DrKrettin

Again...Premature birth can increase the chance of becoming gay.

I have scientific evidence for this but no time to post it. I found an article that summarizes scientific research on the cause of homosexuality.

One more totally convincing post.

I think logic is a term that people are lacking in physics afraid to face evidence, when affected by it constantly throughout their life

How wrong can somebody be?

I also found this paper interesting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27665921

I had to google arabidopsis. It doesn't really surprise me that music has an effect, because any air disturbance encourages a plant to become stronger (that's just a gardener's assertion based on personal experience). The opposite is certainly the case, that a plant grown indoors with no air movement often can't cope with being out on the open.

Try a linear substitution so 3x' = 3x + a and choose "a" so that the 72x term disappears. Then do the same for y

Is there any peer-reviewed scientific studies done on the effect of music on plant growth?

 

 

I found one link to a paper here entitled

Unfortunately it is published in the

So I'll display a certain bias and guess that it is total bollocks. Might be wrong.

Expression??? 'Dixit magister' is just a translation.

What on Earth do you mean? It is Latin, not a translation. Why can't you use Google to find what it means? Here for example.

It is quite normal to use Latin expressions in English for a known concept. It's not my fault if you don't understand. While you are researching this, look for non sequitur as well, because you are really good at it.

Why do you use latin phrases? To hide the fact that you have nothing useful to say?

For a start it's a clause, not a phrase. And it's a perfectly acceptable expression in English when discussing logical fallacies. You clearly have no idea about them, so have a look.

The Last time people disagreed with me this fervently, my claims were backed by one of the best physicists of this time.

Wow - magister dixit. You must be right.

you right, im feeling high af

Hello? Anybody there? Fallen asleep?

The bad good news is that he'll be posting 24 hours a day....

When I was a student, it was obviously necessary to have the occasional night with no sleep at all, just not going to bed at all. The next day was fine, but the day after that I felt awful. The net result was no gain in actual time being awake in a pleasant state of mind.

Once however, I didn't go to bed for two consecutive nights, and had no bad effects afterwards. No idea why. I'm too old to try again, I rarely even see the New Year in.....

Not necessarily, as the "modern" use is often derived from the latinized version of the greek words (and is more common, but not exclusive in taxonomic terms). But even then, isn't the Greek plural not also rhinocerotes? I.e. ῥῑνοκέρωτες ? I only learned Latin, so I am really only guessing (though I am fairly sure of keras-> kerata).

Yes, the plural of keras is kerata, but just because the etymology of ῥινόκερως is from rhis and keras, it doesn't follow that the plural is formed from the plural of either of these roots. The singular ῥινόκερως is only found 22 times in Ancient Greek sources, and earliest sources give ῥινοκέρωτα as the plural (neuter). But some later sources (e.g. Strabo 16.4.15.9) give οἱ ῥινοκέρωτες (masculine), so there was no conformity. It looks as if we are both right.

 

I think in Latin the plural would be rhinocerotes. Transferring these terms into English do create weird pronunciations, it tends to be more uniform in Romance languages, but also in German, for example.

Yes, but the problem with that is the name derives from Greek (the rh representing rho, rhis rhinos, nose + keras, horn ) so the plural would be the Greek one, not Latin.

So that's a non sequitur? You make me laugh

 

 

 

I get a -1 because Strange makes me laugh???

No, because you can't see a non sequitur.

I say "Funghee".

 

Nice to know I'm in good company.

That is at least how classical Latin is traditionally pronounced in English, for example Corpus Christi is Kristee (I've never heard Krist-eye). But some words absorbed in English change to -eye, for example I have never heard Cacti as Kakteee. Likewise I have always said fun-guy, but I've never had to say it much. If you argue that it is the Latin plural pronounced as (we think) Latin was, then you could just as well argue that the word was originally Greek, so the plural should not only be cactoi but spelled kaktoi. I don't see that anyone can claim one is right and the others wrong. But please let's not get into really imponderable plurals such as rhinoceros (-> rhinocetera).

 

 

On the contrary, homophobia is very scientific.

How the hell can an emotion be scientific?

Having health problems and/or being gay reduces your chance of having offspring. Without offspring you have a lot of spare time and you can protect and help raise nieces and nephews which indirectly increases the chance that your genes will survive.

Therefor it's very logic that health problems because of prematurely birth and being gay are linked.

