davidivad

my question is this.

if we have saturated all ecosystems, then do we lose the benefit such things brought us in the past.

we are clearly still evolving as our teeth, skull, and other things have changed. however, this may not be relational to what the topic refers to as it is a large timescale involved.

another question i have is whether or not such evolution will be sucessful in the future.

we may very well topple from evolution's finest creation.

aren't we over specialized already?

any more could wipe us clean off the earth if the environment evolves new niches.

what if we run out of oil?

our advantage through selection has undoubtedly made us smarter unfortunately it is easily put to rest without resources.

if we extend to a new niche like space, then it will force evolution yet again just as a new niche does.

sorry guys, this is the extent of my knowledge of evolution.

arete?

am i understanding this correctly?

would you prefer the question or the argument?

 

Do you mean these? (extracted from the Wiki article in davidivad's post)

 

"connected at both ends by shorting rings forming a cage-like shape"

 

These are simply there to electrically connect all the induction bars together in parallel.

 

 

Do you mean a shaded pole motor?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaded_pole_motor

 

Pole shading is one of many starting methods employed, but we haven't got to these yet.

 

The thing to remember with induction motors is that a three (or more) phase motor will start on its own and many textbook explanations only treat 3 phase.

 

Most domestic supplies are single phase and require an auxiliary starting mechanism or the rotor would simply turn to assume the position of minimum energy and stick there.

 

Starting methods include additional windings, additional components (capacitors and/or inductors) to generate a phase shifted alternating signal or phase from the main supply so that there is a 'side push' as well as the main one.

Shaded poles are deliberately partially shorted to create an imbalance in the rotor response to the magnetic drive which again starts the motor.

i mentioned it because i knew it was important in many of the motors i have serviced in the past.

the wording of the article seemed to dance around the subject a bit. i did not want to discredit my reference so i mentioned it externally.

almost every squirrel cage motor i repaired required a shunt of some kind.

your statement about phases is on the money.

Sorry guys.

I should have been a bit more accurate on that.

The machine i referenced was definitely a syncrotron.

"The iron core serves to carry the magnetic field through the rotor conductors. Because the magnetic field in the rotor is alternating with time, the core uses construction similar to a transformer core to reduce core energy losses. It is made of thin lamination, separated by varnish insulation, to reduce eddy currents circulating in the core. The material is a low carbon but high silicon iron with several times the resistivity of pure iron, further reducing eddy-current loss, and low coercivity to reduce hysteresis loss."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squirrel-cage_rotor

It also mentions the use of more than one cage for tailored motor characteristics and what i call a shunt for equipment that needs altered starting torque.

I don't think anyone defined evolution for the purpose of this thread which might put you guys on the same track...

After all, if all we can do is argue, lets at least argue about the same thing.

Perhaps such technical ignorance is a reflection of a master's pride.

We learn from those we see.

I have lemonade because i know how to make it.

You have a lemon no doubt...

Does this make me more evolved or just superior?

lol, no doubt...

I will have to give that some attention. It is just laziness on my part.

first off, here is a reference book for the 184 inch cyclotron (over 700 mev ?)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33397/33397-h/33397-h.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron

according to these references, relativity comes into play.

this is not to say that a work around can't be found.

i built my own.

it was a very crude device but worked well.

they really are not much different than a magnetron.

i live by a building that caters to the poor, disabled, and the elderly.

i keep up with them and volunteer under my own rule.

many of these people smoke pot which is illegal here.

i say nothing because of the fact that they would otherwise have a breakdown from no stimulus. they deserve some kind of release from staring at four walls....

i also have a friend who ingests small sub-euphoric doses of mushrooms to manage his headaches. it doesn't cure the problem but is the only solution available to him that has any effect at all.

perhaps education is a better offering then prohibition.

hey, if you want to be blitzed and its not illegal why not?

if it is illegal and you still want it get the laws changed.

i don't understand why they don't just set up a system that lets the doctors decide if you get your prescription.

not to decide if it is needed but whether or not it is severely impacting your life.

why spend umpteen millions to put people behind bars only to realize we cannot afford the officers we have let alone the cost of imprisonment.

America has a drug problem because it hasn't recognized that it is responsible for its own condition.

we blame the cartels yet we give them guns and buy their drugs.

we are directly impacting Mexico yet mad when the resulting conditions are not livable and they cross the border.

it is already established that the war is not effective.

it only makes sense to let the doctors handle health issues.

so let them get high.

when the doc sees that they are affecting others in a bad way or have an out of control habit no prescription is given.

it removes the dealers by accessibility, the patient is monitored and it costs the patient not the whole of society.

that this responsibility away from our officers and give it to the individual.

