ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th January 2019, 11:15 PM   #361
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
 
SusanB-M1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,621
I love this thread - especially as it is such a refreshinly down-to-earth contrast to the GH forum's Author of the Month board, where January's book, introduced by an article by the author, I have challenged, but it's like trying to fight cottonwool!!
SusanB-M1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:04 AM   #362
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,907
A very recent scientific fact: The sounds of crickets "are not physically dangerous and do not constitute a sonic attack."
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 02:13 AM   #363
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,159
Originally Posted by dann View Post
A very recent scientific fact: The sounds of crickets "are not physically dangerous and do not constitute a sonic attack."
Is anybody else thinking, "Do not panic. Think only of yourself"?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 03:30 AM   #364
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,971
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I don't understand what is imperfect about an ellipse.
It's not ellipses that are imperfect; it's orbits that are imperfect as ellipses. (They don't follow the same track repeatedly forever; they do things like decay and precess, if allowed to keep going around enough thousands of times.)
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 03:42 AM   #365
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,503
I think when it comes to ellipses and circles the real issue is one of simplicity. A circle is a simpler shape than an ellipse in the sense that one piece of information (it's radius) is enough to characterise a circle, whereas two pieces of information are necessary to characterise an ellipse.

Why would people have preferred theories with simple rather than more complex shapes? One reason is that a simple theory is more constrained, harder to fit to the data after the fact. If you can find a circle that fits a planet's orbit, there's probably something going on there. If you can just draw a squiggly line and call that the planet's orbit, you have a description rather than a theory.

It turns out that the ancients were wrong about circular orbits, but I'm not so confident that they were entirely misguided in considering models with circular orbits preferable to other shapes. Of course the most important question is still the empirical question of whether or not the model fits the data.

Thinks like simplicity and elegance in our theories are still motiving factors in science today.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 10:21 AM   #366
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,764
Originally Posted by TheGnome View Post
Here's an illustration with a sphere:

cone sphere cylinder

Hey look, it's a bit of bonus trivia! From that link:


Quote:
Illustration of 1:2:3 ratio of volumes and ϕ:2:3 ratio of total surface area of a cone, sphere and cylinder of the same radius and height.

That's neat.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 10:47 AM   #367
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
While not a scientific fact, Benford's Law is pretty interesting. Usually when I explain it to people, I just choose a few sets of data that I know will adhere to the law and state that they have a certain distribution of the leading digit. Then hope they protest so I can attempt to explain how it works.

One of the best examples I was able to come up with was the odometers of all cars in NYC. If you recorded all of these numbers and then just considered the leading digit (ignoring the zeros to the left). Most people intuitively think that there is a random distribution of numbers on the odometers and since there are nine digits to choose from (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) there would be an equal distribution with 11.11% of each digit.
Didn't know about Benford's law before, I don't understand why anyone would think it was 11.11%?

Surely any data count that goes from 0 upwards, over different magnitudes, is going to be overwhelmed with ones first.. the moment it ticks over to the next magnitude.. then the twos, then threes etc.

I intuitively would expect something like Benfords law, as the lower numbers are the first to appear in the next order of magnitude sort of thing.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 10:55 AM   #368
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,858
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
Didn't know about Benford's law before, I don't understand why anyone would think it was 11.11%?

Because leading zeros don't count and that's what 1 divided by 9 is as a percentage.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:21 AM   #369
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Because leading zeros don't count and that's what 1 divided by 9 is as a percentage.
Well yeah I get that,

I meant I don't understand why anyone would think that would be the solution.
numbers go up, 1's are the first number you get to when going up an order of magnitude and there will be more of them until the others catch up, then when you hit the next order of magnitude the 1's become more again etc.

Intuitively I wouldn't expect equal odds for each number, I would expect more 1's than 2's, more 2's than 3's etc.

Last edited by p0lka; 11th January 2019 at 11:22 AM.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:30 AM   #370
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by JDC View Post
I knew that neutrinos are coy little beasts but I had no idea ...

In Brian Green's multiverse book, The Hidden Reality, he notes that they can pass through a LIGHT YEAR of solid lead and not interact with it in the least!



