If I may be pedantic, plants breath in oxygen as they metabolize sugar reserves, breathing out CO2. Their leaves make them net-fixers of CO2 though whenever the chloroplasts are struck with blue or red light in order to make ATP, which in turn becomes those sugars (and other building blocks, such as the plant itself).
Commonly mistaken for a planet, the Earth supercomputer has been working on finding the The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything for quite a while now, whose answer we know to be 42.
Smart people are also able to parse a particular field's body of knowledge and realize their own limitations, and know when and why to concede to a consensus of experts -- otherwise you get flat-Earthers.
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
This seems to mainly apply to the Vostok cores. When core samples from multiple sites are combined, the CO2 is shown to rise well before the warming. A short video by the University of Queensland attempts to clarify the evidence and a logical fallacy surrounding it (skip to 2:39 if you're impatient).
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
This seems to mainly apply to the Vostok cores. When core samples from multiple sites are combined, the CO2 is shown to rise well before the warming. A short video by the University of Queensland attempts to clarify the evidence and a logical fallacy surrounding it (skip to 2:39 if you're impatient).
I suspect he's talking about having multiple Kubernetes clusters available on the CLI, e.g. one local minikube cluster (virtualized through e.g. a headless Virtualbox or KVM), plus multiple cloud clusters (e.g. one for integration-testing, and one for production) via Microsoft Azure or Amazon AWS.
But Canonical's marketing is garbage. They should perhaps split the press releases for their Desktop, Server and Cloud editions.
Though I commend their effort to improve Chrome's phishing protection, this may also be used to track users' browsing habits and show better "interest-based ads," as vaguely hinted at in the extension's privacy policy.
It seems that we can neither convince each other through arguments, nor come to much of an agreement. I tried to explain why I think the scientific community regards Electric Universe as yet another pseudoscience, and will continue to do so until its proponents changes their approach to research.
1) Hmm, I used the algorithm you mentioned earlier for reaching that number, and the gravitational force between Alpha Centauri A+B and Proxima Centauri came out as 4.40 x 10E-13 "Earth gee's" at their current distance of about 13,000 AU. It's a magnitude above what you call "a completely inconsequential force," yet Proxima seems to be in orbit around them as per this paper: https://www.aanda.org/articles.... I don't see how gravitational interactions would cease shortly after this point, especially as star clusters, gas, dust and a lot of dark matter comes into play gravitationally at great distances.
2) We may have different viewpoints on how scientific progress should operate. I consider both the continual refinement of existing theories and investigation of paradigm-shifting hypotheses to be necessary for progressing. But for the paradigm-shifting hypotheses to deserve serious attention they need to be robust enough to explain and predict what the current leading theory does, and preferably some of its shortcomings, in a falsifiable manner. So I find the Electrical Universe model trying to explain way too much with sporadic and tangentially related data.
4) The Big Bang theory makes a bunch of necessary predictions. If, say, the cosmic microwave background radiation was found to have another source, or the universe was shown to not be expanding, or a distant galaxy is blue-shifted, or stars certainly older than 13.8 billion years were discovered... then the theory would be in trouble.
I'm aware of the galactic filaments in the universe, but I don't see how all this leads to an internally consistent alternative to the leading theories of dark matter and general relativity, which I know how they can accurately predict time dilation of GPS satellites and calculate trajectories across space. I remain unconvinced and unimpressed by the Electric Universe.
1) This is why individual stars far apart don't orbit each other, just like planets far apart don't orbit each other. Stars orbit around that which is gravitationally dominant to them, which is either the gravitational center if a compact star cluster, or the gravitational center of the galaxy it resides in.
2) You're confusing proofs with an inability to falsify. Proofs are for mathematics and philosophy. Science deals with evidence, and progresses by making theories successively better approximate observed phenomena. For this the scientific method is used to test hypothesis and theories, which accrue predictive and explanatory power by repeated failures to falsify them. That general relativity isn't tested well enough to your liking in an area isn't evidence against the theory, as you would instead need to successfully falsify the theory for this area if you want to replace it, and not be seen as yet another crank.
3) Tell him to work it into a falsifiable hypothesis then, so that people can test it, and maybe even fail to falsify it. Otherwise it's just lofty ideas that aren't providing anything of value, and the scientific community will continue to label him as a crank.
4) You're making massively unfounded assumptions when claiming that the spiral arms trace out large-scale electric currents. The Electric Universe model must provide falsifiable explanations for the dark matter evidence i linked to previously, otherwise it will continue to be inferior.
Umm, I can see that you've pasted that quote in various forums before, as are most of your posts -- mainly a mashup of tangentially related quotes. But regardless, I'll bite...
From what I can tell, that quote -- which originates from https://www.marxist.com/crisis... -- goes on to mention dark matter, then completely misrepresenting its evidence. For sake of convenience, Wikipedia lists some of the major ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If the Electric Universe model wants to be taken as real science then it needs to have the explanatory and predictive power necessary to account for all of these evidences at least as well as dark matter. You can't just say that a single line of evidence (gravitational lensing in this case) is wrong, therefore [my competing hypothesis] wins. That's intellectually lazy.
