Leaderboard

This is boring It’s not your choice to make. It’s the parents and healthcare providers involved in that child’s life. Maybe they’ll want to someday play non-elite level childhood and school level sports. We should stop passing laws making that illegal. Puberty blockers aren’t the problem here. Equality and acceptance blockers are.

"Are human babies the loudest in animal kingdom?" No, it only seems that way when you're trying to get them to stop. ( my nephew has a newborn baby girl, Sadie )

If the surface is damaged cerium oxide powder might polish it out. Jewller's rouge (iron oxide) is another, but cerium oxide is finer.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/17/crying-babies-hard-ignore

is it possible that human babies appear to be so loud because we humans are biologically tuned to hear them when they are crying? i know a crying baby seems to go directly to my motor cortex and causes me to at least jump in a way that suggests my need to go to the baby! also nursing mothers will immediately start to produce copious amounts of milk when a baby cries nearby.

BBT isn't about the beginning of the universe. It doesn't even encompass the beginning of time as we know it. Fred Hoyle was a mathematician and astronomer, not an astrophysicist, and NOT a supporter of BB theory. He supported the steady state model, and came up with the name "Big Bang" as mockery of the theory, because like you he thought it was about an explosion rather than a rapid expansion. Gosh, have you counted how many posts you have, and how many of them contain incorrect information? Your signal to noise ratio isn't good. You make a LOT of assertions that are wrong, and then seem to move on to the next before acknowledging your mistakes.

Some good replies to the OP. Worth noting that sweating often accompanies exercise, so it's possible the real benefit is how you came to be sweating, not the sweating itself. Sweating, btw, tends to lead some to more tapwater consumption, which increases chlorine or chloramine in the GI tract. While the hydration is good, it may help to use water that has been dechlorinated with a home purification system, or use water that has sat (in a safe place where foreign materials can't settle in it) for at least 24 hours. This is the same advice aquarium hobbyists get, btw, as many fish species are sensitive to chlorinated water. Also, sweating does deplete electrolytes. Sodium is not a concern, as most diets have more sodium than the body requires. But for heavy sweating, potassium should be recharged, with potassium-rich foods. And, btw, if you're retaining water, try not eating wheat, rye, barley, and oat products for a few days. These grains cause mild water retention in the muscle tissue. Every Python fan knows it's the randomly dropped sixteen ton weight that may get you in the end.

Well, my fingers are burning to show how wrong you are. But when you do not want to discuss on a discussion forum, I am wondering what you are doing here. Giving arguments is the alpha and omega of philosophy, and the alpha and tau of science (and the tau and the omega of science is experiment and observation).

The fact that you think the BB was an event that ended over 13 billion years ago shows a serious lack of understanding on your part. It would behoove you to cease dictating what is and is not up for discussion when you are missing so much basic information. It is making you look foolish.

It seems that you are missing the point, theories are the highest level of confidence in science. There is no 'proven' explanations of phenomena in science.

You are using some very odd logic around the word "falsified". If you say you have a theory, that one plus one equals two, then although it appears correct, it is capable of being falsified. If someone can prove that one plus one equals three, then they have falsified the theory. The phrase "capable of being falsifed" does not mean "false" as you are arguing. It just means, if it were to be false, there is a theoretical possibility of proving that. Even if that method is not availabe at the present. And unfasifiable means that a theory, by it's very nature, can never be shown to be false. So falsifiable/unfalsifiable doesn't equate to right/wrong. It's about whether there is a theoretical MEANS available to show if it's right or wrong.

Two neon atoms in an otherwise empty bar ?? Surely the sound is the question who is paying for the drinks ? 🙂

I think you know very well that the air inside the Albert Hall is not condensed matter. Therefore it doesn't support normal modes of oscillation. Therefore it doesn't transmit phonons. When I visualise High C, I visualise some emergent residue of say 10^30+ air molecule collisions. A residual vector of the time averaged exchange of momentum having some detectable periodicity in the vicinity of 1046.5 Hz. Trying to ascribe a spatial size to a momentum vector, or an emergent property such as sound seem to me as ludicrous as assigning a spatial size to temperature, the colour green, or perceived beauty. Or photons come to that.

You are here to defend your thesis, and that means not to keep using your article as it's own evidence. Your approach is getting annoying. The best explanation for consciousness I've seen involves sufficient system integration and sufficient complexity. What is 'sufficient'? We can't know until we can observe and quantify it. That is the nature of an emergent property.