 

 

So your argument is

1) Having health problems because of premature birth reduces your chance of having offspring

2) Being gay reduces your chance of having offspring

Therefore because both have the same result, there is a "link" between having health problems and being gay

With total validity you could then argue

1) Not eating can cause death

2) Playing Russian roulette can cause death

Therefore not eating will cause you to play Russian roulette.

Let's look at it this way: The upwards force you need to apply to a 1kg mass in order to support it against gravity is the same as it would take to accelerate the mass at 9.8m/s² with no gravity.

So let's assume that you are going to provide this by throwing a mass backwards and benefiting from the reaction force. (which is basically what a helicopter does)

We'll start with the assumption that you are throwing a 1 kg mass backwards, and this takes 1 sec to get it up to speed. After the one sec, the 1kg mass you threw is moving at 9.8 m/s and your 1kg mass is moving at 9.8m/s per sec in the other direction. the total energy your need to expend will be 2*1kg* (9.8m/s)²/2 = 96.04 Joules. Over one sec that is a power of 96.04 watts

 

Now imagine that you are throwing a 100g mass backwards to provide the same acceleration for your 1 kg mass over 1 sec. In order for the momentum of the 100g mass mass to balance the momentum of your mass once your mass reaches 9.8m/sec, the 100g will have to be moving at 98m/sec. The total final energy of the system and thus the energy you would have to expend is now 1kg*(9.8m/s)²/2 + .1 kg*(98m/s)²/2 = 528.22 joules. Over 1 sec that is a power of 528.22 watts. Your power usage rate went up by a factor of 5.5.

That is illuminating, thanks. So the energy expended is a function of the square of the speed of the mass thrown backwards, and the momentum a direct ratio. Thus the greater the mass used, the less the power usage. So presumably, the denser the medium in which you are working, the easier it is to hover.

A prematurely born person with health problems will most of the times have no children, which also allows it to help raising nieces and nephews....that's imo why prematurely born infants have a higher chance of becoming gay.

That's the weirdest non sequitur I've seen for a long time. Why does not having children and having health problems increase the chance of being gay?

 

 

Lift/thrust depends on the mass flow rate of the air. Less air, less flow, less thrust. So you have to crank up the rotor speed (or something equivalent) to get the same thrust.

Yes, agreed, but the it's not clear to me that this would require more power, and he's assuming 100% efficiency. Ignoring buoyancy, is it the case that the denser the atmosphere, the less the power needed to hover?

I suppose things get more interesting

when we bring the hovering height h (e.g. 1 m)

into the picture.

E.g. It takes more power to hover higher (e.g. 2, 10, or even 100 or 1000 m);

even thought that is further away from

the earth's center (of mass).

Your gravity laws say

the force should decrease instead

(at higher heights).

Assuming that the heights are such that the change in g is negligible, perhaps you can explain why it takes more power to hover higher. It takes more work to get it there, but that's not the issue.

Am I the only one who read the title and thought of this?

https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Multiple_exclamation_marks

 

Obviously, if the OP turns up with the million dollars I'm going to look foolish.

But, if that happens I can reasonably claim that my on-line ID was stolen by someone who solved the p vs np issue.

That was my first thought. I'll join you in looking foolish.

It depends a lot on the efficiency of what you are using to lift it.

I think this is relevant to the thread, and I would be interested in opinions.

This link complains about the absence of women in a scientific environment. Don't bother with the Spanish text, but scroll down to the three large pictures, the first one with a space rocket, where in all the characters, there is supposed to be just one woman in each picture. The thrust of all this is that it is very difficult to find women working as scientists.

But just a minute - there are so many characters, most in lab coats, so how are you supposed to recognise a female one? You would only be able to spot one if she were wearing, say, fishnet stockings, high heels and with long flowing hair. In fact, you would only see one if she were the very stereotype which the authors would hate. So the inability to spot a woman could be interpreted in any number of ways, not necessarily the way this movement wanted.

I have never heard of a cladogram or cladistics, but now i've not found it in any of my dictionaries I'm sure the knowledge will come in useful someday.

 

I had never heard of a cladogram either, but I had the advantage of being familiar with the prickly pear cactus, a species of opuntia which is endemic where I live. The characteristic fat branches are called pachyclades, from the Greek pachus + klados = fat branch. Duh.