"so you want to get high? here you go. if you show signs of trouble that's it for you."

they do this with many different addictive drugs already.

as a young man, i once went with a few friends on a camping trip and we went Indian. it was the most unbelievable experience i had ever had.

would i do it again? nah, once was enough for me. i would never give up that one experience though.

it changed my life.

http://www.gutsense.org/constipation/stress.html

apparently there is the effect that your emotions are responded to by the gut brain which it does not say exactly in my supporting material.

the article says it has an effect though. that's good enough for me because i experience butterflies sometimes in certain moods.

a second consideration is medication although i'm sure you were considering something else.

most anxiety sufferers try to get medication from a doc or self medicate. medication clearly affects the gi tract.

to note...

the article i found stated that first you get the runs and then you get backed up. this however in no way says that it can't be caused by separate things.

i would love to see a link on any material you may have covered on the subject.

my question is this.

if we have saturated all ecosystems, then do we lose the benefit such things brought us in the past.

we are clearly still evolving as our teeth, skull, and other things have changed. however, this may not be relational to what the topic refers to as it is a large timescale involved.

another question i have is whether or not such evolution will be sucessful in the future.

we may very well topple from evolution's finest creation.

aren't we over specialized already?

any more could wipe us clean off the earth if the environment evolves new niches.

what if we run out of oil?

our advantage through selection has undoubtedly made us smarter unfortunately it is easily put to rest without resources.

if we extend to a new niche like space, then it will force evolution yet again just as a new niche does.

sorry guys, this is the extent of my knowledge of evolution.

arete?

am i understanding this correctly?

now that's what a thread should look like...

i am embarassed nowby my own laziness...

oh, yea.

we are all nuts politicians included.

here is my proof.

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/ouija-board-product-reviews/.

welcom to the forum.

i would offer the idea that electromagnetic and gravitic are different.

i would also suggest that different conditions require vehicles tailored to them.

a electromagnetic powered vehicle could effectively use the surrounding field of the earth for propusion and areas in space where there is enough medium to apply force.

right now we cannot fullfill the requirements for such designs because on earth there is a power to weight issue and in space there has to be enough matter distribution in the area so that a realistic sized field can be used as larger ones require more power.

note that my consideration is on a drive that uses an external field to do work.

as far as gravity is concerned, i am reminded of the alcubier drive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive.

in my personal opinion, such a drive will not work although it has good math.

fact is, we ourselves are in a gravitational field but still have to acknowledge the light constant.

write his name in stone for the world to see.

leave that mark you feel he deserves.

i had a tree planted in the community for a loved one. it even has his name.

i found my peace.

sorry for your loss as we should not have to outlive our children.

So it is like a popularity contest. Like who gives rep to someone else.

 

This might be disappointing, from a scientific viewpoint.

 

But not entirely surprising. We note that most posts by a mod, get a + point.

 

And why not! The mods are superior. Don't they deserve praise! If it weren't for their intellectual efforts, this forum wouldn't even be here!

well, the mods do make this site happen.

they have been chosen for useful qualities conducive to the site.

if you ever have an issue, contact a mod and they will give advice.

i have spent much time representing ideas i may or may not even agree with as an exercise in non-complacency.

this often puts me in the dog house so to speak but is worth the effort for us as a community for science.

these guys just come off that way because science is precise and needs to be that way to have effective dialogue which is, in a sense, what this site is for.

(effective argumentation skills required in the field)

there is a pecking order because we cannot as scientists escape our humanity...lol

use the pecking order and you wil gain respect much more than someone inflexible as the others may seem.

i have found the practice very useful personally although it is so easy to take offense as it comes across strongly.

it has been my personal experience that this is a concern for them and they take it seriously by trying to be more flexible with the new guys.

yes, the most irritating people on here even try.

take your hits, submit when there is a consensus against you, and you WILL be accepted.

this really is the best way to look at it.

use einstein, it is easier to understand.

this is a great way to view time as a dimension but does not make wagers on such things.

one has to assume the model says anything at all about whether the future and past are real.

any reference to a real light cone is bologna, so we can use it because it works without having to say it is a real thing.

just thinking ahead.

My hair dries easily and looks better when it's sleek and wet.

 

I don't usually put hair gel in my hair but should I start doing so?

 

However, if there are any, what are some of the negative results of using excessive hair gel in your hair?