Also, see the references of that marxist.com article you quoted. This goes back to my echo-chamber accusation. They're all anti-Big Bang and pro-Electrical Universe websites. The one link to an arxiv.org paper is for a quote, which does not appear in the paper on the page given.
I was not aware of this fascinating field of pseudoscience. Those refractive lensing/electric universe topics seem to be confined to the echo-chambers of a few websites, linking to papers by authors with degrees in irrelevant fields, posted in pay-to-publish journals.
These topics have creationism's alternate simplified explanations for everything, global warming deniers' hubris, with the ludicrousness and conspiratorial thinking of Flat Earth proponents. It's a sort of trifecta of pseudoscience.
My turbo research before I'm off to work is that it could be a small-ish meteoroid in free fall. It appearing as a cold white object in the IR-camera's "black mode" could be due to it still retaining the near-zero Kelvin temperature from space, though I'm unsure how the atmospheric entry would have affected that.
I disagree with your premise that JavaScript is "implemented fully across all known browsers," as it's effectively a living standard where browser vendors implement the parts they can be bothered to.
As Dart for now is still transcompiled to JavaScript, it's realistically more of a competitor to the likes of TypeScript and CoffeeScript. With Dart 2 switching to a mostly mandatory type I hope it catches on this time, as I remember it being a lot of fun to code in.
I'm not fond of the idea of warmongering humans obliterating aliens, especially since the hostilities seemed to have been triggered by human colonization. Gene Roddenberry would be spinning in his grave.
But that's a key part to the tragic, satirical ending. The love interests are dead and the dim-witted characters remain, now fully brainwashed. The youth are being raised in this horrible military society to keep the war going, and TV commercials are spewing propaganda.
The obvious parallel between what the citizens were seeing on TV with various existing propaganda films here in the real world was apparently too subtle for a lot of people, which is shocking because it was done in Verhoeven's typical ham-handed style.
I suspect it's in part because RoboCop and Total Recall could work as straight action and sci-fi movies even without the satire. Then when Starship Troopers came out a decade later people just weren't used to this kind of ham-handed satire anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
If I may be pedantic, plants breath in oxygen as they metabolize sugar reserves, breathing out CO2. Their leaves make them net-fixers of CO2 though whenever the chloroplasts are struck with blue or red light in order to make ATP, which in turn becomes those sugars (and other building blocks, such as the plant itself).
I'd be terrified that they'd spend it all on sweets and comic books. I would at least demand some old bugs to be fixed.
The pedant in me will now hold Reuters accountable for any lack of future scientific reports from the craters in perpetual shadow on the poles.
Commonly mistaken for a planet, the Earth supercomputer has been working on finding the The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything for quite a while now, whose answer we know to be 42.
Geez, you resurrect my old post just to throw in an ad hominem?
My "evidence" is the argument the presenter made, along with her data.
Smart people are also able to parse a particular field's body of knowledge and realize their own limitations, and know when and why to concede to a consensus of experts -- otherwise you get flat-Earthers.
Found an article with the purported bag: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
I wouldn't immediately have recognized it as a plastic bag. Looks more like a Zune receipt.
Sorry for the confusion, religionofpeas - I responded to the wrong post. I still think you're pretty cool though.
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
This seems to mainly apply to the Vostok cores. When core samples from multiple sites are combined, the CO2 is shown to rise well before the warming. A short video by the University of Queensland attempts to clarify the evidence and a logical fallacy surrounding it (skip to 2:39 if you're impatient).
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
This seems to mainly apply to the Vostok cores. When core samples from multiple sites are combined, the CO2 is shown to rise well before the warming. A short video by the University of Queensland attempts to clarify the evidence and a logical fallacy surrounding it (skip to 2:39 if you're impatient).
I don't mean to sound snarky, but have you reported these issues on their bug tracker?
I suspect he's talking about having multiple Kubernetes clusters available on the CLI, e.g. one local minikube cluster (virtualized through e.g. a headless Virtualbox or KVM), plus multiple cloud clusters (e.g. one for integration-testing, and one for production) via Microsoft Azure or Amazon AWS.
But Canonical's marketing is garbage. They should perhaps split the press releases for their Desktop, Server and Cloud editions.
Though I commend their effort to improve Chrome's phishing protection, this may also be used to track users' browsing habits and show better "interest-based ads," as vaguely hinted at in the extension's privacy policy.
Thanks but no thanks.
It seems that we can neither convince each other through arguments, nor come to much of an agreement. I tried to explain why I think the scientific community regards Electric Universe as yet another pseudoscience, and will continue to do so until its proponents changes their approach to research.
See you around.
1) Hmm, I used the algorithm you mentioned earlier for reaching that number, and the gravitational force between Alpha Centauri A+B and Proxima Centauri came out as 4.40 x 10E-13 "Earth gee's" at their current distance of about 13,000 AU. It's a magnitude above what you call "a completely inconsequential force," yet Proxima seems to be in orbit around them as per this paper: https://www.aanda.org/articles.... I don't see how gravitational interactions would cease shortly after this point, especially as star clusters, gas, dust and a lot of dark matter comes into play gravitationally at great distances.
