Leaderboard

Yes, we were doing a literal mathematical calculation. But since you bring up the philosophy of probability: I've heard this type of argument before and it is 100% nonsensical to me. It is exactly like this: If you had a quintillion balls each numbered from 1 to quintillion, you picked one and commented ''Wow! What a coincidence that you picked that one since the odds of picking this exact one were 1 in quintillion. How remarkable!'' It is simply because every possibility has incredibly small odds of happening in scenarios such as these. Any possible way the earth and life or the universe might have turned up would have yielded unbelievably small odds of happening. The problem is you're considering the scenario which DID happen as special. What are the odds of there being a bird in this specific town in the world which was chased by humans and blown away by the wind which blew at this exact force and the bird ultimately got hit by a yellow Toyota truck with the exact X license plates at 2:36 PM on a Sunday of October, 2017.? The odds are practically impossibly small, yet it happened today. So how is that possible? Do you see the problem with this kind of logic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole You need to do some reading... LOL, what a surprise a neg rep from It...

Will they put the river in jail if it drowns someone?

That's easy. You can make hydrogen from fossil fuel. C + 2 H2O --> 2 H2 + CO2 The plane doesn't make CO2 (the hydrogen factory makes it). The slight fly in the ointment is that the reaction also needs heat to drive it and that heat has to be supplied by burning additional fuel... Ammonia is one way to transport "hydrogen". Methanol is another. The fundamental problem is where do we get the energy from? As a chemist, if you supply me with energy, I can make just about any fuel you like from things like air, water and CO2.

To be fair, I agree 100% with Dimreeper in that you're not helping your case when citing this website. What does their support or dissent have to do with anything at all? What sort of citation or proof is that? It doesn't make much sense to me. I mean, I agree with you to a certain extent, especially since we found common ground in the discussion, but this part is meaningless.

A case of this?

The reason I suggested you aren't helping, is that it really has nothing to do with the words we use. We can ban all the words that have a negative connotation in this context, but some nasty bugger will just come up with new words that become/are just as insulting; words aren't the problem, it's the attitude of those that wield them, the only way to stop the merry-go-round is to teach people about brakes.

It doesn't get cheaper than free. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/retard

Assume you need the hydrogen . I would try amphoteric reaction with aluminium metal or zinc . Rule of thumb 20 c more temp doubles the reaction speed

Absolutely. With a major driver being the "space race", if going there had actually been impossible, rather than fake it and risk exposure, they'd have sat back and exposed the soviets fakery (if it occurred). That Mitchell and Webb Look - Moon Landing Sketch : Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

Ya, they may have different element bases and biochemistry like how they think that they may have found bubbles of vinyl cyanide that could form a different biochemistry's cell membrane. Vinyl Cyanide Bubbles proteinlike on Titan. Carbon based in the form that we are used to is unlikely, They DNA may be different bases, they proteins different chains of amino acids. Most likely they are immune to our organic pathogens of RNA + DNA due to base pair synthesis and vice versa incompatibility. Alternate Biochemistry Theory Humans are in the process of making a alternate biochemistry silicon and diamond nanobots all that is needed is a slightly smaller electron lithography to make them to nano-scale right now processing chips are made with 36 to 12 nm electron beams about 1 nm would be needed for nanobots to have filters the size of molecules for respiration. Molecular Filter

Then I stumbled across this from glasgow university http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf On the nature of the photon and the electron J.G.Williamsona a University of Glasgow, College of Science & Engineering, Glasgow G12 8LT, Scotland; ABSTRACT A new theory, describing both light and material particles, is proposed. The experimentally-observed nature of space and time are brought into the theory at the most fundamental level. An equation encompassing the usual free-space Maxwell equations but similar in form to the Dirac equation is proposed. This equation has new kinds of solutions. Propagating, pure-field solutions may have any energy, but the energy transferred must be proportional to the frequency. These are identified with the physical photon. Solutions with a rest-mass term allow any incoming propagating field to merge into re-circulating vortex-like solutions. The minimum energy configuration “rectifies” the oscillating electric field of light into a uni-directional, radial (inward or outward directed) configuration. The resulting apparent external charge may be readily estimated and is found to be of the order of the elementary charge. The spin may, likewise, be calculated, and is found to be half integral, exhibiting a double-covering internal symmetry. Charge is then not a fundamental quantity in the theory - but is a result of the way field folds from a rest-massless bosonic to a rest-massive fermionic configuration. The simplest such charged, fermionic particles are identified with the electron and positron.

OK. Thanks. Interesting. (Of course, solitons are not matter, so I'm not sure if that is what Dubblosix was thinking of.)

