Leaderboard

As this is very pre-Shang, it's hard to say. I would be hesitant to connect it to any Chinese philosophy that arose in the warring states era. It's possible it's a depiction of a deity, a sign of fertility, or some spiritual connection. But it's just a fun guessing game; I couldn't tell you in the slightest.

Hello everyone! I was trying to imagine how some properties of physics (like energy and forces) would be in a 2D Universe. But I found some irregularities... Thinking in 3D terms and considering that gravity exists, we can easily deduce the equation for the Gravitational Force (like Newton did): It must be proportional to both two-body masses; Since we live in a 3D universe we can imagine that the gravity extends by a distance in 1 dimension, remaining the other 2 dimensions for it to spread, forming a spherical propagation. So it must be inversely proportional to the distance squared; We need a constant to fix the units and values. So, the equation must be: FG = G.M.m/d2 Now, to derive the Gravitational Potential Energy formula we just need to integrate the force with respect to the distance that it was applied (Energy = force x distance). We also need to think that this force was applied since an infinite distance all the way through a distance "d" (the distance where the two bodies are now appart), these will be our integration limits. So: EPG = Integral[∞->d](G.M.m.dx/x2) = -G.M.m.Integral[d->∞](dx/x2) = -G.M.m.(-1/x)[d->∞] = G.M.m/x[d->∞] = G.M.m/∞ - G.M.m/d = 0 - G.M.m/d = -G.M.m/d Ok, all good. But now, if we think in a 2D universe, we can deduce that the Gravitational Force would be inversely proportional to the distance, since the gravity would spread like a circle. So, the equation must be: FG = G.M.m/d (of course, the G constant will have different units) Now, the irregularity that I found was in trying to derive the Gravitational Potential Energy, because following the same idea, we have: EPG = Integral[∞->d](G.M.m.dx/x) = -G.M.m.Integral[d->∞](dx/x) = -G.M.m.ln(x)[d->∞] = -G.M.m(ln(∞) - ln(d)) = G.M.m.ln(d) - ∞ :( That was the irregularity... this energy makes no sense... So it must exist some wrong definition that I made... I don't know if it was in the 2D Gravitational Force or in the concept of Energy in a 2D universe... But if someone know, please share with me the knowlage. Thanks!

So the Gestapo officer asks you "We're looking for Anne Franke. Do you know where she is?" Do you reply, "sorry, no, I don't" or "yes, she's in that house there, up in the loft" !! Wasn't there a comedy film where someone lost the ability to tell a lie?

I've kind of addressed some of these questions before; to what degree of success, I don't know. We shouldn't wait for the chips to be down. A protocol should be developed when our minds are cool and can think straight. If something separates us from other primates very distinctly, it's our ability to plan for the future. I perfectly understand that most of us would act differently if we were under extreme pressure, myself including. It doesn't bear thinking. That's precisely why discussions taking place in this vein could be useful. I don't assume any of us is thinking under extreme pressure now. I also agree that for the most part, this discussion is constructive and interesting. It's a challenging problem, isn't it? Experimenting with torture is out of the question. What do we objectively know about it? Can we infer anything about it without reproducing the experiments? Somehow I can't picture the inquisitors back in the Sixteenth Century crunching numbers about the efficacy of their methods.

I agree, but another crucial point about laws is that they represents a common, agreed standard by which conduct can be judged by the community. Laws remove the arbitrary element in deciding whether conduct is acceptable and thereby enable consistency and fairness - which in the end stops us all fighting one another in private disputes.

Also folks under cancer treatment are extremely vulnerable to infectious diseases such as COVID-19. In the US COVID-19 alone is only behind heart disease and cancer as the leading disease. The mere fact that there are folks still trying to minimize its impact at this point truly and fully establishes how f---ed we are. Especially when the next disease (or a more deadly variant) comes up. Also, it is annoying the those pro-virus folks newest (or at least one of the newest) talking point is how somehow the COVID-19 deaths are all overcounted, whereas epidemiologists and other folks who actually calculate these things indicate that they are likely to be vastly undercounted. To make it perfectly clear, folks dying with rather than of COVID-19 is for the most part a myth, driven seemingly by the rise of Omicron in vaccinated populations where there was a substantial number of incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations. However, comparing the numbers coded with COVID-19 as cause of death, vs just presence of COVID-19, (e.g. looking the ONS data, freely available and with clear definitions of what they consider "involving COVID-19" vs "due to COVID-19" in the mortality analysis) it still appears that whenever COVID-19 appears, it is still the underlying cause of deaths in over 80% of all cases. Looking at the data, one can also see interesting patterns. Early in the pandemic, the highest proportion of deaths in which COVID-19 was involved but also the cause of deaths was very high (ca. 95%) and dropped when the cases were low and vaccinations started to increase. However, whenever a wave hit, the values go up to 80% again. I.e. if the disease is wide-spread it will more likely to hit vulnerable (including unvaccinated) folks, exactly as we would expect. But then, it is abundantly clear that this is not about facts at all, but rather to try to find narratives to justify one's worldview, even if it kills us.

