Leaderboard

Of course, though $755.00 is a lot of coins, and it is a highly instructive question for a reason I didn't anticipate (or at least bother to check in advance). It turns out that I'd wrongly assumed that the standard coin masses have no large common denominator whereas your reference indicates that five dimes and two quarters actually have indentical mass and value. This guarantees that if there is one solution, there are many: just substitute five dimes for two quarters as many times as you like. Let us start by guessing there are no quarters. So nickels and dimes sum to $755.00 and 25.242 kg. Two variables; two equations which simply solve to 2,100 nickels: 6,500 dimes. Yay!! Integers!! So we have a solution!! Do the same for one quarter and we get 2,100 nickels again but a non-integer number of dimes (6,497.5) so we can reject this one. But for two quarters we get another solution 2,100 nickels: 6,495 dimes - ie we've taken the first solution and exchanged 5 dimes for 2 quarters. And so on... So we can do no better than state that the box contains $105 worth of nickels and $650 dollars of mixed dimes and quarters... ... because: Will you please elaborate? The above example illustrates this very well. If instead of 5.67g we set the mass of the quarter to 5.669g, we retain the previous solution of 2,100:6,500:0 however, the slight deviation from a large common denominator introduces increasingly large deviations from integer values which invalidates all other potential candidates. This is easily demonstrated with a simple Excel spreadsheet (I've omitted lines 16 - 3,200 for sanity's sake) Your methodology requires significant common denominantors in alloy composition figures to keep the number of permutations of composition down to a manageable finite number (to facilitate a brute force computational sieve), but component densities should ideally be irrational numbers (which in actuality we'd expect them to be) to prevent the existence of multiple integer solutions. For purposes of my argument, any equal incremental step process is essentially based on stepping through integers. I'd often wondered in the past why banks etc. went to the trouble of counting coins individually rather than just weighing them in batches and exploiting the limited possible combinations to compute the value. Now I've a clearer picture. Thank you for that.

It finally emerged from behind the trees in my front yard (I had to stand at the very end of my driveway to see it) photo with hand-held iPhone

Actually, he is. Here is how: Firstly, he is i.e., he is calculating the ratio, (universe volume)/(SU(3) effective volume). Then, he is dividing the energy density by this ratio, i.e., he is calculating, (energy density)/(universe volume)*(SU(3) effective volume). Or, equivalently, (energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume). So, he is in fact

Would humbly request our "bruh" consider dialing back the pseudo rapper talk, for purposes of reader comprehension.

As someone who is an accredited theoretical physicist I can tell you with absolute certainty no theory that doesn't apply those main stream physics will ever work.. That is the reality and I've seen ppl try for over 35 years its never worked out for them. Nor would you be able to give me a single example where it has.

Thanks for that clearer picture. +1 A really disappointing non scientific response. Density and specific gravity are interconvertible and in the correct circumstances numerically equal. Of course temperature also plays a part but we are then talking of several decimal places and you have yet to mention the effect of sample temperature on your measurements. Since you could not find all my alloys, my mid 1970s copy of Lange gives the following information, including wt % I no longer have access to up to date handbooks to compare with. Finally this is the fourth and last time I ask my most important question, which has been steadfastly ignored.

Another article concluding the opposite. And that's not taking into account the role of zealotry and martyrdom. I would further speculate that depression is only one reason for people to contemplate suicide; there are practical and rational reasons, such as painful terminal illness, lack of hope for improvement or relief of an untenable situation, guilt over having done irreparable damage, reluctance to be a burden on and source of sorrow to loved ones, avoidance of imprisonment, torture or public humiliation. Many religious people are prevented by fear of damnation from seeking the obvious escape from unnecessary suffering; many caregivers are similarly hampered by their own religious beliefs so that they actively thwart any attempt by their charges; many lawmakers are still ruled by old religious dicta and make assisting a suicide illegal. Atheists are not bound by the 'God's will' bullshit, and therefore free to make their own decisions about their own lives.

There is some evidence that religiosity is associated with lower suicide risk, as most religions forbid suicide. The protective factor differed between religions, and I believe the strongest effect was found in Muslims. However, this is not the correct conclusion: The article suggest that in the study cohort, religiosity was associated with lower suicide rates, which is not equivalent to atheists in general conducting at a higher rate. Longitudinal studies who look at large cohort, track suicide rates and then investigate the religious affiliation found contrasting results, and one of the largest ones that I know of (9 yr- over 1 mio folks) found no difference between religious and non-religious groups (https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128694) There are a few reasons why adherence to religions can have certain protective factors. For example, practicing Muslims do not consume alcohol, which can exacerbate mental health episodes. This would be the same for non-drinking atheists, of course. Other effects that are difficult to disentangle are age, but also overall religiosity of the population (or cohort), as religions can have very different manifestations in difference societies (e.g. in theocracies).

