Raider5678

"First of all, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Now the fact about guns being for a hunting rather then militia is not exactly a valid argument. If you go back to the time of the revolutionary war and the civil war "

I can't and nor can you.

What happened back then is history.

I'd rather focus on what's happening today where people draft vacuous arguments that guns are OK because they are not the only thing that kills people (and that was the essence of your point- alcohol kills people too so we shouldn't advocate gun control.)

 

Well, as I pointed out, there's a difference (which you chose to ignore).

Drinks are not actually intended to kill people.

Guns, on the other hand, are intended to kill people.

 

If they were not able to kill people, the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply to them because there's no point in having a militia whose guns won't kill.

 

It's good to know we agree on this bit

"your gun that detects people wouldn't in fact, be able to be protected by the constitution. "

That was my point.

The gun lobby wants to have its cake and eat it. they say " my guns aren't made for killing people" and "I have a right under the constitution to keep a gun"

But the right to keep a gun only applies (as we both agree) to guns that kill people- so their first claim must have been false or their second one was false.

Take your pick.

If you buy a gun for self defence the same point applies- it's no use if it doesn't kill.

That makes it clearly distinct from other things , like beer and cars, which sometimes kill, but are not designed to.

 

So there are two answers to your post.

You made a logical fallacy by suggesting that we should not ban guns because we don't ban alcohol .

You failed to spot the difference of intention between guns and alcohol.Incidentally, where did this

"people have decided that the fathers actually hid a SECERT message in the constitution about making it hard or impossible to own guns. "

come from- did you dream it up or what?

Who are the "people" you refer to?

Ok, I'm quoting your entire post rather then adressing spot by spot because I don't know how to spread the quotes out. Now guns being intended to kill people.... They are intended to save people. Originally they were used as a defense against invading enemies. Then they became more evolved and were (my auto correct put safely here for some reason) used to kill lots of people, from Indians to civilians, a lot of people suffered from the power of guns to kill. By let's not look at history eh? In modern day they are used to prevent the deaths of millions of people every year. Guns are here to stay, we pretty much both accept that, so banning guns in one country would result in massive casualties. The reason is that if a country falls behind in weapon development its usually anililated quickly in the event of a war. That's of course saying you take away guns from everybody, military and civilian alike. Now obviously that's a bad idea, but that's how they protect millions of lives every year. So in a sense they are designed to kill people so they can protect people, so that's your argument of the fact they are designed to kill is addressed.

 

Now obviously we both agree that guns are made to kill, but wether for animals or people, its usually people. So that means the first statement is incorrect.

 

Now a gun is no use in self defense if it doesn't kill, but its also no use if you don't have one. People killed in schools are usually because the school was a gun free school. If you look it up a school whose teachers were armed killed the armed attacker trying to kill children in the school. Which obviously means it saves lives there. Also simply having a gun means your less likely to be attacked by another person. Which is the same point, it DOES save lives, even if you don't use it.

 

Now as for beer and cars not being designed to kill, I can't argue with you there because that's true.

 

As for the founding fathers, politicians are taking the meaning of the second amendment, and saying the founding fathers actually meant something else, rather then the meaning that has been accepted for centuries. Just because something seems really simple, doesn't mean it has to be dissected and the meaning changed.

The real question is why are morons still alive? Clearly someone chasing a "lightning man" and building "thunder axes" should have gone extinct, but instead the keep breeding. Now in 200 years, morons breeding with morons, and smart people breeding with smart people, nothing changes because how smart you are isn't really something that decides if you die out, but rather that you get left behind in evolution.

The obvious answer is that it's a false dilemma- you can restrict both- and most governments do.

 

But a better answer is because drinks are not designed to kill people- but guns are.

 

Whenever I have raised that in the past people have sad that their guns are not designed for killing people. I think they are mistaken.

 

Think about it; imagine some "magic" trick produces a gun that can be used for target shooting or hunting, but can't be used to kill people; if you point it at a person, it won't fire. It magically knows and won't fire, even if a ricochet would hit someone.

 

I'm not saying it's possible or practical- but just imagine that it did somehow exist.

 

I'd have a very hard time arguing against ownership of that sort of gun for anyone who wanted one. (You could , of course, still use one for vandalism- but there are so man things you can break stuff with that adding one more barely matters)

 

The interesting thing about this non-killing gun is that it wouldn't be protected under the 2nd amendment.

It couldn't be used by a militia.

 

So, when people tell me that their guns are for target shooting and hunting, that's fine- except that most guns were not made for that (most, after all, are made for the military- and they aren't playing sports with them).

 

The only guns that the 2nd amendment enshrines are guns that are those designed to kill people (at least as a secondary use).

And yet, that's why they say they should be allowed to keep their guns which are not used for that.