Wow, you are confused. At this website, it's not up to you to dictate people's comings and goings. Or how they should act on their feelings about another posters content. You are here to get feedback, and I see ZERO evidence of a good faith effort to understand our points of critique. Or even engage with questions of how terms are defined. Nonetheless I will post, or not post, as the spirit moves me, not because some arrogant newbie has decided to dictate terms of engagement.

It is a simplified statement, but not so much that I would disagree with it. If you take a look at the lit, it shows that after discontinuing suppressors hormonal levels start progressing as through normal puberty. In fact it, is the general consensus of most health professionals. Or conversely, I do not see studies that found irreversible effects of puberty blockers. A little sidebar here: In biology as well as medical sciences all claims require some level of qualifications. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are very safe. Yet there are rare cases of issues. Should the CDC and other sources claiming that SARS-CoV-2 is safe deemed pseudoscience now? Same with puberty blockers. They suppress the onset of puberty and stopping reverses the process. But we do not know whether that delay itself could have any effects down the road. Heck, even "normal" developmental processes should have qualifiers when you want to be very accurate (because as I have said so many times, in biology there is no strict normality, just stochastic processes with varying degrees of likelihood). However, that is not what you would tell laypersons, as that would just confuse everyone. Thus, in terms of normal health communication it seems to follow what is generally understood with regard to puberty blockers. I also think it a bit weird that you automatically assume that this claim is wrong, without looking at what consensus is among health professionals. I.e. while you imply bias on my side, you do not have any evidence other than your interpretation of two sentences. From there you make a rather big claim of pseudoscience. Meanwhile, you could take a look at other sites that provide information for laypersons. Such as the Mayo clinic and others. There you find things like: And so on. So you would need to extend your claim to well-known health providers as part of as pseudoscientific cabal. I can also provide some literature, but I am honestly not sure whether it warrants the effort. You will be surprised to know that papers have a different target audience and that you use more than one sentence to make a point. Also, reviewers read the whole paper rather than take out a snipped and interpret it to death.

I get the feeling that agent smith has the mistaken idea that the orchid Mantis evolved in isolation from other animals. Carnivorous plants and mantises share a common ancestor to be sure but that ancestor was, in all probability, close to 2 billion years ago. Bacteria do not really follow the rules like most animals and plants, bacteria share DNA through gene transfer instead of sexual reproduction so a common ancestor in regards to bacteria is sort of a misrepresentation of the process. Gene transfer in bacteria can occur in wildly different microbes and the resulting pattern is far more like banyan tree than a standard evolutionary type tree with one trunk. (a banyan tree has multiple trunks) Animals do not become plants nor do plants become animals, the split between the three kingdoms of life, plants, fungi, and animals occurred way before any recognizable macro creatures evolved. Looking deeper into this i find the classification i am used to using is too simple to accurately describe the classification of life. Maybe this will clarify the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology) Doolittle_Web_of_Life.jpg.crdownload

Yes. There’s a lot of things like that in physics. Physics doesn’t describe reality; it describes how nature behaves. So photons may not be real, but nature behaves as if they are.

The medium does exist - it is the electromagnetic field (in classical physics). This field extends through all of space and time, and EM waves are excitations of this. Going further, into quantum field theory, there are quantum fields that correspond to the elementary particle types - there’s an electron field, a photon field etc etc. At the moment this is our most fundamental description of reality - which is not to say that there mightn’t be something even more fundamental. There almost certainly is. This may be of interest - if you delineate a volume of space, and then ask “how many particles are in this volume?”, it turns out that the answer depends on the observer! Where one observer sees an empty vacuum, another observer might see a thermal bath of many particles - within the same volume, and all other conditions remaining equal. So the question as to existence and nature of particles isn’t as straightforward as one might think - thinking of them as ‘little balls of matter’ is quite meaningless.

