Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Einstein in the sheets

Not a bad reputation to have.

[mookie1995]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

You're welcome.

magunda ka!


sadly she will be here in a couple years, serving mookie coffee while flirting and looking for a sugar daddy to help her send pesos back home

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

magunda ka!


sadly she will be here in a couple years, serving mookie coffee while flirting and looking for a sugar daddy to help her send pesos back home

She's already a star at MIT. She's going to be worth more than all of us combined, many, many times over. And be a brilliant astrophysicist.

I've wasted my life.

[unofan]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Amazing but true factoid: No person born blind has ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Amazing but true factoid: No person born blind has ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Huh. Wow.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

That sounds like something off a chain letter.

It’s also two fairly rare conditions. Schizophrenia is around 0.5% (1 in 200) and congenital blindness at birth has to be around 1 in 3,000-5,000 from what I can find (impossible to figure out all the causes). So that alone makes it around 1 in 1.2 million births. So three or four people born per year in the US. Since both tend to follow genetics, it would mean two people with a family history of fairly rare genetic abnormalities would need to have kids and still pull triple 7s.

Now, imagine two incredible impediments for someone. Schizophrenia, which already comes with a severely shortened lifespan, reduces the chance of someone being found in a canvas. Now imagine a schizophrenic person trying to make it in life past their 30s. Hard enough with both eyes, hence the reduced life expectancy.

I think this is easily explained with statistics.

Edit: and what kind of **** is this?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0920996418304055

So you had 66 kids who had blindness and none of them developed schizophrenia so therefore blindness protects against schizophrenia? Even if you assume a generous 1.2% that’s only like 0.7 people who would average both. That’s such **** logic it hurts.

[burd]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

That sounds like something off a chain letter.

It’s also two fairly rare conditions. Schizophrenia is around 0.5% (1 in 200) and congenital blindness at birth has to be around 1 in 3,000-5,000 from what I can find (impossible to figure out all the causes). So that alone makes it around 1 in 1.2 million births. So three or four people born per year in the US. Since both tend to follow genetics, it would mean two people with a family history of fairly rare genetic abnormalities would need to have kids and still pull triple 7s.

Now, imagine two incredible impediments for someone. Schizophrenia, which already comes with a severely shortened lifespan, reduces the chance of someone being found in a canvas. Now imagine a schizophrenic person trying to make it in life past their 30s. Hard enough with both eyes, hence the reduced life expectancy.

I think this is easily explained with statistics.

Edit: and what kind of **** is this?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...20996418304055

So you had 66 kids who had blindness and none of them developed schizophrenia so therefore blindness protects against schizophrenia? Even if you assume a generous 1.2% that’s only like 0.7 people who would average both. That’s such **** logic it hurts.

That, and schizophrenics see things all the time.

[WisconsinWildcard]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

That and there are some cases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4246684/

I have also had a patient with Usher syndrome who also had psychosis consistent with schizophrenia. One thing also to consider that the diagnostic criteria of schizophrenia is more difficult to fulfill in a patient who is blind, even if they were having the same process going centrally.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

This is one of those things that will probably turn out to be really important in a few hundred years and open (or close) rival theoretical avenues of understanding the universe.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

A true constant? Valid across all space-time? Is that what they're implying with this?

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

A true constant? Valid across all space-time? Is that what they're implying with this?

It's too much to say all. Kinda by definition that can only be falsified, not proven.

But what I gather is this supports the hypothesis that some constants really can cash unlimited checks within their own universe.

The rival theoretical approach was that the values of all constants erode over time or can be warped in weird space -- that what we think of as "constants" are implicitly limited by local conditions in some way (so for example Newton physics turned out to be a special case of Einstein physics). This to me seems intuitive: we've only just begun to crawl as one species on one planet with only a few hundred years of methodical logical science cleared of fuzzyheaded supernaturalism, and every time we have had a theory of the Big Picture it has quickly been superceded by a larger frame, then a larger, and so on. My instinct is that this process continues forever and that there is no reason to assume a machine evolved to find tigers hiding in tall grass will have the capacity to comprehend science beyond a rudimentary point. We already see this limitation operate when we talk to stupid people or, indeed, average people. There just aren't enough neurons firing well enough to get past a simplistic model.