The paper identifies the vacuum energy density per unit volume for each atom, without altering the physical units, as the number of atoms is ultimately a dimensionless quantity. SU(3) has been experimentally confirmed to be effective only within the proton's size. What further experimental evidence would be needed beyond this?

Dividing the total vacuum energy density by the number of SU(3) "atoms" in the universe is a natural step because it incorporates the new information about the finite number of these units in the vacuum structure. This division adjusts the energy calculation to reflect the energy density per unit volume, which aligns with the observed low energy density of the vacuum. By recognizing that the vacuum is composed of a finite number of discrete SU(3) units rather than being a continuous one entity.

Does that mean the proton will never decay?

The third law of thermodynamics ensures that the proton will not decay, as it stabilizes the SU(3) symmetry of the strong force near absolute zero, preventing the breakdown of this structure. This also explains quark confinement—quarks remain bound within protons because the SU(3) units cannot be broken or annihilated. The third law of thermodynamics thus guarantees both proton stability and quark confinement by preserving the SU(3) structure at low temperatures.

You are welcome

I'd argue, no, that's just an arbitrary zoological classification, and we could just as easily classify humans as separate from the animal kingdom, if the axioms which said classification is predicated on is changed entirely. So, in other words, humans are not animals unless someone decides they are for some reason or another. Simply having shared biology with animals doesn't beget such a classification anymore than should a battleship and a kitchen knife be put in the same arbitrary category simply by the virtue of them both being "made of metal". Well "purity" is subjective, and obviously what a specific culture's definition of "purity" is will vary (e.x. what might have been considered "pure" in the Victorian era or in an Islamic country wouldn't necessarily be the same as today in a Western country). Regardless, I think some common sense can be applied. For example, if a person devoted themselves to a lifetime of participation in hook-up culture without any desire to form deeper romantic bonds with a person, various issues could result from this, especially if everyone in a given society did. So we don't want to conflate the ethical issues regarding "consent" with the other issues, ethical and otherwise which could be posited. Generally, is something is consensual, this merely means that we don't believe the law should be involved in regulating it, regardless of what other ethical issues could come up that aren't within the realm of the of the law (and even then, this principle is not absolute. For example, certain types of incestuous relationships are illegal in many states even if "consensual").

Off the top of my head. *God created man in his own image. *In Christ Jesus, there is no difference between slave and free. As far as a piece of specific text forbidding every specific thing under the sun, that would be impossible and impractical. And while I'm aware that not every specific thing which is considered immoral by society derives specifically from Biblical text, that doesn't mean that people can't make good arguments for it being immoral (e.x. rape, genocide, etc). Likewise, if someone wants to justify something, they could theoretically use the Bible to justify anything. (e.x. Polygamy exists in the Old Testament, and there were no formal age of consent laws in Biblical times, so someone could use the Bible to justify polygamy or child marriage), but that doesn't mean that most people would do so, or that sound arguments can be made against not doing so. It's a moot point, because if one believed they were only morally accountable to themself, they could justify doing anything they wanted to (e.x. rape, murder, etc). Even if you claim that don't avoid those things out of "fear of God" but out of some higher sense of moral purpose, you're still appealing to a higher source of morality than yourself. You would just have trouble rationalizing what this is or where it comes from, since it's not something that could be verified (e.x. scientifically) beyond your own intuitions.

Exactly, man! You’re sayin’ the math is solid, and when the dude applied it, he nailed the exact value that solved the cosmological constant problem—right down to the ridiculous 10^123 precision. How’s that a coincidence? It’s not. That’s the math doin’ its thing. You can’t say you know the formulas and then act like the solution doesn’t count when the numbers line up that perfectly. Bro, you’re wildin’. You’re straight-up contradicting yourself. Come on, this ain’t just luck. When the numbers check out like that, it’s solid. You’re gettin’ me twisted over here, man, I’m laughin’ ‘cause you’re fightin’ against the facts you already know are right!

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303 CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. This article suggests that atheists are more likely to commit suicide. I see this as a negative aspect of atheism. Thoughts on this?