All Activity

First what is the volume of your container Roughly you can calculate you have 3 part H2 and 8 part O2 means together 11 part equal to mol. Convert Fahrenheit to Kelvin 1058 F = 843,15 K p = 11 mol*8.314 J/molK* 843,15K/ V m^3

The calculations used for a) just two orbital objects had to reintegrate the lagrange coordinate (gravitational equilibrium between them) in order to continuously adjust the derivative for the same reason that b) the 3 body problem or even c) the theory of expansion, were posed in the first place. Point a) As you move about in the z plane not only does gravity's effects at a distance (dz/dt) have to be recalibrated (the gravitational constant as an integral of the inverse square law), but also the curvature of space has to be accounted for, that is because space is curved and not flat. I was exposed to the same amount of algebra and trig that Newton was when he came up with calculus but unlike Newton I was also more informed about spacetime when I came up with how to use the sine function to map the entire surface volume of the sphere in order to use perspective of how circles placed anywhere on that surface (which can be made into spheres using the same .707sin(45deg) process) as a numerical value for objects falling along the z plane. The first trick to that was knowing that only 8 spheres could fit around the center without crossing into each others space. 3^2 also confirms that it can only be 8 on the outside plus one on the inside. The next iteration is trickier because the next 18 spheres don't fall along one entire sphere but parts of eight individual spheres whose surfaces are already partially occupied. If you could find out how to expand or shrink the circumferences of even the first eight outer spheres by the exact amount if they were to be placed in the only eight points about the original sphere's surface volume you'd still only have half of the puzzle in which I've memorized for my approach to deviating from trigonometry's two dimensional world, in a similar but wholly different way than Newton did when developing his derivations. Point b) This mathematics has a net of spheres along the z plane that can be used to calculate that curvature without needing to reincorporate the Lagrangian. Point c) As for discrepancies in the redshift coming from older galaxies which are further away, being greater than they should be, there's no need for expansion if the gravitational constant isn't mathematically expressible using any form of calculus.

I think you are overlooking the time and effort it takes to nurture a human baby. Before modern human societies arose, you needed two parents to raise a child, because of the long time it takes before a young human is independent.

If I combine a compound which contain a ratio of 3/8 hydrogen/oxygen and heat it to 2600 F, according to PV = nRT how much will the pressure increase when it reaches ignition temperature (1058 F), and how big do I need the container to avoid it exploding and spewing lava everywhere? Yes I am noob so please talk stupid to me. The compound has only hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen.

Considering that the context seems to be reproduction, that is a reasonable limitation (i.e. large and small gamete producers). But then it does indeed make no sense to focus on the human species for the rest of the, I am not sure what to call it. Argument?

The issue I have is that our classification of instinctive behaviour is really only specific when we talk about (almost) reflexive behaviour. There are examples in higher vertebrates which at this point (and it took really long to establish that) are considered higher levels of thought and planning. But at a simpler level, often data is missing as we don't have good experimental designs that are not simply variations of the ways we think. This has led to the rise of newer concepts such as that of behavioral flexibility (i.e. some understanding that animal behavior is not necessarily bound by instinctual constraints). A challenge which behavioural scientists are looking at is how identify what an animal understands about its environment how problems are solved using that knowledge.

The biological aspect of your question has already been addressed in your previous thread, hasn’t it? The social observations you now make seem on the face of it a bit ridiculous. If you really think the way the scout movement is organised shows the male of our species is becoming irrelevant, it looks as if you are getting things out of perspective. But I note the reference to your mother. Are you a Boy Scout, or something?

I agree that having just a brain isn't sufficient to produce the quality I define as mind; however, as I have discussed, a mind is inferred in organisms by behaviors that suggest a thought process. In my view, the behaviors that most effectively suggest a thought process are those an organism engages that appear to be independent of its accessed instinctive behaviors. That distinction in brain function or similar neural functions in various speices is having a capacity to mediate its instinctive behavioral responses. We can assess when a species may have evolved such a capacity within it CNS by sensory acquistions that decrease their potential for instinctive responses. Not all structures that appear to function as a brain in some species suggest their potential to produce a mind as suggested to me by human brain structure.

First, there more than just male and female. Second, it’s neither good or bad. It just is. Sex differentiation began long before humans existed. Perhaps on some other planet in some other galaxy there are no sexes, but on earth there are. Also, don’t conflate cultural norms and nurture teachings with something inherent in X versus Y chromosomes.