Thankfully, that is probably correct. And I'm pretty sure, if any of the unlikley situations did arise as detailed in this thread, that most all would take, or be satisified with all courses of actions being taken...in fact I will say all that have participated in this thread, despite their philosophical and moral takes on the matter. Yep, these are other methods that could be employed. My thoughts primarly were in relation to the jihadist types that believe the next life will be spent with 46 virgins and such. Doing whatever is necessary to have him believe he is being deprived of that, or even entering paradise in the next life. Wasn't something like that used with the killing of Bin-Laden? 😊 That's a good point and I'm glad you didn't dwell on it. While I understand the incredible basics of goodness, logic and sensibilities, laid down by the great philoosphers of the past, and the fact that the foundations/supports of science is built on philosophy, I also am of the opinion that sometimes it can be taken to the nth degree and adds more confusion then anything else, particularly when taken too far. I probably align with the thoughts and opinions of Krauss and DeGrasse-Tyson. I do try and base my beliefs and thinking on worthwhile principles. ps; Overall, a nice post. Already discussed and reasonable outcome achieved imo. I raised it to illustrate your general unworkable philsophy of life, that's all. Quite relevant imo at least. No one's talking about "jedwood justice" except you and your usual refusal to answer anything directly, instead making obnoxious and silly analogies. Your conclusion is also unscientific. Think "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" It is not only right with what we know now, it is the most logical and desirable outcome, as long a the conditions given were there. In fact as I mentioned to joigus, I am sure all that have participated in this thread, would in those situations, "when the chips are down" be OK with doing whatever was necessary, including yourself dimreeper, despite your moral high ground bluff and bluster to the contrary. Is that why you refused to answer the questions that would reveal that? I'm sure it is.

The value can also change on a daily basis. A gazelle has relatively low value for a well-fed cheetah and relatively high value for a hungry cheetah. The gazelle 600 meters away has a lower value than the gazelle 20 meters away. A dead gazelle has higher value than a living gazelle.

Obligatory xkcd reference FREE SPEECH

And you've distilled them all down to a few remarks that fit your worldview, yes, we get it. You so great. Discussion should be interesting, though. Do you think this prejudice of yours is interesting?

The right of freedom of speech involves the government. This forum isn’t run by any government, so it’s a non-issue. You are visiting a place that belongs to someone else. You are a guest here. Limitations on your speech are well within the authority of those who run this place. And, of course, disagreement in no way infringes on your right, and neither does being held accountable by others for what you say.

That's Rolf Harris, of "Tie me Kangaroo down Sport" fame, and of course the "Wobble board" Slim was also married to one half of the McKean sisters, Joy, another old Australain C+W singing duo. One of my favourite Slim Dusty songs was the following...I hope I havn't put it up before??