Cheers,
Jeff
They can, though some will hit something on the way.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:32 AM   #371
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,858
Sorry, I didn't understand you to be saying that you were questioning why people would assume it's random. Got it now.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:37 AM   #372
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,650
Completely obvious, but still kind of awesome:

It takes a photon up to 40,000 years to travel from the core to the surface of the sun, but only something like 8 minutes to travel from the surface to Earth.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:45 AM   #373
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,858
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Completely obvious, but still kind of awesome:

It takes a photon up to 40,000 years to travel from the core to the surface of the sun, but only something like 8 minutes to travel from the surface to Earth.
Well, not so obvious and actually a bit dubious since the photons that reach the surface arne't the same photons that left the core. In fact the photons in the core lead to many photons at the surface since the temperatures/frequencies are vastly different.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:49 AM   #374
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,650
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Well, not so obvious and actually a bit dubious since the photons that reach the surface arne't the same photons that left the core. In fact the photons in the core lead to many photons at the surface since the temperatures/frequencies are vastly different.
Photons are created in the core and radiated at the surface. You might say they 'diffuse' to the surface.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 11:58 AM   #375
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,858
The energy diffuses. The photons that leave the surface are created at or near the surface, not the core. The photons that are created in the core are also destroyed in the core.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 12:04 PM   #376
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,860
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Photons are created in the core and radiated at the surface. You might say they 'diffuse' to the surface.
Yuppy's right. The photon gets absorbed, and a new one created, and so on and so forth. That's why it takes so long. If it were the same photon they'd get out at light speed without interruption.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 12:21 PM   #377
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,650
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yuppy's right. The photon gets absorbed, and a new one created, and so on and so forth. That's why it takes so long. If it were the same photon they'd get out at light speed without interruption.
I'm fine with saying that the energy diffuses to the surface.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:03 PM   #378
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Completely obvious, but still kind of awesome:

It takes a photon up to 40,000 years to travel from the core to the surface of the sun, but only something like 8 minutes to travel from the surface to Earth.
Depends from what point of view
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 01:10 PM   #379
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,676
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
Well yeah I get that,

I meant I don't understand why anyone would think that would be the solution.
numbers go up, 1's are the first number you get to when going up an order of magnitude and there will be more of them until the others catch up, then when you hit the next order of magnitude the 1's become more again etc.

Intuitively I wouldn't expect equal odds for each number, I would expect more 1's than 2's, more 2's than 3's etc.
You're misunderstanding in precisely the opposite way. Most people have difficulty grasping why the leading digit does not have an equal chance of being 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9. And you're having difficulty understanding why they would think that in the first place! Usually, I end up having to explain what you've already intuited.

The way they are (mis) understanding it is by thinking it is "random" data, so each digit is equally likely to appear at each position. Falsified financial data for example is particularly easy to find this way because the false data was created by someone who does not understand this. They choose randomly for the first digit, randomly for the second, etc. Whoops!
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 02:18 PM   #380
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,190
I like the Golden ratio Phi - a/b = (a+b)/a and how it is contained in the ratios of the sides of the pentagram.

Not so impressed with the way the wooly headed try to make it fit just about everything in nature.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 02:30 PM   #381
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,190
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I don't understand what is imperfect about an ellipse. A circle isn't better, it's just a special case ellipse with both foci in the same place.
Well you see quadraginta its just an illustration of how things just happen in the real world of imperfection. Sure an ellipse can be perfectly symmetrical as I explained post #350, but that doesn't occur in nature either as gravitational pull from other bodies will cause bumps and wobbles.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 02:37 PM   #382
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,531
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
You're misunderstanding in precisely the opposite way. Most people have difficulty grasping why the leading digit does not have an equal chance of being 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9. And you're having difficulty understanding why they would think that in the first place! Usually, I end up having to explain what you've already intuited.

The way they are (mis) understanding it is by thinking it is "random" data, so each digit is equally likely to appear at each position. Falsified financial data for example is particularly easy to find this way because the false data was created by someone who does not understand this. They choose randomly for the first digit, randomly for the second, etc. Whoops!
Yes, i agree. In examples like speedometers or odometers or Falsified financial data etc, it's not random. They start from 0 and count up and so will get many more 1's when they go up a magnitude.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 08:22 PM   #383
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,583
Originally Posted by dann View Post
A very recent scientific fact: The sounds of crickets "are not physically dangerous and do not constitute a sonic attack."

Sure, but their study didn't include genetically altered Death Crickets™ from Siberia.

So it isn't relevant.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 08:26 PM   #384
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,583
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
It's not ellipses that are imperfect; it's orbits that are imperfect as ellipses. (They don't follow the same track repeatedly forever; they do things like decay and precess, if allowed to keep going around enough thousands of times.)


Yeah. I understand all that.

But that isn't what Thor 2 was talking about. He was specifically saying that elliptical orbits were not perfect because they weren't circular orbits..
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2019, 08:35 PM   #385
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,583
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well you see quadraginta its just an illustration of how things just happen in the real world of imperfection. Sure an ellipse can be perfectly symmetrical as I explained post #350, but that doesn't occur in nature either as gravitational pull from other bodies will cause bumps and wobbles.