Great post! +1 I would add here that GR is a description of, rather than an explanation for, gravity - in the sense that it deals only with the dynamics of the metric, but does not suggest an underlying mechanism as to why the Einstein tensor is precisely proportional to the energy-momentum tensor, as given in the Einstein equations. In other words, at present we don’t know yet why the concept of Einsteinian spacetime is such a good description of observable reality. This question falls outside the remit of GR, and would require a model with a wider domain of applicability. If you change the distribution of gravitational sources, then the geometry of spacetime will change accordingly, along with it. To be more precise, the changes in geometry will propagate outwards and away from the original position - either as regular gravitational radiation, or simply as unordered wave fronts. These propagate at most at the speed of light, but may propagate at less than c due to non-linear interactions with itself and any background curvature. In other words, the curvature that was there remains in existence, it just gets distributed differently. You cannot ‘unbend’ curvature, you can only shift it to somewhere else - this is why (eg) you cannot smooth out a sphere into a flat sheet, no matter what you do to it. So asking why spacetime returns into its unbent state is meaningless, simply because that’s not what happens.

Good! Now compare and contrast with your assertion in the OP So why are you assigning a physical size to photons? Forget the transmission medium, that's irrelevant to the topic. Both light and sound propagate outward as expanding spherical disturbances in their respective fields. At this level, they have no meaningful physical size, but they carry a certain amount of energy that extends over a certain sphere of influence. Where apparent conflicts begin is when we consider the transfer of an individual packet of light energy between an emitting particle and an absorbing particle. How does a specific accurately directed packet of energy 'condense' from a diffuse spherical wave? This is one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics. The quantum world is a strange one and most of its workings seem to play out not in our observable material universe, but in a complex space we can never directly observe. All we can say with any certainty is that the transfer is observed to occur. The image we see maybe of an emitter firing a 'billiard ball' of energy at an absorber. But is this really a full and true reflection of actual events? I wouldn't put money on it.

John Wheeler came up with this wonderful phrase to summarise what GR is about. But buzzwords can only get you so far. If you have a situation in which a small object moves in the vicinity of a stellar object that heavily distorts space-time around it, then it's fair to say that the star tells space-time around how to bend, while the relatively small stuff moving close is told how to move. However, consider the collision of two black holes. In that case, both the motion of the objects and the warping of space-time are very difficult to tell apart. For those cases, the only alternative is to appeal to the equations and have a computer solve them for you. The equations are highly non-linear, which means that ultimately it's impossible to express the warping as the sum of contributions of this and that piece of matter. Gravity itself gravitates. See my point? Another aspect I would like to point out is that mass is not the source of the gravitational field. It's energy-momentum that plays that role. The "mental operation" that you're proposing here, if I've understood you correctly, is to remove the sources and be left with an empty space-time, and then you ask yourself what shape does that space-time have. Well, think about this: Einstein's field equations have many solutions corresponding to an empty space-time. Gravitational waves are a particular example of solutions to the Einstein vacuum equations. So I guess my answer is: No, you can't figure out what space-time is like with nothing in it. Not a priori. You have to make a guess.

Lol. Only if we ignore what we’ve known for 180 years. You’re hysterical in your wrongness

Lol. Experiments confirm you’re wrong.

Gravity bends light.

Based on what little I have read of their other comments on this thread, I'm inclined to agree with you. Which is a shame really. Why can't we have these discussions without the motivation for it being a sensationalist celebrity fued? The main question in the OP: How best to start including men whom are victims of abuse by women into the public discourse? Ought to be obvious by now. 1. Stop ridiculing men whom are abused by women. While you're at it, stop hurling abuse at women for speaking out about it when they are abused. You can't allow one without the other. 2. Be more willing to talk about your own abuse, by or against someone else and stand up for abuse victims when people don't have anything constructive or helpful to say about them. 3. Try to focus less on separating the discussions based on characteristics of identity. Less of this men vs women crap, acknowledging abuse in homosexual relationships is important too. 4. Recognize that abuse is abuse. Whomever the perpetrator is. 5. Even if you have never suffered from abuse, the best way to include these things in the public discourse... is to be a member of the public, talking about them! Pressuring politicians, local and beyond to take the issue seriously. Prosecution, legislation, affordable mental healthcare, incarceration and rehabilitation. 6. Consistently give a shit. Stop only giving a shit when it impacts on who may or may not get cast in a movie or TV show. 7. Leave the door open for forgiveness of those willing to take responsibility for what they have done. Treat abusers as sick and in need of therapy instead of as evil irredeemable bastards who will be torched when found. 8. Give people claiming to be victims of abuse the benefit of the doubt and don't make your mind up about it based on some stupid celebrity trial that technically isn't even over yet. 9. Be a nicer and kinder person in general. As an individual we can all make ourselves more approachable. This way we are more open to lending an ear and aid to victims and perpetrators both. (By aid of perpetrators, I don't mean shield from responsibility. I mean enable them to feel safe enough to take responsibility and get the help they need to manage their shit. Some of those 9 are easier than others. But then nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Except for making omlettes, super easy but also worthwhile. Okay I'm hungry now.

