Leaderboard

Lol, you're, killing in the name of...

When I stopped believing in Christianity, I just stopped accepting that Jesus was a god. I never questioned whether he ever actually existed. But since then, I’m looked at the evidence for a real human that the gospels are based on, and it’s actually somewhere between very weak, and zero. Most people accept that there “must have been” a person that the gospel stories are based on, otherwise “why were they written?” But that’s looking at it from a 21st century point of view. Back in the first century, gospel writing was the youtube of the day. There were loads of gospels written, all wildly different. It was a far more religious/superstitious time, when there was little or no science, and there were mysteries everywhere you looked. Gods from different religions got copied and merged across borders all of the time. How could a religion about Jesus evolve, without a man called Jesus to start it? It’s actually quite a common thing. A sect starts off worshipping a heavenly, mythical figure, and the story gradually gets changed, and the god figure gets changed into a human. Often by a god breeding with a human woman, that’s actually a common religious story line. It's a recognised historical process called Euhemerism. It’s likely that Jesus started out as a “son-of-god” figure up in heaven, and the story morphed into a flesh and blood son-of-god figure on Earth. There were similar stories, going back hundreds, or even thousands of years BC. I’ve found that the best people to listen to on the subject are Richard Carrier, and David Fitzgerald, but there are many others. But the one who convinced me was actually St. Paul !! Even though he is responsible for Christianity as it is today, I think his writings are actually some of the best evidence for Jesus being a mythical figure. For someone who virtually created Christianity, he seems to have known virtually nothing about the man. That’s what did it for me. Paul was writing supposedly just a few decades after the cruxifiction. If he couldn’t give any info on a real-life Jesus, then he must have been a mythical figure. Of course, the gospels later gave loads of detail, but much of it was contradictory and obvious invention. They are religious stories, and can’t be taken as biographical material. And if you look elsewhere, for any non-gospel mention of a real Jesus, it’s either not there, or proven forgeries. ( which are actually very common ) Anyway, here are a few links : David Fitzgerald : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI72JNz0IC8&t=22s https://centerforinquiry.org/speakers/fitzgerald_david/ And Richard Carrier : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=richard+carrier

Entangled electrons, whether in an orbital or not, are in a state of superposition having a shared quantum state including an indeterminate location. That is, they have no determinate quantum state or position. We can’t say one electron with a spin up state is here and another in a spin down state is there. It is all random and indeterminate until one or the other is observed. This may be counter intuitive and Schroedinger pointed out the absurdity of quantum entanglement with his dead/alive cat but it appears that the dead/alive state of entangled particles is something we have to live with in QM. Observation favors Genady’s view. The dominate interaction of electrons in the electron cloud surrounding the nucleus of an atom is one of collective interaction, rather than the configuration of particular locations. Charges move about such that their behavior is consistent with that of all the other charges. The majority of electrons in the cloud either appear to be entangled or at least arranged in Cooper pairs with no factorizable properties or individual actions. Electrons in the cloud have no degrees of freedom or identities of their own. Their degrees of freedom are those of the collective degrees of freedom of the electron cloud and their collective interaction can extend well beyond the atom itself. This is most noticeable with such things as Bose-Einstein condensates and with low temperature properties such as super fluidity and superconductivity. Electrons in an atom act more like collective wave functions rather than little planets about a star.

Is that entirely correct? One thing I have learnt in my fruitful 77 years of life on this fart arse little blue orb, is that no matter how evidenced based and supported an argument/position is, there nearly always will be a counter argument, held by some. eg: The flat Earth society. And their supposed adventures, and deeds were written up in an obscure manner, by equally obscure men, in an equally obscure age. I was raised a Catholic, went to a Catholic school all my life, and was an Altar boy, until the parish priest caught me and a fellow altar boy, drinking the altar wine behind the altar. I was also at one time going to be a priest! Did I believe it? Sure I did at the time! Afterall they literally put the fear of Christ (excuse the pun) in you if you didn't. Was there a Jesus? was there a Robin Hood? was there a King Arthur? Broadly speaking probably yes in all cases, although I couldn't be really sure. But of course the further back we go, the less certain we can be, and the more legendary and mythical status grows and matures about such possibilities. My favourite stories as a kid were about Camalot, Authur and his Knights, and Galahad and company. Most exist in total obscurity.