Ha ha ha... so predictable. I think the reason why you refuse to attempt to answer even one of those points is because each one of them proves that the narrative you champion is wrong... and the cognitive dissonance would be far too great for you to be able to deal with... "Ludicrously tight questions"... oh dear, a poor excuse. If I didn't ask 'clear-cut questions' you would complain they weren't specific enough. "I see this as a complete and total waste of my time"... yes because it would prove you wrong, and you can't be seen to be wrong in an echo chamber, you have an ego to protect after-all. Let me express why you refuse to answer these questions - : You can't prove the vaccine trials have finished because the Pfizer phase III clinical trial for the covid vaccine (long-term safety data) doesn't finish until March 2023 - you would therefore have to admit that the vaccine is experimental which goes against the narrative you are presenting. You can't prove the long-term safety of the vaccine because you know the phase III trial doesn't finish until March 2023 - but you refuse to answer this simple question because you'd have to admit that the vaccine cannot be classed as safe, which goes against the narrative you are presenting. You know that PCR testing is being misused and that a positive 'case' does not confirm it is an infectious case - but this would expose the nefarious narrative being presented and would destroy your argument. Hence your refusal to even comment on it. It takes 10 seconds to find the Infection Fatality Rate, particularly the paper accepted by the WHO and written by John Ioannidis - which shows the IFR to be 0.05% (half that of the flu) for people under 65 - but you know this makes a mockery of the mainstream narrative you support - so better to keep silent. Providing the adverse reaction risk for the vaccine for a specific age group is pivotal to making an informed decision - if this risk is higher than the IFR risk for covid, then mandatory vaccination is not justified - but to admit this would be to go against the narrative you support. To highlight the Absolute risk reduction figure of the vaccine would be to show that the vaccine provides a miniscule 0.8% absolute benefit (Pfizers own trial data) - and this would expose the way in which Pfizer have used the 95% Relative figure to mislead the public into thinking the vaccine is far more effective than it actually is. Such a small improvement in a reduction of symptoms only, again would not justify mandatory vaccines - showing that this challenges your preferred narrative. Highlighting the difference between people dying WITH covid and OF covid would also highlight that the threat of covid has been greatly exaggerated and intentionally misconstrued - this goes against the fearful narrative you have chosen to support. The thing is, knowing the data above is CRITICAL when it comes to making an informed decision on whether to take the vaccine, and whether it's justified in mandating a vaccine for others. If you aren't aware of this data then you're opinion is worthless and holds no credibility - you cannot make a credible judgement unless you know this data. Your narrative runs contrary to this data, which indicates that you are either greatly misinformed, or your intention here is to misinform others. Is this why you refuse to answer these critical questions? Cue demeaning responses and further excuses as to why you don't have to answer any of them, or the presentation of questionable data and misrepresentation of that data similar to the approach taken by Arete. Then watch as the other components within this echo chamber give this a negative rating and are outraged at my preposterous, but logical view. P.s I notice Arete has failed to respond regarding my take-down of the misleading information she presented... Cue, a defense of her data and further character assassination... with no presentation of credible scientific data to justify your views... This forum is so predictable it's embarrassing. You have literally just described yourself...

It says below your username that you are a genius. From what you say, I see no evidence of that. For what I have to say, I have no equal. Keep that in mind if you reply to me again. Also, in my first reply I brought up the meme by Voltaire that said, "The right to free speech is more important than the content of that speech." I pointed out that Voltaire may not have said that. You also brought up something that I have had at least a couple people bring up at other forums. Which is being responsible for the consequences of what I say. It is not I who must suffer the consequences of what I say but others. Because for the topics I do speak of, I speak the truth to the best of my ability to do so. Over and over and over again I have told people that if they disagree with anything I said, just tell me what it is and why. Being unable to do that, they banned me instead. I will tell you something now. You can believe me later. The reality of existence is what it is. It isn't what you would like it to be. (Cult) You brought up things such as minorities, gays, different religions, etc. For just about everything you think is true, the opposite is in fact the case. How do you like that fact Mr Genius. There could be 100 of the absolutely smartest people on the planet on this forum. If they dared go against what I might say, I would slap them around like the worms that they in fact are. How about sticking to the point. Of what I posted, I asked people here to point out what the filthiest of the apparently filthy memes I posted was. Do so. You also bring up prejudice. In case you don't know, that word means to pre judge. I don't pre judge anything. I consider it, then I judge it. The interesting part comes into play when you try to disagree with what I have judged to be true.

I have to hand it to you guys and applaud your persistence in ignoring, deflecting, creating strawman arguments, and continuing to make misleading statements in a convincing manner. I take my hat off to you, that is a skill - you'd make very good politicians, I hear Klaus Schwab is looking. beecee is a prime example of this, ever keen to keep pushing the false notion that covid19 vaccines are safe and effective despite me pointing out on many occasions that this is incorrect - how can any vaccine or drug be claimed to be effective, with any shred of honesty, when it is still in it's trial phase, and when the vaccine / drug company / medical authority refuses to release all the data? The Pfizer covid19 vaccine's phase III trial doesn't finish until March 2023. I think it's time to stop flogging a dead horse. I thank you for opening my eyes to the realisation that some people are wedded to a particular narrative, cannot think outside the box, and will stick to that narrative regardless. With that I will take my leave and wish you all well.