter what the dimensions of the space and its subspaces. I think you are confusing this with the definition of linear independence, which says that if [math]\displaystyle \sum c_i v_i = 0[/math] implies that all the c_i's must be zero, then the v_i's are linearly independent. But just because you have [math]\displaystyle \sum c_i v_i = 0[/math], that doesn't mean all the c_i's can't all happen to be 0 regardless of whether the v_i's are linearly independent. Finally, you keep using the notation Σi=Ni=1 ... which I imagine is supposed to mean [math]\displaystyle \sum_{i= 1}^N[/math] but is incredibly confusing in context. Can you please fix that throughout?

I think those in positions of trust, responsibility, power and influence throwing this issue back onto the public is responsibility avoidance written large. Making it a matter of individual lifestyle and purchasing choices or a matter of popular public opinion and voter choice to address (or not) collectively through our society's institutions - whilst being active participants in misinformation to influence that opinion and choice is doubly problematic; rejecting the mainstream advice may be an individual's "free" choice but it is textbook negligence for those with broader fiduciary duties of care. But to actively misinform ("educate") the community or use their reach and influence to endorse and give respectability to campaigns of disinformation is a much more serious kind of negligence. And we are going to continue to struggle to get Joe Public well informed enough to make rational and ethical choices. And still the widespread ability to know better but do things that are not in our longer term best interests anyway (personal experience here) makes personal choices an unreliable means of addressing this, whether by our individual actions or our voting choices. Especially if the voting options themselves are skewed.

Walking around with a loaded gun, makes you a public health risk.

inertia the cardboard box damagediscs?