swansont

I find that text size is a big issue. But the OP asked specifically about color, so here’s a study but it’s specifically about “negative polarity” i.e. light text on dark background, which is “night mode” The paper points out fatigue can come from bright screens in a dark environment, so matching brightness levels is important. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11175232/ One might search further using “visual fatigue” and “polarity” as keywords

For most cameras, it’s the latter. Silicon sensors only work out to 1.1 microns, other common ones not much further, and thermal is out in the 10-15 micron range. Thermal imaging uses different technology. In the lab I worked in, we used cheap black-and-white surveillance systems, since they had no filter to begin with. A rate example of the cheaper commercial option being the right tool, rather than boutique lab stuff. I once modified a webcam by removing the IR filter to take pictures in the lab. It had to be manual focus, because autofocus is calibrated with the filter in place

Good choices? No. But that wasn’t your claim. You said there was no choice. In the 2016 Republican primary there were 17 candidates. That’s a lot of choice. The system is not at fault that they couldn’t beat Trump, nor is the system at fault for Republicans caving to him and being complicit in his wrongdoings. The system doesn’t enforce itself The flaws are not in democracy as a concept, but there are flaws in some specific ways it’s been implemented (e.g. the electoral college, not expanding the number of representatives in the house to keep pace with the population) Stupid, lazy, indifferent, sexist, actively rooting for Trump’s bigotry, and more. Lots of factors in play.

Ties in with what was discussed earlier - attacking the credibility of legitimate science and people losing trust in it, opening the door for the conspiracies to spread. Media becoming entertainment and going for “clicks” rather than quality journalism makes that worse.

Sure they do. Voters don’t hold equally strong opinions about each topic, and politicians can be swayed by public opinion. They often take positions based on that. And they want get reelected; the next candidate can take a more popular stance, so they are faced with switching or losing. And there are often more than two candidates, owing to multiple parties, or even if we only consider the two main parties (In the US) because there are primaries so your artificially-constructed scenario is even less relevant. Still nothing to do with authoritarianism.

You originally posted about fundamental particles, which are not cubes. The effects here are from deviations from a spherical mass distribution.

How much, though? ~10^-16 eV-s of angular momentum vs ~1 MeV of mass for an electron. (The phrasing did not make it clear to me whether it was claiming a source or the source)

I think there’s an implied “if” - since we have no working, tested/confirmed theory of quantum gravity, we don’t know if spin has an effect. It might be present in some proposals, but we don’t know if they are correct. There are no answers at this point, AFAIK

Moderator NoteNo. This is the same nonsense that you posted before and was closed because of repeated spamming and soapboxing

“We know from theory that most of the mass in the universe is expected to be dark matter, but it’s difficult to detect this dark material because it doesn’t emit light. Cloud-9 gives us a rare look at a dark-matter-dominated cloud.” The object is called a Reionization-Limited H I Cloud, or "RELHIC.” The term “H I” refers to neutral hydrogen, and “RELHIC” describes a natal hydrogen cloud from the universe’s early days, a fossil leftover that has not formed stars. … The cloud may eventually form a galaxy in the future, provided it grows more massive — although how that would occur is under speculation. If it were much bigger, say, more than 5 billion times the mass of our Sun, it would have collapsed, formed stars, and become a galaxy that would be no different than any other galaxy we see. If it were much smaller than that, the gas could have been dispersed and ionized and there wouldn't be much left. But it’s in a sweet spot where it could remain as a RELHIC. https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/nasas-hubble-examines-cloud-9-first-of-new-type-of-object/

The thread title mentions authoritarianism and yet there’s no subsequent mention of it. You shift gears to financial aristocracy. “In particular, these laws are always aimed at suppressing the small businesses” Always? How is it that there are still small businesses? So why do the elite sometimes complain about candidates? Wow, there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate? It’s almost like people have varied interests and motivations or something. One thing I find tiresome about your posts is the tendency to paint things in absolutes, when that doesn’t exist. There are no political positions that get 100% approval. You can’t have a reasoned discussion about real systems when the ones presented are impossible ones that don’t exist, and can’t possibly exist.

The Affordable Care Act cut the number of uninsured in half, which was a step in the right direction. The current disaster of an administration is undoing that, but is making the case for national insurance.

