Leaderboard

Losing to Hobbs, I assume her life will be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. For her party as a whole, it will be Hobbes' bellum omnia contra omnes.

No, I noticed earlier, but I always give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe bangstrom has some problems understanding texts, maybe he doesn't know SR, etc... But I already called him a troll much earlier: Page 14 .

What math? What are you talking about? Russia, Putin really, just needs to end this madness. He's helping to create what he claimed to fear.

Our DNA is unique, but within the confines of being a human, which makes us all both the same and different; our DNA teaches us, as a baby, to suck on the teat proffered, what it contains is irrelevant, experience teaches us what will sustain us, ie. water over milk. My point being, it's not our DNA that makes us unique it's our life experience that makes us different; that basically answer's both the topic questions. For instance, my goal in life is to, litterally, aquire enough for tomorrow today (which includes a long walk and/or an hour or two working) and spend the rest of the day loafing... 😉

Ok, so really you are looking for personal views. That's fine, some, most on a science forum like this are likely to respond with objective mainstream views based upon scientific study and understanding. Some will also approach the subject from a philosophical view. But the fundamentals around the questions are still undefined with any verification, we can only propose what we theorise based on experiment and observation.

Our goal is to have goals. Our purpose, to have purpose. May I also point out that there is such a thing as too much reproduction... 🤷‍♂️

Your thread is titled "what is life, what is our goal" There are many ways to interpret and answer/respond to these. What is life - well fundamentally that's still up for debate, there are plenty of ideas, arguments to define what life is. What is our goal - Our goal as a species? our personal goal? life's goal?... Again, many arguments and ideas around all these still up for debate. Fundamentally life's "goal" function - sustainability and replication, why who knows? It was either designed that way (programmed) or it just happened randomly. There may not even be a goal or a why it could just be perceived that way due to the very essence of humans desire for purpose.

Different picture this morning. Seems the trajectory puts it in doubt that the missiles came from Russia, though they may be Russian-made. Could be Ukrainian missiles, attempting to shoot down the Russian ones, that went off course. Even if they did originate from Russia, it is very unlikely this would be deliberate escalation. Far more probable it was guidance error or something. Everyone should keep calm.

For example when an electron absorbs a photon there is a computation first to see if the spin of the electron has the correct sign, so that it can or cannot occupy the next energy level. If the computation results in a spin sign that is already present in the higher energy level, then the absorption cannot happen. In addition the "computer" must know the energy level of the higher energy level and must preform a minus operation and a comparison with the photon energy. This is the evidence. How are you going to implement this without assuming some computer? Or when velocity summing takes place in Special Relativity. It labels the properties of the particle. I don't know what else you mean. It means the particle can't occupy the same space as another particle (fermion). The particles would occupy more than one space points. No, I am claiming each space point can take numbers: sss...stsss...st etc. The computer concatenates an i to the y-coordinate. The principle is that all of a 2-dimensional spice of space can be copied and compactified into a Riemann Sphere.

https://fcc-cdr.web.cern.ch/webkit/press_material/Brochure_A5_SocioEconomic_EN.pdf Economic Impact The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) research program at CERN generates approximately € 3.3 billion in net present value (investment and operating costs are deducted) for the Society in the period from 1993 to 2038. In other words, the research infrastructure reimburses its costs with 15% surplus in the form of societal benefits.

No, not all research projects deliver them. But that’s the nature of basic research. As my thesis adviser once noted, “If we knew the answer, it wouldn’t be research.” So that’s not really a valid criticism, since, as I pointed out, you don’t know what will be discovered. You have to look at research in broader terms. There’s an argument to be made for funding diverse projects, but it’s not like the LHC is the only project being funded.

This really is a difficult and complicated subject to untangle. Not least because Michael McMahon has made some quite perceptive comments as well as posting that flawed diagram. Nor do I see this as belonging in the speculations section. As a straight forward question about Newtonian Physics there is a straight forward answer to his question Yes indeed that is straight forward but the fictious force required is the radial centrifugal force, not the tangential Euler force. This accounts very well for the easily measurable fact that observed gravity is apparantly weaker at the equator than it is at the pole. The Maths of this used to be on the first year Physics course at London University, I can post it if you wish. However you have entitled this thread Gravity Mysteries and even offered some tantalising comments. which show deeper perception and understanding. When forces are first introduced in school Physics, they are defined some along the lines of without being specific about where or how that push/pull is generated. This is the level your diagram is pitched at, but unfortunately it also erroneously shows the normal force displaced from the 'gravity force' forming a couple that should not be present. But the diagram does hide some deeper stuff such as the question How does the adding the box onto the table develop into forces at a distance from the box pressing on the floor under the table legs ? Treating this question requires revisiting the basic force definition and significantly expanding it. You also mention contact forces, another part of the basic treatment, that description needs to be expanded to include th concept of 'body forces' for any sensible discussion.

Ukraine has no missiles to attack far airfields. It is work of Biden. NATO is attacked by two missiles. Zero are downed of two. Ukraine shot down 73 missiles out of about 100. Who hump up?

To check work of Patriot.

Having an equation does not supply a reason for why the property holds, since there is always the question: "Why does the equation hold?". So I see that my reason is not in conflict with the formula. The same formula could apply to my reason. Note that the previous post is not quite right: photons are also Riemann Spheres/Anti-Riemann Spheres. The math is just the math of Riemann Spheres (stereographic projection and the like). It means the computer running the Universe knows on what circles what properties are located. The computer can read this by orientating the particle appropriately.