"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese"
-Mr. Burns
Nonsense. Operating a dangerous machine on public roads is not a right. Driving is an action that inherently puts other people at significant risk of death or injury; requiring operators of motor vehicles to be licensed is no more an infringement of liberties than outlawing shooting your gun into the air on a crowded city street.
I'm sorry, I don't get it. Could you do a car analogy? Oh, wait...
You'd think it would cannibalize the competition's product lines, too. And that's usually a desireable thing.
Yes, but where's the conspiracy in this? No fun. You can't just post sane counterarguments against conspiracies, people would have to actually think critically about their views, and can't just spew "Corporations BAAAD". And we can't have that, now can we.
Arguably, the reason the EU was brought into existence was to compete with the US.
No, it was started to make sure the (western) european markets for goods needed to wage war, coal and steel, was so integrated in that war in Europe became impossible. Well, the European Coal and Steel Community, anyway, which was the predecessor of the predecessor of.... of the EU.
Arachnophobia is the most common phobia, certainly in the western world. It's certainly not innate. Babies show no fear of spider at all.
Ahh, yes, in the same way that womens periods, puberty and old age are cultural and not biological phenomenons. They certainly aren't there from the birth, so that is the only other possibility, right?
It depends on the nature of the radiation. X-rays are more effectively scattered and absorbed by heavy materials (I think it is proportinal to the amount of electrons, which is nearly proportional to the mass), particles are most effectively stopped by something with about the same mass, as this make the momentum transferred in each collision bigger. As most particle radiation has masses around the masses of the lightest elements (most of it is protons), light elements do this better.
So, legitimately, how powerful is a wall-hanging logo for Pepsi in some random goofy youtube video ACTUALLY going to be?Am I a total oddity in not even noticing most advertising?
Ahh, so you don't notice it, so your defences are down. Excellent, our marketing department will be very pleased to hear.
Commercials are considered more effective if people don't notice them, it is much easier to get an emotional response to a brand if you don't have to go through all the conscient processes, but can jump straight to the subconscience.
We already know that a statement like the continuum hypothesis can be proved neither true nor false from ZFC. We don't need Godel's theorem to prove "incompleteness or inconsistency" when we have lots of practical examples of its incompleteness.
As another poster said, we don't know if it is consistant, and if it isn't consistant, it is trivially complete.
Additionally, consider the set S of all possible propositions of set theory. Somewhere in the power set of S must lie the set of all true propositions. Just take these as your axioms. Voila, a formal system that is both complete and consistent. Your characterization of Godel's theorem is incorrect.
Hmm, I'm not sure S is a set at all, it just might be to big. It must surely hold at least one set for set in the theory (X is empty is a theorem for every X), and so it's cardinality must be equal to or bigger then the cardinality af "the set of all sets", which is not a set (see Russels paradox). I might be overlooking something, though. And it doesn't change that much, you can still take all true statements as axioms, but you can't use the formulation you just did.
Modern medicine may SAVE people that "should have" died and not passed on their genes. For better or worse, this is different than what happens outside of human society.
It's not that different from a change in climate bringing more rain and thereby saving the portion of a species which have lower drought-tolerance, and which therefore "should have" died out. Evolution have no "should have", it just reacts to which individuals breed succesfully and which doesn't. Modern medicine is just another change in the environment of mankind, and as long as we can remain in that environment it won't change that much.
Further, we have known for a while now about natural fission reactors in Africa that, while showing evidence of functioning at one time, could not have possibly ever worked given our current value of the FSC.
In short: looks like radioactive decay isn't so constant.
Actually, quite the opposite. The Oklo find indicates that alpha has not changed, though it could be that other properties have also changed and exactly offset the change in alpha.
It couldn't have happened today because there is to small a proportion of U-235 realtive to U-238, because the former have a shorter halflife.
I'm a scientifically-minded skeptic, but I gotta say I disagree with you 100% here. I think that the essence of science is doubt, skepticism, and inquiry.
Exactly, and your science teacher seems to have understood the doubt and skepticism, but overlooked the inquiry. The answer to the question you raised is widely known and easily found, if you go just a little beyond high-school books.
Of course, I have no way of knowing if this was typical of him or just an overlook on his part. It's not that there isn't problems with cosmology, but the precision of radiodating is not one of them. However, it is a subject creationists are fond of proclaiming to be a problem, which explains why people react so harsh to it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese"
-Mr. Burns
Well, asmentioned earlier, The Joker already has a dutch ID-card.
Nonsense. Operating a dangerous machine on public roads is not a right. Driving is an action that inherently puts other people at significant risk of death or injury; requiring operators of motor vehicles to be licensed is no more an infringement of liberties than outlawing shooting your gun into the air on a crowded city street.
