factseeker88
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by factseeker88
-
-
Simply put, Solar panels don't work when the clouds are overcast and at night, sunny areas of roofs are too small to accommodate all electrical needs, Battery storage is useless because there is no place to put the DC to AC inverters. Circuit breaker panels are not accessible to parallel wire hookups, and buying a new one is a huge extra expense. If there is no basement or a place to install the inverters, a small outside building will be needed to house them.
-4 -
Every day all active people experience their own universe until something happens that makes them change their regular routine, forces them to enter into a new parallel universe. The universe with the happening and the universe without the happening.
Sort of like a fork in the road with two different ways to go, two parallel universes with two different outcomes.
No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts.” Lord Salisbury
"Question everything." TV Science channel
0 -
I will admit that I am skeptical about man-made global warming, but not because I am in denial, nor because I am an idiot, nor because I am in bed with the oil industry. I simply haven't been given a satisfying explanation of why scientists believe that man is the biggest contributor to present global warming. Most of the websites and videos on the subject are full of reference to the scientific consensus, emotional pictures (think: polar bears swimming and cooling towers), and maybe a simple explanation of how the greenhouse effect works or a graph showing CO2 going up along with temperature towards the end of the last century.
None of this proves that man is the biggest contributer to global warming, and I find it insulting that so many major websites avoid educating the public, especially when there is such a political push to "stop climate change". So, what leads the 97% of scientists to believe that man is the biggest contributor? How is it determined how much of the present greenhouse gasses are from humans and how much are from, say, volcanic activity? Is it hypothesized that man-made global warming would have specific effects on the atmosphere that differ from natural warming cycles? If so, have these been observed?
I admit that I have not been able to get through any white papers on the subject because I am not familiar with the technical terminology, so I am hoping to get a complete explanation, but using terms that a college freshman could understand. Thanks!
The only proof that global warming scientists have is what they learn in their labs. Outside their labs in the world wide environment, their lab tests are worthless.
-3 -
Most of Human Evolution happened in Africa and Eurasia where we evolved and adapted to our surroundings. Now we have only been living in North America for a few hundred years. (unless your native American)... My questions being.. Are we adapted to the climate, vegetation, air quality, etc. the same way we would be to the other continents?
I am finish, French Canadian, german, and everyone somewhere long down the line is African.
etc...
But now my body is in North America. Am I just as healthy?
There is nothing you can do about your health. or extend your life. Vitamins and natural supplements are worthless because there is no way to measure how effective they are, same way with your diet, and all of the active elements that keep you alive have their own timing. The only plus is that people are living longer and are more active. I and my wife are still active at 88, but I don't know if it's luck or anything else
No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. Lord Salisbury.
"Question everything." TV Science channel.
0 -
That is what scientists are trained to do.
True scientists seek the truth, but the majority seem to be satisfied with the status quo, conventional wisdom, especially if they have written papers and books about it.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
“This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam
.
-4 -
All you have done is state the obvious. We can only see the surface of the Earth. Trivially true but uninteresting. We theorize about the internal structure, based on multiple lines of evidence. Yep. That is what science does.
Remember what the Science channel said - QUESTION EVERYTHING. Their indecisiveness should be a warning to all scientists and would be scientists.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
“This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam
-2 -
No you are wrong, we can indeed see under ground with sound waves much the same way a baby can be imaged inside it's mothers womb...
Sonar only works in water and the fetus is in an amniobic fluid.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
“This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam
-1 -
Soo, what's the discussion here? So far, it smells a lot like soap inside this topic.
If you have nothing to add to the topic, please stay out of it.
A couple of problems:
1. You assume that only visual observation counts. Which is just silly.
2. You seem to think that theorizing about things is a Bad Thing. Yet it is the whole basis of our undertsanding of the world around us (and the technology you use to post this message).
