Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/06/17 in all areas

  1. ! Moderator Note I'm going to pretend that's a reported complaint and shut this down. The title makes my teeth ache.
    2 points
  2. I have come up with an idea for a solar car. Now I am not going to build it because it would require welding and although my dad knows how to use a welder and a plasma cutter, I still think it would be too dangerous for even my dad to build, not to mention expensive. Even if he cut all the metal himself, the metal would be expensive. Not to mention it could start a fire which would mean no more solar car. But just because me and my dad can't build it doesn't mean I can't come up with an idea for it. So here is my idea. I was thinking that maybe voltage could determine velocity. When the car is charging, it is connected to a solar panel via a cord which plugs into the top of the car. Then, wires within the chassis send electricity to the battery to charge it up. Once it is fully charged, it won't overcharge. There are 4 different situations that can happen with the battery based on amperage and voltage. Those are: High voltage and High amps(doesn't need recharged) Low voltage and Low amps(needs recharged) Low voltage and High amps(needs recharged and is being used a lot(that or resistance is too low) High voltage and Low amps(Resistance is too high, even the high voltage can't overcome the sheer resistance) So anyway, I know that the circuit would be a lot more complicated than I am showing in the image but it will be easier to understand this way and just so you know, I am using electron current(the true current) so polarity being backwards is because of that. Electrons flow from negative to positive. A big misconception to physics students is that positive charges move but they don't, they are too massive. Conventional current though forces students to think backwards is forwards. This world would be a much better place if we just used electron current. Then there wouldn't be this "positive charges move" misconception. Anyway, here is the simplified circuit(this actually is the original circuit, I will draw a more complicated one just to show how complicated it is): Basic car circuit.pdf From the negative terminal, through the negative wires(those black wires), the electrons flow to the 2 motors(LM means left motor and RM means right motor) and the built in multimeter. Then they flow through the positive wires(those red wires) to the positive terminal. This is all in terms of electron current(here negative wires to negative terminal makes perfect sense). As the voltage on the motors increases, the speed increases. If the voltage difference is 0, the car goes straight. If it is non-zero however, there is more of a torque on the motor with more voltage. Since the motors are mechanically connected to the wheels, this also means more of a torque on the wheels that are on the same side as the motor with higher voltage(so if the right motor has a higher voltage, the right wheels will have a higher torque and thus a higher rotational speed. And while individual torques on the wheels may cancel out, there is 1 more torque caused by all these other torques. That is a torque on the entire car. This 1 torque(which remember originates from the voltage difference), determines whether the car will turn left or right and like the wheel torques, is also in the direction of the higher voltage(so if the right motor has a higher voltage, the car will turn right). What do you think? Is this a good idea as to how voltage can determine velocity?
    1 point
  3. @Anonymous Participant I am presidposed to accept intelligent design. A better way of stating that would be to say I would delighted if it turned out to be valid. Why? It would overturn much of our thinking and thereby offer an exciting new era of investigation and discovery. (Not that things aren't currently pretty exciting.) So I would relish even as little as a sound hint as to the validity of ID. I don't need a full blown confirmation. Equally, I don't wish to knock down a perfectly good dwelling house simply because someone has a sketch of an even grander mansion they will erect on the site. I want to see proper plans and costings. So too with ID. Rather than point out the weaknesses in current theories, or identifying areas we know little about (any fool can do that) I'd like to see some solid evidence to support the concept. You seem an enthusiast for it. I imagine you must have some solid arguments or evidence in support of it. I'm ready to read them, when you are ready to write about them.
    1 point
  4. Not likely since neither were Swiss.
    1 point
  5. Don't know. That's what happens, so yes. If space is being added at some small amount per light year of distance per unit time (I think it's 16 cm), then the more light years you are away from something, the faster the expansion speed.
    1 point
  6. But you haven't proven anything. All you have done is made some further exaggerated statements and one plainly false one. You should read Russell "Why I am not a Christian"
    1 point
  7. No. If something "local" is accelerated then its increase in kinetic energy can be interpreted as an increase in (relativistic) mass, as described by SR. That does not apply to galaxies moving apart from one another which is not [local] motion and there is no increase in relative energy. Yes, because expansion is a scaling effect, not a speed. So it is just simple arithmetic that the speed of separation is proportional to distance. For example, consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light.
