Jump to content
Science Forums

DaveC426913

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from OceanBreeze in Dart Trajectory   
    He is one of the best players in our club. Although that's really not saying much. We just dart for fun, though it is a tournament. At least half our players have trouble hitting the board thrice in a row.
     
    He only does occasionally, to keep both skillsets sharp. I'm not sure if he's much worse at underhand than overhand.
  2. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from OceanBreeze in Dart Trajectory   
    I dart with a guy who likes to throw underhand.
     
    The angle of impact is supposed to be more advantageous - essentially, the dart hits the board at the top of its arc - dead straight in.
  3. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from hazelm in Is This True?   
    Yes. I'd say mentioning playing the film backwards is merely to give an image of : "This is what it would look like, if it happened in reality".
     
    Playing the film backwards is not literally part of the concept of thermodynamics they're trying to communicate to the reader.
  4. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from OceanBreeze in Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light   
    Thanks, OB. That does actually provide some clarity, assuming you are correct in your assessment of his argument.
  5. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from exchemist in People Say I Don't Have Proof Of Another Universe   
    Not that I want to lend credence to Vmdevil's ideas but - just because we can't see DM with light, doesn't mean we can't observe it. The Bullet Cluster is considered direct evidence of DM.
  6. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from pzkpfw in Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light   
    What is observed is the only reality we can talk about. Relativity is not an illusion or mirage.
     
    Spacetime is curved. As speeds increase, time and distances are altered. The galaxies are traveling wrt each other at 0.96c. 
      Mainstream science does not "concoct" formulae. Use of such words is a red flag that an emotional - rather than rational - argument is in-play. 
     
     
    To the reader: Moronium has his preferred pet theories about relativity. They are not mainstream science. I'm not here to support or refute such claims. Non-mainstream theories can be raised elsewhere.
  7. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from exchemist in Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light   
    I am afraid this is incorrect.
     
    When calculating relativistic velocities, you must use the relativistic velocity addition equation.
     
    The two galaxies are only moving at 0.96c with respect to each other.
     
     
     
     
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html
    About halfway down the page is a calculator where you can see for yourself. (Don't forget one value should be negative!)
     
    Note that even at +0.999999c and -0.999999c, the galaxies are only moving at 0.9999999999995001c with respect to each other.
  8. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from exchemist in People Say I Don't Have Proof Of Another Universe   
    No one said it was. Certainly not I.
     
    The orbital defines the probability cloud of where it will be found.
  9. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from petrushkagoogol in Reverse Engineering Fake News Using Computer Programming   
    1] What do either of these have to do with deciphering fake news? What algorithm out there thinks that beards mean questionable character?
     
    2] The problem is that this can (indeed, must) be manipulated for the benefit of those who curate the news. You would immediately be in a position where you could not trust your news because it's being filtered by someone who has decided what is and is not fake news. Facebook is guilty of this. They curate what news they want you to see.
  10. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from petrushkagoogol in Should Search Engine Strings Make Sense ?   
    You would be in the minority.
     
    1] If search engines kept returning 0 results until and unless the searcher spelled everything correctly, people would get extremely irate.
     
    2] What is the down side of producing best guesses when you spell something wrong?
     
    Worst case is that it returns stuff you didn't want. Which is no worse than if it returned nothing (you still don't get what you want)
     
    So, there's definitely a strong statistical advantage in guessing, and no worse consequences if it doesn't get it right.
  11. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from petrushkagoogol in Should Search Engine Strings Make Sense ?   
    Indeed. It was horrible.
     
    Imagine wandering around in a desert, where you knew there were all sorts of treasures buried under every square inch, but your search tool would give you null results unless you got exactly the right settings.
     
    That is what it was like when humans had to learn how computers thought.
     
    I celebrate the day when Google realized that the web could be human-friendly and computers must learn how humans think.
  12. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from petrushkagoogol in Why Does Quora Err In Finding The Appropriate Subject-Head For A Post   
    You forgot "extensions" under Hair-dressing.
  13. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from petrushkagoogol in Low Priority Bug In Quora   
    Not a bug.
     
