Jump to content
Science Forums

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/27/2020 in Posts

  1. I think the last symbol should have been / for division instead of the percentage sign. Then it could be expressed in words as: “The four elements of this cardinal set of basic arithmetic functions are addition, subtraction, multiplication and division” But I’m not sure why anyone would want to do this?
    2 points
  2. This is the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and percentage symbols within the notation of a cardinal set... either this is literally gibberish, or it's simply outside my realm of experience.
    2 points
  3. Your post is rather long, so I will just pick out this one sentence: "So I would say, you can't be a good scientist if you take things as absolutes" And I go further and say that you cannot be a scientist at all if you take things as absolutes, and I don't know any actual scientists who do this. I have worked with many scientists throughout my years with the NOAA and they all operate on the principle of following the preponderance of evidence, as I wrote in my earlier posts. I think the OP's question has been fully answered now by multiple people, multiple times but it seems to me he is w
    2 points
  4. I am sooo glad to see you back! This forum has been badly in need of a good dose of sanity.
    2 points
  5. I am saying they require things that might work out mathematically but the reality of things like negative mass is unknown and there is little reason to think they exist. In science everything is subject to new information coming in, science is a self correcting process, it becomes ever more precise but will never, by design, reach a 100% conclusion. This "design" is what allows science to be self correcting and moves it closer and closer towards reality.
    2 points
  6. It seems that there have been reports that the Wuhan Lab Staff were the first victims of the COVID-19 virus as the investigation continues, read more at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9155237/US-claims-researchers-Chinese-institute-fell-ill-weeks-world-knew-Covid.html and https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-claims-wuhan-lab-staff-191305281.html P.S. This is just the first evidence that China was the source of this pathogen as the investigation continues, we will all find out the truth.
    1 point
  7. Hi Sluggo, Now that you mention this, the original paper for SR (that I linked before) is actually quite nice in that it doesn't really suggest any particular ontology (like Minkowski spacetime), but the reader must be careful to understand it as merely drawing purely logical connections between definitions when reading it. Nowadays people read it with Minkowski's interpretation in mind and tend to take SR as literally an argument for "Minkowski spacetime", even though it doesn't mention such thing anywhere. This misconception leads exactly into my original complaint about people locki
    1 point
  8. Thanks to both CountryBoy and OceanBreeze for your replies. I think I have moved on a little with the experiment - or at least I hope I have! I was recommended a shadow calculator, and from that, discovered a sun calculator that I believe can assist. As I understand it, I can use it to calculate not only the shadow angle of the object at any time of day (take the azimuth angle and +/- 180 from it) but also the length of shadow relative to the length of the object. I'm currently calculating the daily data. I general the azimuth stays the same while the lengths slowly change. https:/
    1 point
  9. Since you still haven't told us what YOU mean by "physical consistency"- and seem to be using this board to rant about things you do not know, I'm not going to bother responding any more. This is "science forums" and you do not know what "science" is.
    1 point
  10. Okay, so what evidence do you have, or what reason do you have to believe, that time has a "physical consistency"?
    1 point
  11. Hi Sluggo I'm afraid your post exemplifies exactly the confusions I was complaining about in my long post. Look, it's very simple to convince yourself of this matter. The mathematics of Lorentz aether theory are exactly the same as using Special Relativity, but instead of transforming from observer to observer, you'd arbitrarily choose some reference frame, and then do all of your calculations from that frame. I'm sure you can trivially accept this as mathematically valid approach. You can always go back to this simple point, if you feel any doubt. If the above wouldn't work, th
    1 point
  12. I would appreciate it if you would define "time substance".
    1 point
  13. OceanBreeze

