Leaderboard

I am aware of these findings. Some even consider this matter to be post biotic rather than prebiotic. Your count is too high No, I am too stupid. How about NDE’s; there’s a lot to learn even if they may not be what they intend to be Doing the best that I can but guess that I am not smart enough for you. attack ideas, not people.

I don’t see what such a transformation could possibly look like. For starters, massless particles have no rest frame (inertial or otherwise) associated with them, so it is not clear at all what it actually is that you’re mapping between. Furthermore, what would be the parameters of the map? It can’t involve v, since v=c for all IFRs, so the map would be 1-to-many. But if it’s not v, what else could it be, since that’s the only parameter whereby IFRs are related to one another? Also, there’s more than one massless particle in nature. What is it that determines that a particular set of IFRs map a muon into a photon, and not a gluon (or hypothetically a graviton)? And what about the fact that muons decay, and gluons are QCD-confined, whereas photons are free and stable?

Before it can actually live separately from the woman?!

Or he might have burst into song along with Pete Seeger, Trini Lopez and Peter, Paul and Mary. 😀

Trerl probably just doesn’t read much. Terel might’ve just made an honest mistake. Trool surely wasn’t trolling. He certainly wasn’t consciously being disrespectful or childishly dismissive, isn’t that right, Tool? That would be below, Trurl and I trust they recognize a phonetic spelling would be Comma,La.

What's the Marx quote? History repeats itself, first as tragedy, secondly as farce. I predict the popular vote margin will be greater for Harris than it was for Hillary or Joe, that Harris will gain enough EVs in the swing states to win by a nose, and that the ensuing mess will be greater and more farcical than 2020. Also, the Gulf states will secede from the Union and start a nuclear arms and uranium enrichment program. This new republic will be called Flallamisstex.

Wrong statement. The Lorentz transformations are real changes to the materials and clocks. The extended half-life of fast-moving muons proves time dilation in reality (not relative) to the moving objects. The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four caesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks in motion to stationary clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity. Hence, the Lorentz transformations are actual changes that happen to the moving objects. Although the atomic clock inside the moving high-speed airplane is dilated with the gamma factor, the stationary atomic clock on the earth is not dilated. The researchers test the Lorentz formulas for the moving frames and get results for the Lorenz invariance of the inertial frames. However, they have ignored to test the Lorentz formulas from the view of the moving observer who thinks he is at rest according to what the SR says. Therefore, what they actually achieved is the Lorentz invariance not the symmetry of the inertial frames. Why you split this conversation from the Twin paradox subject? Let the others see our debate and they can tell their ideas. What I have told is not related to the GR formulas, except that Einestein himself, first ignored Ether when he presented SR, but later, when he presented GR, he accepted it: Einstein himself accepted the Ether to some extent after his theory of General Relativity (GR). He wrote (1920): “We may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. However, this Ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it”

I'm happy to acknowledge your right to neg my post, but without a reasoned argument, I really don't care; but thanks for participating... 🤒

Is framing issues in terms of "men and women" necessary in the 21st century? Yes, it is.... if you want to explain why you care more about women than others. If you want to win the election you need to create a controversy you can highlight. It's pure marketing. Are there differences between men and women? Of course, and that's why we have gynecologists and andrologists who specialize in men's and women's health. We also have special medicine for children, and it's well known that you can't operate on a child as you would on an adult, so hospitals have specialized departments for them, The same goes for the elderly and the young, and so on. But do we need to affirm these facts everywhere? Let's take an example : in some countries, it has become very difficult for everyone to have access to doctors. That's why associations travel around the country in buses so that women can consult a cardologist. So only women are helped, not men.... Isn't it weird to exclude another category, not because they have not the same anatomy, but just because they are of the wrong gender ? So this is not a medical issue, but a political one.

You see? This is the result of elites who for decades claimed that “Oh no! There's no difference between blacks and whites”. When it comes to facts, even idiots can observe the counterpart. As for the reason, as you mentioned, not everyone comes to the right conclusion, so why not say the right thing from the start instead using the wrong arguments? “Poor people are more likely to do tricky things, let's end poverty!” Of course, it's political. Getting the poor to fight against themselves using reasons such as gender, ethnicity or religion is a cheap way for the elites to carry on.

There is evidence that life is much more complex than anticipated. There is mounting evidence that the conditions required to make it happen were exceptional. And not wanting to upset Zapatos again, but we still have not figured out how to do it.

While I don't consider this a serious proposal, these are my thoughts on how totalitarianism could have beneficial social effects in the right situations. It's purely a devil's advocate argument. Everyone is treated as equal and human under the law, but obviously people aren't equal in terms of other qualities. As an example, the type of people who identify as "incels" are obviously defective in most if not all redeeming human traits. Whether this is a product of bad genetics, bad environment, bad character, or a combination of multiple factors, I'm not sure, and it is probably multifaceted. But, regardless, I don't see any redeeming value in allowing such individuals to exist in society even if they haven't actually committed a crime, and I feel like the merciful thing to do would be to simply disallow them to exist as they currently do. If I had the authority, I would be tempted to simply have them executed, or at least have all of their human rights removed and them reduced to the status of second-class citizens, possibly allowing for them to perform forced labor. This would all be done legally and on the books, no one would be committing any vigilante violence against incels, white supremacists, and the like. They would simply de-classified as human altogether, and legally it wouldn't be any different than putting rabid animals to sleep. So while totalitarianism ultimately would do social harm than good, I can see it having social utility in a scenario like this. The subhuman state of existence that some individuals reside in simply isn't something a better human would consider worth living, so if society was slightly less liberal in their application of the definition of "human rights", it might make the world a cleaner place, provided that it was able to only be applied in scenarios like this (e.x. exterminating incels, white supremacists, and other undesirables), rather than in the whole context of society.

You get it that Denver was an analogy; not the real thing, right?

Well, it's debatable that a born infant can live separately from the mother, in the sense that it will die if the mother doesn't provide it with care. So the "viability" seems like an arbitrary definition, and that definitions grounded in the biology of the fetus itself would make for stronger arguments.