there is a small summary of the article and a link to the article . if you do not like that then move along . i am not here to please you . anyways have fun on ignore .Can you at least put some effort into your posts, and copy-paste the articles you're linking to?
there is a small summary of the article and a link to the article . if you do not like that then move along . i am not here to please you . if you want slaves i suggest inventing a time machine and going back to 1700s alabama . anyways have fun on ignore .
i fail to see how standing up for ones self is rude.simple "no" would have sufficed. Why the need to be so rude about
i fail to see how standing up for ones self is rude.
if you read the demand i answered to you would see who the rude person was. no of us are here to be bullied are we ? i know i am not as i do not bully anyone myself.
now you can join that other person on the ignore list . toodles .
Redefining the definition of being easily offended. By jebus.
Because he wants an echo chamber and you're a bully/racist if you voice some sort of opposing remark, or that's how it appears. I'm sure this recent attitude being shown in multiple threads will work out well eventually.You just need to accept the fact there are things he doesn't want to talk about even though he started a thread specifically to talk about it.
This is wacky.
It's a thought experiment. The experiment goes like this:Can someone explain Schrödinger's cat....
I understand it to the bolded part.It's a thought experiment. The experiment goes like this:
You have a hollow box. You can't see into the box when it's closed. On one end is radioactive material or poison, the other end has a cat you've placed in there. You wait some time after putting the cat in.
The situation being presented is that since you can't directly observe the cat unless you open the box, you have no way of knowing whether it died or if it's still alive - so it's technically alive and dead at the same time until you're able to observe it. Schrödinger used this to highlight an issue he saw with the Copenhangen interpretation of quantum physics as related to normal objects. Specifically, where quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one of the possibilities created by observing it.
If that doesn't make sense to anyone more knowledgeable in the subject matter, please don't hesitate to correct me.
Quantum physics is...very confusing. I could explain the quantum superposition but it'd end up being a dozen tabs deep on my browser and a big, complicated mess of a write-up.I understand it to the bolded part.
Does that mean quantum physics is concerned with things that aren't definitive?
I understand it to the bolded part.
Does that mean quantum physics is concerned with things that aren't definitive?
Before quantum there was classical 19th century physics. Everything was a billiard ball. Now there are no more billiard balls.
I understand it to the bolded part.
Does that mean quantum physics is concerned with things that aren't definitive?
Or am I missing something in the theory?
Yes, the theory doesn't account for different densities.
https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20050801_floatingice.html
I think it's the weight of the object and of the displaced fluid that are equal, not the volumes.Archimedes discovered that the volume of an object is equal to the amount of water displaced when partially or wholly submerged in water.