Leaderboard

How is that working out ??? The first step, before redress of any prior injustices, is ending racism, Phi. It doesn't make sense, to me, that the mechanism used for mitigating the consequences of those past wrongs, uses racism. Just my opinion. If you want to call that 'doing nothing', then you're not serious about this topic. And after you all accuse me, and others, of wanting to do nothing, Zap acts all butt-hurt, when called out on it. ( I'm sure you can tell, but I don't give neg reps,Phi )

That's right. It's all our fault. You were right all along and I just wanted to convert everyone to my ideology, while you and others were simply trying to discuss the topic. I'm so ashamed.

Way off base there. I learned the old-faahioned way: listening to black people, and working as a social worker for a decade. In the US. Where understanding systemic racism and discrimination is rightly considered to be essential to having America live up to its Constitutional principles. The only way your hypothesized Self-Reliant Minority can get political traction to fix things in the US is to coalition with other groups who share their goals. 12‰ of the US population is not going to remedy 400 years of discrimination without another 39% (or at least, a strong plurality in some cases) lending some support. And given how the voting system deck is stacked, probably more than that. Progressives here are mostly committed to coming together to help Dr. King's dream along, and not shaming each other on personal experience credentials. I also have never been a woman seeking reproductive care, or gay. Are you suggesting I shouldn't bother to march with them, too, or donate money or publicly express support? I'm curious what sort of America we'll have if white guys like me sit meekly with our hands folded while all those discriminated minorities try their luck on tje streets and in the courts.

You seem to be conflating two different things; Turing's test and a Turing machine. As far as I know, no Turing machine would pass Turing's test.

Fog of War? Can we afford Ukraine to be defeated when it has shown it has all the cojones and all we need to provide is material assistance? Ukraine has the fingers of a demented lunatic around its neck. I don't think the Marquis of Queensbury rules apply. Separately and since Taiwan is one half of this OPthis early assessment by a Chinese source at the very start is fairly amusing in hindsight ", a quick solution to the battle. Just as Russia’s war against Ukraine is likely to be resolved within 48 hours, if the “war of reunification of Taiwan” starts, the “highest goal” of the PLA is to “reunify Taiwan”. The PLA will never delay and will not give the U.S., Japan and Europe the time and opportunity to intervene militarily and politically. The PLA will also defeat the island’s naval and air forces in the shortest possible time, seize air and sea control, provide security for subsequent landing operations, “eliminate” Taiwan’s combat power within 48 hours, and take full control of Taiwan within 72 hours." https://www.china-arms.com/2022/02/russia-ukraine-war-inspiration-taiwan/

It is outrageous, and makes me angry. But what's also annoying is the behaviour of the victims of this treatment. If someone was treating me in that way, I would stand in line for days, if necessary, just to make sure that the cheating swine didn't profit from it. But a high proportion of "black women in Georgia" let them get away with it, by not bothering to vote. And the men are even worse. The brave women who refuse to give up their seat on a bus etc. are a tiny minority. I don't blame them, I'm not in their shoes, but it really is hugely frustrating, that the people being exploited can't make the effort to fight the exploiters by voting. After all, once you have power, you can change the system. But if you don't vote, it won't ever change. It's a bit like the frustration I get when people get assaulted, and don't bring a case, because they 'just want to forget it'. I do understand where they are coming from, but it's heartbreaking when some other victim gets killed shortly after, by the same culprit.

It's what Stringjunky said. Your brain is what 'sees'. Your eyes just process the light. Your brain automatically interprets the image, before it displays it in your mind. If everything has a slight blue tinge, the brain compensates. In your bucket example, the sides of the bucket will have the same blue tinge as the white paper, but your brain removes it, and displays in your mind what colours it has calculated are actually there. I wouldn't think that it could do it so well for stronger tinges, but the blue tinge is usually very slight, as there is nearly always a bit of haze making the sky look closer to white. I would expect the same thing to happen when there is a red sky above, the brain would correct for it, as everything would have the red tinge, including the paper.

Try taking a photo of the experiment. You will likely find the paper tinged blue... this is because our brain is tuned to represent things as it thinks the way they should be, and so it filters out the blue*. Make sure the camera doesn't automatically white balance as that will nullify the blue. This is a quirk of brains rather than a physics issue. iirc the wavelengths add up to a more purple sky than we see. * Our visual system has evolved to maximize contrast for the better detection of threats. In this case it's colour contrast rather than light-dark contrast.

Though it could AND would have if only he had a (demonstrably) valid point and weren’t so self-evidently FOS

OK. All I wanted to know is where you see the error. I know now. The error is not in the paper, but in your misinterpretation of it. I don't see any point in trying to convince you in this. And I am not interested in educating you. I got the answer to my question, and it is not interesting anymore. What you think about it never mattered. Have a good life.