I'm sorry, I don't get it. Could you do a car analogy? Oh, wait...
You'd think it would cannibalize the competition's product lines, too. And that's usually a desireable thing.
Yes, but where's the conspiracy in this? No fun. You can't just post sane counterarguments against conspiracies, people would have to actually think critically about their views, and can't just spew "Corporations BAAAD". And we can't have that, now can we.
Arguably, the reason the EU was brought into existence was to compete with the US.
No, it was started to make sure the (western) european markets for goods needed to wage war, coal and steel, was so integrated in that war in Europe became impossible. Well, the European Coal and Steel Community, anyway, which was the predecessor of the predecessor of .... of the EU.
Arachnophobia is the most common phobia, certainly in the western world. It's certainly not innate. Babies show no fear of spider at all.
Ahh, yes, in the same way that womens periods, puberty and old age are cultural and not biological phenomenons. They certainly aren't there from the birth, so that is the only other possibility, right?
It depends on the nature of the radiation. X-rays are more effectively scattered and absorbed by heavy materials (I think it is proportinal to the amount of electrons, which is nearly proportional to the mass), particles are most effectively stopped by something with about the same mass, as this make the momentum transferred in each collision bigger. As most particle radiation has masses around the masses of the lightest elements (most of it is protons), light elements do this better.
Hmm, I see... But wouldn't "X is not empty" be a propostion for all sets X? How can it not be? This seems to lead to a variant of the Berry paradox.
So, legitimately, how powerful is a wall-hanging logo for Pepsi in some random goofy youtube video ACTUALLY going to be?Am I a total oddity in not even noticing most advertising?
Ahh, so you don't notice it, so your defences are down. Excellent, our marketing department will be very pleased to hear. Commercials are considered more effective if people don't notice them, it is much easier to get an emotional response to a brand if you don't have to go through all the conscient processes, but can jump straight to the subconscience.
We already know that a statement like the continuum hypothesis can be proved neither true nor false from ZFC. We don't need Godel's theorem to prove "incompleteness or inconsistency" when we have lots of practical examples of its incompleteness.
As another poster said, we don't know if it is consistant, and if it isn't consistant, it is trivially complete.
Additionally, consider the set S of all possible propositions of set theory. Somewhere in the power set of S must lie the set of all true propositions. Just take these as your axioms. Voila, a formal system that is both complete and consistent. Your characterization of Godel's theorem is incorrect.
Hmm, I'm not sure S is a set at all, it just might be to big. It must surely hold at least one set for set in the theory (X is empty is a theorem for every X), and so it's cardinality must be equal to or bigger then the cardinality af "the set of all sets", which is not a set (see Russels paradox). I might be overlooking something, though. And it doesn't change that much, you can still take all true statements as axioms, but you can't use the formulation you just did.
Achille and Giovanni Judica. skeptoid had a good episode about them resently.
Actually, it is, in Australia.
And sorry that was the joke and it went over my head, but at least one sibling post didn't get it
No, the electrical energy ends up as heat sooner or later, so solar energy increases the amount of heat absorbed by the earth as a whole.
Modern medicine may SAVE people that "should have" died and not passed on their genes. For better or worse, this is different than what happens outside of human society.
It's not that different from a change in climate bringing more rain and thereby saving the portion of a species which have lower drought-tolerance, and which therefore "should have" died out. Evolution have no "should have", it just reacts to which individuals breed succesfully and which doesn't. Modern medicine is just another change in the environment of mankind, and as long as we can remain in that environment it won't change that much.
No, but perhaps asparagus
Further, we have known for a while now about natural fission reactors in Africa that, while showing evidence of functioning at one time, could not have possibly ever worked given our current value of the FSC. In short: looks like radioactive decay isn't so constant.
Actually, quite the opposite. The Oklo find indicates that alpha has not changed, though it could be that other properties have also changed and exactly offset the change in alpha. It couldn't have happened today because there is to small a proportion of U-235 realtive to U-238, because the former have a shorter halflife.
I'm a scientifically-minded skeptic, but I gotta say I disagree with you 100% here. I think that the essence of science is doubt, skepticism, and inquiry.
Exactly, and your science teacher seems to have understood the doubt and skepticism, but overlooked the inquiry. The answer to the question you raised is widely known and easily found, if you go just a little beyond high-school books.
Of course, I have no way of knowing if this was typical of him or just an overlook on his part. It's not that there isn't problems with cosmology, but the precision of radiodating is not one of them. However, it is a subject creationists are fond of proclaiming to be a problem, which explains why people react so harsh to it.