Leaderboard

Transgender Laurel Hubbard NZ didn't beat the top cis-girls in the weightlifting in Tokyo.

Great. Where's your evidence underlying this repeated claim that all of these dominant athletes are XY chromosomal?

I am sharing with you that you can't possibly know what you are claiming to know, and asking you to support it with evidence. You've thus far done nothing more than evade and attempt to shift the burden of proof to me.

You were also supplied the thickness of the wall and the thermal conductivity of the wall which seems to indicate that there is a time component in the question, or this is superfluous information. Could you supply a screen shot of the actual problem?

That's already the case. The constant entropy condition is the crystal itself, and the state it's in, and ignores all of the equipment necessary to get the crystal into the state where this behavior is possible. The materials identified for these time crystals aren't very precise oscillators, and the things we use for precise clocks (i.e. atoms and ions) aren't candidates for time crystals. That doesn't preclude some candidate being identified in the future, but for now, and talk of time crystals as clocks is a nonstarter, other than as a novelty item. Plus, as you note above, reading out the oscillations would require interacting with the crystal, and you'd lose the constant-entropy condition. There are classical analogues to this, where you have master-slave pendulums, so the high-precision pendulum is only perturbed slightly, which minimizes the compromise to its behavior.

Update in case anyone is reading: eeg came back normal. My running theory now is perhaps my eyes are sensitive to light and when a change of light occurs those dots appear. My dr still wants to prescribe me migraine medication but I won’t do that since like I said I get no head pain

Why rethink it? I’m correct. You’re not. You cannot say (as you have now several times) that 100% of males who’ve ever competed in male sports were competing with XY chromosomes. That’s an interesting opinion, but your source is your rectum.

Sorry, you are right INow. I shouldn't have included JC, but I have certainly never brought up chromosonal differences as a metric. After all,, a pre-pubescent girl is just as strong and fast as a pre-pubescent boy; it is the hormones that become active with puberty that differentiates their later physical prowess in athletic competition. ( remember when USSR girl gymnasts were given puberty delaying drugs so as to give them an advantage in strength to body mass ratio ? ) I will allow JC to make his own arguments with respect to chromosonal differences.

I may have missed some of the details, but is this essentially a three page discussion between those ho think nothing moves and those who think "The nothing" moves?

If Churchill were here, he'd probably say, Never so much was said by so many about something that worries so few.

...and having realized this lack of available evidence (despite believing the validity of the statement) I qualified it to: “XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team. There are no known exceptions". But note that I didn't say "100% XY chromosomes" Is your "possibly 1 in 100 people" far more common than my "under 1%"? Right. Nor is it a valid reason to accept them either. It certainly does have a lot of momentum behind it though, and that's in part why it's important not to set any bad ones. I think it highlights XY dominance in sport. A cautionary point on any loosely restricted inclusion of XY chromosome athletes in competitive female sports. How about "It seems very likely that XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team, and not much evidence of concern, or optimism, that that may change anytime soon." INow claimed it was untrue. Since you posted he does seem to have changed it to "extremely unlikely" though provided no evidence to support his thinking. For a 43 year old former non elite male weightlifter forced to meet testosterone targets, she did well just getting there.

Do you understand the meaning of the word untrue? If I make a statement that is almost certainly true, with no known evidence that it has any exceptions...you can claim it's unproven...but you don't get to claim it's untrue. You need to back up that claim...and you can't. What reason do you have to believe there is even one exception, never mind making such a claim? What scientific evidence even points in that direction?

It is in the book I referenced in my first post. You are clearly unable to check a reference. If you ever want to get serious about science, it is crucial to checking the validity of scientific papers. They reference the book they got it out of, and it is then the persons job that believes it is in error to look it up in that reference. If you are unable to look up the information in the book they got it from, then you shouldn't be able to deny it. You can't just tell them, "nah, I don't believe you or it is correct". You have to be able to prove the reference wrong. That is how the scientific process works. SO, if you are really going to be a stickler about science, you shouldn't lower yourself to another standard. Copyright laws prevent me from posting the book. Science still works with those laws, because scientist know how to read books... By being unable to look it up yourself, you are not really being a scientist. You are just trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Particle_at_the_End_of_the_Universe It references where he got the information from, from him writing the book. Those are the papers I am talking about.

The core of the sun is mostly iron and inert, so I don't see the purpose of that. The core is what makes a star die out, because it cannot sustain a nuclear reaction with such heavy elements. That is why I think it is more likely that the Earth was the core of a dead star, but one thing at a time... After I thought about it a while, it would just take nuking Saturn. That could be done in a couple of years. The atmosphere is mostly noble gases, so it would start a nuclear chain reaction. The mass of it has nothing to do with rather it would be able to sustain that chain reaction. It only makes it to where it can be ignited without an external source. Low mass doesn't stop nuclear reactions from going off. The only difference from a hydrogen bomb is that it nukes hydrogen. The nuclear bomb is just a detonator for it, from smashing uranium together. Then Saturn could just become a hydrogen bomb, and it has a lot of hydrogen. It could still take it a long time for it all to detonate, like the sun.