First of all, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Now the fact about guns being for a hunting rather then militia is not exactly a valid argument. If you go back to the time of the revolutionary war and the civil war you will find that guns used inside of those wars were mostly hunting rifles. While the union had actual guns made by factories, they were still a lot of farmers and hunters, and they often used their own guns. As for the revolutionary war, most of their guns were used for hunting and self-defense, but they sure were useful when British soldiers attacked after the american colonist declared war. Since the constitution obviously didn't allow the government to take away guns in the 1700s, when in the world did we decide the founding fathers actually wanted to strip away all the guns because they were used for hunting rather then militia?

 

Since the founding fathers obviously are not here to defend what the said, people have decided that the fathers actually hid a SECERT message in the constitution about making it hard or impossible to own guns. Now in my mind the constitution defended guns that CAN be used in a militia rather then guns MADE for use in militia, which means your gun that detects people wouldn't in fact, be able to be protected by the constitution.

At least one study found an increase in parotid gland cancer related with the use of cell phones.

By Rakefet Czerninski, Avi Zini and Harold Sgan-Cohen at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem at the Hadassah School of Dental Medicine.

 

The topic, which was heavily debated before any hard evidence existed, then vanished from the public place, for reasons I ignore.

 

Be careful with logics like "not ionizing hence no cancer". Mankind ignores nearly everything about biology and medicine, so such reasonings fail often. It's more prudent to stick to the experimental approach.

True, but what would have cell phones cause parotid cancer? The electromagnetic radiation shouldn't, except I don't know ANYTHING about biology.

Hi guys!

This is posted in speculations because... Well, its bigfoot, that should pretty much sum it up. Any way I was wondering if bigfoot would evolve like this if he was real: http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfootdescription.html

Now what I'm asking is that someone with more knowledge on evolution then I do would look at the characteristics and decided if bigfoot would actually evolve like that or if that doesn't make sense. Again, we are assuming bigfoot is real. Also I don't think he is I just was wondering about this, if a mod don't like this go ahead and delete it, I honestly don't think this is important. And the traits we are assuming he has are in the link.

While your at it, focus on something that's helps the country more. Before I start this discussion, let me say you're biased john. My reasoning is that you say your trying to save lives, by making guns harder to get to. Alcohol kills 88,000 people a year, and thats not counting how many children are abused, beaten, and hurt ever day from a drunk friend/relative.I would be killed by a gun before I would allow some one to beat me to a pulp every night when my parent comes home drunk. I'm sure most abused kids would agree. And I can speak of this from experience, I was one. Now guns on average kill a little more then 30,000. This is obviously less then alchohol, and alcohol leads to abuse far more then guns. When was the last time you heard of abuse coming from guns? It happens but way less often. Now alcohol is way easier to get to then guns, and it kills more. Why don't you riot about alcohol rather then guns if you want to help somebody.

What is measured in a IQ test is definitely not one's prescience. Prescience is defined as the ability to know what will or might happen in the future i.e foresight. Prescience is one aspect of what could be termed good judgment. A lot of people with high IQs don't necessarily display good judgment in their decision making.

That, is the truest thing that has ever been typed in this topic. I tend to make terrible decisions XD

Hey everyone

Recently somebody told me that microwaves cause cancer because they use radiation to cook the food. He said that since radiation causes cancer then "logically"(improper use of logic) microwaves cause cancer, and that it was a government conspiracy blah blah blah. Either way in a week 3 MORE people have said it, different stories behind the thing but the same basic principle, radiation causes cancer so microwaves cause cancer. So I looked it up, and lots and lots of people are saying it. I looked up how it works and it says it uses radio waves at a set frequency to agitate water molecules. This causes them to vibrate and cause friction, which cooks your food. This in no way seems like it's going to cause cancer. I also found that radiation comes in 2 forms, Electromagnetic and nuclear. Nuclear is ionizing, which means it rips off ions, and electromagnetic isn't ionizing(except some forms.) Now my question is did I miss something that proves microwaves cause cancer? All the sites I read that say it causes cancer don't explain how it cooks food properly, only saying stuff like "it uses harmful radiation" or "it completely destroys nutrients" or "rips apart the cells in the food, releasing toxins that cause cancer"(what the heck??? more insight please) Now am I correct that this is just the work of people not bothering to look into how it works or did I miss some vital information?

 

I don't think it means you're "logical from what [you] know". What most people think of as "logical" these days is simply what makes sense to them. It has little to do with logic.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking. Your high IQ hasn't given you any magical clarity. I don't know what "rare post and stuff" is, or why you think a high IQ society (whatever that means) isn't going to teach anything at all really except that. Are you asking about societies that have high education levels?

