Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/14/17 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I think an "ideal" transport have to solve the following problems of the modern transport. It includes: 1) Be physically incapable to get in any kind of accidents. 2) Create no congestion. 3) Create no parking problem. 4) Create no pollution. 5) Be very fast. 6) Be flexible, desirably all-terrain and offer door-to-door delivery. I think most of this problems (with exception of the last one) can be solved (to a large extent) if people will switch to rail-bound personal transport. Something similar to this: http://www.eltis.org/discover/news/europes-first-urban-personal-rapid-transit-system-approved-poland-0 However, flexibility and door-to-door delivery could be an issue. Not certain how much, because we can build such rail tracks to each and every house and building and wherever any kind of usual roads lead. Also, it may offer a certain degree of automation. But still it looks like a step out of flexibility that humans dreamt about. An instant teleportation of a sizable objects is still too far fetched. Any other ideas?
  2. 2 points
    Copenhagen Convention? Is there another name for it? The fifth Solvay Conference in 1927 in Brussels was quite famous for discussions of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics by Bohr A. Piccard, E. Henriot, P. Ehrenfest, E. Herzen, Th. de Donder, E. Schrödinger, J.E. Verschaffelt, W. Pauli, W. Heisenberg, R.H. Fowler, L. Brillouin; P. Debye, M. Knudsen, W.L. Bragg, H.A. Kramers, P.A.M. Dirac, A.H. Compton, L. de Broglie, M. Born, N. Bohr; I. Langmuir, M. Planck, Marie Curie, H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, P. Langevin, Ch.-E. Guye, C.T.R. Wilson, O.W. Richardson Fifth conference participants, 1927. Institut International de Physique Solvay in Leopold Park.
  3. 2 points
    Interesting article...We can look at another scenario when our Sun enters its giant red phase: Will Mars then be in what we call a Goldilocks zone? (Noting that the red giant phase can last up to a billion years. How about the White Dwarf stage? Another thought: While Venus's dense atmosphere and subsequent pressures inhibit any human like habitation, 50 miles up in its atmosphere, pressures are equivalent to Earth's surface pressure. here is a summary of that position...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus "Landis has proposed aerostat habitats followed by floating cities, based on the concept that breathable air (21:79 oxygen/nitrogen mixture) is a lifting gas in the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere, with over 60% of the lifting power that helium has on Earth.[6] In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres (31 mi) above Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C (273 to 323 K; 32 to 122 °F) range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.[7] At the top of the clouds the wind speed on Venus reaches up to 95 m/s (340 km/h; 210 mph), circling the planet approximately every four Earth days in a phenomenon known as "super-rotation".[8] Colonies floating in this region could therefore have a much shorter day length by remaining untethered to the ground and moving with the atmosphere, compared to the usual 243 Earth days it takes for the planet to rotate. Allowing a colony to move freely would also reduce structural stress from the wind". ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: It appears there are many stages in the evolution of a stellar system when goldilocks zones would be possible, with many changes as the star moves along its main sequence evolution, not to mention brown dwarfs of course and even planetary parameters such as on Venus.
  4. 1 point
    Transportation is NOT a one-size-fits-all proposition. I think a broader array of options is needed for flexibility. I also question the whole door-to-door delivery requirement, which seems unreasonable for many otherwise effective modes of travel. I love the idea of high-speed elevated monorail systems that don't interact with automobile roads at all. But even if it was available to me, I'll still be flying to NY next week because it'll only take a few hours, and the plane won't be stopping at every major city on the way. I'll take light rail if I'm going to downtown Denver or the airport, where my car is actually more of a nuisance and an expense. I take my car if I'm going to multiple places in a day (which is most days). I used to ride my bike to the grocers for small runs, but I've gotten better at planning so my groceries no longer fit in my backpack. Unfortunately, most places I need to go close enough for biking require I also have a bigger payload. I can't think of a single system that would be ideal. And many times you can adjust your habits to suit the system. A buddy of mine was horrified to find that taking light rail to work was going to double his commute time compared to driving himself, until his company pointed out they'd pay him for that time if he'd have his coffee and catch up on emails on the ride in every morning. Now he hits the ground running when he gets there. Wasn't it Asimov who had the series of moving walkways across the city, so you could always move to a faster one going in the right direction (like the express lane on some highways)? That might be a good way to move folks from a residential area to a commercial one, where they could choose from faster options depending on their destinations.
  5. 1 point
    Here's something on hyphenating: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/hyphen Concerning 'remagnetize' etc,, I would personally write without hyphens unless I wanted to emphasise my use of the various prefixes to a reader.
