Lord Antares

That's interesting, because the wiki article I linked says this: What is referred to as ''the previous case'' is that of a white dwarf and neutron star. What is the deal here? I always thought the radiation from black holes is very strong.

I don't understand the scenario. Why are they loudly pointing out that she is not black if she doesn't claim to be black? What is the purpose of stating the obvious? The only reasonable assumption I can make is that she talks in a black dialect and dresses like her black friends and they are somehow annoyed at this. OK. But you say two things that confuse me: 1) Is this a figure of speech meaning that she acts black or what? 2) What do you mean by misleading people? How can they be mislead if she is visibly white? Did she actually dye her skin or something? Surely, people cannot be mislead that she is black just because she has dreadlocks.

What?

It is idiocy. It has come together with this wave of liberalism and apparent progressiveness. People are just looking for reasons to be offended. You can ignore it as I don't think anyone can come up with a reasonable explanation for why this happens.

It depends on the size of the black hole. For supermassive black holes, the point where it would kill humans is (well) within the event horizon, whereas for small black holes, it is outside. This is because the distance from the center is important, rather than the distance from the event horizon. For supermassive black holes, the event horizon is much furhter away from the center and so the effect is weaker at that point. So an ''ultra massive'' black hole would have even milder tidal effects on the event horizon than a supermassive one. If you want a bit of mathematics, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

I seriously doubt that they could conclude that based on limited research. I want to keep an open mind as well since I have no knowledge of this research, as you have pointed out, but if their conclusions were legitimate and justifiable, then surely the research would be held in very high regard and would be more famous and more commonly referred to. They are susceptible to logical flaws, never mind that they have done more research than other people. Especially if they are biased about it. All in all, you cannot claim evidence, but you can feel free to research the subject further and expand your knowledge on it. As this is a science forum, people are bound to dismiss this for the lack of evidence, which would be reasonable.

+1 for at least thinking clearly and being honest. By all means, research the subject further but don't claim evidence if you're not sure it really is evidence. The second sentence is a valid point but it's a longshot. It's unlikely you have understood from this research something that experienced researchers haven't. Still, try to be objective. What did the people doing the research conclude from it? I assume they concluded that there is no evidence for an afterlife.

It was a joke. I see koti has taken it less harshly than you have and more power to him for that. Good job, you just read the title of the article without reading the rest, didn't you? The article concludues that there is NO correlation between the full moon and extraordinary behaviour. But still what? If it's information bias, then there is no ''but still''. One of the articles I linked even proves that it's confirmation bias from the side of the medical staff.

It would be readily noticeable to anyone who frequents the casino. Especially for people who look into these statistics and try to work out a system. A system could never be worked out only if the numbers are truly random, which is what they are in a true casino. It would only detriment the casino. 2 people have done a statistical analysis in this thread and it seems that nothing is out of the ordinary - about what you would expect from randomness. Also, as someone else has mentioned, casinos make a constant profit as is. There is mostly no trouble and the beauty is that the profit is steady since they work on the fact that the odds are ever so slightly in their favor. They gain profit with steady mathematics. It's one of the safest types of business which is ironic, considering that it's all about gambling.

But we aren't concluding anything. That's what we are saying. There is no evidence, henco no reason to suspect that there is life after death. There very well may be, it is just that we cannot know. Research has never concluded that there is or isn't life after death. Therefore, researching that research cannot lead you to any conclusion either. Agreed with everything said here. Obviously. He meant to say that one of the three conclusions would be reached, not all at once...

I did a google search and it seems that many people believe the myth but research says it's false: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235964/Full-moon-Patient-study-confirms-common-myth-lunar-patterns-driving-mad-false.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17256692 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2014/398791/ As for the cops and medical staff believing more patinents come in during the fool moon, I don't know what to think of it. Possibly selective memory,, small sample size coincidence, etc. Actually, I think the latter is the most likely explanation.

So what is your final question exactly? If you put the knowledge of all people into one, could we decide if there is an afterlife? Seeing how no one has the knowledge of everyone else, the question is unanswerable, isn't it? All I can say with certainty is that there is absolutely no conclusive I've never understood the label of skeptic. What does it actually mean? It means a person who doesn't believe what he doesn't have evidence for. Isn't that an alternative term for a rational person? The label makes no sense to me.

