Lord Antares

Surely, that's not the only factor in this equation. Understanding that any combination of numbers has the same odds of being drafted as any other combination is enough to disprove your point. People might have picked the numbers 1-6 not because they thought no one else would, but simply because they were lazy to do anything else, since the odds are always the same. So they didn't even have to think about sharing the prize to pick the ''obvious'' sequential combinations. Your premise is valid, but not for the numbers 1-6. It's too obvious for that. Perhaps a less obvious combination which would neither be picked when choosing random numbers, nor sequential numbers. Perhaps something like 7,8,9,10,11,12 sounds better than 1-6.

Why not? And I'm not entirely covinced it's true. Obviously, random numbers are picked more frequently than sequential numbers, but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the sequence 1-6 being more or less frequently picked than any specific ''random'' sequence. I'm not really convinced that the numbers 4, 7, 14, 15, 22, 27 are more commonly picked than the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Or that any ''random'' sequence is less frequently picked than those numbers.

To put it extremely simply, you are mixing 2 pools of people into one. 20% of stomach patients are from a different pool than the 30% of liver patients. If person A has 10 apples and person B has 10 bananas, and they are each given an additional 5 of their fruit respectively, you would say there is was an 100% increase in fruit, whereas there was only a 50% increase in their fruit. This is because the added change was 10 out of 20 fruit, and not 10/10.

Wait, does the forum IRC actually work?

This image misses the point badly and it has nothing to do with the topic. Rape very rarely results in death afterwards, so that means that rape shouldn't be battled? It isn't an issue. That's how it sounds the way you are putting it. You may not mean it, but you are saying it. This is a new form of terrorism, unseen (in the western world at least). We are familiar with military terrorism, but this is civilian terrorism. The most obvious difference being that you can more easily identify armed terrorists and shoot them down, while the same cannot be applied in this case.

Landmines are very much being sorted out; that's my point. The terrorism issue has not been, so far. The difference is that these sorts of things (like appliances) are constantly being worked on. You seem to be drawing unrelated parallels. Accidents and intentional murders are very much different things. Very bad analogy, as that would decrease the survival rate of people and not increase it. Give a better one.

But which rights? If we don't know which rights in question, then you are, by default, rebelling against any sort of right-deduction in turn of people dying? What? You said that I haven't been assaulted and therefore I shouldn't worry about it. You also said how little casualties there are, indicating that you are indifferent about solving the issue. What do you mean with the exception of 2015.? The immigration started in 2015. when terrorism rose exponentially compared to the last 3 years. There's an updated graph below which shows that 2016. was similar to 2015. and 2017. is looking similar. These 3 years are the highest in death tolls by terrorism since 2004. and they are consecutive years, another very important thing. 2004 was an isolated year. I never said they've been crossed. I asked if you think they were. This is clearly a lot different. See my example about landmines. If not that many people are dying from mines, you think they should be left there forever? Only a handful get blown up by stepping on them, so who cares, right? Also, rape has been increased since the immigration. But that's irrelevant too, right? Such as?

The generals consensus is that the Big Bang started the expansion. Look it up, it's a pretty famous theory. As to why exactly objects are still accelerating away from one another, no one knows. It seems that some form of energy is pushing them apart, which we call dark energy. To be clear, we don't know what dark energy is. It's just a placeholder name for whatever we (hopefully) discover to be this energy that is accelerating objects apart. So you're tackling a complicated issue here. There in no information one could provide you to explain this behaviour.

That seems to be the central point of your post. I don't know. Not many, but some lesser ones are OK. As I said, I don't know which rights exactly are in question, but I support the notion that some barely relevant ones could be sacrificed to save actual human lives. I don't understand why this is so controversial to all of you.

No, it isn't. The ''ever'' part of my statement is false, but there's clearly an exponential rise in terrorism since the beginning of the century, with the exception of 2004. So there is a problem. I disagree. There are limits. Small, barely relevant rights are worth compensating in turn for saving human lives. Have you ever been killed by a landmine? Neither has the vast majority of humans. That means that it's not a problem and should never be solved, right? As long as half the human population isn't dying, it shouldn't be looked into. Impeccable logic. Your point seems to be that I should worry about terrorism only after I've been killed.

Intangible fear? Intangible how? The rates of terrorism happening are alarming and give no indication of fading. You do realize nothing of the like has been happening until the immigrants came in, a handful of which were terrorists. A handful, but a threat nonetheless. You guys seem to value human life less than some internet freedoms. I don't know what exactly is being restricted, but I heard something about internet surveillance or something of the like. I support SOMETHING being done about it, which is more than is being done right now. Right now, absolutely nothing is being done to combat terrorism. ''I don't mind people dying at all, but heck, those bastards can't take my browsing rights!''

I support this. I don't know which rights exactly they are reducing, but I support the notion.

You do realize that the experiment matched the prediction with those exact mathematics? So what did they detect which behaved exactly like gravitational waves were supposed to without being grav. waves themselves? Also, swansont is a professional physicst; I suspect he understood your point.

It is very well known, that adding speeds in a linear fashion doesn't work at relativistic speeds (i.e. speeds approaching the speed of light). As Halls said, you need a relativistic formula for that. So the ''old'' laws of velocity are not incorrect, they are just unnapplicable for relativistic speeds. This is very well known; you're not disproving anything with this.

But what did they detect then? How do you think they detected it with the precision that they did if it was undetectable? How did they get the mathematics of the prediction to match the experiment? If if was undetectable because the instruments contracted by the same degree as the space around it, as you said, how could they have gotten a false positive? They would have gotten a null result. Don't you see a contradiction there?

It depends on what you consider good topics. I consider topics with technical content without beating around the bush the best ones. Usually, only relevant and helpful stuff is posted. The mathematics section is a good example of good threads. Aside from politics, religion, etc. the ones which tend to attract the ''bad'' posting are the sci-fi-ish ones like holographics universes, higher dimensions etc.

What's the purpose of this? You know full well that every forum is preferably that kind of forum. There obviously isn't a specific forum designed for ''normal conversation without nutty people''. What do you want to talk about? What science? Open a thread in the fitting forum. The fact that there are some crackpots means absolutely nothing in regards to having healthy discussions. I've had great discussions here and some really bad ones. Good topics attract good posters; bad topics attract bad posters. You will find that logically phrased technical content will bring the most normal and rational discussion aboard. That said, was there a particular point you were trying to make? Or are you just complaining?

Strange is right. Let me ask you something. You are arguing that the experiment might have been faulty. Please explain to me what they measured then? How do you think they overlooked something so simple yet reported results which indicated gravitational waves just as expected? Do you think they made the results up? There you go, as Strange said: http://www.space.com/31913-how-scientists-detected-gravitational-waves-ligo.html

I know, that's why I said particles in general. It makes no sense to me that he would mean just electrons, maybe English is not his first language. Whatever the case is, he is not saying anything useful.

I thought he meant particles in general via gravity, not electricity. Electrons not attracting one another is too obvious to miss.

Agreed with the others. Windows 10 are objectively the best windows. They are far faster and more functional than the rest; malware or viruses have nothing to do with the product itself, of course. I would hate to switch back to Win 7 given how much faster this one is.

So you discovered that the atoms in a body are attracted to other bodies via gravity? That rings a bell somehow...

So ALL of these statistic changes are a coincidence?

Then why are there such things as statistics this early on? They have existed since 1923.

Because they thought since Trump eats children and burns villages in his spare time, he must therefore throw away all the money in the US just for the sake of being evil. It's just blinding hate and lack of objectivity, really. Any sane person understood that he wouldn't crash the stock market. I checked other sources just in case, and they support this statistic.