On the contrary; that is exactly what it is. You had one group of people discriminate against another group, 250 years ago, for the economic 'betterment' of their Southern society ( free/cheap labor ) and we call it racism. We now have another group who wants to 'better' society by discriminating according to race again. and at the detriment of other groups in the case of Affirmative Action, because only so many positions are available. It is always one groupdeciding the fate/outcome of other groups. I'm of the opinion that should stop. You want to re-compensate people according to past injustices; that may be workable, but not according to race. What would you do about injustices suffered by Chinese people, who were the cheap/disposable labor that helped build railways in the 1800s ? What would you do about the Irish and Italian immigrants who came in the late 1800s, were treated little better than slaves, had to become policemen or priests to feed themselves, or turn to a life of crime ? Do you think all these other groups of immigrants who came to America in the last couple of hundred years don't deserve re-compensation for the injustices they suffered ?

One of our principles here is that we only attack ideas, not the people who have them, so I could tell from the way iNow phrased it that he was trying to adhere to that principle. It's not name-calling to say that an idea is foolish, it's not calling you a fool, just the idea. The distinction is important if we want to discuss anything meaningfully. And see, you claim to me to be neutral wrt biases, but later in this post you admit to iNow that "of course we all have biases". The "of course" tells me you might even suggest that it would be foolish to think otherwise. Does this make sense to you? I'm sorry, this is exactly what I thought YOU were espousing, that reparations are just more discrimination, so we should put a stop to it when we discover it, and nothing more. Perhaps I got this impression because you didn't offer any alternative other than what I consider criminal behavior. I tried to explain my position and even offer some links to support it. If this is your method, then you're right, I don't agree with it. It seems like giving criminal behavior a pass as long as the perp promises not to do it again.

Honestly, I do want to back out but that's no way to let me do so gracefully. Yes I gave a dislike for that post because in it you basically said I was a liar or a fool. I am surprised that is allowed here. Is it? That's name calling. I think moderators should be reviewing that sort of language. You put it behind a vague conditional statement, but I think you know full well you sought to name call, and besides it is an ad hominem fallacy to imply I am wrong 'even if' was a liar and a fool. There are a lot of liars and fools who are still right, are there not? I can provide a statemented logical argument for you to argue the case I am more independent than you if you like, but I'd prefer moderators to review your previous comments, I don't think it is fair and reasonable for you to undertake name calling, even it if is veiled behind a vague conditionality to have avoided that directly. Ah. The old 'you are either for or against us' fallacy. Really, I think this is a fallacy too far and shows you are part of the problem, not its solution. You are asserting there is only one solution and resort to veiled name calling when contradicted (and seems that you might be getting away with it?). Is there any balanced debate possible here after a comment like that?

Excuse you? I’ll go one farther and thank you! Hell, I’ll even fist bump you for the neg reps you tossed my way 🤙🏼 Horeshit. We often find that 3rd party observers might comment on situations without themselves being directly impacted stakeholders, but “neutral” objective automatons without bias or predispositions they/we are not. In situations involving systemic racism especially, even passivity itself becomes an active choice. Either stand with or stand aside, just please stop standing in the way all while whining and martyring yourself as if you’re the goddess Justitia incarnate.

No, you don't have it right. People can be compensated for past injustices. Targeting a 'race' for compensation is racist. IOW, some black people may not need compensation, and some people of other groups ( a lot of immigrants in the past 250 years ) may require it. Did you not actually read my posts ?

Sorry, I don't think this is clear thinking. Please excuse me if I misunderstand but it appears that you want to seek a remedy for the discrimination of a 'group' that was unfairly stereotyped and not treated as individuals (with you so far) and to fix this you want to discriminate a 'group' by unfairly stereotyping them as the cause of the discrimination and not treating them as individuals (who may or may not have been the cause)? Have I got the jist of your point, or way off again, sorry if I am? I mean, I agree that there is restitutions to be offered to all people who have suffered social ills, 'particularly' including specific events of tragic racism. Why is the 'answer' incomplete by saying 'yep, and it is coming out of taxes already, and is already helping people in the lower social echelons'? You guys keep saying your legal system does not work in a way that can offer specific remedies. Yes, I understand that is not how it works in the USA. That's the problem! You seem to want politicians to invent one-off solutions to one-off events, rather than laying the framework so that any likewise events now AND in the future can be dealt with the same way.