2) We may have different viewpoints on how scientific progress should operate. I consider both the continual refinement of existing theories and investigation of paradigm-shifting hypotheses to be necessary for progressing. But for the paradigm-shifting hypotheses to deserve serious attention they need to be robust enough to explain and predict what the current leading theory does, and preferably some of its shortcomings, in a falsifiable manner. So I find the Electrical Universe model trying to explain way too much with sporadic and tangentially related data.
4) The Big Bang theory makes a bunch of necessary predictions. If, say, the cosmic microwave background radiation was found to have another source, or the universe was shown to not be expanding, or a distant galaxy is blue-shifted, or stars certainly older than 13.8 billion years were discovered... then the theory would be in trouble.
I'm aware of the galactic filaments in the universe, but I don't see how all this leads to an internally consistent alternative to the leading theories of dark matter and general relativity, which I know how they can accurately predict time dilation of GPS satellites and calculate trajectories across space. I remain unconvinced and unimpressed by the Electric Universe.
1) This is why individual stars far apart don't orbit each other, just like planets far apart don't orbit each other. Stars orbit around that which is gravitationally dominant to them, which is either the gravitational center if a compact star cluster, or the gravitational center of the galaxy it resides in.
2) You're confusing proofs with an inability to falsify. Proofs are for mathematics and philosophy. Science deals with evidence, and progresses by making theories successively better approximate observed phenomena. For this the scientific method is used to test hypothesis and theories, which accrue predictive and explanatory power by repeated failures to falsify them. That general relativity isn't tested well enough to your liking in an area isn't evidence against the theory, as you would instead need to successfully falsify the theory for this area if you want to replace it, and not be seen as yet another crank.
3) Tell him to work it into a falsifiable hypothesis then, so that people can test it, and maybe even fail to falsify it. Otherwise it's just lofty ideas that aren't providing anything of value, and the scientific community will continue to label him as a crank.
4) You're making massively unfounded assumptions when claiming that the spiral arms trace out large-scale electric currents. The Electric Universe model must provide falsifiable explanations for the dark matter evidence i linked to previously, otherwise it will continue to be inferior.
Umm, I can see that you've pasted that quote in various forums before, as are most of your posts -- mainly a mashup of tangentially related quotes. But regardless, I'll bite...
From what I can tell, that quote -- which originates from https://www.marxist.com/crisis... -- goes on to mention dark matter, then completely misrepresenting its evidence. For sake of convenience, Wikipedia lists some of the major ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... If the Electric Universe model wants to be taken as real science then it needs to have the explanatory and predictive power necessary to account for all of these evidences at least as well as dark matter. You can't just say that a single line of evidence (gravitational lensing in this case) is wrong, therefore [my competing hypothesis] wins. That's intellectually lazy.
Also, see the references of that marxist.com article you quoted. This goes back to my echo-chamber accusation. They're all anti-Big Bang and pro-Electrical Universe websites. The one link to an arxiv.org paper is for a quote, which does not appear in the paper on the page given.
I was not aware of this fascinating field of pseudoscience. Those refractive lensing/electric universe topics seem to be confined to the echo-chambers of a few websites, linking to papers by authors with degrees in irrelevant fields, posted in pay-to-publish journals.
These topics have creationism's alternate simplified explanations for everything, global warming deniers' hubris, with the ludicrousness and conspiratorial thinking of Flat Earth proponents. It's a sort of trifecta of pseudoscience.
It seems to be due to the use of a click-jacking defense best-practice: https://www.owasp.org/index.ph...
Unfortunately this is inconvenient for NoScript users.
My turbo research before I'm off to work is that it could be a small-ish meteoroid in free fall. It appearing as a cold white object in the IR-camera's "black mode" could be due to it still retaining the near-zero Kelvin temperature from space, though I'm unsure how the atmospheric entry would have affected that.
Noted scientific skeptic Phil Plait's article on a possible event such as this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Featured video (1m 50s in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I disagree with your premise that JavaScript is "implemented fully across all known browsers," as it's effectively a living standard where browser vendors implement the parts they can be bothered to.
As Dart for now is still transcompiled to JavaScript, it's realistically more of a competitor to the likes of TypeScript and CoffeeScript. With Dart 2 switching to a mostly mandatory type I hope it catches on this time, as I remember it being a lot of fun to code in.
Please be consistent with spacing around your parenthesis.
I'm not fond of the idea of warmongering humans obliterating aliens, especially since the hostilities seemed to have been triggered by human colonization. Gene Roddenberry would be spinning in his grave.
But that's a key part to the tragic, satirical ending. The love interests are dead and the dim-witted characters remain, now fully brainwashed. The youth are being raised in this horrible military society to keep the war going, and TV commercials are spewing propaganda.
The obvious parallel between what the citizens were seeing on TV with various existing propaganda films here in the real world was apparently too subtle for a lot of people, which is shocking because it was done in Verhoeven's typical ham-handed style.
I suspect it's in part because RoboCop and Total Recall could work as straight action and sci-fi movies even without the satire. Then when Starship Troopers came out a decade later people just weren't used to this kind of ham-handed satire anymore.