All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. test max 365 If in order to starting your Body Building training then push ups will be really nice with a large part of your upper body muscles. However the effectiveness of push up will decrease over time. What happens is if you continue with traditional push ups then you just aren't increasing the you are lifting. It is always your body fat. So with push ups you will reach a stage once your muscles can withstand the actual weight effectively. Once this point is reached, you will not get much benefit treated by simply getting bigger muscles or even more strength. Though you will be continue obtain endurance.
  3. Greek inventions: Hydraulic wheel Analog computer Odometer Papanicolaou test Alarm clock Sieve of Eratosthenes Catapult Cartography Archimedes’ Screw Basic Medicine Concept of democracy Coined money
  4. Today
  5. I've always been fascinated by the approach of the ancient Greeks-- Their top tinkers were truly philosophers, but not scientists. That is, they developed their ideas by thought and reasoning (such as Geometry) but did very little experimentation-- no scientific method. Aristotle, if I recall correctly, had some very interesting thoughts on motion, but never verified by experiment (and he was wrong).
  6. Interesting discussipn so far. I would like to note in regards to thermodynamics and the oven mentioned above. Under the classical ideal gas laws treat all thermodynamics as a homogeneous and isotropic fluid with adiabatic ( no inflow or outflow of energy) expansion. Now think about the observable universe and lets assume the above isn't true but instead we have a surrounding universe that isn't of the same temperature as the observable portion state. As you approach the further regions of our observable universe the temperature will have a gradiant, depending on the temp variation. So no longer homogeneous and isotropic... Our observations agree strongly that this isn't the case and the immediate regions (regions of shared causality overlap) outside our observable portion will be roughly the same thermodynamic state. Beyond regions of possible shared causality overlaps we simply will never know.
  7. I too remember better that which I write down. After watching my students work and noting who learned and remembered the most, I came to the conclusion that remembering, for most people, requires that the brain process the information in some form. Reading alone does not seem to cause most people to process the information. Read-interpret-write seems to cause sufficient processing to make information stick better.
  8. Well, at least where I live, from the start of twilight in the morning to the end of twilight in the evening, we average 11 hrs 49 min and 2 sec of light per day in November. this works out to 30 "just over a half" days of darkness.
  9. What did your Bible say about using "insure" instead of "ensure"?
  10. Zapatos wrote the Ted Robinson wrote “Incidentally I notice that a number of submitters use the word “it’s” as the possessive form of “it,” which is like fingernails on a blackboard to namby-pamby nitpickers like myself.” -- Shouldn't the comma have been placed outside the quotes? Not according to my education as a master’s degree in Journalism and experience as editor-in-chief of the Daily Bruin. My staff practically made a profession out of insuring correctness in these matters and grammatical textbooks became our Bible.
  11. Lol that is a little harsh.. I meet him at 25% the bare minimum. Why? Well his view points are basic theological belief system. And my assumption he and most likely you and others here not familiar with jewish kabbalah. Long time ago I study the logos system and he's getting to somewhat to those types of points. It's pointless and useless now these days but in a mystical sense it's attractive. Not to me thou. I consider it folly. Hello Mike, What you are trying to get at will not be in science sadly. I have a feeling with the the absolute hard evidence of science will not convince your conscious. Even if I produce the best possible scientific research and evidences to you, you will look the other way because you won't be fully satisfy. I think you reach a certain level at your age you don't want empirical evidence anymore. But a spiritual awakening of some sort? You might be at the wrong place than. I can show you another path. A path I long abandon but is tattoo into my brain. It will take you deep down the hole. And it's full of opposite evidence that is found in this forum. I have a feeling this is the path you want to get into....... You can start here: - I wasted 10 years in this category!!!! - couple of years on this !! - here comes the rabbit holes of 1 out of a million This is the path I have a feeling you want. This is where you want to be at. Science has the answer. But science dose not have these mystical strange answers. Good luck. Best of luck. This stuff is not easy to decipher. I wasted a decade on this sadly
  12. As a lay person, I included the paper Abstract simply to elaborate on the article itself, so I would say that it adds validity and reputability to that article, remembering that sometimes "pop science articles" can sometimes be misleading, in their efforts to simplify. I believe the following would some up the abstract and paper...... In essence, the data simply again reinforced the accuracy of GR, and its correctness within its zone of applicability. I once was a part of another forum, where at least four "would be's if they could be's" all claimed to different degrees that GR was wrong, and yet all they were proficient in doing was spreading their agenda laden anti Einstein nonsense on public forums and insidiously avoiding proper publication and proper professional peer review.
