Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/11/20 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Ok. I really must take issue with this, because although I do find some points of agreement with you, like, e.g., the "it would defeat the purpose" argument, or the general intention to reach wider audiences that these shows blatantly target, I really think you're flushing too much down the plughole there. As to school teachers pictured as "exiles,' I really must tell you that I've found sour exiles and leeches at university and school alike. Some of the best were at uni, and some of the worst too. I know enough of science to know that there exist vast graveyards of good-for-nothing sloppy science made by professionals, like some 'glorious' pieces of GR that were just plain wrong because the authors didn't know they were dealing with tensor densities, and messed up the calculations. They're still there, published, 80-odd years afterwards, to the shame of all. It is by no means the rule, thanks to the peer review system, but it just happens to happen. Same goes for papers that are but leading-nowhere speculations dressed with the glories of mind-numbing formalism. Again, not the norm, but there is such a thing as bad professional science and there is such a thing as good popular science. It's not as simple as researchers or university professors = people in the know, versus school teachers or popular science writers = poor idiots who don't know what they're talking about.
  2. 2 points
    For long distances, there is a hypothetical means of travel known as the "gravity train". Basic concept is this: You start by digging a tunnel with a downward slope. You keep digging in a straight line. Since the Earth's surface is curved, your straight line tunnel will end up coming out at some other point of the Earth's surface. The midpoint of the tunnel will be closer to the center of the Earth and thus lower than the ends. You seal and evacuate the tunnel of air and put a mag-lev train in it. If you start the train at on end, it will slide down the tunnel picking up speed until it reaches the mid point, and then will climb back up the other side, coming to a stop at the other end. Now here's the kicker: No matter how far apart the ends of the tunnel are from each other, the trip will take a bit over 42 min. Of course, you would never be able to eliminate all friction and losses, so you would have to add a bit of energy to get the train to reach all the way to the other end. Also, the further apart the ends, the deeper the depth of the midpoint, so there would be practical limits on just how long you could make the tunnel. It's a neat idea, even if it never becomes practical.
  3. 1 point
    You agree that your theory is wrong? Well, that's progress.
  4. 1 point
    Unfortunately they are not one-to-one translations and English version is usually the richest in knowledge..
  5. 1 point
    I wonder if it is because when you read, you can always pause and think about what you have just read. But with an audiovisual presentation you are less likely to hit pause and so you give yourself less time to think. There has been some research that shows you learn better from texts that are hard to read (too small, fuzzy, bad letter forms, etc) because you are forced to take time over them. Reading is an artificial skill that we have to learn. So maybe reading, because it takes more effort, has a similar cognitive advantage over our more intuitive skills like listening and watching.
  6. 1 point
    The difference, perhaps, is that scientific information written to inform is easier to assess than the same information displayed to entertain. No matter who attempts to "get it", I think it's easier for modern humans to be critical when information is written out. And I think it's easier to miss some misinformation when it's part of a "story". A big part of the entertainment format is suspension of disbelief, sort of the opposite of healthy scientific skepticism.
  7. 1 point
    I think the medium itself is a bit dangerous for learning. I don't think we have as effective a filtering system when it comes to audio/visual input as opposed to the written word. Or perhaps we're more apt to be emotional when more of the senses are engaged. If I'm reading a scientific article and it slides into sensationalism, I'm more likely to catch it and start being more skeptical about any claims it makes. If I'm watching a video, I'm more likely to let it slip rather than interrupt the flow of the presentation.
  8. 1 point
    Entanglement is complicated by the fact that there can be degrees of entanglement. Full entanglement is called maximal entanglement, Partial entanglement results in various special states, for instance with photons the colour may be entangled for 3 photons, resulting in what is called the W state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_state
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Understood most of my reply was directed at the OP to provide a few insights. I am aware of one peer reviewed and professional possible solution to all three of the items described by the OP. However further research into the Higgs field is a huge requirement. In so far as I have encountered numerous articles done by professional physicists that are conjecturing the possibility the Higgs field may help solve DE, DM and the matter/antimatter assymetry problem. Lol might need another decade or two of research but such is science. (Higgs field is still relatively new in cosmology applications so that's to be expected). Anyways here is a few papers on the topic. (I didn't include the CPT related papers) DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801
  11. 1 point
    As there are three unknowns and only two equations, there will not be a unique solution-- but rather multiple solutions. Also, obviously, since all three variables are specified to be greater than or equal to zero, the solutions may not be integers.
  12. 1 point
    For electric cars, regenerative braking helps charge batteries to get the car back up the hill. There's no one size fits all solution. Some of this reminds me of all the proposals I was seeing in the newspaper, after 9/11. The issue of how to get many people quickly down and out of tall buildings. Don't know if any of the ideas ever got implemented.
  13. 1 point
    What's black and comes rushing out of the ground shouting knickers knickers knickers ? What's black and comes rushing out of the ground shouting panties panties panties ?
  14. 1 point
    Enough is enough. I'm not sending INow any more photos.
  15. 1 point
    Relying on friction probably isn't good enough to ensure a safe and controlled speed of descent. You have to take the cart back up to the top, which would require a source of energy. Also, there is probably limited number of people who only ever want to go downhill so, at some point, you are going to have get the people back up to the top as well. Now, here's an Idea: why not have two of your carts tied to each other with a cable that goes round a pulley at the top of the hill. The cable is just long enough that when one cart is at the top, the other one is at the bottom, When you have passengers in both carts, you let the one at the top go down and pull the other one up. You may need to use some power to overcome different loads and control the speed, but less than without the counterbalancing cart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular
  16. 1 point
    In the equation, r is measured from the center of the Earth. It seems that you just plugged 424 in for r. The answer you got would have been the GPE for the spaceship if it were sitting on the surface of a world with the mass of the Earth, and just 424 m in radius. For one, you have to convert km to meters, and for the other, you are looking for the difference in GPE between sitting at the surface of the Earth and being 424 km above it, not just the GPE for some point.
  17. 1 point
    In short, they identified a singular (monoclonal) antibody that binds to a conserved area in coronaviruses and found that if it binds, it interrupts the ability of the viruses to invade cells. It is at this point more a mechanical/functional study showing that presence of antibodies could at least fundamentally disrupt invasion by viruses. This gives hope to convalescent serum treatment for example. Of course it is not ensured that folks producing antibodies (they are always a mix, or polyclonal) will develop something similar. It is unlikely to influence vaccination development much I think, most target the spike protein anyway. It does increase the likelihood that immunization is feasible though (I think).
  18. 1 point
    Droplets tend to fall out of suspension very quickly if the airflow is passed through a 'knock-out pot' ( engineering speak ). In Physics terms, airflow is directed into a large chamber, where it is quickly decelerated, and then accelerated again. The liquid droplets have much more inertia than air molecules, and cannot 'keep-up'; they drop out of suspension.
  19. -1 points
    Canadians are the most deceitful lousy phony nation. Not only they don't talk about aboriginal genocide ,they have stopped talking about covid virus. Whole Montreal nord is infected now. Mother is infected-stupid workaholic fool. She simply sits home and does nothing. Canada has shittiest healthcare. And no bloggers to talk about it on youtube-except immigrant freaks talk about "travel".
  20. -1 points
    If you we're to find controversial religious toned scientific material, would you be a scientist and take it seriously, or would you be emotional and throw it in the trash can. Strange is an interest individual who seems to think it's okay to just trash scientific discussion. I think this moderator should be removed for blocking legitimate scientific material. I don't think his ethics are on the level. I think he's bankrupt.
  • 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.