Leaderboard

The unit of charge is Coulomb, not Volt. What you describe is modulating a signal on a high frequency carrier wave. No Fourier transform required (except perhaps to design or explain/visualise the mechanism).

I think you are being optimistic even as you narrow the scope of your claim. https://arstechnica.com/science/2007/06/attempts-to-introduce-intelligent-design-in-europe-spark-backlash/

In a secular country such as Belgium: yes. When our King refused to sign our very liberal abortion law on religious grounds, he was simply dethroned for a couple of days to resolved the issue. That was 30 years ago. Let's shake hands and forget about the mutual accusations.

You really believe that?

I think I like how China handles this trade-war. I like the "This wont work on China" addition. It goes very deep. I also feel the same. The problem is, as things stand right now, those two countries are the most important ones to not F with. (Russia aside as there is a Russian Elected POTUS)

Surprisingly, we are.

I prefer we stick to the topic, but shit happens...

Virgin birth, risen from the dead, speaking in tongues (Which I have done and have seen many do.... they never get a reply from a foreigner though like they did in Acts), healing miracles, Angels from heaven, creatures with the head of a bear, feet of a lion and penis of a eagle (something like that), futuristic prophesy.. none of that problematic? You know my favourite verse in the bible? It is from James in the new testament and simply says: " God is Love".

And only 25$! Can't wait to get it as I am a big fan of pseudoscience.

Obviously not, many evolve into rational thinking atheists... The truly sad thing is that the current Christian religion has changed over time, from a dogmatic, unchanging force that killed, maimed, and murdered to bring the population into alignment with the religious thinkers of the day mostly into a truly terrifying power hungry group quite willing to lie, cheat, steal, threaten, and pursue at all cost the power they lost by being gelded during the enlightenment. Potato patato I guess... As you seem to be determined to defend the indefensible even though you don't believe it... The obvious answer to the OP is yes, we have many examples of people who do this very thing but it requires at the very least a disconnect from reality on some level...

Sorry one small booboo. The Kreutz stainless was 0.4% carbon (now corrected on the last post)

Hardness is basically a function of carbon content. Hard steels, like tool steels are basically those with a carbon content of around 4% or greater. Most stainless steels are austenitic with a much lower carbon content. This leads to a more ductile steel. It is possible to increase the hardness of stainless - so called surgical steel is stainless and hard enough. I don't know what level are hardness you are seeking. Here are some actual results from a paper I wrote years ago, following a materials failure investigation. The (just under) 0.4% carbon stainless steel achieved around 575 Vickers. Pretty hard by most counts an about in the middle of the tool steel range which goes up to about 750 Vickers. However if you note the fracture toughness of this steel (it was martensitic) it was hopelessly low - equivalent to a pure aluminium can. Thus the steel was well hard enough but cracks could (and did) propagate due to the flow fracture toughness. The steel was too brittle.

Is that not what they do? Change the definition of god when it suits them - it's all true and the unfailable word of god when they are preaching, but you can pick and choose bits when they run into trouble with contradictions with reality. Sorry - I need to look up what the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy actually is in more detail before I can answer. It is just my opinion also - I don't think they are being true to them selves if they are constantly moving the goal posts every time their belief is shown to be wrong. They claim it isn't wrong until you point out a contradiction and then it is claimed that that part can be ignored.

Do you assume anything about the values of A and B? E.g. if B is positive you have an imaginary integrand, so the question is if you are happy with a final answer that is not real? We can look at the very special case \( A = B\frac{k^2}{r^2}: \) \[ \int \sqrt{ A - B(\frac{k}{r\cos x})^2 } dx = \int \sqrt{ A - A(1/\cos x)^2 } dx = \sqrt{A} \int \sqrt{1 - (1/\cos x)^2 } dx = \] \[ \sqrt{A} \int \sqrt{\frac{\cos^2x - 1}{\cos^2x}} dx = \sqrt{A} \int \sqrt{- \frac{\sin^2x}{\cos^2x}} dx = \sqrt{-A} \int \sqrt{\tan^2x} dx = \sqrt{-A} \int | \tan x | dx. \] The last indefinite integral does not appear standard. But its definite versions can calculated easily by splitting up into intervals with negative and positive values of the tangent function. So if I didn't make a silly mistake, this could be the most benign of the results you should expect.

