Leaderboard

I suspect she will do well with people who are not white males. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how quickly the dems have backed Harris. Their history did not suggest this, and was a major reason I thought a change would be a bad idea. $100 million raised after Biden stepped aside is a pretty good indication of support https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/22/live-updates-harris-democrats-biden-drops-out-trump-campaign.html I’ve seen Mark Kelly suggested as a possible running mate; the AZ gov would select a replacement so it wouldn’t be a lost senate seat

Just to come back to Buttigieg for a moment, this is what I mean about wiping the floor with these Republicans: Just watch the first 3 minutes. It's all done very gently, with humour, but he manages to make JD Vance look a prize a**hole without saying anything rude - and has the audience laughing. It is in truth hard not to laugh. The guy is a Rolls Royce. Harris will be nowhere near him in effectiveness.

Imagine that! People changing century by century! It's more like you don't understand evolution. ... who are overly judgemental about large groups they don't bother to know much about. So you hate the way people dress, their hygiene, the way they speak, their manners, and their education. You think everyone should meet your standards, otherwise they deserve nothing but your derision. You also equate homelessness and mental retardation with felonies and illegality. I think people who think like you are one of the biggest detriments to human society. You're judgemental to the point of unreasonableness, and unwilling to see your fellow humans as anything but above or below you instead of living side by side. Your stances disgust me frankly, and I hope attitudes like yours die off very soon, since nobody interested in being smart needs that kind of ignorance.

The science part of it is observation after the fact, for instance when cultivating neurons, it's been observed that they will spontainiously gongregate and communicate, I don't know what the current thinking is about a possible why, but it's probably wrong, when we discover the next level... High school level is just the first step on the journey. I think you have gone off-piste with your interpretation of balance here, you're conflating different definitions. No it doesn't, it depends on the current thinking being acurate enough to work. THG is just like the bible, no longer relevant but it's got some bloody good idea's among the metaphors... 😉

I've read the paper itself and can attest it's very poorly written with very little usefulness. You can readily tell the author doesn't understand QFT and barely touches on QM. Regardless of peer review or not the paper itself has little to offer that hasn't been examined and tested already. Let's take for example Archimedes spiral vs electron spin. The spin of an electron is a complex number that requires 720 degree rotations to return to its original state. That does not work for the Archimedes spiral with its 360 degree rotation not to mention the detail that particles are not little bullets but under QFT wave excitations. Particle spin is intrinsic it does not have a classical counterpart. A wave also has transverse and longitudinal components not described by any of its mathematics. If anything its equations are rudimentary (easiest to use) of QM. The 17 fields mentioned is incorrect. Any number of fields are includes in any SM model those fields are not restricted to physical (measurable) fields but often are strictly mathematical. There is no exact number of fields of the SM model. The main problem is the acoustic oscillations it describes requires a medium in essence an Eather which we have incredibly high confidence due to Michelson and Morley type experiments of not existing.

Hmm, maybe, though an American friend, not specially liberal but urban admittedly, thinks most of the country is ready for a gay president now. Anyway he's quite young so could wait until next time (if there is a next time, which there may not be if Trump wins). I do wonder though if Harris has what it takes in terms of breadth of political experience and communicating. She got eliminated pretty early in the 2020 campaigns, I gather. If she is the nominee, I think one thing she should avoid like the plague is trying to make a virtue out of being a woman and being of colour. That would give off vibes of the "my turn now" entitlement that helped to sink Hilary Clinton and would play straight into the "talentless D&I appointment" narrative. She's got to stand on her real merits, show good ideas and attack Trump effectively. On the last point it would be amusing to see her, or whoever the eventual candidate turns out to be, attacking Trump for being too old and for self-evidently going nuts, both of which are absolutely true. About time someone a generation younger pointed out this Emperor has no clothes.

So what does it predict? Btw, Journal of Modern Physics appears to have been classified as predatory here, https://predatoryjournals.org/news/f/list-of-all-scirp-predatory-publications

Isaac Assimov explored the idea of gaia in the final novel of his foundation series, it was a metaphor for how humans and robot's can interface. I have no idea who's the original author and what restrictions they placed on the OP/idea; but what makes you think that it's not a metaphor? What part do you think is litterally true?

I've been watching your comments on feedback with increasing interest, and you raise important points a) because there is an awful lot of misunderstanding mixed in amongst the loose terminology, and b) because it gets really complicated really quickly. Loosely, feedback occurs whenever a process output is fed back into the input thereby modifying the subsequent output. However, there are some major provisos here, particularly with regard to causal links. 'Feedback' cannot as of current scientific concensus refer to the transfer of anything back to an earlier point in time. It therefore is not a transfer from an output back into the input that created that output. It is a transfer from an output phase into a subsequent input phase. Some examples may help explain: This one is curious since mathematicians tend to irk engineers by insisting that pendulum type system really are controlled by feedback, because... reasons. I think the reasoning goes that since the equations of motion for an ideal, frictionless pendulum are time-reversible, they do not contradict the assertion that the last maximum displacement was a consequence of the next rather than vice versa. ie mathematically they are indistinguishable from a process controlled by negative feedback. Maybe that's a simplification, but at least we both agree that this system does not feature feedback. Compare with a father pushing a child on a swing. Hopefully, the father monitors the vertical displacement on the forward swing, compares that against some recommended maximum enjoyment criterion and adjusts his push at the top of the backswing accordingly. If we assign a phase angle 0 to the top of the backswing, and a phase angle pi radians to the top of the forward swing, it is clear that the input is being modified with an antiphase addition from the output - classic negative feedback. Arguably so, I think. Consider the following reaction. 2H2S + SO2 -> 3S + 2H2O If the reactants are initially dry, the reaction does not proceed. But add a small squirt of water to get it started and the reaction rate will rapidly accelerate via positive feedback. The output product phase is 'fed back' (at least partially) into the input reactant phase by eg. turbulent mixing and the reaction becomes self-sustaining, limited only by the continuing supply of reactants.

People seem totally different today than they did in the 20th century. It's as if I can plainly see evolution in action. It's as if the human species has turned into some weird creatures. Instead of presenting oneself like a well-dressed, well-groomed, proper-speaking, polite and educated lady or a gentleman, we have become a culture that looks, sounds, smells and acts like homeless bums, stupid idiots, zombies, winos, circus freaks, degenerates, convicts, gangsters, mentally retarded folks and bikers.

Your just a bunch of agitators, , ,What more science do you want

@Phi for All Try harder.