Basically the entire test consisted of pattern recognition, and deductive reasoning. To me logic IS deductive reasoning, not just something that HAS to be simply because it makes the most sense. What I meant by rare post and stuff is that once in awhile something that may teach will pop up, but its really not that common. Otherwise, it's not really a great place to learn. And with the exception of the rare post the High IQ Society probably won't teach me anything that will help me learn more. And if you look up High IQ Society, you will find a group of people with "high IQs" What I'm wondering is if its actually going to teach me anything or is it simply something you can brag about? Have a great weekend!

Hi guys!

I was wondering, are high IQ society's more of a bragging rights thing rather then someplace you can actually learn stuff? I have a IQ of 136 but I question the correctness of it because it simply means I'm logical from what I know. So high IQ societies are probably not going to teach anything at all really with the exception of some rare post and stuff, or am I wrong?

Is it possible to use a superconductor without it storing energy?

I would assume so, as long as it doesn't come in contact with ANY type of electricity. Not 100% sure though.

Lightning delivers very little energy. Forget it.

 

Energy storage in superconductors has been prototyped by several companies.

 

Cables are made from filaments for varied reasons and have a good section. Already the magnets at the LHC store a significant energy.

 

Scaling up improves, yes. For a given current density, the achieved induction increases with the section, and even once you've reached the material's maximum induction, the energy increases as the coil volume and its density would be interesting.

 

The next question is: how good, how expensive - and there, for instance a flywheel is better, primarily because of costs.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59338-flywheels-store-electricity-cheap-enough/

Don't forget neither that useable superconductors, the ones that accept a significant induction and current density, are of type II, which do have losses - in the MW range at LHC. And then, you need real cold, which is expensive. And you risk huge explosions, see "magnet quenching".

 

All put together, I don't believe it has a future, at least with present materials. But I'd be glad to be wrong.

Alright, I understood the little energy in a lightning bolt, but what is a flywheel?

There is a current density limit. For Niobium-Tin, which has the highest value, the limit is 200,000 amps/cm²

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/scex2.html

 

There's no guarantee that you can easily scale up a superconductor — some are thin-film rather than bulk materials. You also would have issues with the very strong magnetic fields that these would generate, and have to worry if they would interfere with other conductors if you tried to use multiple superconductors. I don't know if this is an actual problem or not.

Thanks for the reply. As for the magnetic field thing I didn't account for that. The main reason is that i was assuming that my friend could focus the lightning onto a single one rather than placing multiple in a grid lock pattern to optimize the chance of a hit, which is good thinking. Also what do you mean scale up a superconductor? Is there currently a limit to how large they have to be?

I agree, it raises tolerance levels. Another reason is the a lot of religions have some form of law about not killing people, even if it's fine to kill people of other ethnic groups, its almost universal that killing someone of the same religion is a "sin". Usually the big religions are taken over by governments for the exact use the Napoleon Bonaparte talked about. Think of the pope, that's a good example. And while it has mostly died out today, back in that time and the time before it, religion was something almost all rulers had to have on their sides. In my opinion the Japanese had it the closest and the harshest in relation to what Napoleon has said. They had an emperor who was a supposed GOD. For crying out loud nobody ever wants to anger a god, and if they are taught that the ruler is a god, then that is universally accepted throughout their whole life most of the time. Another example is the ancient Egyptians, but I won't go into detail. In the Muslim culture with the moors a sultan had to be a religious holy person or almost nobody listened to them. (unless threatened) With European governments being excommunicated was terrible, and lost you your kingdom almost all the time. But with modern day advances most religion is separated from the government's.

Hello everyone, the other day a friend of mine said that we should harness the power in lightning to power everything. And I quote he said "One lightning strike has enough energy in it to power my entire town forever!" Now this is high school, so obviously his thoughts on how much energy that is in a lightning bolt is greatly exaggerated, or he doesn't understand that energy gets used up in kilowatt-hours rather than simply kilowatts. Either way, I failed to mention this and said that he may be able to use a superconductor if you could get the lightning to hit it. He said ok and went on his merry way. But upon further thought when I was bored I began wondering if theres a limit on how much energy a superconductor can hold before it simply doesn't accept energy any more. Now I don't know much about electricity except the basics, and my understanding of superconductors is that they are a wire that's frictionless, so that energy could go through it forever even after the powersource is gone. I also understand that they have to be kept at extremely cold temperatures(-200 C) to retain the superconductivity trait. Now my question: Is there a limit to how much energy can go into a Superconductor before it doesn't collect it any more. And if so why that happens.

Thanks in advance!

NASA's Curiosity Rover recorded a strange audio frequency on August 7, 2015. A strong narrowband radio signal detected by NASA. The bandwidth of the signal is less than 10 kHz. Jerry Z. Audio Development Laboratory (ADL) working in the NASA since 20years extracted the frequency from 100 - 275Hz and heard the first music record from space specially from the planet Mars. Since August 7, 2015, NASA reseach to find out exactly where this music symphony come from and what provoke this strange sound. The frequencies has been recorded near the Olympus Mons (Mount Olympus).

