swansont

It looks to me like iNow has properly clarified their position on this, and I agree with the assessment that you should know how this works. It's not that the claim is untrue, it's that it's invalid without evidence to support it (which is why the inference - not the conclusion - is deemed false). And it's your burden to support the claim.

Really nuclear energy, misnamed. Pet peeve o' mine. Gave us images like and one here: https://www.toonsmag.com/herbert-block-1909/

Science provides us with knowledge. That this knowledge can be used for good or ill isn't science's fault - those are choices people make.

If that were the case there wouldn't be fusion going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core hydrogen mass fraction starts to decrease rapidly after the core radius has been reached (it is still about 70% at a radius equal to 25% of the Sun's radius) and inside this, the hydrogen fraction drops rapidly as the core is traversed, until it reaches a low of about 33% hydrogen, at the Sun's center (radius zero).[5] All but 2% of the remaining plasma mass (i.e., 65%) is helium, at the center of the Sun.

You gave a book title. A proper reference would include a page number. That, and the likelihood that you simply misunderstood the comment, or took it out of context. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claims. I asked a question, because it's laughable to suggest that particles cannot be contained. So it's obvious to me that there is detail being omitted, and you need to supply the detail. In my experience, scientists don't hand-wave in this fashion. A proper reference would include exactly where the source material can be found, and might even include a quote from the work in question, in order to establish the context. In any event, it's what we expect here on this forum. Fair use allows you to post passages. Projection?

That's already the case. The constant entropy condition is the crystal itself, and the state it's in, and ignores all of the equipment necessary to get the crystal into the state where this behavior is possible. The materials identified for these time crystals aren't very precise oscillators, and the things we use for precise clocks (i.e. atoms and ions) aren't candidates for time crystals. That doesn't preclude some candidate being identified in the future, but for now, and talk of time crystals as clocks is a nonstarter, other than as a novelty item. Plus, as you note above, reading out the oscillations would require interacting with the crystal, and you'd lose the constant-entropy condition. There are classical analogues to this, where you have master-slave pendulums, so the high-precision pendulum is only perturbed slightly, which minimizes the compromise to its behavior.

Or the tap water has gunk in it (that’s not common to both data sets). But I’d bet on moisturizer additives in the soap.

Nobody has gotten around the 2nd law, which states that entropy of an isolated system can’t decrease, and it hasn’t. Usually it increases, and in this case it hasn’t, or at least that’s apparently the case.

The issue isn’t that they change spins - the spins are undetermined until measured. And in entanglement, once you measure one particle, you know the spin of the other. It’s one event.

I’m on an iPad and it plays embedded. Maybe the OS capabilities impact this - whether some codec is supported, allowing embedded play? (edit: sorry, my earlier post was pre-caffeine and I thought you were apologizing for how the video rendered.)

The period varies with the square root of the length, so the oscillations are out of phase. But they will eventually get 180 deg. out of phase, and later back in phase, with each pendulum having completed a different number of oscillations, and relatively quickly if you choose the lengths properly.

Do you really think there were no transgender or intersex individuals in the population by the time we evolved into modern humans? We have two categories because that's a decent first-order approximation, which works most of the time for most people, and doesn't require any nuance (which is beyond some of the population) IOW, part of the reason we start with the premise of male/female is because it's easy. (It's not all that different from physics where we start with the idea of frictionless surfaces/no air resistance because it leads to problems we can solve exactly) Or we just deal with it and accept the fact that the really tall person might excel at the sport. Not everyone wins. As opposed to "we can't let this person compete because then this other person might not win" We already know from a biology standpoint that the binary system is wrong/incomplete. It's a matter of society, politics and economics (and probably other factors) that go into amending this

! Moderator Note Our rules specifically forbid this kind of post (2.7) "We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it."

And you chose not to link to the blog and the claims it makes.

Now, can you point out where ADE is mentioned? (and perhaps inform us as to what ADE stands for)

If you have a link, then I'm sure you've accessed the paper, and you should be able to copy/past the summary or abstract here into the forum (as StringJunky has done) and comply with rule 2.7 (people have to be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links)

Can you provide more information, such as the abstract of this paper?

But we've established that this is more nuanced than "male/female biology" so such comparisons start to prove problematic. (edit: part of the issue, in the US, at least, is the swath of people who have decided that it is as simple and two genders, because that's all that's acknowledged in the Bible, so any subtler detail recognized in biology is simply discarded) Do you look at the entire spectrum of competitors, or only the edge cases? IOW, are we comparing a person who is (gender)-assigned-at-birth but is transgender with an olympic athlete, or me? I don't disagree with either. But we also recognize that someone who is 6' 8" probably has an advantage over most people of even above average height (say, 6'2") in basketball or volleyball and nobody is complaining about accommodations for short people. Sex here does or could include gender. The realities I pointed out earlier mean this is more nuanced than a simple binary choice, and the courts have a say in what constitutes sex/gender in terms of discrimination. Do we make an exception for sports? If so, why?

One of the battles is to get people to accept the scientific evidence we do have. Namely that gender is not a simple two-category situation, and so one that's more complicated than dividing people into two groups based on what body parts you have, or what chromosomes you have. As for another part of this, I don't think billion-dollar sports organizations need my input on how to run their business.

That’s what we’re stuck with, at the moment. It’s not my insistence, per se. Society either does this, or excludes the triangle from participation. Thank for saving me from having to post this. (and technically I dehumanized all humans, which is kinda the point of the analogy. reduced emotional/ideological baggage)

Causality makes it relevant. Segregation cannot be caused by equality of opportunity, when equality happened after. There is no equality of opportunity when the platform doesn’t exist.

You seem to be speaking of league organizations. “women's sports organizations” is a much more general description. Non-professional leagues wouldn’t be making such rules. They would be following the laws that apply to them. Professional sports leagues would also be constrained by such laws.

! Moderator Note Who are these people? Once again, you make a nebulous claim with no substantiation. And without having established that this was the default position at some vague time in the past (yes, I noticed that you dodged that) Again: establish that your premise is true. Last chance.

The Women’s Sports Foundation is not a women’s sports organization. Huh.