    The water on Mars

    Radiation on Mars: Clearly, the high level of radiation on Mars will present many problems for future manned missions, but radiation-contaminated water is not one of them. The type of radiation present on Mars is not due to any radioactive materials present on the Red Planet, but is due to regular exposure to cosmic rays and solar wind, plus it receives occasional lethal blasts that occur with strong solar flares. Contamination versus Exposure: However, a body of water exposed to radiation is not necessarily contaminated with radioactive material. For water to be c
    1 point
  14. Let me say I completely share the sentiment in the OP. Especially in popularizations of science, the language used is almost always using much more certain terms than is actually warranted, and I think it is damaging to the students of science. And it is not just the language used, often the people teaching the topics are confusing apples with oranges themselves. "Scientific philosophy" (a.k.a. "science") originally arose as a response against the unwarranted air of certainty of various religious philosophies. It is, or at least should be, by its very definition, the attitude of preservin
    1 point
  15. Alright,I gave this a stab. Here's what I have so far; https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4msczv4028rd8i/Kinematic Solution To The Ehrenfest Paradox.pdf?dl=0 I'm failing on the "concise" part a bit, although more than half of the length is extra discussion. I feel like this whole thing could be explained in one page, but then I look at all the silly solution suggestions out there in published papers, and my confidence to the "one-page approach" being enough vanishes... I just don't know which detail is the one everyone keep missing here when they insist on paradoxical solutions 🤷‍♂️ Anyway
    1 point
  16. For Chemistry Courses posted the order for the classes for a Youtube Chemistry degree goes as follows as these are the same courses you would take in your "Major courses". You would still have to take the classes in a classroom for a "real degree" but if you understand this material you would have the knowledge of a chemistry major's main courses for a bachelor's degree. Year 1 General Chemistry = http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36663-lectures-of-general-chemistry-chem-111/ Year 2 Organic Chemistry = http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36401-lectures-of-advanced-organic-chemistry/ Year
    1 point
  17. This nothing but conspiracy bollocks. NASA is telling the truth in this case, the former idea is based on the idea the earth would flip upside down to flip the magnetic field. We now know this is improbable to say the least..
    1 point
  18. A scientist saying something, if it is their field, and they have gone through pere review, should be taken seriously but others are and will continue to check his work to make sure the theory hold up under all conditions. There are scientific assertions or theories that it is difficult to see how they could be refuted, heliocentric theory will not be over turned, evolutionary theory, cell theory, disease theory, and many others are so finely known that no one thinks they will ever be overturned, maybe refined, but that would be tiny changes at best. I to tend to be rather abrupt bu
    1 point
  19. So, somehow the conversation at work involved pigeons, something about Tesla feeding pigeons when he was old and poor. And I remembered the famous pigeon Cher Ami. I had to re-look up the details of this amazing bird who saved hundreds of lives during WWI . Cher Ami: The Pigeon that Saved the Lost Battalion - World War I Centennial (worldwar1centennial.org) Many of us have heard of the Lost Battalion, and know some of the story. What is not commonly known is the role of a remarkable pigeon, named Cher Ami. That little bird became one of the greatest heroes of World Wa
    1 point
  20. I thought the body language is very clear. Did I say that? No, I said that the premise “may be correct”. That's an important distinction. It seems you entirely missed the point I made, even though I repeated it several times, that “all good scientists are skeptical up to a point, but there are some things that we do feel confident about because they are supported by a preponderance of evidence”. There are no absolute facts in science but there are things that are supported by scientific evidence, things that are not scientific and things that are nonsense. It is import
    1 point
  21. Victor, that makes absolutely zero sense. God obviously owns his own yacht.
    1 point
  22. Actually, we have a test for you me and four of my buddies came up with it. To believe you are God and not crazy able to make earthquakes which we don't care about that. We want you to have a person give us 1 billion dollars each being 4 billion dollars to a man named Dan. If you give us 4 billion dollars we will believe you are god without question as God this should be well within your power if you are able to make earthquakes. If you can see the future it should be not problem for you to guess the lottery numbers 16 times in a row then give us 4 Billion dollars to prove you are God. We will
    1 point
  23. "Why is it that flying saucer mockups always show a cockpit bulge on the top?" "aliens with big heads" Surely, a man with your incandescent wit should be able to figure this one out.
    1 point
  24. WTF? was that all about I just was reading this and this guy is a moron.
    1 point
  25. And with that disrespect, you are banned. go pay to host your ideas and rants. For without the allmighty dollar you are never going to be in any power. :D
    1 point
  26. I have moved your insane rant to silly claims for the moment just to give you a chance to have your free speech. But I seriously doubt you will last much longer here.
    1 point
  27. I read about a very rare (less than 50 documented cases since it was recognized as a distinct condition in 1963) condition known as aquagenic urticarial (hives). Though it’s not, in a technical, medical sense, an allergy – as I noted in my previous post, it’s likely not possible for the immune system to target water – it’s a condition where brief exposure to ordinary water causes a severe skin reaction. The best description I’ve read is about a UK woman named Michaela Dutton, who appears in several non-medical stories, such as this 2009 Daily Mail article. It’s not an ordinary allergy – tha
    1 point
  28. “Could a person drown from steam in a shower?” is an interesting question. By the conventional medical definition of “drown”, the answer’s a clear NO. “Drowning” mean “respiratory impairment from being in or under a liquid”. The steamy air in a shower – a mixture of gasses, water vapor and droplets – isn’t a liquid, so can’t be the cause of drowning. If we broaden the definition of drowning to something like “respiratory impairment due to water in the lungs”, we can sketch some scenarios where a person might have respiratory distress, or even death, due to showering. I’ve noticed that
    1 point
  29. So South Korea have granted legal protection to 60,000 sadists after the Nth rooms. Not only did extremely few perpetrators receive lenient sentences, the rest were granted legal protection from the victims. Here's the puzzle; how long until we're all f***ed from corruption, idiocies and sadism? I mean at worst the whole 60k reproduces for a few years with probable victims and masses an army of sadists, 3 victims each 4 years 60k*3*3 plus the possible exponentials of them repeating this bs. That's the extreme end of it, but as you can see the possibility of this is rather unacce
    0 points
  30. "Under Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity can bend time" What's posted is a very basic logical explanation of what this is an attempt at saying, since gravity comes from 3d objects as a whole and not just one part of them it's considered a pooling. I don't think this man a fool, I also don't think nuclear weapons are the most destructive conceptions of theirs either. But what I do know for sure is, the Nth room aftermath is blatant evidence of government corruption of the highest order and in most messed up regard, it's up to the smartest to F*** them off as I'm afraid eve
    0 points
  31. how can you explain this in words? (+, -, *, %) Can you write this out in words please?
    0 points
  32. how can you explain this in words? (+, -, *, %) Can you write this out in words please?
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...