 

See the video:https://youtu.be/rumr70m7tdU

Cool. Happy April fools right?

 

The black hole is tiny. I'm not sure it could even be resolved by Hubble. The main reason we can't see a lot of the galaxy is because there is a lot of light and a lot of dust.

Ok.

I believe the reason is that since we are inside our own galaxy its hard to gain a full perspective of all thats happening in it. Since we are in our galaxy we can't very well see all the way to the other side, because we would have to see through a giant black hole, but most of it should be able to be seen because its mostly vacuum. But either way the way light from gravity if altered then our sight line would be down to about 1/4 of our galaxy, bringing the supernova rate from 33.3 years to about 132 years between each one we can see. And thats if the probability works 100% on the dot. since we are practically at the edge of our galaxy we can see other galaxys through whats beside us towards the edge, but inside not much

I heard about wormholes, I get they are shortcuts through spacetime, they are generally too unstable to use, and that they may be able to travel through time. What I don't understand is why they randomly punch holes in space time and how they do it. Is it simply a large amount of energy that creates them or some kind of gravitational anomaly? Another question is what happens if you're inside the wormhole when it collapse? Since matter can't be destroyed do you enter some kind of dimension we never thought of or do you just instantly get shot out the way you came? And how would someone make it stable or hasn't that been figured out yet? Thanks in advance

Can I simply state that cows are dumb? I work on a small farm that has 3 cows, and they repeatedly walk into an electric fence trying to get through it. We had to make it electric because the cows would go out. If cows can't even learn the most primal of instincts, which is don't do something that hurts, then it can't survive in the wild. Additionally not using animals as livestock would require us to increase farming, which takes away the land they need for food, starving them to death. To prove you are able to understand the simplistic logic, explain how we wouldn't kill more animals that way. And finally let's pretend the wrinkles in your plan don't magically work themselves out, and that everyone in the world doesn't bow down to your idea of ethical living. People would work harder to stop world hunger before they worked to get rid of a huge portion of food. In your mind: Animals > Humans

Raider, thank you for the polite reply and being interested.

 

It is a pleasure to help someone with this attitude. +1

 

Does this help?

Yes this helps a lot, thanks! I had to read it a few times, and work out the logic behind the meaning, but I eventually understood most of it. I learned what the degrees of freedom is, what generalized dimensions are, what constraints are, and that I have been forgetting to divided the mass in half before multiplying the speed when calculating kinetic energy. The only thing I didn't understand fully is what properties are, can you explain that a little bit better? Not that you didn't explain it very well the first time, but I'm sadly not scientifically minded enough to understand it. Or smart enough to understand it if it doesn't have to do with science. Thanks!

 

P.S. I removed most of his post if you can't figure out what the quote means.

The Earth would have to spin about 28,000 km/hr at the equator to launch things into space, which is almost 17 times faster than it now spins.

Thank you!

 

You have to assume the earth is a rigid body and these deformations we see aren't happening. Because the earth would fly apart.

 

But it's not just that gravity is weaker, even though that's the way it's presented (only the changes in radius affect the gravity). Newtonian gravity is unaffected by spin. What's happening is that if you are moving in a circle, a force is required to keep you in that path, known as a centripetal force. Gravity provides this. But what we feel and call gravity is actually the earth pushing up on is, (the normal force, since it's normal, or perpendicular, to the surface)

 

Ignoring rotation, for the moment, you have W + N = 0. The normal force and the weight are the same magnitude and opposite in direction. The net force is zero. If we're spinning, though, the net force is no longer zero, it's mv^2/r, which reduces the normal force. We feel lighter, but gravity is unchanged. The condition we're looking for is when N=0

 

mv^2/r = GMm/r^2

 

mv^2/r = GMm/r^2

 

v^2 = GM/r

 

A little less than 8,000 m/s at the equator, or about 28,500 km/hr

Thank You! This helps a lot!

 

More likely a work of art. There are other examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Book_from_the_Sky

Wow, that's cool.

I am currently in 7th grade(in the United States) and I am tackling Algebra 1, if you guys can just post some tips I should keep in my head while I am doing it so I don't go off track and teach myself the wrong way. I did that once and had to relearn a large portion of science when we got to it in school because I learned it wrong. In a note I am teaching it to myself, that's how I learned it wrong. Although I don't personally have much hope for common core math. Thanks!

Dimensions?

 

The word is almost completely meaningless without the rest of the sentence.

 

Dimensions of what?

 

There are no such things as the first, second, third, fourth or fifth etc dimensions by themselves.

My Bad, I understand that now, in fact I understood that before this post. Thanks for the input!