My favorite method requires early detection take your spacecraft and instead of trying to trap it in a net. Which as mentioned isn't practical. Simply maintain distance from the asteroid and let gravity do its thing. Use the spacecraft plus the gravitational interaction between the two divert the asteroid to a new vector path. The further away you can do this the less change in vector angle that would be required for a miss.

I would like to touch a bit on this using Maxwell equations but also Lorentz force law divergence and curl of the Electrostatic field Gauss Law \[\nabla \cdot=\frac{1}{\epsilon_0}\rho\] \[\nabla \times E=0\] magnetostatic Field Amperes law \[\nabla\cdot B=0\] \[\nabla \times B=\mu_0 J\] Lorenz force law with Maxwell for the presence of both the E and B field (Maxwell equations fundamentally is another way of stating Biot-Savart Law (with superposition) just a side note. \[F=Q(E+v\times B)\]. so the electric field diverges away from a positive charge, (Gauss law) the magnetic field curls around a current (Amperes law). Electric fields originate form a positive charge and terminate on a negative charge. Magnetic lines do not begin or end anywhere and form closed loops as they have zero divergence. (though divergence can be forced). There is no point source for B ( not unless they ever discover magnetic monopoles lol). Now something interesting to note the magnetic field specifies an electric current.( A permanent magnet induces an electric current). So with the 90 degree phase shift between E and B using the right hand rule for Lorentz force law. The following statement applies. The magnetic field does no work.... so take for example a magnetic crane the work isn't performed by the magnetic field but rather the electric field as well as the cranes mechanical energy. This is something that isn't well known among laypersons unless they studied introductory electrodynamics and the Maxwell equations. Hence why I decided to mention it here as its related. The above is better detailed in Griffiths "Introductory to Electrodynamics". I've found his simplified approach useful as a reference in many of his books.

Non-sequitur. All numbers have equal chance of winning, so no choice, popular or not, alters your odds, but as swansont points out, unpopular numbers yield better average payouts. You seem to presume N is less than 64, which is not always the case. Even if it is the case, your conclusion is again a non-sequitur. Picking five random numbers under 32 gives the exact same odds of winning as picking 5 random numbers in the range of say 33 to 40. This is the simplest of mathematics: Every possible choice has the same odds as any other if the draw is random.

What are the pros and cons of this reproductive set up? I ask because my mother once remarked that this world would be a better place without male and female. She said this in response to my remark that male and female is a beautiful thing of nature. As times progress onward, the differences between male and female seem to becoming more and more confused. There are certain societal and political biases that seem to put one or the other sex at a disadvantage. Men are often given harsher sentences for the same types of crimes because judges view men as naturally more menacing than women perhaps because of the perceived muscular strength of men and that women are looked upon as naturally weaker and less competent. We still have a Girl Scouts for absolutely females only but there is no longer a male-only Boys Scouts. It seems as the male side of our species is especially becoming less relevant.

Decelerating the rocket just wastes all the momentum it already had. If you have delta-V left over, accelerate more, not decelerate. This gives maximum momentum transfer to the thing, which is what is needed to deflect it. Of course, it's best to hit it more or less from the side, which is inefficent for something coming more or less straight at you. Indeed, but also the harder it is to tell if the effort is needed at all, or if the effort will actually make the trajectory worse, due to miscalculation. Look at all the news about some asteroid that's going to hit Earth, and then it misses it by a mere million km. You can't send a defection mission out to every big rock that might get that close, but by the time we know it will hit, it's too close that a small defection is enough. It's also harder to get something out to an incoming object quickly if its further away. Takes more delta-V to get out there, leaving less to actually impart momentum to the thing. I don't think nukes are very effective in a vacuum. It will leave a nasty stain and small crater and will defect almost not at all, unless you can get the thing to embed itself a ways in without destroying the mechanism in the process. There is armor-piercing technology that helps with that sort of thing. Look at the bunker-buster bombs they have, designed to penetrate a long way and still explode, sometimes even hours later. But those bombs are heavy and not too fast, hitting at far slower speeds than what would likely occur in a rocket/asteroid interception.

Probably it has been said already and I missed it, but one way to think about it is that a brain (and potentially similar structures) are necessary but likely not sufficient to whatever one might define as mind.