Guys, Thank you for the replies. I have tried MECM - Movement, Exercise, Collegiality and Meditation. The exercise bit was accepted and she did exercise daily. However, the other 3 were rejected. I then set micros-targets - shower, clean your house etc... and these were followed because they gave an element of control to the person. However, most importantly, I am the person at the other end of the telephone, or in person, who will listen - as long as it takes. I think the friendship element is lacking in a society which is being shattered into individual sections, isolated from each other by technology rather than coming together. Loneliness is, IMHO, a contributory factor to the disconnectedness of the individual from society and the subsequent retreat into the world of their thoughts. I will keep trying as I would do with any friend. I am hoping that something I will say will "click" and then the road to mindset change will become wider. If I can be of use to anyone in this Forum, please do not hesitate to ask for my advice. Best wishes

If I try and shoot a photon through a conducting tube that's much smaller than a wavelength, it doesn't go through.

You can imagine a photon as a traveling wave, or as having a 2d surface that projects at right angles to the direction of travel or movement. There are 2 degrees of freedom for a photon, along this traveling 2d surface (let´s say it looks like a little circle), and there are 2 components, an electrical and a magnetic component, which ´resolve´ into a momentum. The wave is said to collapse when this happens. But this is a model, an idea of what a photon being absorbed or emitted ´looks like´. A 2-d surface can´t have volume so it´s meaningless in such a space, but area isn´t. The radius for photons in this (mathematical) space is never more than the same constant value (but the two components vary sinusoidally about a zero point, so that the area is also cycled this way, from zero to a constant value, and the cycle time, or frequency, determines the energy of a particular photon), this (maximum constant amplitude) appears to be related to its apparent velocity, somehow. The energy is not related to the distance traveled, unless the photon interacts with another photon (or an electrical or magnetic field, or collides with an electron or other charged bit of matter). In other words you could say that the energy in a photon is bounded by (integrable over) a single period of its cycle (or something similar), like a packetised bit of energy, rather than the integral of all the periods it has cycled through on its journey.

I have demonstrated zero capacity for enlightenment lol! Okay you act like a child that has to resort to personal insults to make your arguments some how logical. You have demonstrated zero understanding of what it is I asked in the first place as well as so many other people on here wrapped up in their opinions. Half the people that responded to me asking for a better understanding of photons, chose to insult me instead. So rather than point me in the right direction and revert my attention to what actually is, some of you reply with other questions that test my logical thinking. Rather than just tell me why it is not the case, and give me an example of what is in fact a more appropriate way to interpret things, that I just don't understand fully. And I clearly listed why I didn't understand it, I was clear to also mention I am aware what I'm questioning and why. It is a result of a limited understanding in the first place. And I Had one person that gave a good explanation, the rest just bathed in the ability for themselves to directly insult me. As one said to me " Sound like religious guilt" as to assume I have Religious thoughts that cloud my judgment. HOW PATHETIC. I will take my limited Knowledge and what I know I don't understand and get a meaning full answer from people that don't take pride in downgrading others. And some one dared to say I was narcissistic!!!! BAHUMBUG I learned a few different things here thanks to a few people those individuals know who you are! So thank you for that! But I will now exercise my right to leave.

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?

You see it is so easy to dismantle the present theories and I could tell you loads more but you don’t want to know because you don’t want to learn and your blinkin egos get in the way. Ha Ha is that all you have got to come back with? If you knew anything at all about consciousness then you would know that there is no such thing as a black hole.You can’t define a hole by a colour. It’s just a hole!!!!! And any scientists who thinks an elephant is identical in every aspect to its trunk or leg ….well……

Sorry bring what up again?

If the BB could only be proved and not falsified it would not be a theory. Theories are verifiable and falsifiable, that is why they are theories. If they get proven to be Factual well then that means they cant be falsified. It is called the BB THEORY for a reason. Again this can't be argued. And I refuse to argue over it. Its a meaningless discussion. No one put me In charge but you clearly miss the underlining Theory part.