 

Am I better off in the long-run if I don't use hair gel?

according to female members (and polished males, lol), go ahead.

the result is breakage and build up.

instead of relying on shampoo to keep my hair manageable, i use hot oil once it starts to frizz up and always keep the hair trimmed on a schedule even if they are only cutting the tips off (this is where it starts splitting).

i instead use the gel to give it the right texture as that is what it is for.

when not using gel, i start with damp hair and apply spray sparingly at first.

i apply it and form it as best as i can, then i do the process again until i have the hair the way i want it.

WARNING!

you can stab unbeknownst people and animals who come into contact with your head...lol

... but you will do so in style.

Dekan,

you make an excellent point.

i think your statement shows the real major difference between us and the animals.

perhaps this shows the capacity at which ethics and the likes occur.

why not establish the fact that these animals cannot make a choice in the matter as they do not have the capacity.

then, create a group that supports thier unprotected interests just as the handicapped must have a lawyer.

we can choose for them, but this should come with a price.

shoot a man in the face and he will never know the reason.

but what if he is to be the next big thing when you are gone.

we are less important than nature itself and can we not look beyond the mirror?

if it is a matter of nature then we will succomb to those very devices by our own hand.

this is why ethics is important.

the scientists dont get to choose what the people want.

they must represent and they dang well better.

"you are getting paid for that, you dont get to make those decisions yourself, we run this system."

there is only one thing worse than a man who does not pay his electric bill.

that would be the one who leaves the light on when nobody is home anyway in the hopes of attracting bugs.

to think that people who believe that physics should be the rule of thumb (rightly of course) cannot take a lemon and find some sugar and water and do something with it is absolutely hilarious. we have all the answers and we cant make lemonade...

heck maybe i'm just expecting a lemon to turn into lemonade by itself....

we can have more and it is up to our faculties to do a simple daily task.

lol, lets drag em out in the streets and hang them.... we can blame religion for it later.

i propose that the definition of crackpot is as follows..

crackpot -- the guy you need to feel important.

unless you agree in this thread to call people "crackpots" your rep goes down.

 

I like to see even the way out theories, which I can take our leave, but I DO NOT PUT THEM DOWN, Nothing is yet proven.

Some people cannot bend they just "snap".,

 

Carry on with your thread, slapping yourselves on the back,

how superior you are, to us poor ignorants.

 

Shame on you, Shame on science.

 

Everyone is allowed an opinion, if you do not understand that, you will never really understand anything.

 

In the end, most what is known today will be proved "wrong".

holly crap, ethics and humanity...

i wish things were different.

always science against religion...

i choose not to make an uninformed decision as one offers no more proof than the other.

why? logic is only part of the equation in everyday life.

i dont fix my child cereal in the morning because she requires a specific number of nutrients.

i do so because it feels good.

if i wish to believe that the flying spaghetti monster is real then i have the right as a citizen.

i may even lie to myself to feel better about it.

if one is to prove they can be moral without religion then how do we pick which will be the first religion to go?

take away religion and men will have no rock to hide under.

lets keep religion as it is useful in places other than science.

my child is an athiest and portrays some really questionable "scientific traits" that are not desireable for a successful society.

she holds a very judgemental backyard justice type of attitude towards religion.

now why in the heck would i want to foster that...

"it puts us in the same shoes as the fanatics."

science will be abused just like religion.

we are human beings and that is what WE do.

it proves that you can literally have such a thing physically.

this can be done with real objects too.

besides, one number at the bottom as a basic unit would literally be the average of the base unit but not beyond it, right?

3+3+3= 9

9/3= 3

3 is also the minimum value of the group plus the max and also the mean.

but this is my interpretation of it.

i definitely agree strange.

we are definitely scratching our heads.

luaghably, i think it would be great if when we are done with the math we are left with a formula that has a value for the human condition added to it.

they use the tools available as they have a different set of peripherals.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/how-deaf-people-think/

instead of "hearing" words, they see them being done.

this of course depends on whether or not they have experienced any sound.

face it, there are two views, one being that everything has to come in units and the other saying it is continuous.

you can argue through einstein but the reason this does not work is because it does not have such an answer in reality.

if you were correct, then we would have one theory for everything. clearly qm is not ready to marry yet.

they do own the best clock so this is where i would look.

think about it, when was the last time you saw an einstein clock that was accurate.

it is even a well established concept that the answer is expected from the quantum world.

yes q theory will win the day but the answer is already known to the world.

"don't ask, its complicated"

if you are here to read this then got get some sunshine.

while feeling invulnerable, we find ourselves trapped by a new vulnerability...

addiction.