Leaderboard

It's sometimes useful to distinguish between necessary and sufficient causes of disease. So we'd say Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a necessary cause to contracting TB, but it's not a sufficient cause because, for instance, the number of bacteria might too small to overcome the host's immune response. Mental components are neither necessary nor sufficient for physical diseases to occur so the answer is no, all diseases do not start in the head. Which is not to say that one's state of mind isn't a factor, but you can't get TB without the bacteria no matter how hard you think about it.

The following is an article detailing the second man made object to reach Inter stellar space, or that region where the Sun’s flow of material and magnetic field no longer affect its surroundings. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-11/parkes-radio-telescope-tracks-nasa-spacecraft/10605106 NASA confirms Voyager 2's crossing into interstellar space as Parkes tracks its progress ABC Central West By Joanna Woodburn and Kathleen Ferguson Updated yesterday at 4:14pm PHOTO: NASA's Voyager 2 has crossed through the heliosphere into interstellar space. (Supplied: NASA ) NASA has confirmed that Voyager 2 is now in interstellar space, some 18 billion kilometres from Earth — and its progress is being tracked from central-west New South Wales. The probe, launched in 1977, is the second human-made craft ever to enter interstellar space. The first was its partner, Voyager 1, which made the crossing in 2012. Since early November the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope has been tracking Voyager 2, which can no longer be observed from the northern hemisphere. more at link....... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hi.....Firstly in actual fact, it isn't a scientific theory, [which is the highest accolade any scientific model can have] it is simply hypothetical. Secondly mostly all scientific theories and models start out as speculative and hypothetical, and to use a favourite terminology of mine, need to run the gauntlet before reaching theory stage. Thirdly as yet we cannot even say with any confidence how or why the BB happened, and noting that this theory [the BB] only goes back as far as 10-43 seconds after the initial event, of which we are ignorant. So you can see that evidence for any multiverse is unlikely to be evident.

Your title and your description ask totally different questions. Both of equal childishness. 1) Title - No 2) Description - Of what happening? People gaining powers through the X-gene? Apologies Mods but I feel really offended when people misquote even comic book science. Of course this is science fiction. So no, superpowers do not exist. Most of all it's X-men not X-man. And just to clarify if you read my quote. Having an extra chromosome is not generally beneficial in human biology back here in the real world.

Here is the paper you are citing: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.07702v2.pdf Could you please extract the paragraph in which he supports the idea of multiverse? (Not where he mentions the word) This paper became famous just because Stephen Hawking published it a few days before his death. Many physicist do not agree with the idea that there should be a multitude of universes as a consequence of inflation. You should wait for the feedback from a more experienced member of this forum but from my perspective it's nothing ground-breaking. Maybe my comment sounds a bit harsh or arrogant. I am trying to say that the media, as always transformed and hyped what this paper is trying to say. So I go back to my initial statement that this multiverse theory that you or anyone else proposes is un-testable as of yet.

Yes I agree acceleration/deceleration is the key here. Some additional points. Dropping the case and protecting against a projectile with tank armour are different scenarios. In the first it is the case and contents which are decelerated. In the second it is the projectile. So tank armour would not help here. A heavy case falling, will hit at the same speed as a light case (Galileo) but will transfer great momentum due to its mass. Therfore producing a greater impact force unless the impact time can be lengthened. So the issue might best be thought of in terms of a soft v hard case.

A greater mass means that for a given impact (force) means it will undergo a smaller acceleration. i.e. it's a consideration for reasons other than the scenario in question. And I think acceleration is the key here. How the guitar responds to being accelerated is important, because that what causes the internal components to have stresses and strains and torsions, etc. I would think you don't want a loose fit, since that means motion within the case until the guitar hits an obstruction, and that's where damage occurs. You want snug, but in a material that has "give" to it. (padding materials generally have voids in them, so they can compress) That's why there is internal padding — it increases the time it takes to come to rest, decreasing the acceleration. A heavier case would potentially make a greater indentation into whatever it hits, which increases the time of impact, reducing the acceleration.

In order to "solve" for x, you need an equation.

I think it boils down to why a case is heavier rather than just the weight. More importantly is how the content is suspended within the case to minimize impact damage. When dealing with delicate equipment, for example, it is often packed in foam coupled to a suspension system (i.e. shock isolation system). So in that case, a rigid container can be used as the kinetic energy is transferred and (hopefully) absorbed by the suspension system rather than by the outer case itself. That being said, many high-quality cases can be made with lightweight materials, provided it is properly shaped to have a high strength-to-weight ratio. Often, that is the difference between cheap cases and expensive ones, even if both use the same polymer. I realized that I did not remain in the confines of OP. In that above scenario the first answer is unknown as it depends on the material as well as its structure how much impact is delivered to the inside. However, for a number of reasons polymers rather than, e.g. a rigid metal is preferred as they can be designed to transfer less impact but still be reasonably strong. For the second question the real answer is that it depends on the and how cushioning it is installed. What you typically want is the cushioning to sway, not your instrument.

Pardon the pun, but it is somewhat "case" dependant. If you dropped one onto a fairly solid piece of glass, supported by a foot or so of fibreglass insulation, a heavier case might break the glass, allowing a lot more time and distance to decelerate the guitar than a lighter one that would not break through. Now compare that to dropping them onto the same insulation supported by a concrete floor. Wasn't there a thread previously on this?

I’m struggling with the heavy versus light distinction. Seemingly more important is rigid versus elastic, or firm versus cushioned. Based on mass alone, I’d imagine lighter is better since heavier means higher momentum upon impact (greater force being cascaded through the intricate bits of the instrument).

Religious claims CAN be evaluated with physics and chemistry, and this is true if the claim becomes anything more tangible than mere poetry. Religious practice CAN be evaluated with psychology and sociology, and this is true regardless of how ludicrous the claims they make. Religious claims of the supernatural, however, cannot be met with science since science deals with the natural, observable, and measurable. I'm probably missing some obvious gap in the logic, but those cover the basics on immediate glance.

I had to admit my mistake. Most likely, rich people will refuse to use the national currency, and the entire tax burden will fall on poor and illiterate people.

I can't be arsed with you. Nothing sticks to you, does it?

Meanwhile Trump being congratulated at the G20 on his "historic victory" in the midterms by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Apparently he must have read the title of this thread and looked no further into it...

No one knows and I don't think we will ever know.

Consider me a cranky old guy if you will, or merely someone who wants intelligent conversation in a peaceful, civilized environment; but I'm putting you on ignore for a while for your totally inappropriate "sneering at the efforts of others" remark, and your inability to differentiate between General Philosophy and Science.