    1 point
  8. "It takes big money to run these kinds of experiments, and access to the process is always limited" General Relativity was based solely on thought experiments ( there were no elevators in free fall in 1916 ), and it cleared up some inconsistencies with Newtonian gravity at the time, such as irregularities in Mercury's orbit, the problem of 'action at a distance', and finally put to rest absolute time and space ( and the aether ). GR in effect, filled in gaps which were becoming apparent with Newtonian gravity, and is consistent with Newtonian gravity in those areas where both are applicable. Electrostatic attraction between dissimilar charged particles as a gravitational model fails immediately as non charged particles ( and even massless particles like photons ) interact gravitationally. your subsequent mention of Intelligent Design is even more absurd, and the mental equivalent of 'grasping at straws' because you have no other explanation. If the universe is so complex that it requires an intelligence to design it, then the designer must be vastly MORE complex. Doesn't the designer, then, require a designer ( by your logic ). And so on, and so on... ( turtles all the way down ) It was you who stated "you have no place in the intellectual discipline that is science", not any of us. Presumably because we are 'close minded' and not 'open to new ideas', but actually, we are simply resisting ideas that do not pass scientific scrutiny.
    1 point
  9. No one is silencing you. You were asked to provide evidence. You were unable to do this. You have, effectively, silenced yourself. Atheism is not a belief system. Creationism/ID is based on a belief system (one that takes a number of metaphorical myths as being literally true.) And atheism has nothing to do with science. There are, and always have been, many religious scientists.
    1 point
  10. I would honestly say that far from seeking to silence you, a great deal of patience has been expended on your behalf, waiting to see if you had anything coherent to say.
    1 point
  11. "dx/dθ * dx" is meaningless. Did you intend "dx/dθ * dθ"?
    1 point
  12. For that, we have to go to the historical use of a large hammer to treat idiocy.
    1 point
  13. Mike, you're probably getting negative reputation for the same reasons I suggested earlier in this thread. Repeating the same stuff, no evidence and mostly (although I see you've made a bit more of an effort on this one in one or two posts) ignoring the responses of others.
    1 point
  14. Hi All, I am wondering if it is possible to calculate the de novo mutation rate in a genetic disease, given that you know the current disease incidence rate ? Does the de novo mutation rate change over time, as a result of environmental factors etc ? I'm new to genetics so I'm not really sure what plays a part in de novo mutation rates. I can image that if there was an equation, it would take into account many parameters. Regards, Rick
    1 point
  15. My irony meter just broke You have no way of knowing this. It's an assumption, not a fact.
    1 point
  16. Surely, I'm not the only one who keeps thinking "sausages" upon reading the thread title?
    1 point
  17. "Unconscious" is a state of consciousness in the same way that "bald" is a state of hair colour.
    1 point
  18. Today I learned that people with a darker skin need more sun exposure then people with a whiter skin. Larger amounts of the pigment melanin in the epidermal layer result in darker skin and reduce the skin's ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356951/
    1 point
  19. By that definition, every conscious being on Earth is at the pinnacle, of it... So long and thanks for all the fish .
    1 point
  20. "What Is Americas Biggest Problem?" A missing apostrophe.
    1 point
  21. I suspect that many researchers are well aware of it. Here is one aspect of their research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchbox_sign
    1 point
  22. While there are stories where race plays an important part, Jim in Huckleberry Fin for example, there are far more stories where race isn't important. In such stories, casting people without regard to race, I believe, gives us a glimpse of how our culture and society should operate. I find stories cast in such a way to be quite refreshing. I find this to be particularly true when the director does not add racial tension which is not found in the original story. If there was no racial tension in the original story, why should it be added to a modern rendition. My world if full of people of different races. Why shouldn't that also apply to my entertainment? The gender issue around games I find to be a different issue. The nature/nurture question is a tough nut to crack. I think one has to look at evolutionary time scales to understand nature. For example Zebras are herd animals. Was there a time in their evolutionary path where they were not herd animals? How has the evolution of Zebras ingrained the herd instinct into Zebras. Similar questions can be asked about gender differences between men and women. How long have there been role differences between the roles of men and women. Has evolution ingrained these role differences into men and women? For example, are women more cooperative and men more competitive. Did these differences improve human survival? Did abstracting problems into games somehow benefit men more than women in contributing to human survival? If so, perhaps men are instinctually more interested in games. Now I'm sure some will be offended by such a line of questioning, but perhaps it shows the importance of diversity. Our survival depends on the skills we developed during our evolution. Why wouldn't our success continue to depend on those diverse skills.
    0 points
  23. There is no evidence to support intelligent design. Absolutely nada. The way I see it there is no creator or designer that actually cares about humans, otherwise this world will not be so cruel and hard for many people every day. If there was a God or an intelligent designer then people would not get cancer or diabetes or Parkinson's disease or multiple scelerosis. The fact that good people are suffering on this planet and many of them even dying every day to me kinda proves that there is no God or an intelligent designer.