    Most fora will auto-edit members' posts to remove extraneous or unwanted text.
     
    Multiple punctuation marks is one, typing in all-caps is another.
  14. Like
    DaveC426913 reacted to A-wal in Double Slit Experiment With Living Organims   
    Pa-ra-graphs!!!
  15. Like
    DaveC426913 reacted to JMJones0424 in Should Search Engine Strings Make Sense ?   
    I doubt your sincerity, and I am almost willing to bet that you are not old enough to remember a time when your wish was true.  There's a reason why Google is a very profitable company.
     
    Regardless, in the example you provided, if you had your wish, the appropriate response would be a null set.  I don't know how this would be a better solution.  Maybe I'm missing something.
  16. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from JMJones0424 in People Say I Don't Have Proof Of Another Universe   
    :D
    Took it as a challenge.
  17. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from JMJones0424 in People Say I Don't Have Proof Of Another Universe   
    Electrons do not orbit the nucleus. They certainly don't follow circular paths. The electrons do not "follow a path" of any sort.(As a charged particle, if they followed a path, changing their angular momentum, then they would emit EM radiation, just like moving a magnet near generates current in a wire. This would cause the electron to lose energy and fall into the nucleus.)
     
    This model has been debunked for a hundred years.
     
    Look up electron orbitals. They describe the shape of the probability cloud of where an electron might be found when observed. 
     
    It behooves you to study up on the latest physics before trying to move forward with your own ideas.
  18. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Can Light Cause Oxidation?   
    Or an industry that could change the world...
     
    Say, photography.
     
    The emulsion layers in film are sensitive to most of the range of visible light, allowing us to capture a projected image.
     
    But they're not sensitive to all forms of light. That's why darkrooms can be lit by deep red lights, which humans can see, but film cannot.
  19. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from anopsology in Why Do We Use Soap To Remove Germs And Bacteria? What Does It Do?   
    Yes.
     
    Soaps are comprised of a molecule called a surfactant which has two components: a detergent and an emulsifier. Detergents tear things apart, while emulsifiers gather things into globs and surround them.
     
    Soap molecules have a water-loving end and a lipid-loving end. The lipid-loving end of the molecule attaches itself to any fats it finds on dish or skin, and the water-loving end can then be attacked by water. (Hot water has enough kinetic energy to drag the molecules and their captive fats away from the dish/skin.)
     
    More soap molecules can now surround the rest of the fatty bit (called emulsification) leaving the fat on the inside, where it cannot re-attach to anything. It can then be carried away by the water.
     
    Note that soap does not kill bacteria (unless it has an added disinfectant). The process of washing with soap simply facilitates the mechanical removal of bacteria.
     
     

     
    http://www.planet-science.com/categories/under-11s/chemistry-chaos/2011/06/soap---how-does-it-get-things-clean.aspx
  20. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Why Do We Use Soap To Remove Germs And Bacteria? What Does It Do?   
    Yes.
     
    Soaps are comprised of a molecule called a surfactant which has two components: a detergent and an emulsifier. Detergents tear things apart, while emulsifiers gather things into globs and surround them.
     
    Soap molecules have a water-loving end and a lipid-loving end. The lipid-loving end of the molecule attaches itself to any fats it finds on dish or skin, and the water-loving end can then be attacked by water. (Hot water has enough kinetic energy to drag the molecules and their captive fats away from the dish/skin.)
     
    More soap molecules can now surround the rest of the fatty bit (called emulsification) leaving the fat on the inside, where it cannot re-attach to anything. It can then be carried away by the water.
     
    Note that soap does not kill bacteria (unless it has an added disinfectant). The process of washing with soap simply facilitates the mechanical removal of bacteria.
     
     

     
    http://www.planet-science.com/categories/under-11s/chemistry-chaos/2011/06/soap---how-does-it-get-things-clean.aspx
  21. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from hazelm in Why Do We Use Soap To Remove Germs And Bacteria? What Does It Do?   
    Yes.
     