But this experiment suggests that no, in fact, there may be some constants that are, for lack of a better word, real. They transcend time, space, and conditionality and are what they say they are. Which would be... reassuring? Maybe?

Once you move to the next brane or universe or whatever, all bets are off. In the universe next door maybe the fine-structure constant makes all matter manifest as different flavors of licorice.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Betelgeuse update.

[Kepler]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

A true constant? Valid across all space-time? Is that what they're implying with this?

I found an interesting discussion of the inconstancy of constants:

11. Constancy of Fundamental Constants
... They began running when they liked, and left off when they
liked.
-- L.C.

The fundamental constants, most of them, appear in physics with quantum mechanics. The Newton’s
constant G came earlier, but only considering the Planck-scale effects we can imagine how fundamental
it is. They were called ‘constants’ and it was believed that they should be such by default.
To vary them, one should rather expect an exceptional reason. That was the situation, when Dirac and
later Gamov suggested that the ‘constants’ may not be constant.

However, the truth is that there is no strong reason why the ‘constants’ of Nature are constant. We
know that the ratio of the electron and proton spins is unity and cannot vary. If it were possible to switch
off the QED corrections, we should expect that the g factor of an electron is a trivial constant equal to
two. Thus, there may be only one theoretical reason for their constancy—that would be an explanation
of their origin. For the most important constants we have none. The constancy of the constants is merely
an experimental fact and an a priori trust in the domination of symmetry in the nature of Nature. The
former, indeed, can never be final and we need to check that again and again with a more broad range
of phenomena and with a higher accuracy. The latter is in a formal sense rather wrong: we recognize
the inflation as a basic element of modern cosmology. And the inflation [30, 31] had urged the electron
mass and charge to vary in a very remote past. If we accept that the constants were varying once, we
should rather consider them as changing quantities at a default situation, and need a reason for them
not to vary again. Or not to vary fast. A once non-constant is forever not a ‘trusted’ constant.
We recognize the existence of the dark matter which may interact ‘very’ weakly with our matter.

We do not know what the dark matter is and how weak may be this ‘very’ weak interaction. Due to a
number of such unclear phenomena, we need to distinguish between

• effects such as a violation of the local position invariance (and in particular a violation of the
local time invariance)
• and a variation of the constants.

One may expect that a violation of the local invariance means that results of measurements would depend
on time and location upon the measurement and that is the same as a time- and space- dependence
of the fundamental constants. However, these two situations are not quite the same.

The results of an experiment may be affected by an environment. In earlier times, an ‘environment’
for a laboratory-scale experiment was also laboratory-scaled. An exception was gravitational and magnetic
field of Earth. However, they were not significant: since the former was nearly a constant (which
did not depend on the location at the level of then achievable accuracy) and from the latter there may
be a shield. Now, doing high-precision balance experiments, one can clearly see effects of the motion
of Sun and Moon in this scale of experiments. Indeed, the existence of the surf has been known for
centuries. But the surf is a result of an accumulation of these effects over a ‘big’ detector, which is
of the Earth scale. Until the very recent time it was not possible to see such effects with the ‘small’
detectors.

Now, we are sensitive to the environment at a very large scale. We know that we live in a changing
universe (the environment item number one), going through a bath of 2.7-K cosmic microwave
background and a similar background radiation of known (neutrino) and, maybe, unknown massless
particles (the environment item number two) and dark matter and dark energy presented around (the
environment item number three) etc. We would never qualify any effect of interactions with them as a
real violation of Lorentz symmetry, but we may want to qualify a variation of certain natural parameters
induced by them as a variation of the constants. In principle, we can say that there was no variation
of truly fundamental constants during the inflation, but only ‘environmental effects’, caused by cooling
of the Universe. However, we prefer to say that the electron mass has changed.

[joecct]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

Apollo 13 video/audio synched

https://www.space.com/apollo-13-real-time-website.html

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Science: Everything explained by PV=nRT, F=ma=Gm(1)•m(2)/r^2

According to Compressible flow analysis, the USPS Eagle is going Mach 4.9 from r/EngineeringStudents

Science motherf--kers