Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/12/20 in all areas

  1. One possibility is that there is a resonant frequency for the chassis to wobble, and at low speed you are near that resonance, so you more efficiently transfer energy into that mode.
    1 point
  2. Unless you are in a soft water area, you will spend a lot of time effort and money descaling the still if you don't deionise it.
    1 point
  3. https://www.businessinsider.com/hirise-photos-of-mars-2015-3#shown-here-are-plateaus-with-gentle-slopes-lined-with-almost-perfectly-spaced-sand-dunes-this-spacing-is-sensitive-to-wind-that-helps-give-scientists-clues-of-the-sedimentary-history-of-the-surrounding-terrain-4
    1 point
  4. 1 point
  5. But since the OP specifically used "BC" and "AD", which are not used in the Hindu calendar, that is not relevant here.
    1 point
  6. Maybe it's just the timing, but I don't remember being this disgusted by a religious assertion before. It shows a myopic and desperate need for privilege that ignores reality. This is the stance that can justify wiping out species wholesale, because they were only put there "for us to enjoy". It's also intellectually dishonest to misuse scientific claims to bolster your shaky belief system. Please stick to your Iron Age sky spirit worship.
    1 point
  7. I looked hard and found none Possibly OP means "Axis of Evil"? Some anomalies in the background radiation have been reported which are aligned with the plane of the Solar System, which contradicts the Copernican principle by suggesting that the Solar System's alignment is special. Land and Magueijo in 2005 dubbed this alignment the "axis of evil" owing to the implications for current models of the cosmos, although several later studies have shown systematic errors in the collection of that data and the way it is processed. (source: wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)) Disclaimer: I have not gone through the sources (or other material) regarding current explanations for the anomaly in the CMB. I would be surprised if any mainstream papers use religious concepts as base for proposed modified or changed models.
    1 point
  8. Ok, Penrose didn’t actually say this in the article you linked. He said that eventually, all matter will decay - that’s not quite the same. I wrote that post before I saw the article, so I only guessed that it was referring to the “Big Rip” conjecture. I’ve never actually looked at this in any detail, but my understanding is that it postulates a changing Hubble constant, in which case the effective scale on which expansion is “felt” decreases over time, until even subatomic scales will be affected. This would happen in a finite time. Or am I getting this wrong?
    1 point
  9. If it’s homework or something that absolutely required a stat model I would recommend a markov chain. It’s about the simplest one that’ll work for you as you just train it to jump from one state or another (autocorrect used to be a markov chain until a few years ago) and can be implemented in a few dozen lines of code. Neural nets are sexier but very difficult to get right with language unless you have a lot of time (the complexity compounds quickly.)
    1 point
  10. Of course the earth is the center of the known universe as that’s where we are looking out from. This is also a 7 year old discovery. It would be weirder if we somehow weren’t.
    1 point
  11. FYI forum rules say we shouldn’t need to click links or watch videos to participate. I’m not sure a model would be best here as that’ll get complex /fast/. However it is possible to build a neural network that takes in input and maps to the given outputs. How you would build such a model is a topic in of itself but you could start with just a RNN where you’ve mapped all English words to a given number and setup the input and output layers to take/output the binary representation of said numbers. You could do a CNN but you’d need to allow each layer to take in and output entire sentences and unfortunately I think you would mostly get gibberish or overfitting. Neither are desired. it would be simpler to just build a simple “expert machine” since you have the data set available and you could trivially map inputs to outputs provided within the set provided. For instance when a user inputs “Hi there” you lookup in the data set what pattern it is in and then return one of the responses from that same node, I.e., “good to see you again!”
    1 point
  12. It appears that set_pairs is a list of inputs and their respective outputs while intents is more of “one of these outputs should be returned if one of the inputs is given) Essentially you can randomize the intents outputs to seem more human (so you don’t get the same response every time.)
    1 point
  13. 4399 years. As there is no year 0, there is only 1 year between the start of 1 BC and 1 AD, and between the start of 1AD and the start of 1400 AD, there are just 1399 full years.
    1 point
  14. Nobody decent cares if youre gay or bisexual or whatever. As long as you’re not hurting anyone especially yourself its all good. Just go with the flow and accept who you are and I promise you will have a smile on your face in no time
    1 point
  15. Reporting suggests it was just another publicity stunt to help launch his own television network farther to the right than Fox News. He never expected to win or even go ice farther than the primary. We all apparently underestimated the stupidity and gullibility of the American voters.
    1 point
  16. Thinking out of the box means you acknowledge that the box is there, and then you look for meaningful ways to extend its boundaries outwards. It does not mean you discard the box and replace it with some other random shape...that would be more like taking a shot in the dark, which is rarely successful, and sometimes disastrous.