    0 points
  24. John Cuthber; You didn't check with the SEP did you? Well, it is a lot of reading, so try this: Go to Wiki and type in Id, Ego, and Superego. When you get to that page, scroll down about half way and you will see a picture of an iceberg on the right hand side. This is the representation that Freud created of the mind. It is now widely accepted as a reasonable picture of how the conscious and unconscious are divided. Freud stated that the conscious mind is like the tip of an iceberg with the vast majority of mind (the unconscious) hidden from our awareness. This is not just from psychology. A working neurologist explained to me that the unconscious is necessary as there is just too much information to process in the rational conscious mind, trying to do so would make us useless at best, or crazy at worst. It is unfortunate that the medical definition of mind that divided it into conscious and unconscious is the one that we use to describe this aspect of mind, as it makes one think that nothing is going on when we are unconscious. Nothing could be further from the truth. The unconscious aspect of mind is massive, and I personally suspect that it is even greater that Freud described. Gee Area54; Did you know that just before you wake up every time, little fairies riding on miniature pink unicorns are what start the process of your waking up? You don't know about them because you are sleeping when it happens, but you can't deny it because that would be an unwarranted assumption. Sorry, but I had to either get mad or laugh, I chose to laugh. Your logic is so illogical that it is funny. If something is known, we can discuss it; if it is not known, then it is speculation. This is real easy stuff here. Gee iNow; Yes. I will give out neg reps when someone in my thread passes out disinformation. If I think that I can argue the point or explain where the person is wrong, I will do so, but some people just do not listen to facts, and others make a joke, often sarcastically, to make their point. This can sway a reader into believing what was written, and I hate causing someone to receive bad information because I hate receiving bad information myself. So I use the neg reps to hopefully make the reader consider that what they are reading may not be true. An example would be when (paraphrased) you stated that a person in a coma would be the same as a person, who is dead -- according to me. This was a clear example of disinformation, and some people bought into it. You could have just asked. OK. Self awareness is the most advanced consciousness that we know of. Is that better? This is how I know it. (chuckle) Gee Area54; But I did not assert that humanity must be the pinnacle of consciousness. So you think that I should say "Good point" to someone who corrupts the meaning of my words, and congratulate them on their brilliant observation that their assumption and interpretation of what I wrote is wrong? Don't you think that there are enough people kissing iNow's backside? Is one more really necessary? Why don't I get the apology???? You probably don't know this, but iNow was in my thread on the Supernatural, and in my thread on Emotion, and in this thread. In all three of these threads, iNow contributed nothing of value, picked at posts that were made by me, and attempted to introduce neurology and/or studies of the brain into the threads. This is documented fact -- look them up if you want. You think this is coincidence? You think that iNow is going to cease and desist? Can you recognize a pattern? OK. Gee
    -1 points
  25. You're going to have to be specific if you want me to attempt to respond. Gravity and electrostatic attraction are similar in many mores ways than dissimilar, in the end it will be discovered that the four main forces are all the same thing. You are reaching, and desperate. Just like a religious fanatic whose god has been denied. My assertions ARE falsifiable, all you need to do as I pointed out already is prove in an instance that the universe is not an intelligent arrangement. NOW GET TO IT!
    -1 points
  26. Read the first line in the post you replied to. I can't help but notice the sig at the bottom of your post. Talk about ego! Anyone who disagrees with you is subhuman. rac·ist ˈrāsəst/ noun noun: racist; plural noun: racists 1. a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, OR who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Comparing present day sub Saharan Africa to Rome 2000 years ago or a graph of the bell curve illustrating and comparing intelligence of whites , blacks, and Asians should illustrate to you well that the races are not equal and some are inferior to others in a variety of areas. To impose impossible equality degrades and undermines society. It might not be politically correct but it is factually correct and it doesn't have to mean you dislike or are prejudice against another race. I think the races (and us as individuals) have strengths and weaknesses that invariably make us unequal and yes, superior or inferior to other races.
    -1 points
  27. Again, I challenge anyone here to provide a single piece of empirical proof or evidence that the universe is not an intelligent design.
    -1 points
  28. It's impossible to reconcile science and religion because religion is bullshit while science is not. Any moderately intelligent person can see that religion is total bullshit.
    -1 points
  29. I think again. Ideally, creatures of your type should be polished on the whole planet. Think of some selective poison. The world would be fine at last. I'm sure you will not be making your head. I'm sure you're the smartest. Expert: D amused me: D But I'm pretty sure you're going to end up very bad. Are you unbelievers? I bet the shoes. What you're doing is the worst hyenism you can. Your little bird-mind is not able to realize it. I'm really sorry about you. And even more those who are victims of these evil illnesses. Thank you for opening my eyes. So far, I have considered wikipedia a credible source of information. Today, I know it's just a powerful disinformation tool. Using real information to gain confidence. That's why they can lie faithfully how they fit it. Wikipedia set up organized criminals and is organized and controlled by organized criminals. The truth, however, is the first, each shadow illuminated by its light. And every dark-creatures will disappear from the world just as the shadow disappears from the light.
    -3 points
  30. Most of your posts are also nonsense most of the time because I realize you really post a lot of nonscientific bullshit.
    -4 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.