How does your assumption square with reality? Is every woman constantly pregnant? Is the availability of women limiting the size of human populations? What is the evidence? If a hypothesis does not square up with reality/data one should revise one's assumptions, rather than doubling down. Starting with wrong premises results in wrong conclusions, even if the steps in-between are logical. Asking questions suggests that one is open to new information. What is your response to the information outlined in the posts above? In fact, have you perhaps bothered to google the term "gonochorism" and its evolution? That makes it way easier than trying to describe it the way you continue to do. Information is out there, but one has to seek it out (and be willing to learn).

I'm not missing anything. I'm sharing my thoughts. It seems logical to me that if you were to double the number of child bearers within a given species by making each and every member of that species a child bearer, as opposed to just half the said species, the population rate of growth would be considerably greater than otherwise. How many babies can a single woman bear during her lifetime? How many women can a single man impregnate during his lifetime? Most scientific research was the result of human thoughts and questions asked by philosophers. I'm not a professional scientist, just a human thinker. I proposed a what-if scenario here and thought some more versed in science could chime in. Perhaps my thread indeed belongs in the philosophical section. I will propose a new philosophical question here though. Why in fact is the human species composed of males and females in separate bodies? People ask questions and look to science to provide answers.

No problem, it all depends on how detailed or how far you choose to pursue the concept. One thing to consider however is that in order to look at stress and stain aspects. You require the force/work terms as well. For example far too often I've seen perpetual energy articles discussing some popularized perpetual device use nothing more than first order equations. However when the same setup gets examined using second order relations by others that the energy loss is found exceed the output power. As Swansont mentioned in physics one cannot arbitrarily choose to ignore this interaction (in this case different forces) or that but should take everything in consideration. Stress tensors are particularly useful in that as all forces are applied with a means of keeping track via the tensors regardless of angles. Not saying perpetual energy is involved here however the above is also useful for efficiency calculations.

Just a quick comment on this bit. This continuing question of "where is mind in the brain" is difficult to answer for some because they may not have fully considered the likely path of our brain's evolution. Theories about how our brain creates mind without some basic perspective or understanding of it's functional evolution is, IMO, no more than an uneducated guess. Included in my definition of mind I said that it is quantified by a brain's capacity to integrate dichotomous sensory data with its memory stores to produce behaviors independent of instinct. While investigating the likely evolutional path of the dreaming brain, I realized from my study that our brain retains significantly clear evidence of its path of evolution--from spinal cord to neocortex. Along that path in the human brain, three significant developments had to occur: The thalamus, sensory perception diversification, and memory. Prominent among these developments was the thalamus, which I have in previous discussion referred to as our proto-brain. but is perhaps best described as our instinctive brain. For millions of years, as our central nervous system (CNS) evolved, our instinctive brain's primary sensory intake was tactile. When you evaluate the current structure of our CNS from spinal cord to thalamus, you'll get a sense of the various stages of its evolutional history from simple sensory intake to increasingly complex forms of sensory intake. For millions of years, increasingly complex forms of tactile sensory intake evolved. This is important to note because tactile sensory detection reinforces the need for the instinctive responses that evolved through thalamic function. Diversification in our brain's sensory perception evolution came with the acquistion and increasing prominence of visual perception. Visual perception was a major diversion from tactile perception because it did not require direct physical contact with ancestral animals--with visual perception, these animals had a means to evaluate their responses without the energy expenditure tactile sensory responses likely required. From that last sentence, you should get a sense of my basis for mind in brain function. Although there's much more that I haven't shared, I said this would be quick and hope this suffices for now.

Where it would be, is non-flat space. Edit: snap

It would mean you aren’t in a cartesian geometry, i.e. it’s not flat. The sum of the angles will depends on the geometry.

what would it be then?

Ahem....

Regarding the sliding of a magnet off a sheet of steel, I guess that what is really happening is that you are not feeling the same force you feel when you try to lift it directly, you're not working directly against the magnetic field. Once you get to the edge of the sheet the area of the magnetic contact reduces, and with it the force holding the magnet to the sheet until finally the magnet is clear of the sheet. Triboelectric generation is looking more and more interesting these days. Won't be long before the free energy cranks are baffling themselves with that. Hmm, come to think of it, I've done nothing about adding generation to my device, ... reciprocation, triboelectrics, ... hmm ...

A large structure does not have to bend very much to account for this energy. As you say, it is a tiny metal sheet. If you lift a 1 g object 1 meter, a 1 kg structure only has to shift 1 mm Physics is quite successful, but relies on rigor and not hand-waving.