  13. Yesterday
  14. I am more than willing to entertain the idea of god, fairies (and all the other pagan things), angels, demons, the supernatural in general just as soon as someone offers some evidence a bit more substantial than "what else could it be" or feelies, or a hunch. Mike, be serious, I can make a much better case for aliens visiting the Earth than your "feeling of connection" Would you be willing to believe such an improbable thing as the Hollow Earth just because I said I had a feeling it was true? Your idea of god sounds quite a bit like the idea of ancient astronauts crossed with magic. I cannot in good faith even meet you .1% of the way on this Mike...
  15. Oddly this isn't the case with me. I don't know if it is because I work via computer so much or what but I have a difficult time thinking or processing information while physically writing anything. It's so bad that I will often type out words and or phrases prior to writing them down because the act of typing allows me to think my fluidly while writing itself often causes me to lose my train of thought. Words I struggle to spell on paper are effortlessly typed and things I type are much easier to recall than those I write down. For me typing something out via a word doc or email, even just once, is far more effective than creating hand written flashcards. When I really want to remember something I write myself an email about it. I don't merely forwards links or copy and paste text but actually type out a short summary. Even if I never read the email, I typically don't, the summary is remember.
  16. Thanks for that quick answer. Of course, heavy metals are required for the photochemisynthetic method. That makes it a health and safety hazard then and so unlikely to be used unless there is a secondary reaction where the acetate made is converted into a carbon-based fuel. That is a whole new field of investigation.
  17. 15 days of darkness? 30 half days...sounds about right...
  18. As a former biomedical scientist, forgive me for being a bit sceptical but, it goes with the territory. The modelling activity was very interesting however... Read more at:
  19. . Well , you all seem to say , Many people have commented and done research on HEIRACHY AMONG LIVING SPECIES. Before I started this thread . , I was unaware of this . I coined the HIERACHY idea apparently after a long period , where others had used this Classification. HOWEVER , I do not see much so far which list , GOD ... HUMANS... FISH as a distinct HEIRACHY. This is perhaps because I am deliberately trying to forge a link, across these three species . Because they are there ...and I have access to all three. Two by dint of Birth and one by (Records , observation and Experience.) Or at least that is the proposal ! So , although I can recognise these other HEIRACHY 's represent a lot of research by scientists over the years . I am particularly interested in establishing the specific HIERACHY which I have personally been discussing . This so because it at least uses evidence produced by at least 2 , layers in the HIERACHY, and using much of Human History ' en mass', can establish the third member of the HIERACHY , beyond reasonable doubt, IF ONE IS PREPARED TO TAKE THE WHOLE EARTH SYSTEM AS THE PROOF , RATHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL ENTITY . This we do with some of the other members of Heirachies , say the human being . Where we take individual cells , liquids , systems , to come together to make an individual human being ? This could be likened to a biological research establishment . Doing deep research and development over a number of years. Finally coming up with a drug that is used in treating xxxxxxxx. Similarly , I am saying a research and development organisation of immense proportions ( called GOD ) many , many years ago produced , amongst many other things , a species called MAN . After a great deal of brainpower, effort and manufacture . (Similarly with FISH , amongst many other things ) . Having previously done a lot of other work on atoms , minerals , and particles. Mike
  20. 0.1 parts per million (the 65th most common element). A bigger problem is that it is extremely toxic. It has been replaced in nearly all of the industrial uses it had in the past.