The WHOLE paper is discussing constant motion, Try not to be anally retentive about this. anyway, aside from the whole context of the Hypothesis, his exact words are, "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light." Einstein's whole approach about Light is that its always has "CONSTANT velocity" in a vacuum. But constant velocity" is NOT the same a CONSTANCY of a MEASUREMENT. So how does the fact that you can't find the exact phrase "it is moving with a constant speed" in the Paper, alter or negate my criticisms of the contents of the paper?

Yes, Light did have a measured value at that time. it was measured in 1862 by Leon Foucault 298,000 km/sec and calculated by Maxwell in 1865. to be about 300,000. But have you forgotten that Einstein is writing a scientific Paper, and as he is supposed to be a Physicist and somewhat of a Mathematician, you really think that he would claim a singular, set, fixed numerical speed but FAIL to mention from what reference point that measurement was taken? ALL MEASURES REQUIRE A REFERENCE. Where is that reference for "c" to be found in this Paper. Please quote. He wrote carefully, that the Light Source and any Aether Medium can't be used, but he FORGOT that all measurements are ONLY VALID when an associated reference origin is specified. Why did he fail to state this obvious fact?

You are jumping the gun don't you think? Before you rush of with interpreting the results of some experiment, you must justify the validity of the hypothesis. If I hypothesized that the moon was made of cheese, would you embark of a manned expedition to the Moon and set up a cheese mining company on the strength if my claims? Maybe you would. But rational scientific Papers MUST stand up to rational scrutiny. And I've just shown that it doesn't. You response is to ignore what I'm saying and just point to some interpretations of experiment. But as I'm right, then there WILL be alternative interpretations for all those experiments that do not break the Laws of Physics as Einstein's theory has to. Really, think about it. Einstein's theory means that if something just moves really fast, and you observe it, it will really physically shrink, but only in one direction, and while its losing volume, it gains Mass from nowhere, and also Time gets to distort but not for everyone. And if 1000 observers that each have a different state of motion, watch that same object, they will all see something totally different. Doesn't sound fishy at all. But my claim is that rational Physics (Classical Physics) is not only totally rational, totally logical, with sane sets of Laws, whose application is clearly working in our real experience, and Time, Distance and Mass standards are the same for everyone. Do you not at least agree that Classical Physics is a far simpler, Mathematically correct, system that deserves the right to critically review Einstein's proposals? There are no indisputable observations that can only be explained by Einstein's Relativity, that cant be explained by other means. No one can claim to have indisputably demonstrated Time Dilation, or Length Contraction or even the invariant result of light speed. Never been done. Every experiment requires a lot of prior assumptions to be considered as TRUE, and as always, there are other interpretations possible. That's why they say that you can never offer an experiment as PROOF for a theory. You have to have a solid HYPOTHESIS as the main claim. Not rely on experiment interpretation.

Well, I'm not really interested in this alien theme/subject and it seems that neither are you, because if you were, you would know about ancient aliens/astronauts theory, also that an alien civilization may be much older/advanced than ours, that a probe may stay hidden long long time, and so on. I wrote about this subject mostly because I hoped that someone interested in it, and talented, would be inspired by my ideas and write nice SF novels or movie scenarios. I don't know about you, but I decided to let others take over, if they want/need to. For me it's enough.

Well that attitude is the exact opposite of what a real Scientist would say and think. What you are saying is that your interpretation is correct, by mine is incorrect, because you say so, without any justification at all. I've explained with logic and reason where there is a real error, and you have no counted to my claims. None. And you exhibit your unfounded arrogance in saying that "you don't want to waste time to educate me". The truth is that you are now experiencing cognitive dissonance, and choose to try to back away rather than face facts. If you had a decent response, I certainly would be hearing all about it. Normally objections to Einstein's theories are met with a constant barrage of debunking statements. But this time, you just give up so easily? I'll wait till someone else is willing to come up with some counter to my claims. Thanks for your time. We are not able to continue to any Math in the Paper, till Einstein first explains why there is actually some problem that needs to be solved, and then also describes how he can solve that problem. He did not show that there was an actual valid problem, and then he fails to give a logical solution for the apparent problem that he did describe. Any math solutions must be based on a solid explanation as a pre requisite. Einstein's actual statement on what he thinks is the problem is contained here: "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest." and also that "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. (inertial frames of reference) and when paired with "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." So no Absolute rest, the Laws work in all Inertial Frames, but Light is never changing in speed" so in his words, "these postulates are apparently irreconcilable". So there is the problem. However, I've just shown how this "apparently irreconcilable" problem is only caused by a flawed understanding of the difference between constant velocity and the MEASURED value of that constant velocity. Once you see that the two are not the same, all the "apparently irreconcilable" problems go away.