Have you seen the program - The Big Bang Theory? The song at the start suggests - "the whole universe was in a hot dense state...." Before the big bang the universe was in a hot dense state - this is not nothing and it is not claimed that it was nothing. What was before the hot dense state? I don't know and nobody does - many may 'speculate' that it came from nothing, but that is nothing to do with the big bang theory and is pure speculation. Your question was regarding the big bang theory - not 'the creation of the universe' - which is why people are asking you if you really understand what TBBT says - which clearly you don't. As I said - I am not an expert - I only have a degree in Physics and chemistry - I never covered it at uni so I will let others that are more knowledgeable explain it to you - but if you don't accept what they say then why would they bother taslking to you - you seem hung up on this 'something from nothing' nonsense - it sounds like something your pastor might claim. What about these newly discovered particles that appear and disappear out of 'nowhere' in a vacuum.... I'm sure they don't come from 'nothing'... they must come from somewhere - no-one knows. You are clearly not listening... bye. Just repeating the question isn't going to help you understand it when you have been told you are already barking up the wrong tree. Sorry - your question doesn't prove or disprove anything. God is a myth - get over it.

...I hear that - but that isn't 'believing in god' as I see it. It is following some mashed up version of a religion - it sounds like they don't actually believe it (or haven't thought about the contradictions to reality). The church of England does the same - it waters it's Christianity down to fit the modern world and reality - most(some, don't know exact figure) of the priests don't actually believe in god and just want to do good things for people and the world.... which is fine - but it isn't believing in god.

Ok, that is a good point, religion is often defined by the believer but to most religions that would be blasphemy. I honestly thought you were talking about mainstream christianity, my bad. Exactly what christian sect are we talking about? Can you provide a link to that teachings of that sect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_1.shtml I see no point in debating the significance of mythology as though it were actually true. Adam and Eve cannot have existed as portrayed in the bible and there is no evidence Jesus as described in the bible ever existed. Jesus is just a human version of the scapegoat, a long established part of middle eastern culture and jesus is portrayed as the lamb of god the perfect sacrifice which is the same thing as a scapegoat. All the sins of a city or country were metaphorically heaped up on a goat and it was driven from town to be consumed by wild animals. Before you go there I'll tell you up front, the bible is not and cannot be evidence of itself. The Bible is a claim that requires evidence and while you are welcome to believe what you will and follow whatever sect you feel the need to follow none of it is based in reality. This is true of all religions BTW. As I have stated here many times nothing asserted in the Bible about the natural world that can be tested can be shown to be true... nothing! To me that is a heads up about the rest of it. As for the mythology behind it bear in mind that the original jewish religion had no concept of heaven, hell, or the devil. All that nonsense was picked up from Zoroastrianism when the persians conquered the Jews a few hundred years BCE. There is no evidence for the existence of any god, gods, goddesses, or anything else supernatural... I am however open to that evidence if it is provided...

So you are too lazy, and therefore others should do it? Hmm... Let's see, if I can represent your way of thinking: You do not understand how physics explains gravity. Therefore you need an explanation in terms of electricity, which you think you understand (but in fact don't). Then you ask physicists here, and they answer you that we already have explanations of gravity, already know what holds protons and neutrons together. Then they explain also why your ideas will not work. Then you ask if they please want to 'visualize your model though and see it has some merit'. (You do not seem to realise that nobody will even try, because ((1) and (3)) we already have very good models for gravitation and nuclear interaction that contradict your ideas), and because (4) people have told you your ideas simply are wrong. You think you are not taken seriously, because nobody is prepared to support and/or test your model. And as an aside, you want to explain the 'space drive' of UFOs, (where we pretty well know what UFOs are: 95% observations by people who do not understand what phenomena can be seen in the sky, and 5% unexplained. 'Unexplained' does definitely not mean 'alien spaceships'), with micro waves, of which you do not understand what what they are, and what they are capable of. If you are too lazy to learn some basic physics, then better do not hypothesise any idea about physics, because (I say it again, maybe you will get it if it is repeated enough): you do not know how physics explains phenomena you do not understand you do not know how your ideas conflict with established science (you know, 'established science' is e.g. science on which technology is based, and that so prove the theories behind them, like computers, nuclear reactors, particle accelerators and detectors, GPS, micro wave ovens etc.) Ready to start reading on real physics? (I hope others have good suggestions for elementary introductions to physics).

