Leaderboard

It was unknown whether the plants would germinate at all - the fact they did tells us that regolith did not interfere with the hormones necessary for this process. The plant they chose was the first one to have its genome sequenced, allowing them to look into the transcriptome to identify epigenetic changes due to the regolith, particularly what stress responses were triggered. They also compared regolith from 3 different lunar sites, allowing them to identify differences in morphology, transcriptomes etc between sites. Full paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03334-8

Possible nighttime counterpart to solar PV power generation. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsphotonics.2c00223# Looks like it's got a ways to go in term of milliwatts per sq meter, but a cool idea (npi). Maybe would work better in deserts where the surface is losing a lot of heat to space.

How are they the same group, and the US Womens and mens hockey teams are not? No. As you pointed out, the women brought in similar revenues to the men. Close enough that the men felt compelled to support your World champion team, and to proceed to work together to grow the shared revenue. The Law did not support them in getting equal pay with the men. (though the Law certainly should have, and no doubt would have, supported that they deserved more than they were getting, including based on what the men were getting) If the law supported them for equal pay, they would have had to prove equal work. Their deal will set no precedent in Law for other sports, or even in their own when they negotiate the next contract. They simply settled on a win-win deal with the men, and possibly/possibly not also a win-win-win with US Soccer, for a set term. We were discussing the effect of incentivizing womens sports for transgenders, as per how it reflects on the thread topic. +1...and they deserve to challenge that potential brain and muscle memory just as men do. Citius, altius, fortius...not watchus from the sideus...

Physical skill is a brain and muscle memory thing, so there's no biological reason women can't have it with the same frequency and competence level as men.

In systems where a corporate sector grows and buys up power bases, wealth tends to concentrate at the top, the bottom half tends towards impoverishment, and crime and violence results. Then people want law and order, and the dictatorial "strongman" arises, promises law and order, and delivers on that (often in brutal fashion). Authoritarian government almost seems like the most natural evolution of late-stage capitalism. Often accompanied by theocracy, as the high priests promise that stern imposition of their moral code will also bring safe streets. (and they will have dogmas that exalt wealth, and make predatory capitalism okay with Gee-Hovah or Whoever)

That's nothing to the shock of discovering just how many second-rate male athletes have applied for a sex-change operation under false pretenses, just so they can beat women to death.

I will repeat that most of the laws being passed right now focus at the level of adolescent sports in middle and high school and even college and as I’ve mentioned a few times that’s also where my primary focus exists. Even if we include the pinnacle of sports and elite athletes, however, the details of the divisions account for this. “To play at THIS level, you must exhibit qualifications on skill 1, 2, and 3. We don’t care how you pee.” You seem hyper focused on fairness, yet cannot see your blind spot for how unfair the current urination-based classifications are for trans kids. Unless I’m misreading you, this sounds an awful lot like “separate, but equal.” It’s as if you’re proclaiming you want ALL kids to have access to safe clean drinking water so long as we’re certain that THEY use different water fountains. So… If sports divisions and classifications are setup using skill and capability-based thresholds then there’s no need to keep them separate based simply on how they happen to pee. If a female qualifies, she can play in that league and at that level. If a trans kid qualifies, they too can play in that league and at that level. Why again do you think this is “just a crap idea?” Then don’t watch, but if the woman or trans person qualifies at that level and meets the level of skill required to do so and wishes also to compete at that level, why should you and I tell them they cannot? That’s some next level paternalism right there.

Just a comment on equal pay and though I'm absolutely fine with the new USA contract, I'm not for equal pay in the manner the US women's Team has demanded. They all make substantially more than most men and women, and they deserve to IMO, but it's driven by gate receipts (the prize moneys are included in that) not simply because they are elite athletes. They certainly can negotiate and share revenues they generate with each other, that's their prerogative. But they certainly don't expect themselves to share the revenues with other elite athletes outside their sport, say women's wrestling, or within their sport, say the paralympic soccer teams. I do expect the women will be very protective of that revenue, including wanting rules to exclude XY individuals from competing on an arbitrary equal footing. Ultimately it will tend to be about the money, not the integrity, the women would not have signed that deal if their expected revenues were higher than the men's (nor should they have if that was the case). Also don't expect Brazil, or any other country to follow their lead, and don't suggest they are less progressive when they don't go for equal pay (they may be less progressive, as demonstrated by the greater discrepancy in Brazil of the Men's to Women's game, but not due to rejecting "equal pay" at top level) It will be interesting though, to see how many transgender females tryout for the US Women's Team given the half a million a year incentive, how many make it against whatever hurdles are put in place against them. My thinking is that most of the current Team will be very relieved when their international body declares transgender females ineligible or, more likely, effectively blocks them from international play with overly restrictive rules, and Rapinoe et al can pretend to take the high road, just as they have in their demands for equal pay.

