Leaderboard

I understand one good woman is a very good scenario but why not 2 or 3? Tbh I see it as a great way to have a very large family like 10+ kids with sufficient supervision at lower cost.

No, parametric down conversion only happens very rarely under special circumstances. Two photons can only be entangled when they come from the same photon. Energy is conserved when one photo turns into two, so the new photons have twice the wavelength and half the energy. The sumtotal of the spin is conserved as well, which is what entanglement is. Knowing how one photon is polarized thus tells you the polarisation of the other. The superposition of states is also what makes entangle impoosible to communicate with. You may know the total spin, but not how it is distributed among the two. Lets say you know that the spin is 7. That leaves you with several possibilites of how it is distributed among the photons: 1 - 6 2 - 5 3 - 4 4 - 3 5 - 2 6 - 1Insert other media When you break the entanglement, you determined the state of 'your' photon and conversely the state of the other one. But to transmit that information you have to use electromagnetic waves which have an upper limit with c.

Yep not to mention unfalsifiable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc#Hypothesis

Glad you brought that up. No, I didn't forget... I'm just trying to avoid information overload, as there is much to digest. If there's something that doesn't gel, they invent dark stuff to explain, for example, the fact that there's not enough matter to keep galaxies together. Take the following link, for example, where they spell it out in their opening sentence, "Dark energy and dark matter are theoretical inventions that explain observations we cannot otherwise understand." https://phys.org/news/2017-06-ditch-dark-energy-relativity.html#jCp

The non-communication theorem is an assumption, intended to be self-consistent with the constancy of c assumption. That's all. And around these self-consistent assumptions is built the self-consistent mathematical framework. Do away with the constancy of c assumption, and the non-communication assumption no longer stands. The second postulate is that the speed of light has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference. It may well turn out that this is a quantum-mechanical phenomenon related to quantum tunneling and analogous to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. In this context, a particle's motion through space is not the simple, linear vector as commonly understood in Newtonian physics. Michelson-Morley's famous "failed experiment" has done away with the ether, but relativity theory need not be the only alternative explanation. This QM perspective can factor in the role of the observer - nay, it SHOULD factor in the role of the observer - and an observer travelling at the speed of light will intercept photons in exactly the same manner as if he were stationary... no violation of the second postulate, by any observer at any speed. This is an important possibility that might help explain numerous phenomena, such as the quantum eraser experiment. References to random information, or stochastic correlation, seem generally to be poorly thought through. Think of radio waves and their carrier frequency, to finish up as sound coming out of your radio's loudspeaker. If your "random information" can be made to follow a pattern, then you might still be able to transmit information. Perhaps there is scope for converting random information into some kind of carrier base over which information might be transmitted, much like a radio carrier frequency being used to broadcast sound.

Lets assume we create an entangled pair of particles, I keep one and you take the second. Now you start measuring the state of yours, and the state of mine is correlated instantaneuosly. But: The correlation is stochastic. To find out the exact correlation we have to meet again and compare our results, and with that hindsight we are able to find out whats happened. regards Andi

Who's Richard Spencer? Are people distancing themselves per se from Spencer or is Spencer trying to come in contact with the prominent heads of the movement and failing? I'm very skeptical of people who push forward Spencer because it looks to me like some hipster BS. "I was into Richard Spencer way before you guys were so neeh!". Why is it that every time Spencer is mentioned he's mentioned in name only? Does he have a YouTube? No. Does he have a book? No. Even you, OP did the same thing. You mentioned Spencer without explaining who he is as if everyone knows who he is, and you mentioned white nationalism as if we know what it is and what the arguments for it are. I cannot engage in a conversation about him if you're gonna leave it in name only. I have no idea what his deal is. Is he saying the same things Stefan is saying? Yes? So what? Lots of people are saying the same things Stefan is saying who have a much bigger audience than Spencer and they have not been invited in the alt-right circle of friends (so to speak). Is FDR distancing themselves from PewDiePie? It's a shame PewDiePie has been left to hang by everyone. I guess its just easier to go for the low hanging "CNN is fake news" fruit over and over rather than risk being condemned for straight forwardly advocating for the interests of whites.

Well, as an Entrepreneur I choose to defer the gratification of going out and hanging out with friends to work on my businesses. It took a long 5 years and a lot of 80+ hour work weeks but now im pretty much retired(I still work on things I love). I also defer the gratification of watching TV and instead read a ton of books, and from that, I gathered knowledge that has helped me in not just business, but life in general.

I deliberately did not go into depth about why I like the podcast and book content. I like terse.

Mainly for 3 reasons, at least that come to mind. 1: It is in our nature to only really care about children born of us. If a woman were to raise children that were not her own alongside children that were her own, then she would naturally treat that child with less care than her own biological offspring, and that would negatively impact the child who would most likely become jealous of the biological children. Then there is the possibility of the woman abusing children not born of her, or otherwise treating them badly, especially relative to her own biological children. 2:The Children themselves would have a hard time respecting the authority of their non-biological mothers, and chances are with competing women there will most likely be friction among the children and lack of respect for maternal authority. 3: A man can love more than one woman, but not without dividing his attention and loyalties. Should one wife make an ultimatum about another wife, the man must choose between them or else lose them both. Over all, it's a time bomb waiting to explode. Culturally, if you want to see the success and lack thereof for polygamy, see the Islamic, Hindu, and Himalayan (where women marrying multiple men was common until they went effectively extinct) nations.

Well actually it wouldn't. 140/145 has a better chance of having a higher IQ than a 120/145 (whatever yours is), although only marginally. I guess on a group level its possible, depending on the members of the group but nobody around here actually believes in Central Planning do they? If they did, logically it would make sense for me to impregnate a large portion out of all the women.