Strange

This is another unsupported assertion. And also the fallacy of begging the question. If you have nothing to contribute but just repeating your beliefs, then we should ask the mods to close the thread.

Wash it up with lots of water. Bleach can be a skin irritant so you might want to wear gloves. Even if minute amounts of chloroform was created it is unlikely to be dangerous. Open the windows if you are worried.

So you keep saying. It is getting boring.

So you can twist the facts enough to make it sound like he wasn't actually lying. Well done you. But he didn't just say there were illegal votes. He said there were millions. Trying to say that isn't a lie is ludicrous. Shame there isn't an "irony" vote.

That is because they are accurate descriptions and the universe is (luckily) consistent and predictable. Huh? That is the most bizarrely illogical statement I have heard for a long time. It is close to "affirming the consequent" but less rational.

How do you know there isn't a cause? You arguments consist entirely of baseless assertions of your belief. Not very convincing, I'm afraid. After all, using exactly the same level of logic and evidence I can simply say: you are wrong.

So, be the same "logic", your computer cannot play videos because the logic gates and wires that make up the physical processes of the computer cannot play videos. Brilliant.

It shouldn't be, if you use styles. It should take a few seconds. Admittedly, each release of Word has made it harder to do this properly ... it is may be near impossible now.

I don't have any direct involvement in your politics, but it is obvious that Trump is (and always has been) a compulsive liar. He claimed to have invented the phrase "prime the pump" and "fake news" (I'm being generous with the second one, he actually said he had invented the word "fake") which could be demonstrations of stunning ignorance but are more likely just lies. He doesn't know the difference between a lie and a fact. In his mind, if he says it then it is true. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658 http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

It is pretty obvious that most mathematicians and philosophers would think exactly the opposite.

You seem to have this the wrong way round: the mathematics is continuous but the application may, in some circumstances, have to be discrete. A sine function is continuous. If you want to calculate a sine function with a calculator, then you will be limited to the values that the calculator can represent. That isn't mathematics, it is engineering. But maybe this deserves a separate thread...

Er, no. A sine function is continuous. GR depends on space being continuous (and differentiable). The reals form a continuum. And so on.

And to make it more complicated /realistic, the cleaner may be a refugee from a war torn country (where the war was largely paid for by the USA) with a degree in medicine and a decade or two of experience. But all his hard work counts for nothing because of his bad luck.

Waves are continuous, not discrete. And wave phenomena are usually fairly easy to visualise (because we encounter waves and other periodic behaviours quite often). Quantum effects are less intuitive. I assume the explanations for why light with one polarisation is absorbed preferentially is because the crystal planes have more/strong bonds in one direction than the other. That causes a stronger absorption for some polarisations than others (just as described previously for the polarising filter). That is not what happens. They are preferentially scattered in one direction (because they are polarised) this means the beam can only be seen from one direction.

It's so unfair, isn't it.

The odd thing is that much of the article seems to be reasonably accurate (it may be copied from Wikipedia, I haven't checked) but has these weird political accusations thrown in!

Because quantum electrodynamics is complicated! But maybe someone familiar with the mechanism can provide a simple explanation.

The crystal structure means that light polarised one direction is absorbed more than light polarised at right angles. (Again, from the photon view, this is related to how the photons interact with the electrons in the asymmetrical crystal structure - but I doubt there is a simple explanation of that.) So you send unpolarised light in and you get polarised light out because the other polarisation is absorbed: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/polabs.html There is another mechanism where crystals can polarise light: https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Petrology/xls-pol.htm

Weirdly, part of their argument seems to be that scientists deny the existence of white holes because it sounds like "creation" (of matter, etc.) not because there is no evidence for them. But scientists accept the existence of black holes because ... liberals. Or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser What is even cooler, they occur naturally in interstellar space!

I don't know you. I can only react to what you say. For example: No one is asking you to. Are they? This is just a silly straw man argument. And it sounds as if you are using that to avoid any responsibility for society as a whole. The rest of your post is "I ... I ... I ...", which, I suspect, says a lot.

How about a microwave laser?

But you said that such a scheme was unfair. That was the point being made. I thought you said that that those who had worked hard for their wealth shouldn't have to support others. With all this wishy-washy liberalism you are now espousing, I might have to cancel my downvote!

All orientations exist before the polarising filter. (In other words, the light is unpolarised.) Only the orientations that can get through exist after the filter. That is why the light is polarised. The description above in terms of particles is quite good at avoiding one of the shortcomings of the "pole" analogy, which is that pole either goes through or it doesn't. The photons have a probability of passing through with a given polarisation.

OK. So the amplitude of the wave at any given polarisation is related to the probability of a photon with that polarisation passing through. That makes sense. Is there some relationship between the spin of the photon and polarisation?