swansont

I don't believe that to be true. The sampling error is the square root of the sample size if it's white noise. Seeing as your data points are around 2 deviations from the average (9±3, so 2 deviations is 15 and 3), so being substantially less than 1% doesn't seem like a reasonable conclusion. And that excludes any bias which would give you a systematic shift. Are there any other 14-day windows with such large and small counts that aren't associated with an earthquake? ——— How do you get 9 earthquake per two-week period, anyway? 151 quakes in 33 years. There are 26 two-week spans per year, so there are 858 bins in the data set. How do you get 9 quakes per period from that? How do you get 21 riots per earthquake (16 before, 5 after) with 151 quakes and only 64 riots?

As a resident of DC I can observe that benign quakes have an outsized effect, since buildings in quiet areas are generally not built with quakes in mind. We had a 5.8 quake here a few years ago. Lots of damage. We got laughed at by the southern California crowd, because for them that quake is not unusual. (Turnabout being fair play, they freaked out when the temperature dropped to freezing a couple of years later) How close are the earthquakes to the riots? Klaynos mentioned small data sets, which looks to be a big issue. Are your results statistically significant? If so, at what level?

If things were randomly distributed. But the aftermath of an earthquake might occupy peoples' attention, making them less likely to engage in acts of civil unrest.

overtone has been banned. Since racism has been added to previous transgressions (hijacking, abusive behavior, soapboxing, failure to take directions from mods when asked for evidence), we decided that's enough.

There was a report on a locked thread in the Lounge, citing the "Discuss life, work, school, anything!" description, implying that the anything literally means that anything can be discussed. That's ridiculous. The rules still apply. You can't use the Lounge to post things that we would crack down on elsewhere for rules violations. It's not a consequences-free zone. Further, and I really don't think this should have to be pointed out, the implicit meaning is "anything you wouldn't be talking about in the categories we have set up", which is a broader application of the desire for posts to be on-topic and relevant to a discussion. Posting in the Lounge rather than in an appropriate sub-forum is lazy and a bit rude (especially if one does it habitually)* If you want to be free to post anything you like, start up a blog or tumblr somewhere. It's pretty easy to do. *edit to add: posting in speculations for similar reasons is equally lazy.

shmengie has been suspended 7 days for repeated thread hijacking

! Moderator Note New thread merged with existing discussion

Robbitybob1's ability to create content has been removed for 2 days, so that he may contemplate how to stay on-topic and refrain from hijacking threads. Edit: this has been upgraded to a full suspension

redkiss has been banned as a sockpuppet of rusek and various other incarnations of Maciej Marosz (some of which were spam-banned and thus erased)

From a recent report: Closed threads aren't necessarily due to rules violations; they can simply run their course. If the OP is not amenable to modifying their claim in the light of evidence and we keep running over the same ground, we are going to close the thread. There's no point to continued discourse. Warning about an infraction is a courtesy, of sorts, especially if one has had similar discussions closed before, as in this case. In that case it makes pleading ignorance farcical.

Atlas Hyperion has been banned as a sockpuppet of SigmaR.I.F.T_CKF (and of VehGalTal)

We get about 1 inquiry a year about why e.g. there is no economics forum. So it's a question of supply and demand.

In response to a request, MonDie has been granted a six-month sabbatical.

Frank Martin DiMeglio has been suspended for two weeks for spamming us with the same topic, after repeatedly being told not to re-introduce the subject.

puppypower has been suspended 7 days for repeated thread hijacking and soapboxing.

The speculations section is not an open forum for discussing whatever you wish. You are expected to follow the guidelines and the broader rules of the forums, and that includes addressing questions/objections (i.e. not soapboxing) and supporting your claims. If you don't you will lose the privelege of further discussion on the topic. The staff isn't particularly interested in the prospect of repeating the effort of reminding you to follow the rules if you've never demonstrated any inclination of doing so.

puppypower has been suspended a week for repeated thread hijacking.