    Soaps are comprised of a molecule called a surfactant which has two components: a detergent and an emulsifier. Detergents tear things apart, while emulsifiers gather things into globs and surround them.
     
    Soap molecules have a water-loving end and a lipid-loving end. The lipid-loving end of the molecule attaches itself to any fats it finds on dish or skin, and the water-loving end can then be attacked by water. (Hot water has enough kinetic energy to drag the molecules and their captive fats away from the dish/skin.)
     
    More soap molecules can now surround the rest of the fatty bit (called emulsification) leaving the fat on the inside, where it cannot re-attach to anything. It can then be carried away by the water.
     
    Note that soap does not kill bacteria (unless it has an added disinfectant). The process of washing with soap simply facilitates the mechanical removal of bacteria.
     
     

     
    http://www.planet-science.com/categories/under-11s/chemistry-chaos/2011/06/soap---how-does-it-get-things-clean.aspx
  22. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from cladking in Rainbow Vs Moonbow   
    It is not distance that makes the Sun's rays essentially parallel; it is angular diameter. The sun's image from Earth is a disc 0.5 degrees in diameter. That's a distance to diameter ratio of 400:1.
     
    So, it is self-evident that the sun's rays are non-parallel by up to 0.5 degrees.
     
    What if we do the same thing with the Moon? Well, because of solar eclipses, we know that the Moon's angular diameter is the same as the Sun's (the Moon perfectly eclipses the Sun) or 0.5 degrees. Same ratio: 400:1. 
     
    And that means the Moon's rays are just as parallel as the Sun's.
     

     
    Or, put another way: the triangle formed by the Moon and your point of observation is similar (as in: similar triangles) to the triangle formed by the Sun and your PoV. Which mans, by definition all angles in the two triangles are identical.
     
     
     
     
     
    As for what that has to do with the speed of light, well, it doesn't.
  23. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from sanctus in People Say I Don't Have Proof Of Another Universe   
    Electrons do not orbit the nucleus. They certainly don't follow circular paths. The electrons do not "follow a path" of any sort.(As a charged particle, if they followed a path, changing their angular momentum, then they would emit EM radiation, just like moving a magnet near generates current in a wire. This would cause the electron to lose energy and fall into the nucleus.)
     
    This model has been debunked for a hundred years.
     
    Look up electron orbitals. They describe the shape of the probability cloud of where an electron might be found when observed. 
     
    It behooves you to study up on the latest physics before trying to move forward with your own ideas.
  24. Like
    DaveC426913 reacted to Buffy in My Thread Just Disappeared. Anyone Know Why?   
    Sigh.
     
    It's not my job to educate you, dear. I do give you credit for reading the paper which I picked precisely to see if you'd attack it out of hand or find that it "agreed" with your position.
     
    Unfortunately, you've just kind of shown that you latch on to "inconsistencies" for which SR must totally be to blame, and at the same time dismiss any proof of SR as not being relevant.
     
    That's the crux of people's annoyance with you. 
     
    Are there "inconsistencies" from what is "expected" in tests that *interpret* SR? You betcha. Are we learning more and coming up with more refined theories like "frame-dragging" to explain what we see? Of course.
     
    Do such refinements constitute "abandon(ing) it as a model?" Most assuredly not.
     
    And that's your problem. 
     
    Now, I'm buried in getting a new release out the door and don't have time to play with you, but honestly, even if I did, your annoying, haughty and dismissive attitude is the real problem here. Along with not being able to see the forest for the trees.
     
    An official reminder that one of our top rules is against "annoying our members." So, a reminder not to be a Noying. It will not serve you well here or in real life.
     
     
    Some people are immune to good advice, :phones:Buffy 
  25. Like
    DaveC426913 got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Do Planets Drift?   
    The position of planets often evolves over astronomical time frames (hundreds of millions of years or more) through interaction. They don't drift away and just keep on drifting. They may move in for a while, then out again, even occasionally switching positions depending on their interactions. It is very rare - and catastrophic - for a planet to actually get ejected from a system.
×
×
  • Create New...