Edit Very Important The following is correct for 1kg sized objects, but it does not apply to electron sized objects. It sounds like you are asing about what we call 'Contact Mechanics' in Materials Science and related sciences. There are Elastic formula to this problem for the stress distribution in. The original developer of these stresses was Hertz, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hertzian+stress&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=FTbrWeXhAc7A8geP6JrgDg although Coulomb previously offered solutions in Geology, Soil Mechanics and foundation engineering. https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&q=Coulomb+stress&oq=Coulomb+stress&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i7i30k1l5j0l2j0i30k1l3.102840.105177.0.105721.7.7.0.0.0.0.124.756.2j5.7.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.7.749...0i7i10i30k1.0.DzRQlnNYh8c Development of this subject can be found in books on advanced elasticity, strength of materials, or mechnicas of materials. Most of these formula can be found in Roark: Formulae for stress and strain. https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&q=roark's+formulas+for+stress+and+strain&oq=Roark&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i67k1l2j0l8.181493.182626.0.184564.5.5.0.0.0.0.123.567.1j4.5.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.5.560...46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.dBx-cyoCbEU The subject also provides elastic solutions to the problems of contact area and max/min stresses and their location. https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&q=Fracture+Mechanics&oq=Fracture+Mechanics&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.118752.122435.0.124577.18.18.0.0.0.0.173.2333.0j18.18.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.18.2322...0i131k1j0i67k1.0.DQugxEgc3v4 Here is the relevant page from Roark Modern treatments also include non elastic solutions from the subject of Fracture Mechanics. https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&q=Fracture+Mechanics&oq=Fracture+Mechanics&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.118752.122435.0.124577.18.18.0.0.0.0.173.2333.0j18.18.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.18.2322...0i131k1j0i67k1.0.DQugxEgc3v4

Why do people here have trouble understanding that monkeys are a metaphor for randomness? Substitute monkeys with random.org or God's unbiased mathematically random machine or whatever you feel is more fitting to the scenario. You mean ''Shakespeare'', not ''Hamlet'', right? This is simple mathematics. There is no reason why there couldn't be infinite tries. It is the same as saying ''given infinite time, when would you be expected to roll 10 threes on a die in a row''. It doesn't imply that infinity will ever come into play and it won't. It is simply a different problem than saying ''what are the odds that you will roll 10 threes in a row on the first try?''.

Indeed that very definition has withstood the test of time. If there is any definition that never changed since its application via Newtons laws its this one. More to the point fond of it because when teaching, one should stick with the proper definitions. (For one thing, you remind them of the kinematic lessons from earlier studies in school.) Here is some definitions from my 1919 physics book I happened upon. Energy " ability to perform work" (unchanged from today) Potential energy "Energy of position" kinetic energy "Energy of motion" I particularly liked how simply yet accurately expressed the latter two are. Yet apply accurately under any physics treatment. In all my studies of any topic those definitions apply. Particularly since every interaction can modelled via "action" and displacement. "Work" also works well when understanding the meaning of mass, as the above defintions arose from f=ma. In this book from 1919 "Work : the quantity obtained when we multiply the distance in the direction of the force through which it acts". Ie any vector quantity. Certainly shows the "Property" aspects mentioned above even then...Side note pricetag of textbook one dollar. Lol don't I wish

Listen to the whole album and try to work out the time signature on each piece. A work of genius. Blue Rondo a la Turk (my fave) the first track on side A is written in both an unusual 9:8 and has a 4:4 side rhythm

This is where you show that you don't understand it.

Favorite Bush joke: Cheney here's a big, "YEEEEE-HAH!" come from the Oval Office. He rushes in and Bush tells him, "Boss, I just finished this jigsaw puzzle in record time!" Cheney sighs and says, "That's great junior. How long did it take you?" Bush replies, "Two weeks!" Cheney asks, "What's the average time?" Bush says, "Well, the box says 2-4 YEARS!"

Thread, Raider5678 said this. Hamlet has approximately 130,000 letters in it. Not counting spaces. The average typing speed is 200 characters per minute. So if the money typed it perfectly, it would take about 650,000 minutes. Or 10,833.3 hours. Or 451.4 days. Or 64.5 weeks. Then went on to calculate the time it would take to randomly arrive at the correct order of the characters. The time was silly large, so to have the question at all, would be to prove a point about randomness or infinity, so I went there. If it was just a hypothetical mathematical question, then Raider should not have divided 130,000 by 200 and gotten 650,000. Are we making a literal mathematical calculation or are we talking hypothetically about infinity and randomness? If we are talking basic math lets start with being able to type 130,000 letters, at 200 characters a minute in 650 minutes, which is 10.833 hours which is about a workday with lunch and 3 hours overtime. Regards, TAR

Can you give some approximate dimensions for a spark gap jammer in 900 MHz-5 GHz range? How much power will it consume to work efficiently in 3 meters range and how much noise will it produce in far field range and in what frequencies? What has to be done to make it work in GHz range? Probably spark pulses have to be extremely short and frequent? Or not necessary?

The Apollo 11 lander did not land on the moon. In the descent of the Apollo 11 lunar lander, the lander begins to descent onto the surface of the moon and achieves a velocity of 550 mph at which point the lander's rocket engine is activated and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb until the lander nears the moon's surface at which time the thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb. At the moon surface, the lander's rocket engine's thrust would result in a blast zone and the accumulation of rocket smoke at the moon's surface caused by the push back of the rocket smoke from the moon's surface yet the lunar descent film does not depict rocket smoke. The lack of the moon's atmosphere is used to explain the non-existence of the exhaust rocket smoke that is prevalent in a rocket engine burn but the production of the rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke during the lander descent which is not depicted in the lander descent film.