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    According to the bible (Oxford English Dictionary - OED) both are correct, but z would be the more common. That is certainly the case in my straw poll of British scientific authors in that field, especially post 1970.
  8. 1 point
    Good move! The principle is that words taken from French are spelled with -ise, for example advertise, advise, apprise, chastise, circumcise. But words taken directly from Greek follow the spelling of the Greek infinitive ending -izein, so have endings -ize. I think therefore that the best procedure is to use -ize except for the small number which require the -ise. This issue is a minefield, and nobody agrees. If your spellchecker shows up with an error, the chances are that it is correct because the spellcheckers are all American.
  9. 1 point
    Just curious, but am I the sidekick, or is that someone else?
  10. 1 point
  11. 1 point
    We're paying $10,000 annually per person for privatized healthcare in the US. Canada is under $5000, but I just use this as a single-payer system example close to home. What I'd really like to know is why we can't have a MUCH better single-payer system than Canada (which we may spend an extra 25% to get), one that pays the doctor groups like the professionals they are within 30 days (might cost another 20% but it'd be worth it to have their support), and simply start it all off by using Medicare as the framework as Bernie Sanders suggests? It seems to me it would be a great use of public funds to reduce the horrible administrative costs involved when you have so many payers dealing with so many doctor groups. This is the kind of situation taxes are meant for, imo, where huge savings can be had among a huge portion of the population simply because we decide, as a People, to set aside profit as the prime motivation, and focus instead on the health of the nation. Would it be so bad to spend under $8000 per person, have better capitalized doctor groups, and cover many more people with needed healthcare (if Medicare was our national insurer, I personally don't think it would cost this much)? We know by now that a health insurance risk pool is necessary, but it's a horrible scenario to use for-profit models on since nobody can place a value on health the way we can with possessions and even life. Why are we shunning the solutions that help so many, save money for all, increase the level of service, just because it will increase taxes? Why don't smart People prefer paying $8000 in taxes for better healthcare, instead of paying $10,000 through their employer's private insurance?
  12. 1 point
    Since I don't seem to have made myself clear to this point, I will try one last time. My concern is with people being discouraged from using the internet to gather medical information. The internet contains a cornucopia of sites dedicated to health issues, even for those who are sadly not 'trained to correctly interpret and evaluate the information they find there'. From sites hosted by major medical institutions such as Mayo, to forums dedicated to participants who are trying to deal with back pain or breastfeeding issues, there are sites dedicated to nearly every human condition which can help improve the lives of those who participate. In opposition to Area54's self-imposed banishment from online medical information, and the discouragement of the use of the internet to seek medical information by others, I would like to join with the millions of people who have found valuable health information online and encourage everyone to reach out and tap the plethora of data and the experiences of others that is available to the unwashed masses. The internet has brought the experience of millions and untold volumes of information from around the world together in one place. Don't let this resource available to help you improve your health pass you by. Thank you Area54 for allowing me the last word.
  13. 1 point
    If you lie flat on the table and engage the serendipity switch on your mobile phone so that the table lands in a precisely horizontal attitude, then the collapse of the legs will provide a decceleration that will significantly reduce the magnitude of the impact. (Don't try this at home!)
  14. 1 point
    Hi StringJunky, Thank you for your response. I didn't know they sold aluminium-magnesium antacids with such health effects. It is truly interesting. I also appreciate the extra information on Barrett's Oesophagus. Hi Area54 and zapatos, I appreciate the concern and care. I will be more mindful in where I post these questions. I had the intention of finding out the answer to my question because I was studying organic chemistry recently. No worries, I will not do any experimenting on myself anytime soon
  15. 1 point
    Not really. There is a "zero energy universe" hypothesis. However, there is no evidence that something can (or did) come from nothing, so the whole question seems moot. You might as well argue about what colour unicorn eggs are.
  16. 0 points
  17. 0 points
    We should all take our tables down to the local vertical wind tunnel and practise for the inevitable . So in answer to the OP yes it might be possible, disclaimer acknowledging the possibility is by no means a suggestion.
  18. 0 points
    I gave you one of them and I'd be happy to give you more if that's what you want?
  19. 0 points
    Stand up man, and ride it like a surfboard, then throw away the phone and rely on the force to steer it to the nearest hedge.
  20. -1 points
  21. -1 points
    It's the old cartoon scenario, bugs bunny casually steps of the falling lift and eats a carrot. The lift/table in freefall is travelling at 120 MPH(let's say) not only can you not jump at anything like that speed, you don't have anything solid to jump off, so you will hit the ground at that speed.
  22. -1 points
    yes but don't tell, stalking's illegal...
