Leaderboard

Some folks are probably excited about this... https://phys.org/news/2022-06-results-anomaly-elementary-particle.html New scientific results confirm an anomaly seen in previous experiments, which may point to an as-yet-unconfirmed new elementary particle, the sterile neutrino, or indicate the need for a new interpretation of an aspect of standard model physics, such as the neutrino cross section, first measured 60 years ago.

I don't think that follows. Even the smallest pieces pose a threat, because of the huge speeds that they orbit at. Even dust grains are said to be a hazard. If you could invent an anti-satellite weapon that shoved the satellite into a lower orbit, making it burn up in a reasonably short time, that would be ideal.

If you are going to attack someone please be so kind as to provide evidence. They are not "pseudo scientists" simply because you don't like what they said. If you have evidence they are pseudo scientists please provide it. Otherwise the honorable thing to do would be to retract your statement. I don't care if you are right, but I care that we make reasonable and fair arguments here.

I think, to be fair to those questioning the basic psychology and wisdom behind all this, it's okay to ask how these correlations work. For example, does puberty blocking improve overall health because they are fitting in with their subculture in, say, California, and so their decrease in social stress is improving physical markers and decreasing suicidal ideation? Or is it because they are fundamentally a different gender than the birth one and this is a genuine improvement of physical functioning? Does the improved health effect show the same degree in Vickburg MS as it does in Berkeley CA? Is it roughly the same in Houston and Stockholm? (actually Stockholm wouldn't work now in such comparatives because Swedes have banned puberty blockers due to, cough, ahem, unresolved scientific questions) Causation is important here. If I reduce a child's suicidal thoughts and boost their health by raising them in a Truman Show simulation, that might not be worth it. I might choose some other therapeutic path for them to feel better, in spite of the positive correlation between Truman Show fake reality and "overall health." So it's fair for @MigL et al to ask if there are other solutions to alienation and depression of gender dysphorics that might lie in other domains than the pharmaceutical. Maybe there are no others that can work, but it's still worth exploring before seriously altering a child's body (or later on, removing pieces of it).

JC is claiming that the 'absolute' statement, that there will be no difference what soever once you stop taking puberty blockers, is negated by the next statement that says there very well may be, and we don't know the extent. That falsifies the first statement, so it is not true, and definitely not scientific. He is not saying it is pseudoscientific, your link is.

Adding to Markus' point, if you consider space-time geometry as the 'field' in GR, then the analogy would be the effect on the EM field that you get when moving charges around ( minus the self interaction ). The field, space-time geometry, changes with changes in the energy-momentum distribution. But it doesn't work at all. Your example has a discernible center. The Big Bang does not; it is happening everywhere.

Sounds like we are risking the Kessler syndrome by using anti satellite weapons. This is a real danger and could deny human access to space for a long period of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome I may have overstated the danger but the effect is real.

I still think that the OP's picture of a static picture of curved fabric of space in a gravitational field is not what's happening. If you take any point in the universe, any inertial frame at that point will be accelerating, depending on the strength and direction of the gravitational field at that point. Take the surface of the Earth, every inertial frame at the surface will be accelerating downwards, at 32 ft/sec/sec. And any object in that inertial frame will also accelerate downwards at the same rate, if no force is acting on it. It's easy to test that, by jumping off a cliff. So if you are talking about the "fabric of space" then you can't maintain that it's static and curved, when inertial frames are accelerating everywhere. If space has a fabric at all, it's the bit that defines the motion of an inertial frame. So if you take a photon passing by the Earth, up by the space station, then it's experiencing a constantly changing acceleration towards the centre of mass of the Earth, because at any point the inertial frame that it's in is accelerating. But it's going so fast that it's route is only slightly altered as it passes by. When the same thing happens on cosmic scales, you get gravitational lensing.

Pro-forced-birth

You are the one saying it is pseudoscience and therefore the onus is on you to support your claim. If you think the claim is "the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data", then please show how the premise or experimental design is faulty, or the data is bad. You haven't proved your claim by asking me to prove the opposite.

Yes we all suffer, Ducky. I do most earnestly say unto thee: "Get thee gone, thou facetious timewaster".😁

The Maxwell Equations I believe. But I'll have to leave it to someone else to guide you through the niceties of those.

That's how I interpret pro-choice as well. I recently heard of an exchange between two women on either side of that fence, and the pro-life woman admitted she had gone to a clinic to abort her daughter but walked out before the procedure, and considered it the best decision she ever made because she loves her daughter so much. The pro-choice woman just told her she was very happy the woman had been given the choice.

That's generally what happens when something becomes recognized and understood better. It's not unusual.

Yes. Stop taking them and puberty continues. Do you have any evidence to support that? Soldiers used to suffer from 'shell shock', and women suffered from 'hysteria'. Fortunately the advance of science and medicine has led to better understanding and allowed us to give those conditions fancy, trendy names to better represent reality. After all, "confusion" is not really a very useful or accurate term for what these kids are going through. You make it sound like you think doctors are not taking this seriously, or using scientific, evidence based medicine. Even if that is not what you meant, that type of flippant remark is very insulting to those who are professionals and trying to improve the lives of children in very difficult circumstances.