What distance is measured in an atomic clock?

We're not talking about a pendulum clock, we're talking about quantum mechanics. This is the same issue I've had all along in this thread: the presumption of classical physics when dealing with QM. You can't do it. What distance is measured in an atomic clock?

Your answer addressed nothing about what I asked, which was about the best way to go about effecting change. You will be relieved to know that I said nothing of the sort. Go ahead and reread it. I mentioned archaeology once, and it's difficult for me to see how you misconstrue what I actually said to mean that it doesn't deserve its own section. Could be discussed is not the same as must be discussed. No, not really. If you bring up an aspect of e.g. relativity that's philosophy, then you discuss it there. But if it's not, then it's not appropriate to discuss it there. It's not like these are interchangeable. Religion and philosophy are considered to be part of the humanities. The bottom line is that anyone who runs an internet discussion board can decide what gets discussed there. Do you get that? You have zero actual leverage in this. You have persuasion, and (getting back to what I asked earlier) you might consider what happens depending on how you present your position. You come in with swagger and bluster with the appearance of attempting to intimidate, and no attempt at presenting a case, then I'm not inclined to acquiesce to your request. All you do is make it easy to tune you out.

Carbon dating is a matter of physics. Mathematics used by ancients, hmm, where could we discuss that? Maybe in mathematics? Evolution and natural selection... gosh, if only there was a subtopic of biology where we could discuss that. Oh wait, there is! Psychology — hey, there it is in the medical science forum! Ethics? We've got that, too. And you're also listing chemistry as something we don't have? Are you kidding? So in your shopping list of complaints, you whiffed on eight of the nine items. Combined with this "slap in the face" comment below, it sounds an awful lot like this is just an example of being an outrage troll. Religion is included as a subset of philosophy, which has a connection with science. Given your success rate of complaint, I have to wonder how you can see blinders with the blast shield down. P.S "threw" is the past tense of throw. One who "threw out history" tossed history into the trash. What you want to use is "through"

Literally classical bigotry. Or classification. Many of these fields are widely considered to be part of the social sciences rather than the physical sciences (and others are humanities). So be angry with is if you want, but remember to be angry with pretty much every college and university that teaches the liberal arts and don't count those classes against their science requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_sciences Also that you listed religion, which is a topic we have. As far as archaeology goes, I don't necessarily disagree, but one might reflect on whether your approach is the best that one might follow if one is hoping to effect change. What do those social sciences tell you? Given the scientific nature of this site and the staff, especially.

This isn't a matter of making a small error where the person is otherwise well-versed in the material (like, you forgot to add a "+ C"; indefinite integrals only give an answer to within a constant.) But if the person hadn't learned calculus, that wouldn't make much sense. Do you think you could teach someone calculus — so they could actually DO calculus — in a forum post? Keeping in mind that it's a semester of college? Now multiply that, because the immersion into QM is multiple years (an intro "modern physics" class where you learn some basic concepts, undergrad QM, and graduate QM, which is often more than a year, and then applications of QM if you are doing physics that requires it) So no, I can't explain this to you in such a setting. Suffice to say that pop-sci exposure means you have learned a little about QM, but you really haven't learned any QM. If you can't go through and solve problems and understand their application, you aren't doing science. The thing that digs at me (here and elsewhere, since this isn't my first quantum rodeo) is the insinuation that your unwillingness to invest the time to learn or that it's not possible to gain the requisite expertise by reading a post or pop-sci article or wikipedia summary, somehow is my fault. (If you want to ensure someone's response, the best thing to do is to quote the post, so it's possible for a notification to appear.) In a microwave atomic clock, the transition is a spin-flip, and the electron is a point particle. (I.e. spin isn't physical motion). There is nothing that ties into distance traveled.

That's even more wrong than what Daedalus had claimed.

GlobalIntegrationInitiate has been banned as a sockpuppet of MWresearch