Not quite: 'philosophy' was just the name of every activity that wanted to understand the world. (Was Newton a philosopher? His main work is titled 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica'.) It is our understanding of the musings of Aristotle that he was active at disciplines that we now distinguish: during my physics study in the context of the history of physics I learned about his 'laws of falling bodies', during my philosophy study I learned about Aristotle's logic (syllogisms, categories, etc), and I assume he would also appear in the history of biology. There are some overlappings, e.g. Aristotle's concept of causality that is interesting for the history of philosophy and physics alike. It is clear to us nowadays that to make methodologically justified statements about nature, you must study nature, not just sit behind your desk and start thinking. However, if you encounter problems, there may come a point where you have to think about the fundamentals of your methods or other assumptions, like in the early years of quantum physics. And that discussion is not over yet, but has shifted. E.g. the question if String Theory is still science, or just mathematically advanced metaphysics. And what about the Multiverse: proponents of some version of the Multiverse generally affirm that there is no causal connection between the different parallel universes. So the hypotheses about the Multiverse cannot be empirically tested. Is that still science? These are philosophical questions. In modern days, no, not so much. Genady is partially right: To simplify: if the topic is nature, it is physics; if the topic is methods and general assumptions behind physics then it is philosophy. And in this sense there are at least periods in which physics needs philosophy, even if it are physicists themselves who are doing the philosophising. But physics does not need music or sports; physicists might, but they are not special in this respect. There are a few reasons, why you got this impression. First, the irony, or even sarcasm, of one of these was just too much. As a science fan, you could get the impression that you are plainly stupid. (If you remember, I also asked him to tone down. To no avail, as he was even banned.) This made it impossible for you to take his points seriously. AFAIR his point was that the selfunderstanding of science (a philosophical topic!) of many scientists is poor, but you read somehow that he implied that science in general is wrong. But the second point lies clearly with you: your utter ignorance about modern philosophy, just picking a few bonmots (some nearly 100 years old) that fit to your prejudices. Here I have a few others by Mencken: Do you really want to call him in the witness stand? Philosophy is not science. In the natural sciences there is always an arbiter: nature itself. Philosophy is essentially reflecting on our thinking. But as the thinking changes, due to developments in science and society, the reflecting will change as well. Grappling with these assumptions is the scientific methodology, which is a part of philosophy. This is a caricature of philosophy. No doubt that Feynman heard these kind of questions, but the way he talks about them, I assume these were questions by 'would-be philosophers', i.e. fellow students who wanted to spread some 'deepities'. You do not find such questions when you look into the 'philosophy of physics' department. Yes, I notice you are pretty good informed about the contents of modern physics and astronomy. But, as you say you are not well-informed about what philosophy is presently doing. So why all these attacks on a discipline you simply don't know, and just take some bonmots, that support your prejudices? Forgot to add, there are physicists, who are much better aware about philosophy, a small list: Lee Smolin Sean Carroll Carlo Rovelli Albert Einstein From the latter:

Because of the Kronecker delta in the first highlighted equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronecker_delta Which is there because <i|j> is in the preceding equation. Do you see why that is?

Unlike Eise ( and some others who have passed through ), I know very little, if any, Philosophy, but I like to pretend I know some science, and I'm very appreciative of the insights Eise has shared with us. The way I see it ( IOW, opinion, so I could be totally out to lunch ) both Philosophy and Physics try to answer fundamental questtions about the behaviour of nature. Physics asks questions whose answers can be tested, while Philosophy asks questions with untestable answers. At some point, before testing methodology is devised, or possible, for a Physics questiion, it is in effect, a Philosophy question. All Physics started off as Philosophy, and while the realm of Physics seems to expands as we are able to test what used to be Philosophical questions, it seem that the Philosophical realm shrinks. But not to worry, every question that has a testable answer gives rise to many more questions whose answer is yet untestable. That would make Philosophy essential for Physicists as it gives them insight into developing testable answers.

Definitely difficult to find a compromise. I don't at all think impossible. I don't believe we'll ever get truly fair and equitable inclusion of transgenders, but then we don't really have fair and equitable inclusion of anyone else either. We just need to get reasonably close.

I don't follow. Which daughter has your proposal solved for? Are they both taking drugs to either; over suppress testosterone beyond a healthy limit, or enhance it in an unhealthy manner? Have you explained that their health is paramount and they should avoid the sport at that level? Have you supported one and not the other? Please explain. Help me remove my head from my bunghole. Because if you're right it's firmly in there. I don't see any solution vaguely remote, never mind obvious, in what you are proposing for anything beyond recreational sport.

Great post and I gave you a like also. 😉 Yes, sadly extreme nonsensical PC does exist. I gave one example earlier. And just as sadly maybe the cause of the rise of the extreme looney right brigade and the Trumpists. The other rather notable situation that has developed is the facetiousness and sarcasm directed at anyone that dare stray from this extreme PC, under the guise of humour. That of course is evident with the uses of the positive and neg rep situations also. Stands out like dog balls sadly. A sadness reflected more as this being a science forum, is supposed to be populated with the highly educated with degrees and such, although I think that misuse and facetiousness only applies to probably a few, not all. Anyway I'm off! Election day and I am handing out "how to vote" cards.!! And I don't believe you. Although you may get a like for your usual facetiousness.

Yes you have definitely got the idea. +1 F = k1m and F = k2a are simultaneous equations so we combine them as I indicated to form one equation F=k3ma Having got that out of the way a couple of small points It is not quite right to say that k1 'contains' a or that k2 'contains' m which brings us neatly to the subject of units. Nearly always in Physics, the constant of proportionality also 'contains' the tranformation of units. It is not just a number (as it is in pure maths) it has units of its own that are very important. F, a and m all have different units so k1 converts acceleration units to force units and k2 converts mass units to force units. Can you see why it is this way round ? Furthermore in SI units the constants are arranged so that k3 = 1 This is the basis for physicists saying that the force is proportional to the acceleration and the 'constant of proportionality' is mass. This is true for a particular body when mass is not changing. (again as MigL has already noted) and is the usual form of presenting Newton's second law (N2) This is combining the two constants k1 and k2 to form a new constant k3 . Factoring would be splitting a single constant k3 into factors (two factors k1 and k2 in this case)

Yes, except for the typo: you have 'a' twice and no 'm' with both k1 and k2. If you replace, say, F = k1a with F = k1m, then your k1 is what I've called 'x', your k2 is my 'y', and your k3 is my 'z' in the first comment above .