Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Forum Games / Re: The Three-Word Story
« Last post by stands2reason on Today at 11:25:19 PM »
fathom the darkness
2
General Discussion / Re: Why are you here?
« Last post by Eternally Learning on Today at 11:21:50 PM »
For my part, I have to say that I mostly suspect I come here because it's one of the few places online that I would consider myself established.  Facebook is too toxic or is a minefield and reddit is too big to really feel apart of it in any meaningful sense.  I also am still fond of many members here and thing that even if there are more problematic elements that there were/I was aware of before, there are still enough people I enjoy talking to.
3
Skepticism / Science Talk / Re: On the classifications of planets?
« Last post by bachfiend on Today at 10:46:52 PM »

You’ve lost this part of the debate.
The jury is still out.

Quote
In the paper, the astronomers simply dub the moons of moons “submoons.” But Kollmeier tells Natasha Frost at Quartz that usage was just a personal choice, and that there is no official word, yet. Other terms for the moon of moon have been suggested, including moonmoons, moonitos, moonettes, and moooons.

“IAU [International Astronomical Union] will have to decide!” Kollmeier says.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/earths-moon-could-host-moonmoon-if-moonmoons-are-thing-180970520/#1TqzHCr5JfgMkt6C.99




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have lost this part of the debate.  Astronomers do call moons of planets moons.  The debate is regarding whether moons of moons (if they ever exist) should be called submoons, or something else. 
4
Skepticism / Science Talk / On the classifications of planets?
« Last post by CarbShark on Today at 10:31:26 PM »

You’ve lost this part of the debate.
The jury is still out.

Quote
In the paper, the astronomers simply dub the moons of moons “submoons.” But Kollmeier tells Natasha Frost at Quartz that usage was just a personal choice, and that there is no official word, yet. Other terms for the moon of moon have been suggested, including moonmoons, moonitos, moonettes, and moooons.

“IAU [International Astronomical Union] will have to decide!” Kollmeier says.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/earths-moon-could-host-moonmoon-if-moonmoons-are-thing-180970520/#1TqzHCr5JfgMkt6C.99




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
5
General Discussion / Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Last post by random poet on Today at 10:18:37 PM »
White people may – rightly – be the target of derision for wearing their hair in dreadlocks,

Why is that "right"? Why is targeting anyone because of skin color or hair ever a good idea? It never is. Just leave people alone.
They are being mocked because they are racists, not because they are white. Please try to follow the conversation.

Do you believe a white person styling their hair with deadlocks makes them a racist? I've re-read the quoted exchange a couple of times now and that's how it reads to me but I'm unsure if that's what you mean.
A white person taking a typically black hairstyle just because they think it's cool and they don't give a shit about what it represents is cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is inherently racist; it is a symptom of systemic racism. This is why they are discussed in tandem.
6
Well that some shit.  More quality intellects replaced by shit posters.  Hate to see you go, we needed you, methinks.  Not that our need is your problem, mind you, but you did make this place better.
7
TV & Movies / Re: Rate the last movie you just saw.
« Last post by Desert Fox on Today at 09:46:54 PM »
Constantine - City of Demons 8.5/10
Bretty enjoyable movied. It is animated but it certainly is not for kid.
8
Skepticism / Science Talk / Re: On the classifications of planets?
« Last post by bachfiend on Today at 09:11:34 PM »
I was (perhaps rather clumsily) turing the repeated argument about the etymology back on those who brought it up in that context.

In any case, the fact remains that the scientific community, including the IAU, does in fact use "planet" to talk about ones outside the Solar System and "moon" to talk about satellites other than Earth's.

I think that's the case for their public usage. Not astronomical usage.


Our Moon: the Moon | IAU

Quote
Earth’s own satellite is called the Moon (with a capital M) in both scientific designation and public usage. A natural satellite, a solid object in orbit around a planet, a dwarf planet, a minor planet, or a transneptunian object is sometimes referred to as a moon (with a small m) in public usage.

The link in the immediately preceding comment for the paper asking whether moons can have moons, written by two astronomers, repeatedly refers to planets having moons, so it’s not true as you assert that ‘moon’ isn’t used by astronomers in astronomical usage.

You’ve lost this part of the debate.

I personally think that the possibility that moons could have moons is an argument for having lower as well as upper limits for defining moons.  If a moon is relatively large in comparison to its planet (however that’s defined, whether because the common centre of gravity lies outside the planet or its larger than some arbitrary percentage of the planet below which all obvious moons would be included) it becomes part of a double planet system.

Moons and submoons should have a lower limit in size too.  I think that they’re should also be large enough to be spherical too, which would eliminate most if not all possible submoons.  If a natural satellite isn’t spherical, it should be given a different name.
9
TV & Movies / Re: Multiple streaming services are just encouraging pirates
« Last post by xenu on Today at 09:00:33 PM »
I just wish there was one place I can get all the movies on line. I would gladly pay for that. For now I have to settle for net fix and the library.
10
Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine / Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Last post by bachfiend on Today at 08:54:32 PM »

Sci-Hub | | 10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.044

 


Strange. Try pasting this into your browser. Works here.

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.044

Neither works on my iPad.

Works just fine here. Trust me, it says everything you believe about diet and carb consumption is wrong or outdated.

Right.  I had to go and turn on my desk computer (the first time it’s been on for years).  It was a waste of time.  The article is crap.  Most of it’s about simple sugars, which I wouldn’t disagree.  But their comments about complex carbohydrates is largely wrong. 

If you’re overweight or obese, then high glycaemic score (high carbohydrate) diets are an added weaker risk factor for type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia, along with being overweight or obese, being sedentary or consuming excessive simple sugars.  If you’re overweight or obese, then reducing dietary carbohydrates will reverse some of the extra risk from being overweight or obese.  But if you’re overweight or obese, you need to reduce your BMI to below 25 kg/m^2 (and exercise daily if you’re sedentary and cut down heavily on simple sugars if you haven’t already done it).

Carbohydrates aren’t a problem if you’re not overweight or obese.  You should weigh the same as you were when you were in your early 20s (assuming you weren’t fat then too).  You shouldn’t be putting weight and body fat on as you age.

Your bias based on your n=1 anecdotal experience is quite strong.

It’s not ‘n=1 anecdotal experience’ that the risk factors for type 2 diabetes, heart disease and dementia are being overweight or obese, being sedentary, consuming excessive simple sugars, and (if you’re overweight or obese) as an added weaker risk factor consuming high glycaemic score (high carbohydrate) diets.

If you’re overweight or obese, then reducing your dietary carbohydrate intake will partially reduce the increased risk from being overweight.  But you need to reduce your BMI to below 25 kg/m^2, in which case dietary carbohydrates (unless they’re simple sugars) become irrelevant.

This isn’t personal anecdotal experience.  It’s well established science.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10