You didn’t make a distinction in your objection; I’m not sure why science conspiracies should be treated differently. And if you read the Japan article, one of them is about earthquakes being induced artificially. Which is the conspiracy approach, rather than the critical thinking approach, much like the scientific one, which is to require evidence. A common element in conspiracy is mistrust of authority, so this does not follow. You could take a physics class and reject the teaching based on that mistrust. Similar to crackpottery, which we see around here quite a bit.

I’m sure you have evidence that only Americans believed the hoax. Otherwise you’re just American-bashing. Again.

The US has excellent healthcare. It has horrible healthcare access.

Yup. I’ve never had cancer, ergo it’s no big deal

Wow, what a crappy argument! Just because something is not personally experienced by you in no way impacts the truth or validity of others’ experiences. And being a statistical argument, it means that you are looking at the total effect of all events. I’m not sure that willful ignorance is something people find persuasive, especially in a science discussion setting People being lazy and/or dishonest is an indictment of those people, not statistics. If there is fault to be found you can dig into the methodology for that. But a blanket dismissal is not an argument to be taken seriously. And were not provided, yet the argument was made anyway.

I can’t begin to understand how people could think this conspiracy theory was true https://gizmodo.com/no-earth-wont-lose-gravity-for-7-seconds-on-august-12-nasa-says-2000711970?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPcpGNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEehrTBUqGLZGFofgeantDjZutdIdMMTgKc9DcSJiTWwr-FCBs1DLQvLpEOmE0_aem_HrwYsNQzUCA1gDyknQ6IGg The claim: “In November 2024, a secret NASA document titled “Project Anchor” leaked online. The project’s budget is $89 billion, and its goal is to survive a 7-second gravitational anomaly expected on August 12, 2026, at 14:33 UTC [10:33 a.m. ET].” “The text went on to claim that the anomaly would result from the intersection of two gravitational waves from black holes, predicted by NASA in 2019 with a probability of 94.7%. It also claimed the agency is “building underground bunkers” to provide refuge for government leaders, scientists, military personnel, and “selected citizens with genetic diversity” during the event.” “When Snopes contacted NASA about the rumor, a spokesperson said exactly what we’re all thinking: That’s not how gravity works.”

So gravity depends on your culture? In some cultures you can violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? That’s a pretty bold claim.

This reads like a copy/paste from a chatbot. Did you use one to generate this? But yes, you need to show how one is able to test the hypothesis. It needs to make specific predictions, and fit with existing observations. e.g. how can two masses have a relative speed of they’re moving at the speed of light? And if light speed is not invariant, how do you explain relativistic effects?

So in saying “Isn't God a way of removing subjectivity?” you didn’t mean that at all? But it’s the scientists who do that work (whether it’s all that hard is debatable) Not the institution of science, nor the average person who uses it. But one can ask for the reasoning behind the answers, if one is so inclined, and it’s not “because <deity> has commanded it” And there isn’t a different answer that depends on the discipline of science. It’s not like conservation of energy is something physics requires but chemistry rejects. Unlike e.g. eating pork or drinking alcohol in religion.

“At Dahlgren, West devoted herself to solving one of science’s most complex challenges: accurately modeling the shape of the Earth. Her painstaking calculations and programming helped transform raw satellite data into precise geodetic models, enabling reliable satellite-based navigation. That work ultimately became the backbone of the Global Positioning System (GPS) — now essential to aviation, shipping, emergency response, smartphones, and daily life worldwide.” https://thezebra.org/2026/01/18/dr-gladys-west-mathematician-whose-work-made-gps-possible-dies-at-95/

The fact that there is more than one indicates subjectivity rather than objectivity What they remove/reduce is the reasoning process.

Where did you hear this? From a credible source? https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/influenza-shows-no-seasonality-tropics-posing-challenges-health-care “new research led by Penn State has found little evidence of a repeatable pattern in influenza cases in Vietnam. The findings suggest that influenza is likely unpredictable throughout the tropics” https://respiratory-therapy.com/disorders-diseases/infectious-diseases/influenza/influenza-tropics-shows-variable-seasonality/ “The authors found that flu activity patterns in the tropics and subtropics were much more complex than in the temperate northern and southern hemispheres. They were able to discern patterns in influenza activity for 70 countries and found most of these had one or two distinct peaks per year. Countries nearest to the equator often had year-round flu activity.” (emphasis added)

Which one?