Fermions have half-integer spin Baryons are made up of an odd number of quarks. Baryons are fermions. Not all fermions are baryons Writing something down doesn’t make it true. Did you get this somewhere? If so, cite your source. Of course matter (and antimatter) can be created and destroyed. You acknowledge annihilation but insist that matter is conserved…

I disagree, physics derived from questioning things just like this, and to just shove aside questions like these in the physics community only shows the lack of answers. If questions to unanswered problems is philosophy then what do we really understand, if every thing just creates another problem that cant be answered. Where I do not quite agree with Bufofrog that philosophy is the trash can for all questions that sciences cannot answer, he definitely has a point. In philosophy, we say that your kind of question contains a category error. Causality can only meaningfully be defined in space and time. E.g. following statements should clarify this: a cause always precedes its effect Two events can only be directly causally related when they are in their immediate vicinity But such propositions only make sense in space and time, they are meaningless when talking about space and time. Causality does not apply to space and time themselves. The relationship between spacetime, energy, and gravity is a conceptual one, not a causal one. By giving the conceptual relationships between these three, one could say that the job of the physicist is done. As a philosopher, of course one can ask all kind of petty questions ('is space really curved?';'What is ontologically first: gravity or time dilation?'). Physicists can do very well without such questions, and their possible answers. Some of these questions can be fascinating (e.g. PBS spacetime has an interesting episode about the latter question). Exactly these kind of questions show that 'causality' does not apply to spacetime itself.

No, all observers agree that the frequency shift happens in this scenario. Both observers agree that light emitted at A will be redshifted once it arrives at B. I don’t know what you mean by this, but it’s a real, measurable effect that isn’t just a visual ‘artefact’ of some kind. Yes, but the effect is pretty small. If there is relative motion of the star with respect to us, then the different effects will combine - there is redshift due to the star’s own gravity, blueshift due to Earth’s gravity, and either blue or redshift due to relative motion. What the overall net frequency shift will be then depends on the relative magnitude of each effect. Yes, that’s cosmological redshift. For large distances, this effect will be much larger than any local effects, so light from far-away sources is overwhelmingly redshifted. By the relativistic energy momentum relation: \[E=\sqrt{p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4}\] which is just the magnitude of the energy-momentum vector, being part of the energy-momentum tensor, which follows as a conserved quantity from Noether’s theorem for time-translation invariance. So the idea behind it is symmetries of spacetime. For m=0 this gives p=E/c.

Massless particle are purely energy. "It's sufficient for a particle to have energy to have meaningful sense of existence" Says Flip Tanedo, is an assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside. Word for word, I wish I had a way to Definitively credit this with proof.

Right. As CharonY has said, chemolithotrophs* came before. I overlooked those because I was thinking in terms of a plant/animal dichotomy. Other things came before and probably exploited a wide variety of red-ox reactions. Some organisms "respirated" H2S from volcanoes, but they didn't get a sweet deal in energetic terms, I think. Nothing like the 36-39 ATP mol per glucose mol that eukaryotes get. When it came down, it must have been the goose that laid the golden eggs. * I wonder if chemolithotrophs aren't the real rulers of the universe in terms of sheer abundance in the universe. I bet they are.

No

Yep. I tell you, these orchid mantises blur the boundary between plants & animals. Carnivorous plants like the venus fly trap would consider the orchid mantis the pinnacle, the zenith, the big finish, the grand finale, the ultimate endpoint of their evolution. "If only I could move," said one venus fly trap to another!

With all due respect the whole of the present scientific model is about to collapse, is it not? So what authority on science are you referring to? Also as matter disappears into many many of your black holes, are you going to put your hand up to go and get it again so it can be put down your mainstream sciences single hole/point….lol…. Listen, if you want to be made to look a fool in front of your piers then carry on I’m up for it….or are you going to take the cowards way out again and block me because your ego gets the better of you again?

No this is not accurate at all. We are observing conditions that lead us to believe the big bang is a possible origin of the Universe. The statement we can prove the BB is false. It is yet another answer to things we have limited knowledge to. This cannot be argued I'm sorry. We could say the entire universe is spinning on a disc trapped inside a sphere, and things that were in the center slowly gravitate outward, things closer to the the edge move faster than the center. We can do experiments with objects and spin, to confirm some of these effects. But just because it works and observations match part of the assumptions doesn't mean anything. I actually don't mind, talking about it in this kind of context, but is some one is going to try insult me with it saying " this sounds like some religious guilt" Id prefer not to use it in that context, but nothing I said was offensive here. If some people on this forum really want to just simplify reply's down to ad hominem. It truly shows the extent of their own capability to have a meaningful debate or casual conversation.

I've heard the strategic use of not being a hostile cunt to people can also work wonders. So perhaps if you would learn to shut up and stop hounding people with mental health issues, stop being so brutal, stop edgelording and stop gaslighting people when people rightly question your motives some progress could be made.