Healthcare worker =/= clinician. Hospitals employ people in custodial, dining, maintenance, shipping and receiving, grounds keeping, payroll, mailrooms, etc. A CharonY points out, vaccine compliance in actual physicians is significantly higher than the general population. So as per the OP - 80,000 represents 6% of the 1.4 million NHS workforce, of which a smaller proportion would actually be medical staff, of which an even smaller proportion would actually have expertise in infectious disease. So the "LoOk aT AlL ThE eXpeRtS WhO wOn'T TaKe ThE ExPeRiMeNtAl VaCcINe!??!" is disingenuous and requires considerable torturing of the data, reminiscent of the "LoOk aT AlL ThE eXpeRtS WhO DoNt BeLieVE ThE EvOluTiOn LiE!!?!" intellectual fallacy.

There is recent evidence that combined testing performs better https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ns-combined-nose-throat-rapid-test-more-accurate-1.6322961

I don't think so. Entangled electrons in an orbital are most definitely in one quantum state or another prior to observation, according to QM. However prior to observation the observer does not know which is which.

And you would be wrong. Science and the scientific method simply put, makes one assumption, based on observational evidence....that the universe, obeys known rules. And vice versa...That's it, pure and simple. To say one must take science on faith, is gross ignorance and dishonesty. Religion is based on myth, so to is ID. They both assume some magical spaghetti monster. Nor the countless number of times since. Like I said, think probability instead of possibility...should be easy for a philosopher! 🤭

What you described is a classical connection since the handedness of the gloves is unchanging from start to finish. Entanglement is different in that the handedness of the gloves (quantum identity) is truly indeterminate and not fixed prior to the first observation. Prior to observation, entangled particles are in a Bell state of superposition meaning that they are in neither in one quantum state nor another but are mixed. Their quantum states simultaneously become fixed in all reference frames at the instant of the first observation. Bell’s inequality is a statistical test to determine if the quantum identities were fixed and unchanging from the beginning, as with a pair of gloves, or if they were indeterminate until the instant of the first observation on either end. With entangled particles, the outcome of an observation is random prior to the first observation.

I am sorry, I have neither ability nor intention to develop a mathematical model. I can only come up with a schematic model. If someone develop a mathematical model, I am very thankful. Anyway, thanks a lot for your kind suggestion.

My lab routinely works on wastewater, clinical enteric and mucosal samples. If someone isn't willing to get COVID, influenza, hepatitis vaccinations and wear appropriate PPE, they need to look for a different line of work. I'm not accepting liability for someone being a moron, nor am I trusting the work of a microbiologist who doesn't understand how vaccines work. If you are immunocompromised to the point where getting a vaccine is an unacceptable risk to your health, a BSL2+ is not a place you should be. I imagine if I was in charge of a clinic, I'd feel pretty much the same.

Yes Unvaccinated healthcare professionals should be nowhere near unhealthy patients seeking care.

“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

Oh I am most certainly, just nothing too soul destroying. Yet we all still embrace science and the overwhelming good it does. No just human nature and need to want and need for adventure, competition, to go further, explore more, achieve that which was once impossible etc etc etc. It's what makes us what we are. The same reasons we take flies, spiders, and all manner of experiments to the ISS...to observe, to collect data, to learn...the same reasons we search for extra solar planets, check their goldilock potentials, atmospheric contents, size, parent stars, etc etc. There's a multitude of reasons why we all embrace science. Most of it is common sense. And that will stop the extraction of metals and such from Earth? I don't think so. And of course we still have some way to go yet before we need to consider such Earth extractions, but by then we will be mining the Moon and asteroids comets etc. While the "2001: A Space Odyssey" and the follow up 2010, are among my top sci/fi movies of all time, I did think we were being serious. Any future mission/experiment to Europa, would entail all the protection necessary to probe its icy structure, which appears to be cracking and changing all the time. A shame though they have not as yet made the movie of the third installement, 2063.

Welcome. As to your question Some folks don't know enough to know that that they don't know enough, but scientists know enough to know they don't know enough. So they are always asking questions to make sure.

I believe this to be true. Look at the vaccine skeptics who come down with COVID and how as soon as they are off the ventilator, they and their families are telling anyone who will listen that they should get the vaccine.