  21. I don't understand what the Abstract says. Could you please explain this in plain English mate and give us a recap of GR while you're at it. Thanks/
  22. It seems that cadmium is seeded into bacterial culture and then the cadmium is crystallised, as a sulfide compound, on the surface in the form of semi conductors. The presence of cadmium is a limiting factor here. How much of it is present in the Earth (estimates?) and what is the use of the acetate which is made as a photosynthetic product? IMHO, this is exciting but at the first stage of making a useable fuel source for humans.
  23. Thanks. Here are a couple of tidbits about the totality photo. The colored spots on the edge of the disk are caused by solar prominences. I wasn't sure of this myself until I saw a higher res photo taken by someone else that shows them better. In addition, I caught the star Regulus in the shot. It is the white dot in the lower left of the Image.
  24. Interesting but looks highly theoretical. When has a black hole interacted with a neutron star? When has a black hole been characterised close up?
  25. Not zero. Zero would be impossible to calculate as some who voted for him in 2016 will be dead by 2020, others in prison, others may not vote for some other reason and etc. There will also be first time voters who neither voted for or against him in 2016. That said I'm 2012 Obama got 65.9 million votes to Romney's 60.9 million. In 2016 Clinton got 65.8 million to Trump's 62.8. Meanwhile everyone agrees Clinton and Obama as candidates are wildly different and Romney and Trump were wildly different. The result was breathtakingly similar. In 08' McCain got 60 million and in 04' Bush got 62 million. The window is very tight. Bush's term ended in total ruin and still not much of a percentage turned on the Party. People overwhelming vote the party line and it takes earth changing events to shift even a couple percent of voters. So I feel it is safe to assume Trump gets his 62-63 million votes again. The key to beating him isn't in flipping any of his supporters but rather is in turning out new supporters, people who don't always vote and first time voters.
  26. Where in that post does it say anything about "the breaking of entanglement creates stable particles" ? It is purely about black holes. I'll have to take your word for it then. (I will have to assume you are better at understanding the spoken word than written.) Ah, here is a website with a transcript of the video. I haven't read it all yet. It is not very clear (because it is an informal talk) but I get the impression that energy is not created, just moved from one place to another.
  27. The observable universe is simply that part of the universe that EMR from distant regions has had time to reach us: If the universe is infinite, then by definition it stretches far beyond anything we can or will ever be able to measure. The evidence so far tells us that the universe/spacetime is isotropic and homogeneous, at least for the observable universe and we (scientists that is) have no reason to believe that would not extend everywhere. The CMBR would be the same over there as it is here. Logically the universe as a whole, extends beyond our observable horizon in all directions, and probably to infinite quantities. There are no edges or centers to any reasonable current model of the universe/spacetime, either finite or infinite. Our assumptions on the isotropic and homogeneous nature of the universe tells us that they should be the same. Analogies while certainly being useful, all have limitations. Your second question is simply physics and as Strange has said, is just the relationship between volume, pressure and temperatures and is evidenced in many ways in our general day to day living.. I must admit my understanding of infinite and infinite quantities is lacking somewhat and I was advised back in the thread to read up on this topic which I intend to do. In the meantime my limited research so far tells me that infinity exist when relevant quantities are stretched far beyond what we will ever be capable of measuring and/or knowing: I am certainly more comfortable with that definition so far. Remember even when cosmologists speak of a physical BH singularity, or the BB singularity, they are not automatically inferring infinite quantities, although such singularities may lead to infinite quantities. I welcome any comment from any reputable source as to the validity or otherwise of what I have posted above...any errors, alterations and/or corrections?
  28. Yes, you did. Check your last reply. It's explained in this video by my good friend Leonard Susskind.
  1. Load more activity