Obviously it goes without saying, that if we were to find signs of basic bacterial/microbial life in our own solar system, that chances of life even beyond and at all stages, would be significantly increased.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-kepler-supernova-explosion-survivors-left.html After the Kepler supernova explosion, no survivors were left behind: A new study argues that the explosion that Johannes Kepler observed in 1604 was caused by a merger of two stellar residues. The Kepler supernova, of which only the supernova remnant remains, took place in the constellation of Ophiuchus, in the plane of the Milky Way, 16,300 light years from the sun. An international team led by the researcher Pilar Ruiz Lapuente (UB-IECC y CSIC), in which IAC researcher Jonay González Hernández participated, has tried to find the possible surviving star of the binary system in which the explosion took place. In these systems, when at least one of the stars (with the highest mass) reaches the end of its life and becomes a white dwarf (WD), the other can begin to transfer matter up to a certain mass limit (equivalent to 1,44 solar masses, the so-called "Chandrasekhar limit"). This process leads to the central ignition of carbon in the white dwarf, producing an explosion that can multiply 100,000 times its original brightness. This phenomenon, brief and violent, is known as a supernova. Sometimes, these can be observed with the naked eye from Earth, as in the case of the Kepler supernova (SN 1604), observed and identified by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler in 1604. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-kepler-supernova-explosion-survivors-left.html#jCp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aac9c4/meta No Surviving Companion in Kepler's Supernova: Abstract We have surveyed Kepler's supernova remnant in search of the companion star of the explosion. We have gone as deep as 2.6 L ? in all stars within 20% of the radius of the remnant. We use FLAMES at the VLT-UT2 telescope to obtain high-resolution spectra of the stellar candidates selected from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images. The resulting set of stellar parameters suggests that these stars come from a rather ordinary mixture of field stars (mostly giants). A few of the stars seem to have low [Fe/H] (<?1) and they are consistent with being metal-poor giants. The radial velocities and rotational velocities vrot sin i are very well determined. There are no fast rotating stars because v rot sin i?<?20 km s?1 for all the candidates. The radial velocities from the spectra and the proper motions determined from HST images are compatible with those expected from the Besan?on model of the Galaxy. The strong limits placed on luminosity suggest that this supernova could have arisen either from the core-degenerate scenario or from the double-degenerate scenario.

It was "like" and having your favorables beat out your unfavorables is a reasonable metric. I have no doubt that these other countries would poll higher, just on the basis that such countries are less involved on the world stage. edit: that same BBC poll from back in 2012-2013 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22624104 (Sorry, Croatia and New Zealand are not included) and again from the BBC poll, the US numbers from Bush II's first term — much worse https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2008/0402/p01s13-woeu.html

Hello MarkE, Don't limit yourself to youtube. If you want to find know more about this(Second Link) and also have some background (First Link) the two papers below will surely help. (I am currently going through the second one myself.) http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/feynman48c/eng.pdf - Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics R.P. Feynman http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/095012/pdf - Matter and antimatter in the universe I really lack the knowledge and confidence right now to really agree or disagree with your post but I will leave a statement that I came across that: "physics is not time-reversal invariant."

The intelligence and military communities have repeatedly labelled what Russia did an attack against the country. A president who aided and abetted in a hostile foriegn attack against their own nation is definitely worse than Watergate. Nurmerous crimes have been committed. It is lack of political will and not of sufficient laws on books or lack of procedures that prevent Trump's impeachment.

(Actually, we cannot see galaxies at that distance; it is the size of the observable universe. The furthest galaxies we can see are a bit closer than that. But we probably don't need to worry about that now.) The most distant light we can see is actually the CMB. It was emitted when the universe was about 4.5 billion light years in radius. Since then the universe has been expanding so the light took more than 4.5 billion light years to get here. It is a bit like fish swimming against a current: as the light travels, the distance it has to go is continually increasing. So it took 13.8 billion light years to get here. Meanwhile the universe was still expanding so, by now, the radius is about 46 billion light years. The Wikipedia page has a good explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Size It is measured (mainly) by measuring the red shift at different distances. There are also indirect ways of measuring it, but that is beginning to get beyond what I understand... It is approximately the same at all distances. It was assumed that it would be gradually reducing over time. But measurements show that it started increasing (relatively) recently. Hence the need for "dark energy" (whatever it is) to explain the acceleration. It is dependent on the age of the universe, not the age of galaxies.

This is horribly confused. Lets start with the Hubble constant which is, as you say, about 70 (km / s) / Mpc. If that were the same for all galaxies, then the the universe would NOT be expanding at an increasing rate. It would be expanding at the same rate for all galaxies, by definition. However, it turns out (surprisingly) that the rate of expansion is not the same for all galaxies. In fact the rate of expansion started increasing a few billion years ago. The radius of the observable universe is about 45 billion light years, not 13.7 billion light years. It is hard to make sense of this sentence but you seem to be saying that if the rate of expansion had changed over time then the age of the universe could be different. This ignores the fact that we can measure the rate of expansion at different times. This is how we know that the rate of expansion has started accelerating. So are the expansion rates in your table supported by evidence? This sentence is even harder to parse I'm afraid. The fact that the recessional speed of galaxies increases linearly with distance was one of the first, and the simplest, bits of evidence for the expanding universe. Can you explain why you think it isn't? (Note that it was not the most convincing evidence. That came later in the form of the CMB.) I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. Why do you think the value of H should decrease for older galaxies? It is not a function of the age of galaxies. When this was the only evidence for the expansion of the universe, many other explanations were presented. Not all of these could be ruled out. Until the discovery of the CMB, and all the other evidence for the Big Bang model, at which point all the other models were discarded as they were not able to explain all the evidence.