The TV science channel asks their viewers to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that is what I am doing --- taking nothing for granted
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
“This moment is your life.” Omar Khayyam
-1 -
No. I'm saying that Pravda is not a medical journal and not a credible source of medical information. I'm not saying a thing about the French doctors. I'm saying we don't know what they actually said. When you translate from one language to another to another, information gets lost.
No. I'm saying that Pravda is not a medical journal and not a credible source of medical information. I'm not saying a thing about the French doctors. I'm saying we don't know what they actually said. When you translate from one language to another to another, information gets lost.
Heres what John Hopkins said about it...
BRAIN-DAMAGED children are actually able to recover some intellectual ground if the entire damaged half of the brain is surgically removed, researchers are finding.
''We are awed by the apparent retention of memory and by the retention of the child's personality and sense of humor,'' Dr. Eileen P. G. Vining of Johns Hopkins University wrote in this month's issue of the journal Pediatrics.
0 -
We don't, but perhaps the more important point is that brain size is not the key factor. It's merely an approximation or a proxy for intelligence. Other variables (like cortical folding and neuron density and stuff like that) are rather important when discussing these things, so making broad sweeping generalizations about intelligence based on brain size alone is misguided (even when discussed as a percentage to normalize for overall body size).
While we're supposing, the brain could be binary like a computer, and memory could be a search engine like Google. Size wouldn't matter and location could be anywhere in the head.
0 -
French doctors, reported in a Russian popular (not scientific) paper translated to English.
As I've said twice before, you need to go to the original medical source. The story is simply not credible on its own and needs some sort of confirmation.
French doctors are still racking their brains over the case of a patient who is said to live a normal life despite the fact that his brain is almost completely absent
What you seem to be saying is that the French doctors lied.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
0 -
San Clemente Fault. Palos Verdes Fault. Rose Canyon Fault. Newport-Inglewood Fault. Whittier Fault. Santa Cruz Fault. Malibu Coast Fault, San andreas fault, and moving tetonic plates are all educated theories because they cannot be seen or demonstrated for all to see and understand, and siesmic inducators only detect movements and vibrations.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
0 -
I was wondering if any of you could tell me some o your ideas about climate change related with clean energy and waste manegement, and also a way in what you think, this problems could be solve in differents levels (community, country, world)
My wife and I have lived in Los Angeles for 88 years, breathing so-called contaminated air, and are still healthy, evidence that the clean air fanitics warning is overblown.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
0 -
Why flexible ?
The generator should run at its suggested rpm. Use gearing. You need speed.
----> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65768-paddle-wheel-calculations-please/
True, but that could part of the
There is considerable recorded knowledge and wisdom about the use of river flow to provide energy. This came from the times when watermills were used to provide mechanical energy.
Further considerations are that most river levels are not constant, but some by several meteres, some by a few tens of metres.
This makes 'dipping a paddle in' more difficult.
Water level is no problem because the paddle wheel unit floats on top, and all the other design problems can be worked out by trial and error, of course this only works when the water flow isn't impeded by snow or ice , but winter doesnt need as much electicity as summer.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
installation
0 -
You do realise that's part of the brain, don't you?
Not according to what the French Doctors said, here, read it again...
French doctors are still racking their brains over the case of a patient who is said to live a normal life despite the fact that his brain is almost completely absent
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
The forehead is part of your skull (I think it's the frontal bone). The frontal lobe is part of the brain.
If memory were part of the brain it would have been wiped out with the rest of the brain, here, read it again ...
French doctors are still racking their brains over the case of a patient who is said to live a normal life despite the fact that his brain is almost completely absent
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
0 -
How would you know they are not more intelligent than humans?
A better way to put it might be all other living things react to new situations faster than humans, especially life threatening ones.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
And the prefrontal lobe is part of what portion of the anatomy?
The forehead, which is probably protect against the rest of the brain.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
0 -
Where do you think the patient keeps his memory?
Prefrontal lobe. The proof is that prefrontal lobotomy often makes patients forget.
