Leaderboard

If you heard me make a statement about some other social group, ethnicity, or creed beginning with "the problem with [members of this group]..." and continue on with a blanket statement that betrayed ignorance of said group, you might well conclude that I was a flaming bigot. No need to waste any more time with your ill-informed prattle.

That’s not true. General Relativity - which is the best model of gravity we currently have - is a purely local constraint on the metric of spacetime. The influence of distant sources enters only via boundary conditions. In order to capture all real-world degrees of freedom of gravity, you need at least a rank-2 tensor field. Scalar and vector fields aren’t enough. The div, grad and curl operators are only defined in three dimensions, but our universe is manifestly 4-dimensional. These equations are also not covariant, so you need to specify what frame you are working in. It is possible to formulate gravity in the way you suggest (this is called gravitoelectromagnetism), but this only works as an approximation in the weak field limit. A full description of gravity requires GR.

I read the following comment on a Telegraph article about Hydrogen power, and the conversation swayed on to Global Warming, and wanted to know if what was written was factually true: The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere in decreasing order are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, Chlorofluorocarbons, Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons. Some points that may be of interest: • Without any greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C, rather than the current average of 15 °C. • The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021. The last time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was this high was over 3 million years ago. • Carbon Dioxide is only 0.04%, and the other greenhouse gases only make up 0.1% of the Earth’s atmosphere. • Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas element, but it would be hard to live without clouds and rain. It contributes between 36% to 72% to the greenhouse gas effect. Carbon dioxide contributes between 9% to 26%. Methane contributes between 4% to 9% and Ozone 3% to 7%. • Water vapour only has a ‘residency’ of about 9 days. The other gases stay in the atmosphere for much longer. Thus, the other gases have a much greater impact. This is the reason why carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are targeted as they have greater concentrations than the fluorocarbons and stay much longer in the atmosphere than water vapour. • Some gases have a cooling effect, such as sulphur dioxide. Unfortunately, sulphur dioxide (along with nitrogen dioxide) caused acid rain and has been removed from emissions to reduce the impact of acid rain since the 1970s. perhaps the reduction in sulphur dioxide is part of the global warming problem. But putting sulphur dioxide back into the atmosphere is not a good idea. It's not the political position that I am interested in, just the science. Also, if anybody can reference to a primary source on these points that would save me the trouble

It's good form when someone polices your responses by saying "We aren't the thought police".

Response should be here, so we can discuss. Use PDFs as supporting evidence, please.

How is that relevant ? What if he had been carrying a paper, like NYT ? Or a doll ? Or walking a dog ? The only connection is in his ( deranged ) mind. You guys are trying to find sensical, causal structures in the thinking of a madman

Yes sir.

As did I... 😉

joigus....I agree that communication via entanglement is impossible now, only that a technical solution might change that in the future, and speculate that if the sub structure of everything is math, that is the key to achieve a technical solution.

Scientists who found a new unknown element in the Sun's spectrum did not yet know about fusion. The name was given only because it was found on the Sun (its spectral lines).

maybe a book about it will help?

The problem with bigots is that they assign negative traits to individuals based simply on their membership in a group.

Generally speaking, animal welfare is related to the ability of an animal to suffer in some form. Depending on country, the laws will vary, but typically we assume that animals that are closer to us are more likely able to suffer. So generally, warm-blooded animals are most protected, and this also often extended to animals with a spinal cord (e.g. fish). Local regulations can be stricter than that and some also include e.g. certain cephalopods. Beyond that, most animal use is exempt from animal welfare considerations as folks assume that they have limited ability for suffering. This is why no one gets charged with animal cruelty if they squish flies or put out ant killers.

Obligatory pussy pic. (maybe someone will follow with beaver pics)

Two men walking abreast.

I'll see your boobies and raise you a great tit.

Sorry! How about this pair?

Well the essay is to be on how things actually are, not an imagined scenario.

There were many breakthrough moments and much infilling in between. QM has always also been intimately bound up with particle physics. Quantum theory started in 1900 when Max Planck announced a mathematical solution to the mathematical problem of the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. Einsten came next using this quantum idea to mathematically describe the photoelectric effect, in 1904. 1913 brought the Bohr atom which tried to describe electron orbits in terms of classical electro-mechanics, whilst introducing a quantisation of the energy levels. This is called the old quantum theory. Quietly Max Planck was busy during this time and introduced 'zero point energy' in 1911. This led to the old quantum theory being modified to include this phenomenon. At this point quantum theory quantum theory provided specific energy levels using 3 'quantum numbers' to describe transitions between them. This was enough for the develoipment of orbit(al) mechanics a la Schrodinger and Heisenberg. In turn this provided chemists and spectroscopists with mathematically based formulae describing their observations. However there was blurring of the spectral lines, originally observed by Zeeman in 1896, and this phenomenon was re-examined. This led to the introduction of a fourth quantum number the spin quantum number which is non classical in its physical manifestation. Pauli introduced his exclusion principle (1925) and spin matrices (1927. By this time researchers were beginning to uncover a whole new catalogue of particles. The rest of the 20th century saw the relationship between QM and particle physics develop symbiotically as one feed on and influenced the other. So we had Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in 1927 and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in 1973. and so on. I suggest you look at this book in your local library or even buy a S/H copy. https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Q_is_for_Quantum_Particle_Physics_from_A.html?id=rS_8BUE7eN8C&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