I very much doubt he would if he lived in todays times. No. But if you have to re-write the bible every few hundred years then it is clearly not the infailable word of god. Has god evolved in the last 2000 years? The book says he is unchanging - and most believers would say he is unchanging..

we already have holy darwinism... we need no more than that.

Too bad u quoted that Carl Sagan. I could not care less what he thought. So he wrote a lot of books and got on TV, so what. So he got himself well known and famous We should therefore all bow down to him.

Really? Oh my goodness. You sound like an alcoholic or someone who wants nothing but to tear others down. This shows u have inadequatecy feeling about yourself. I am already Quite proud of things I have done. I don't think I've done anything noteworthy in physics though. Math maybe; that's my field.

Hi, There is now a very simple way to calculate Hubble's Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell's equations and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble's Constant is 'fixed' at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as 'elusive' as Hubble's Constant. The reciprocal of 70.98047 is 13.778 billion light years. as 70.98047 never changes, 13.778 is the 'Hubble Horizon Distance' only, and NOT the age of the universe. The equation to perform this can be found in ?

Hi, There is now a very simple way to calculate Hubble's Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell's equations and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble's Constant is 'fixed' at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as 'elusive' as Hubble's Constant. The reciprocal of 70.98047 is 13.778 billion light years. as 70.98047 never changes, 13.778 is Not the age of the universe, but the 'Hubble Horizon Distance' only. The equation to perform this can be found in ?

The equation that gives that' fixes' Hubble's Constant at 70.98047 is :- 2 multiplied by a meg parsec then multiplied by the speed of light (C). this is then divided by Pi to the power of 21. This is the one and ONLY value of Hubble. If you do not understand this, I will be happy to email you in a sensible way. My email address is in Some Book on Amazon Kindle Books. Hubble's Constant is actually as 'fixed' in value as Pi. To believe anything else is fake. This simple fact actually proves the 'big bang' hypothesis is fake. A universe 'explosion' joke was put forward by Rev. Lemaitre around 1927 as a wind up JOKE in the Hubble revelations of that time -and the 'so called' scientists ('suckers') have believed it ever since -an even BIGGER joke!! The Very Rev. Lemaitre had a rather 'twisted John Cleese' type sense of humour, and was ridiculing all those who do not believe our Father, Lord Jesus Created the universe in 6 of 24 hour days. Lemaitre saw his joke backfire, and tried in 1936 to retract it for the total rubbish it is. Of course, the secular 'fools' are still fooled by it to this very day!! It was Fred Hoyle who gave the 'big bang' that 'insulting' name through his utter contempt of it. Rev. Lemaitre simply called it an explosion (for fun). Rev. Lemaitre was a devout Roman Catholic Christian Priest, who believed the truth of Creation as described in the K. J. Genesis account. You should do too, David. Meet the only alien you will ever find. He was spotted lurking in the dark shadows of Harrow Bus station.

Big bang and evolution is incompatible with The Word of God. Therefore big bang is fake. When the Torah was Written by Moses under Jesus' instruction, The Creation was very carefully worded so as not to allow 'insertion' of extra time. So there was evening and morning dividing each of the six 24 hour days of Creation. Ask yourself, "How did The Lord know that in the 20th Century, Satan would trick 'scientists' into believing the big bang and evolution nonsense?". The Lord knows all things past and future, and clearly states that anyone who does not accept Jesus as their personal Saviour will have eternal death. So being a very 'clever' big bang secular scientist believer is actually proving they are 'fools'. That's why nothing works out for the cosmologists who merely become tangled in Satan's web of lies. Satan wants you DEAD to Jesus, and as Jesus is the Life, you are therefore 'lost'. So are the scientist clever?? No they are simply 'lost fools'. David 70.98047

Well,l yes they DO say that the universe was created out of nothing. And when Hawkins says it you sy it is not about the Big Bang, who are you kidding? If even says so in the TED video, just take a look! Those people have NO idea what they are talking about. Something can not be created out of nothing.