You don’t have to be a scientist, or even confirm you accept basic scientific understandings, to join and become a member. Also… There is no debate. Just corrections of creationist ignorance and education of the misinformed.

It's a soccer reference about netting the ball.

Just to correct myself. There are cases in which you can say an electron changes its spin, of course. But not for spin-entangled states. For example, you put an ion in an ion trap and subject it to a magnetic field. The ion will flip its spin. The devilish property of a maximally-entangled state is that you cannot say its spin has any particular value whatsoever. Yes, it's very much like that; they're initial correlations. The tricky part is that correlations are quantum. All hell breaks loose when correlations are quantum and you want to think about the gloves as actually possessing all these properties at a given time. Quantum mechanics embeds a different (non-classical) kind of logic when you express it in terms of properties you can measure. 'Quantum gloves' need to be able to occupy states that are neither right-handed, nor left-handed (superpositions); neither black nor white, etc. And we need to be able to measure several properties of the gloves. If we want to have properly quantum gloves and display all the 'trickery' of quantum entanglement, we would need: 1) Several measurable properties. Take three observables, say: handedness (H), colour (C), and material (M). 2) Measurements of any one of these properties (observables) completely mess up measurements of the other; and you can't measure (H,C), or (C,M), (H,M), at the same time. (Incompatible observables.) 3) (For simplicity) the observables have a discrete dichotomic spectrum (possible values when measured): H {left-handed, right-handed} C {black, white} M {natural, synthetic} 4) When the gloves are in a definite state of handedness, the H-incompatible properties C and M are maximally scrambled, or 'blurry': Equally likely to be black or white; equally likely to be natural or synthetic. The gloves simply don't have those C, M properties when H is well defined! If they had, it's not difficult to prove that, for many series of repeated experiments on a given glove: Probability(left-handed & white)+P(black & synthetic) greater or equal than Probability(left-handed & synthetic) This is called Bell's inequality, and it's just a consequence of the properties H, C, and M actually having a value. Quantum probabilities violate this inequality for certain choices of observables. But wait a minute. Didn't we say that properties H (handedness) and C (colour) are incompatible? How can I even make sense of Probability(left-handed & white)? I'm not supposed to be able to measure handedness and colour at the same time! (for the same glove). Yes, but the whole basis of this combined-probability setup is based on the assumption that when I measure, eg, H for one glove and the result is 'left-handed', I know with certainty that, were an experiment to be performed at the other glove's location, it would produce the result 'right-handed' with total certainty. And sure enough, it does, when I do so. So I'm counting 'left-handed' outputs for the other glove as 'right-handed' outputs for this glove. This is very important to keep in mind. So the gloves would have to be kinda schizoid. But the whole thing is local. In order to see that, let's go back to a pair of electrons. We take electrons from separate parts of the world, completely uncorrelated. We bring them together and have them interact. They reach a maximally entangled state called the singlet. This only happens because they've been proximal and interacting (local!!!). Now (and not before) they display perfect anti-correlation. If I perform my experiment on them when they're still next to each other, they display all the craziness that I've just described. Now the state decays (splits apart). I perform the same sequence of measurements. The perfect anti-correlation is still there. It hasn't changed. So it didn't come from me doing anything on one of the electrons and the other 'sensing' what I did. It came from the initial interaction that produced the anti-correlations. Murray Gell-Mann was very frustrated that people, decades after Bell, Clauser, Shimony, and all that saga, still called this 'non-locality'. Just as an indirect evidence of how much confusion this term 'non-local' has caused in physics, here's a quotation: (taken from a scientific forum.) Ooooooo-kay.

Yes. So, the traditional theory has a fatal problem. My model is proposed to resolve this problem. quantum + anti-quantum -> none (vacuum) Anyway, I only proposed a hypothetical model.

The actual attributable number of deaths to Covid is still under debate. Recent data released from the Office of National Statistics shows it may be far lower than once suspected. See Dr. John Campbell's recent analysis from January 23rd here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw No, I do not agree with Australia's draconian lockdown restrictions in general. I believe they are irrational in a country with such high vaccine rates, and infringe upon the liberty of the citizens there. Please, spare me the self-aggrandizement. Argue your position; don't patronize others.