One of the things about quoting Einstein is that he often wrote several versions of his papers as time went on. For instance compare the 1920s, 30 40s and 50s versions of sundry papers about Space, Time, Ether, and Geometry.

Elementary particles don’t have an internal structure, because they are local excitations of quantum fields. Such fields don’t have structures. In tech speak, elementary particles are irreducible representations of symmetry groups. There is no physical principle requiring all particles to have internal structure. E=mc^2 has nothing to do with potential energy, which is what you must be referring to in this statement, or else it doesn’t make sense. It’s the energy equivalent of the particle’s rest mass, and this relationship is true only in a massive particle’s rest frame. This has nothing to do with any potentials or internal structures. E=mc^2 has nothing to do with potential energy, nor internal structure. Only with rest mass. No, see above. No, I am saying that there is no internal structure, according to current understanding of the Standard Model. Elementary particles are irreducible - and that’s true for all of them, irrespective of whether they carry electric charge, colour charge, flavour, isospin, or mass. To experimentally verify the elementary-ness of such particles, you use a technique called deep inelastic scattering. This is, however, limited by the available energy of the accelerator. Proposing internal structure for these particles means you need to introduce new physics.

What does "relative to the other" mean? What "other"? [math]tan(\alpha- \beta)= \frac{tan(\alpha)- tan(\beta)}{1+ tan(\alpha)tan(\beta)}[/math] so [math]tan(2X- \phi_0)= \frac{tan(2X)- tan(\phi_0)}{1+ tan(2X)tan(\phi_0)}[/math]. By the same formula [math]tan(2X)= tan(X- (-X))= \frac{2tan(X)}{1- tan^2(X)}[/math]

Do you actually need a source? Just imagine they were held in the most inhumane condition, and present your argument as to why and how they should be treated better.

The bible leans in favor of moderation and humility. Staying clothed and not showing off your health and physical attractiveness for the entire world to see is considered moderate behavior. While nudity and extremism would be more strongly correlated with liberalism. If you disagree with this basic assessment, I would be interested to know why. Aside from that, the rest of your points belong in a religious discussion and are too off topic (and uninterestingly inaccurate) to bother responding to here.

There is a basic 2 step theory to rebirth. Step #1 At the moment of death, the energy of all living cells in the body is converted into spiritual energy. Forming a spiritual body. Leaving behind only clothes, hair, fingernails and toenails. Essentially what jedi in star wars do. Step #2 After the spiritual body forms, all of the spiritual energy is converted back into living tissue to form a material body.

If an analysis of atheist arguments against religion were conducted. A high percentage of them would revolve around claims that were context negative for accuracy. Its not a blanket statement. Its a fact. You only need to look as far as Sam Harris and others distancing themselves from everything atheist to recognize it for what it is.

Mark Zuckenberg. CEO of facebook. Used to be an active and vocal atheist. He recently converted to christianity as have many others. I credit atheists like yourself who bring up sherman tanks. Rather than offering intelligent or honest discussion, for that change. Keep up the good work. If you continue to spam your irrational and illogical context negative atheist claims. Maybe you can alienate another 1 billion atheists to convert to christianity in addition to those you have already alienated.

I hadn't realized this thread was posted in the religious discussion section. If you want I can prove everything you posted is extremely inaccurate. Its basic context. You have unrealistic expectations where you expect those who lived 2,000 years ago to have the same views, values and ideology about modesty and moderation as people of today do. Breast feeding in the bible doesn't mean that hebrews did not believe in moderation. It simply means that breast feeding was cultural normalized by different circumstances and living conditions. During eras of the bible where israelites invaded other nations. Killed all the men. Claimed their women as spoils of war. The ratio of men to women became extremely lopsided. Which normalized polygamy and men having more than 1 wife. During eras of the bible when the ratio of men to women was more even. Monogamy became the ideal to follow. The problem with atheists is they make zero effort to quantify these basic contextual paradigms. They simply expect people who lived 2,000 years ago to know and follow the same ideals and standards modern day humans do today.