In Croatia, college is free, but I don't know if that's true for foreign students. You would probably need to do the >>pre-college test at the end of high school<<, but you might want to research that. Also, do you want to be a physicst by profession or just be knowledgeable in physics? Because, as Bender said, online courses can be very good at could, in theory, get you to a college level of understanding. In theory. However, if you want to make it your job, you need college.

I think the full moon might be affecting you as well. Report back when it has passed.

I understand that gambling is more like a disease of irrationality, but I just can't fathom how someone (with doctorate level qualifications) would think they have a system with self-evident statistics against it.

Haha good point. I've been replying to it from the beginning, but at least the OP had a lot of luck. Another person trying to use a system would not be as lucky. Or, more accurately, there is a discintly small chance that someone would use a system that doesn't work and get consistently positive results such that they make it seem like the system works.

Yes, I understood, but see the last sentence. Esentially, I don't think people are dull enough to think that there are other untested systems like that? Couldn't that be inferred from the results anyway? I mean, maybe the publicity about card counting was good to start them thinking about a system, but couldn't they very quickly figure out if it worked based on the results?

It depends on the game. While cards are probability based, the issue is that cards get eliminated and the shuffle isn't perfect. The roulette is a great example of what you're talking about. It's basically a coin flip with more sides but there are still people who are convinced that the wheel is rigged. But doesn't this indicate that they didn't love counting, rather than they did? The profits were going up because they were eliminating those who counted cards. Smaller number of people who count cards = lower chance of them winning = higher profit for the casino. I guess the point about people thinking they had a similar system stands, but I think they would have tried to use it regardless of whether they knew about card counting.

I cannot make sense of this. What would measuring the furthest possible electron orbit and proton accomplish? How would it give the weight of planet? It most certainly wouldn't give give the area of the planet. Even theoretically, if it gave you the amount of space displaced somehow, what would you do with this equation?

Yes, they can throw you out on their decision, but you cannot get into trouble with the law - that's the point.

No, I don't think he hacked it. I'm not a lawyer but I am 100% that this cannot get you into jail. If there is a method to ''game'' the system, then they have a faulty/gamed system and that's their fault. It cannot be illegal. There is no law stating that you can't calculate numbers in the lottery simply because lottery results are supposed to be random, i.e. uncalculable. Are you sure he went to jail because of this? How well do you know him? Also, imatfaal is a lawyer, I am sure he will confirm that there is nothing to go to jail for.

Yes. It is simply impossible that he would get jail time for this. There is no law against this and there shouldn't be. You probably misunderstood the situation and he went to jail for something unrelated to th lottery.

No, that's wrong. How would you not need to figure density into the equation? Your mathematics would say that the bigger the volume of a body, the stronger the gravitation (''space displacement'') effect. This is wrong as smaller bodies can exert stronger gravitation if they are more dense. You need both the volume of the body (which is your ''area that the planet occupies'' ) and the density of the object, as both are responsible for the strength of the gravitational filed. This would give you the true ''are that the matter of body occupies''. What density would just looking at the atom assume? Or are you somehow trying to calculate this for a single atom, instead of a body? If so, 1) It doesn't really work that way 2) It's virtually untestable. Experimentation would be easier on the large scale.

But you would need to know the exact number of atoms (and protons and electrons if you insist) in an object you wish to calculate this for. An easier way would be to look at the object as a whole, let's say the earth or the sun. You would need to take into account its mass and size, but also its density. Since there are smaller object which are more massive than larger ones, they exhibit more gravitation and according to this, more space displacement. So xyz dimensions are not enough. You need to take into account the density of the object as its atoms could be much less densely packed than in another object. A smaller, more dense object would displace space in a more ''dramatic'' manner. Think of black holes. Providing evidence for mathematics like this may be near impossible, so good luck.

No, it isn't. Science is all about rigor, technicalities and prediction. Refusal without personal investigation is only logical because, even if you don't think so yourself, science is incredibly complicated to build upon. We only have the ability to accept something that we have evidence for and empirical indications that it works. All other beliefs are just that: beliefs. It doesn't matter if someone is able to understand you or not. Many religious people have mutual understandings of one another's views but it doesn't make them correct. What matters is the truth. The onus is on you to prove that this is somehow useful to science, and not on me or anyone else to believe you. Alright. Do you happen to enjoy abuse of substances of the illegal kind? If so, have fun, but there must be more productive ways to spend your time. Thanks mom. All in all, you have the chance to learn and expand your views. You will do so by learning science and reading educated threads by educated people here, not by having vivid imagination. At least as far as science is concerned.