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
0 -
Rockets from Hamas are certainly deadly even though Israel (with help from the US) has invested heavily in preventing them from reaching and killing their citizens via the Iron Dome. What point exactly are you trying to make? If you're suggesting they're not deadly, you're wrong. They're just being defended against.
This is a sensitive topic that creates a lot of emotion. It's best to be as clear as possible with our words and meaning. There is certainly a case to be made that perhaps the response has been asymmetric, but that's not what you did here.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/rockets-hamas-gazaisraeliprmessaging.html
Those words are not mine. I just brought it up for debate. Here, read it again, especially the part that says NO REPORTED INJURIES, not 86 or 90 percent intercept rate -- 100 percent
By Jeff Stone@JeffStone500j.stone@ibtimes.com
on July 09 2014 3:21 PM
Though Hamas fighters have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel in recent days, the onslaught has had minimal impact with no reported injuries, demonstrating that the tiny country can protect its citizens with one of the most futuristic and effective missile defense systems in the world: the Iron Dome.
0 -
Are false memories a common occurrence and how often do they affect people?
Is it possible for someone's entire life, or a good portion of it, to be a false memory? Have there been cases of this ever happening?
Thanks.
I don't quite understand what you are saying. You either remember something or you don't at a particular time. As for having a false memory, it's not false until can prove it to yourself that it is.
0 -
We have wind power generators here which are skyscrapers pretty much but I want to know if it is possible to convert the already exsisting towers hull into solar panelling to provide heated water to the surrounding villages which currently run on water heated by dwindling fossil fuels.
Of course, but with their dependency on intermitant wind and sunlight, what purpose would it serve?
0 -
"It must be true I read it on the internet" and the web page looked legit.
I do know an individual who had half his brain removed in early child hood because of a tumour. He is mentally around 12 although in his late 20's, he must live in a group home and walks with a cane. Still quite remarkable given the extent of tissue removed.
It's possible to find all kinds of variations of different cases, but none that dispute the original post.
"French doctors are still racking their brains over the case of a patient who is said to live a normal life DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS BRAIN IS ALMOST COMPLETLY ABSENT."
With no brain all the patient had left was his memory, and that seemed to be enough for a ordinary person to survive and function. Had he been a scientist who needed an analytical mind, the case might have been different
0 -
Israeli Missile Defense System Intercepts Overwhelming Number Of Hamas Rockets
By Jeff Stone@JeffStone500j.stone@ibtimes.com
on July 09 2014 3:21 PM
Though Hamas fighters have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel in recent days, the onslaught has had minimal impact with no reported injuries, demonstrating that the tiny country can protect its citizens with one of the most futuristic and effective missile defense systems in the world: the Iron Dome.
http://www.ibtimes.com/what-iron-dome-israeli-missile-defense-system-intercepts-overwhelming-number-hamas-rockets-1623606Looks like hamas rockets are not as deadly as Israel says they are.
0 -
Hydrocephalus is hardly the same as having no brain.
The last paragraph in the link is quite telling:
This paragraph is also quite telling:
French doctors are still racking their brains over the case of a patient who is said to live a normal life DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS BRAIN IS ALMOST COMPLETLY ABSENT.
Here is a case with half a brain:
Removing Half of Brain Improves Young Epileptics' LivesBy ABIGAIL ZUGERPublished: August 19, 1997
BRAIN-DAMAGED children are actually able to recover some intellectual ground if the entire damaged half of the brain is surgically removed, researchers are finding.
The surgical procedure, hemi-spherectomy, was first developed in the 1920's but fell out of favor for many years because of a high complication rate. Now newer surgical techniques have made the operation safer. Its success in children with damage confined to half the brain astonishes even seasoned scientists and suggests that until now, they may have greatly underestimated the brain's flexibility, particularly in older children.
0 -
All it takes is flexible paddle wheels attached to generators biting into the flowing river surface.
0
Solar panels, why they are a bad investment
in Engineering
Posted
I'm an electrical engineer, I know what I'm talking about, Wide spread denial behavior is a case for Psychologists, not engineers.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. Mark Twain
.