  23. -1 points
    I haven't read all of those passages, but your conclusion seems wrong to me, I think it's essentially saying 'if they're trying to kill you it's ok to kill them, otherwise leave them in peace'. Don't forget the time it was written was riddled with war.
  24. -1 points
    It's very much the point, it's all about interpretation (how many variations of the same text in that link) and understanding the culture of the writers. Imagine it was written in WWII, by either side, collaboration with the enemy would be frowned upon but that doesn't mean I can't have German friends now.
  25. -1 points
  26. -1 points
    Wouldn't you like to know??? Sorry, I hate to be so flippant but please read this first.
  27. -1 points
    This thread is still open, wow! Having being threatened by a moderator I am not long for this world/forum. But never having backed away from any one who threatens me, I say bring it on. The concept of life after death for me may be along the lines of Buddhism to reincarnate or not! I will go for a dot on the TV screen, which may eventually go out, or maybe it will be a train coming the other way, and being fairly well chilled out and scared of nothing, I will go for being one with the universe with no mental faculties like the moderator who threatened me with expulsion.
  28. -1 points
    Perhaps you should put a bit of effort into studying Keynesian economics. In Keynesian economics the government manipulates the economy through fiscal and monetary policy. To stimulate the economy fiscally, the government runs deficits. Every penny of deficit spending is stimulative. Obama increased the national debt by more than 9 trillion dollars. Every penny of that was stimulative. To stimulate the economy monetarily the government increases the money supply. To do that the government generally lowers interest rates thereby increasing the money supply. With interest rates at or near zero the government increases the money supply through quantitative easing where the government buys under performing assets, often worthless, from banks to increase the money supply. Obama had three rounds of quantitative easing increasing the money supply by over 4 trillion dollars. So it wasn't just 9 trillion dollars of stimulus, it was 13 trillion dollars worth of stimulus. Thirteenth trillion dollars of stimulus, and yet you think tax increases caused the economic recovery. Taxes depress the economy. Like I said, you should study Keynesian economics.
  29. -1 points
  30. -1 points
    You were my main prime suspect, along with your side kick, who gives you points every time you make a derogatory remark ref anyone on the forum. You also gave me most of my other brownie points, between you and your side kick. The more points the better, ROFL, bring them on, it might give you some amusement until you get bored. Have you been down marking a lot of people anonymously, is it your normal behaviour. HaHaHaHa Don't mess with the dumreepr you will be marked down anonymously Chuckle chuckle. You have been outed Ditto to you too
  31. -1 points
    If we see the Universe’s rate of expansion as accelerating, it’s probably due to relativistic dilation due to apparent velocity. If we were able to approach lightspeed, time would “slow” down. So for every second that passes from that perspective, more time would pass for everyone else.So say we were moving at ~86% the speed of light, the relativistic dilation of time at that velocity would be ~50% of what others would experience. One second from both perspectives would be one second, but our seconds would be two seconds for everyone else. From our view, things would appear to be in fast forward … like people would move faster, the days would be half as long, as would the year, as would the progressive evolution of the entire Universe, (as well as the apparent age). Lightspeed would also be twice as fast as well, because from our perspective, it would move twice as far in one second than it did before. (This is why it is not achievable.) The further objects are, the faster their apparent velocity to us, so they would appear to be in slow motion. On a scale of the age of the Universe, those objects, and the space that they exist, would actually be younger than us. This can easily be verified by any observation of distant objects in space. The farther out we look, the younger the Universe appears. So what of our view of the Earth being in fast forward? Well, from a relativistic perspective, would we be moving at ~86% the speed of light, or would Earth and the entire Solar System be moving at ~86% the speed of light in relation to us? We would then see the Earth progressing slower, there is no fast forward unless we could orbit the Earth at those velocities (so Earth would be relatively static from our perspective). So what is “Dark Energy”? Well, the farther out we look, the younger things look, but also anything that has a relative rate of displacement that approaches “c” would appear to have chronometric scaling, causing them to age “slower”. Relativity dictates that relative motion causes a dilation in the flow of time, but the dilation relationship to velocity is not proportionately linear. Nor is the progressive age of the Universe as we look farther into space, and further in time. So, from our perception of time as compared to distant objects perception of time progresses at an accelerated rate. So, from their perception of light, how much space would be covered by one of their seconds? How much in one of ours? How would that be translated by the light that we see?* *(Assuming that the light itself must experience the same relativistic dilation, which is why we only see the moment the light leaves. They are simultaneous, so one second at the origin is the same second here.)
  32. -5 points
    Ha Ha my religious rating has improved once again. Let me guess which pair of entangled twisted members did that. ROFL didn't even leave a name, morons! ROFL I see various members on line, but no obvious suspects. The more red stars I have the better keep them coming anonymous morons!