    1 point
  17. No, the source of gravity is energy-momentum, which includes many more things other than just mass. For example, and electromagnetic field (in otherwise empty space) would also be a source of gravity, as would be stresses and strains in the interior of a planet (e.g.). It needs to be spacetime, not just space. It is not meaningful, in the context of gravity, to separate space from time, and vice versa. As to what spacetime is - it is quite simply the set of all events, meaning the set of all spatial locations at all instances in time. It is thus a mathematical model. No. When any test particle - irrespective of whether it has mass or not - is affected by gravity (and only gravity, for simplicity), then that means that its world line in spacetime is a geodesic of that spacetime. It is a purely a geometric phenomenon. When space is expanding, that means that the separation between any two points within that space increases over time. However, locally those points remain at rest - you can attribute a relative velocity to these specific points, but not to space (that would be meaningless). Relative motion is not a source of gravity, so it does not 'warp' spacetime. What GR does is model the motion of test particles in the presence of sources of energy-momentum; as such, its predictions are quite physical indeed. This is just what Newtonian gravity does, and such a model works quite well in the low-velocity, weak field domain. However, once you venture further into the strong field regime, the predictions of Newtonian gravity are no longer accurate. And even in the everyday low energy domain - consider putting an accelerometer into free fall (drop it off a tower etc). It will read exactly zero at all times while it is falling - and zero acceleration means no force is present. And yet, the falling accelerometer is very clearly still affected by gravity. So gravity cannot be a force in the Newtonian sense. There are also deeper, more technical reasons why gravity cannot accurately be modelled by a vector field. You cannot accelerate a massless test particle. You have every right to be, because the way GR is generally presented does indeed make it confusing, once you give it more than just a passing glance. Spacetime is not a mechanical medium, so curvature is not any kind of mechanical 'bending'. As mentioned above, spacetime is simply the set of all events, and the geometry of spacetime can be thought of as how these events are related to one another. If the geometry is flat, then that means the relationship between any pair of neighbouring events will be the same, regardless of where/when in spacetime you are (like on a flat sheet of paper). If spacetime is curved, then this is no longer true - the relationship between a given pair of neighbouring events depends on where that pair of events is located in space and time. That's the meaning of curvature - a change in the relationship between events. It's a geometric property, not a mechanical action. This is analogous to the longitudinal lines on a globe - at the equator, they are spaced apart by a specific distance, but as you go north (or south), that distance will change, even though these lines are perfectly straight within the surface. That's because the relationship between points on those lines changes depending on where you are, since the surface has intrinsic curvature. Spacetime is the same, just in two more dimensions.
    1 point
  18. I had the great pleasure to attend one of his conferences. A great man. RIP
    1 point
  19. This is quite ridiculous ... If you have a ruler ( a one dimensional line with numbers on it ) all you need is one number to specify any position on it. If you have a sheet of graph paper ( 2 dimensional numbered grid lines ) you need two numbers to specify any position on it. It is a simple mental jump to imagine a height above that sheet of graph paper with the same grid lines. That is the third dimension, and you now need three numbers to specify a location in that space above the sheet of graph paper. And should you want to assign variables to a specified location, you can call them x, y, and z. Dimensions are simply the directions you can move in a given space. Back and forth, side to side, and up down for 3 dimensional space.
    1 point
  20. Not so. I'm functionally a cyclops, and the 3D glasses they give you in the cinema do nothing for me, but I get my 3D vision from motion (moving myself) rather than from binocular vision. It doesn't work as well, but enough that I don't need to resort to groping to perceive depth.
    1 point
  21. 1 point
  22. I know, I am holding a lot of faith in science to be able to combat that... If people can start to behave and work together and if we can also combat deep political polarisation.
    1 point
  23. Volcanic lightning is hard to beat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_lightning Calbuco, The Awakening.” ... Calbuco Volcano is located in the lakes region south of Santiago, Chile’s capital city and is one of the 10 most dangerous volcanoes in the country. After more than 40 years of inactivity, the day April 23 the volcano erupts, spewing more than 200 million tons of ash https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/photos/national-geographic-photo-contest-2015/image-gallery/a2afa2087ecd4f4d62475d231b129e31
    1 point
  24. 1 point
  25. In my years of study and questioning the ideas of science that effect our world, especially the environment I "always" come across scientist whom for "political reasoning" need to bash others with discriminate words and other "in-direct" or """passive""" insults that brake forum rules systamatically to "diverge" the very fact that scientist have not one clue of what they speak of when dealing with out of the box thinkers" and authentic reasoning... There is no such thing as a dumb question as there is no such thing as absolute concepts.. So the saying goes, there will always be better thinkers as there will always be better mouse traps, as there will always be jealousy and haters....
    -1 points
  26. This forum is very subjective and absolute with their rules, the numerolgy post is a good example......
    -2 points
  27. The "Planck Satellite" discovered that there is an axis for the whole universe and the axis goes through the Earth's orbit. 😀 🎉 Based off this evidence, it's pretty clear to me that everything was put out there for us to enjoy as God's special creation. What an amazing discovery. Thank you science! Has anyone else heard about this? Here is a link to the full video review https://bit.ly/3hYe2hF
    -2 points
×
×
  • 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.