Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/07/20 in Posts

  1. 1 point
    Can you show me how I would calculate that balance? I'm having trouble finding the right documentation for linear motion on a wheel axle due to different angular torques applied. If you know of anything I would appreciate it. Because I want to know why you came to the conclusion. I just realized I did the statement wrong. Apologies. I'm making a correction to this statement: Should say: Circle E is forced up half the cycle, while no force is experienced by circle E while circle A & B are parallel to line FG. As circles A & B pass line FG to the closest point of rotation to circle E, if circle E were to be manually switched to it's opposite charge it would once again experience force for the remainder of the cycle while circles A, C, B & D rotate
  2. 1 point
    Thats not a bot, thats just Dimm on weed.
  3. 1 point
    Can't argue with that... god darn it
  4. 1 point
    Great demonstration of why correlation is not causality:
  5. 1 point
    If so (and I don't know if that is correct or not) this is because they will disagree about exactly when the accelerations starts and stops (relativity of simultaneity).
  6. 1 point
    The problem with relying too much on graphs though they do serve as a good visual aid is that one can have identical graphs that have nothing to do with one another. With squeezed states your squeezing the probability amplitude of one operator while increasing the uncertainty in another. For example in that paper either the position or momentum operator. Both involve probability functions.
  7. 1 point
    Physical motion (i.e. a defined trajectory), for one.
  8. 1 point
    I don't know when exactly it was moved (or by whom) but may well have been when you said: But you are not just asking questions, you are also making assertions contradicted by physics.
  9. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note You need to recalibrate your attitude. Lashing out at the people taking the time to answer your questions and giving the feedback you ask for is unacceptable. This is not an invitation to respond in this thread and try and defend your actions.
  10. 1 point
    It is more subtle than this. The 'Universe' for such an observer would be quite different from the 'Universe' we can see. In fact any observer would see different parts of the universe form any other observer. We can only see so far and can only infer what is beyond that. The point is that what we can see at the edge of our visible range is not so very different from what we can see close up. So we can only asssume there is more similer 'Universe' beyond the range of our vision because it were very different it would affect the conditions at the edge of what we can see and cause that to appear different. We do not know of any observer (star etc) going at sufficient relative speed to us to observe 30 billion years.
  11. 1 point
    Yes, in principle. In fact, our view of the universe is pretty average so it would be hard for any observer to have seen a significantly greater age for the universe than us. But if someone had been in the closest possible orbit around a black hole ever since the earliest black holes were formed then they would see the universe as being only about 8 billion years old (I think - rough bit of mental calculation based on time dilation at the photon sphere). In reality, any differences actually observed would be much, much smaller than the errors in our estimate of the age. So it is not a practical problem.
  12. 1 point
    No. That is not what universal time means. Universal (or absolute) time would mean that all observers would agree about the amount of time that has elapsed sine the big bang. Which they know they wouldn't: it would depend on relative motion, amount of gravitational potential they have experienced, etc. Also, there is no evidence the universe "started" and valid theories that describe that. So the question is moot, really. You can't use the theory of relativity to discredit the big bang model because it is based on relativity. No. Because different observers experience time differently. That would be going back to a model of time that was shown to be wrong by the evidence. What is the point of that? No. For the reasons given above. It is the same event, but different amounts of time have elapsed since then as measured by different observers.
  13. 1 point
    What any individual believes has no bearing on whether or not free will exists. It's irrelevant whether or not a Deity exists. If there's no free will what is stopping people from harming themselves? There are plenty of miserable people yet very few wait for the train on its tracks.
  14. 1 point
    You can be quite certain there is free will. Reality is an infinite number of orders of magnitude too chaotic for consciousness to be driven by any sort of chemical reaction or mechanical process. The belief in preordination and predeterminism is caused by a belief in perception and physical "law". Apropos of nothing in particular you'll never see anyone who believes there is no free will lie down in front of a train to prove his point.
  15. 1 point
    Belgian joke? A couple of Belgians go for skying in the French Alps. They are asking for the same ski instructor they had last year but they cannot recall his name. How was he? Can you describe him? _Yes he was wearing a suit with colors blue white red. _Hum, all instructors here wear that colors (it is the French flag). Do you remember anything else? _Euh yes, I think he has two anuses. _???two anuses, how do you know he has 2 anuses? _Because when he crossed with other instructors they always asked him :"How are you doing with your two arseholes?"
  16. 1 point
    Italian. In the first one (not very good in any language): A: "E le fante?" (Sounds like "elephants" but means "and the Fantas?") In the second one: "Sono identici!" ("They are identical" sounds like "Sono i dentici" = "they are snappers") Obligatory joke, from Bob Monkhouse: "They laughed when I said I wanted to be comedian. Well ... they're not laughing now."
  17. 1 point
    Bilbos Danny!!! I said Bilbos!!!
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
  20. 0 points
    How come you're so sure? Have you contacted your authorities with your evidence? Please provide a link to some first hand evidence and I might consider what you say otherwise you cannot make an informed opinion. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/abc-news-media-bias https://youtu.be/lH_sdTC7Anw https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/23/abcs_tom_llamas_was_hunter_biden_profiting_off_his_dads_work_as_vice_president_and_did_joe_biden_allow_it.html
  21. -1 points
  22. -1 points
    Yeah, that's easily something Trump would write. "This is an ISLAND, surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water." - Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the Unites States of America
  23. -1 points
    It is said the confirmed cases is more than 150,000, and some experts doubt the virus is from lab. It means it’s origin may be from bio-weapon.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.