Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/20/23 in all areas
-
1 point
-
May be I have read your post too fast. I thought you were making that association, something I didn't like. I got confused, I agree. May be yes. English is not my natural language and I get confused sometimes. Negative -1 reaction to your post removed.1 point
-
Why would anyone waste their time doing that? It's just a chat bot...1 point
-
It can't. Philosophy can help by giving a workable definition of free will, only then, theoretically, it possibly could turn into an empirical question. Do not forget: philosophy doesn't answer empirical questions, for that we have the sciences. Philosophy can help to clarify concepts, find possible alternatives, unmask false arguments, reconstruct presuppositions etc. Really? I studied philosophy, and as said above, philosophy can help clarify questions and concepts, and so make one a little bit more rational. But philosophers are at least as biased as scientists are. Even philosophers are still humans... Newton spent his time mainly on alchemy and theology. And he also made a major contribution to natural philosophy. Just as relevant as your remark. With that 'physically possible' you put yourself into trouble. A determinist would say that given the initial conditions and the laws of nature there will be only one thing physically possible. Except if you think that the possibility is given because of quantum physics (which indeed makes the future unpredictable. But are your actions the result of the throwing of a quantum die? You could use the Quantum Decision-Maker, makes life much easier...) +1. A bit of humour is always enlightening You know what is discussed in modern academic philosophy, don't you? No, you don't. I reveal you at least one philosophical secret: philosophers tend to give arguments for their statements. If you thought to refer to the borg... Nope, Swansont's avatar is not a borg. Ah! Those stupid philosophers! Reflecting on thinking (in sciences, about culture, in ethics) they should stick to some dogmas? (sorry, I realise I become cynical, but you should know me by now, and that I already wrote several postings about what (modern) philosophy is. The times they are a'changin, and therefore philosophy too. Yes, and a mass that is twice another mass falls twice as fast. Aristotle said so, and he was (also) a physicist! That would be possible, isn't it? In this case, it is all about definitions. Yup. But if you do not like to dive into the rabbit hole, why do you do as if you know what is in there? For those I did not make angry, I wrote a short overview here: @dimreepr: the examples I gave at the end might interest you.1 point
-
1 point
-
Is this homework ? Then it belongs in the homework section. Hints 1) is the liquid pressure greater than or less than the outside pressure ? - Why ? Then do a force balance between the pressures and the surface tension along the curved interface. It is usual for the liquid to be considered as a circular blob so you can calculate the area Over to you to put the values into your formulae.1 point
-
Thanks for letting me know that the microscopes I worked on in which electrons tunnelled giving a map of the surface electron fermi potential were not electron microscopes. I'm not going to build a tunnelling proton microscope. It's possible, but much easier to use electrons. Which is why scanning tunnelling electron microscopes are, in fact, electron microscopes. (Wiki is not God) These are electron microscopes too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-emission_microscopy They don't have electron guns (in the definition Sensei posted) But they are tunnelling microscopes. The field emission relies on tunnelling. Somehow, I think the folk who designed scanning electron microscopes where pretty much the only "moving part" was an electron beam, knew what they were doing.1 point
-
Like savages? http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter2.html1 point
-
And yet you agree that there is no actual length contraction despite it being a part of your model. Why doesn’t that count as disagreeing with experiment?-1 points
-
Oh, I forgot that I must somehow show you that I am smart. But I prefer to be stupid and say: "No, I have no idea." Because that would mean that I still have the opportunity to learn. Something I am not seeing very often in current human science. Please do not get offended. I just want people to relax a little.-1 points
-
So we are using this model because "it is less complicated"? What about finding the truth? lol Of course what is most important for us religious humans is having a universe with z>1 so there is always a mystery for us. How would you confirm the existence of z>1 if you never measured that in any of the billion galaxies? Why would you try to explain something that still does not exist? Why not try to explain some supernatural event? If space is "nothing", how can "nothing" "expand"? And you still did not answer what makes this movement special in order to distinguish it from the "moving away" movement. This is still ONLY an increase of the distance in a certain time in both versions.-2 points
-
Your post is not an objective overview. You are just promoting your compatibilist position here. For instance: The libertarian position does not say that. It says that people can change their situation because the future is undetermined and their choices and actions can influence the future. Of course without total certainty because everything depends not only in our choices and decisions but also in the conditions of the situation, the environment, other people, society, etc, and even the luck because randomness also plays a role in the universe which is yet another source of indeterminism in the future. You just want to promote your position here. It is not a look for the real true thing. Useless discussion for me.-2 points
-
-2 points