quote:If muons moving near lightspeed have a delayed decay due to increased mass . . . then this is not classical physics, since classical physics doesn't account for increased mass in fast-moving particles. Relativity does, however.
It's not due to increased mass. There is no increased mass. There is increased energy, over and above what you would expect from good old 0.5*mv^2.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, so no one has actually read the book? Apparently that part isn't really necessary when you're discussing what you think the author is saying.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[edit: He cites a bit more in some places than in others, I may tackle some of those instances he does cite]
Having read quite a bit of the first few chapters (link posted), I doubt I'll take the time to refute much, simply because it would take too much of my time.
The main reason it would take too much of my time is the author seems to have an aversion to citation. He makes paragraphs of assertion after assertion, and only occasionally mentions where he's getting what he's saying from. Even if I were to go through and demolish a large section of his argument, which wouldn't be hard, people who believed him would just say "but later he says this!"
Sure he does, but that's all he does -- says it. There's a big reason scientists try to insist on a minimal standard before they even bother looking at new "theories" -- because otherwise it takes too much darn time for no purpose. If an author can't be bothered to take the time to properly (or even improperly; anything at all!) cite assertions, then those defending what the author is assailing can't be bothered to take the time to track down why those assertions are wrong.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: How strange there's such good correlation by population by percent HIV positive, then, sL
Correlation is not causation. Sorry, I just couldn't resist after the Freakonomics thread. Don't take it seriously.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Diagnosis of AIDS in Africa is no longer done according to HIV tests. Basically, if you have pneumonia, you go into the AIDS stats. If you have any of the indicator diseases (which are different from the list of indicator diseases in the US), you're an AIDS stat. And hell, since the list of indicator diseases differs in the US and Canada (just for example), you can actually cure yourself of AIDS by crossing the border.
Diagnosis of AIDS has never and will never be done according to HIV. HIV+ != AIDS. They are two completely different things. You contract HIV, your CD4 T-Cell count plummets (they're infected and destroyed by CD8 T-Cells), some people have flu like symptomes for a while, then your body controls the infection and your CD4 Ts increase. Over a period usually spanning 2-15 years the virus, which wasn't eliminated, continually replicates and there is a steady decline of CD4 T-Cells until it reaches a point where you can no longer fight off opportunistic pathogens. At this point, you have AIDS.
The list of marker diseases is made up of those that are commonly fought off by a healthy and robust CD4 T-Cell count. As in all illnesses, the population and environment will determine which pathogens are most common. There isn't a uniform distribution of any given pathogen around the world, which is why the marker diseases are different in each country.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If muons moving near lightspeed have a delayed decay due to increased mass . . . then this is not classical physics, since classical physics doesn't account for increased mass in fast-moving particles. Relativity does, however.
It's not due to increased mass. There is no increased mass. There is increased energy, over and above what you would expect from good old 0.5*mv^2.
I didn't say it was due to increased mass. I said that if it were, classical physics couldn't handle it.
posted
We can discuss direct quotes from an author, even if we're not willing to plunk down the cash to buy his book.
If someone says, in a book, that the CIA is using his gold fillings to read his thoughts (for example), I don't need to read the rest of the book to know that he believes in mind-reading.
This is different from drawing conclusions about the entire book from one quote; or drawing some conclusions from no quotes at all.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Sorry, I just couldn't resist after the Freakonomics thread. Don't take it seriously.