Except that isn't what you said. at least not the way I read it.
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
One of my favourite scientific facts is imperfection.

Elliptical not circular orbits,
spheroidal not spherical planets, spinning and orbital speeds slowing down and so on. I like this because it thumbs it's nose at religious claims of gods making perfect stuff.
Nothing there about other bodies causing bumps and wobbles.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 03:16 PM   #386
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,539
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Except that isn't what you said. at least not the way I read it.
Nothing there about other bodies causing bumps and wobbles.
"...Forget about it, quadraginta. It's ISFtown ..."
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 04:51 PM   #387
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,190
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Except that isn't what you said. at least not the way I read it.
Nothing there about other bodies causing bumps and wobbles.

You're desperate to score a point here I see. We can always add bumps and wobbles to further illustrate the point. The point being that nothing is perfect in nature ........ got it?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 06:17 PM   #388
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,378
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Perfection is a subjective, aesthetic judgement.

"Ellipses are imperfect" is neither "scientific" nor a "fact".
It was, for a while, accepted as a fact in astronomical circles - such as they were.

Specifically, the orbits of the planets, having been ordained by God, were accepted to be circles, and circles were "perfect" in the sense accepted at the time.

When the emerging science of astronomy discovered that circles didn't work, epicycles were introduced, which were tolerated because they were circles within circles.

Galileo and others had to tread very carefully indeed. The acceptance of ellipses as representations (no matter how imperfect themselves) of planetary orbits required a major paradigm shift within astronomy.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2019, 07:26 PM   #389
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,526
A small population of Woolly Mammoths survived until as recently as 2000 B.C., contemporary with the ancient Egyptian pyramid builders.

Now that fact blew my mind.

Last edited by Venom; 12th January 2019 at 07:27 PM.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 09:42 AM   #390
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,931
And there was a population of (relatively) tiny mammoths on California's Channel Islands!
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 02:01 PM   #391
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,190
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
A small population of Woolly Mammoths survived until as recently as 2000 B.C., contemporary with the ancient Egyptian pyramid builders.

Now that fact blew my mind.

So that's how they moved those big stones around. This will blow Von Däniken out of the water! Hang on, I think he got blown out of the water a long time ago.


On the subject of the pyramids I visited them a number of years ago and had a good look at the construction - with my critical engineers eyes.

The precision in the construction is impressive, but the method of fitting one rock to another is most obviously not the result of machinery being used.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 05:14 PM   #392
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,587
An electron moving forward in time is in every way identical to a positron moving backward in time.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Orbem consistite ut escendam!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 07:54 PM   #393
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,858
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
An electron moving forward in time is in every way identical to a positron moving backward in time.

Except for the direction in time and positron/electron distinction.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 07:59 PM   #394
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,587
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Except for the direction in time and positron/electron distinction.
Um, yeah. Except for that.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Orbem consistite ut escendam!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 08:14 PM   #395
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,552
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Except for the direction in time and positron/electron distinction.
No, not except for that. Including that. That's the whole point.

An electron moving forward in time is distinguishable from a positron moving forward in time. And a positron moving forward in time is distinguishable from a positron moving backward in time. But an electron moving forward in time and a positron moving backward in time are indistinguishable, because swapping both together produces no observable difference.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 08:35 PM   #396
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,858
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, not except for that. Including that. That's the whole point.

An electron moving forward in time is distinguishable from a positron moving forward in time. And a positron moving forward in time is distinguishable from a positron moving backward in time. But an electron moving forward in time and a positron moving backward in time are indistinguishable, because swapping both together produces no observable difference.

You know I'm aware of that, right?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 08:46 PM   #397
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,587
Regardless, it's pretty mind-blowing.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Orbem consistite ut escendam!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 09:51 PM   #398
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 3,187
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
it wasn't in an orbit - it just materializes above the earth alongside a bowl of petunias. So all friction would come from acceleration from gravity, not slowing down in the upper atmosphere for re-entry.

My guess would be that recognizable bits of whale would make it all the way to a few inches above the surface.

Why petunias?


Why not geraniums? Or asafoetidas?
__________________
Over we go....
xterra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 09:58 PM   #399
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,587
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Why petunias?


Why not geraniums? Or asafoetidas?
Infinite Improbability.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Orbem consistite ut escendam!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2019, 10:02 PM   #400
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,650
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Why petunias?


Why not geraniums? Or asafoetidas?
That's just how reincarnation works.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.