forufes

CLARIFICATION

I replied to two posts in my post #151.

I retract my reply to the second post, and any defense thereof.

I'm calling Poe's law on this.

Nobody could sincerely say (in effect)

"I'm too arrogant to accept that I might be wrong, so I will ignore those who disagree and move on, pausing only to call them arrogant."

Come on Forufes, admit it.

You are an atheist pretending to be a theist putting forward an absurd version of theist belief, just to make the theists look dumb.

 

And that's before anyone addresses the question of how arrogant you need to be to claim to know the will of God and slaughter thousands in His name.

 

Nice try, but there's no way that anyone could truly believe that tripe.

What I'm saying (in effect); either show that someone is stupid, or move along and ignore them.

But to call someone stupid because they are so in your head, without showing why, is unacceptable.

And the nice thing is, once you show and explain why someone is stupid, calling them so explicitly becomes unnecessary.

Just look at it, a long post of arguments and opinions, and a short reply of "you're stupid, you and your like, i.e. the majority of people in the world, and are not worth arguing with.

Yeah... thanks for...uh... enlightening me.. I guess.. I'll be sure to come here more often to get more wisdom like that, and to show my thankfulness, I'll give you a green arrow, keep up your hard and well-thought work..

Venom is dripping from this thread..

I liked it better when religion was off limits on SFN. But I think it was unhealthy for all the members to keep all those feelings welled up inside of them..Poe's law indeed.

 

Nope, if you overcome these emotions it it will be due to mechanisms like habituation or conditioning, but not by merely applying logic. I f you go bungee jumping the first time your logic will tell you that the chances of accidents are low and you are nicely secured. Still, your adrenaline will speak. Similarly, if you see other someone getting harmed you will wince (or, if you have good self control, it will require a PET scan to reveal brain activities that emulate getting harmed yourself). Unless you are a psychopath, of course. Fears, empathy and similar emotions are deeply embedded in us and while we can overcome them e.g. by getting desensitized, it does require quite some efforts. As such indoctrination is a much more suitable mechanisms to overcome empathy.

 

The overall point however, is that social behavior and empathy are much more deeply rooted than religion.

Non-sequitur, IMHO.

I agree with you that empathy is ingrained in us, but I find religion and the belief in the supernatural, especially when it comes to matters about our origin and mortality, also ingrained in us. Both can be overcome, but how did you decide which is more deeply rooted?

And you know, I might even ask "does it matter?"

If humankind didn't have such strong susceptibility to religion, then why did they make it up so long ago and stick with it all this time? Do human societies need habituation or conditioning to be religious, or to be atheistic? Yet that hasn't stopped any of you to oppose your societies and upbringing and recondition yourself with science to overcome the "natural" religious root in humans.

Why can't I do the same about empathy?

In the religious society which is the majority of human society, what is the ratio of evil religious people to moral laymen?

And considering that religion and god are the number one source for morality in theistic societies(otherwise atheists wouldn't be battling the concept so strongly, including this thread), can't we say that religion has managed our societies more fine than not?

What I'm saying basically, is that in current societies, religiousness is still strongly related to(not exactly synonymous with) morality. And look at us, we're doing just fine.

And I don't understand why you posted that picture, to reaffirm your self given superiority to yourself and your colleagues?

What value or merit does it add to this thread? What discussion is there in it, than dismissing attempts for discussion; "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't need to tell you why because I'm too smart to do so".

When I get baffled by someone's ignorance or lack of logic, and I don't have the time or patience to call them out, I move along or put them on ignore.

 

Science disagrees with you. There is a large body of evidence describing empathy in numerous social animals, including humans. This also includes lack thereof and association with certain personality disorders. A review on evolution of empathy: Decety Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011 Aug;1231:35-45.

Take a look at the abstract:

If you say science disagrees with me then you don't understand my position.

I am not saying empathy doesn't exist in living beings, including humans.

I'm saying we can transcend it, logically.

OK, so who exactly are the ones who are bad due to a lack of religion?

To clarify needlessly; many people are good because of religion, and bad for a lack of it.

How could you possibly hope to know that?

How could you tell?

It's an absurd claim to make.

Those who are reformed with religion, were bad due to a lack of it, and tell of the many good who are such because they had enough of it.

Also, when religion says "do not steal" and a person of a religion steals, isn't that because they aren't religious enough?

the original quote is what's absurd.

 

Just for the sake of discussion, lets say that Stalin was an atheist- lacking all religion.

And, for the sake of discussion, I'm sure we can agree that he was evil.

But, how can you possibly know that one caused the other?

Perhaps he was just born bad and religion would have just slightly altered his targets and methods.

Maybe, religious people can be bad. But that just makes them less religious.

It is not because of religion that religious people are bad, it's for a lack of it.

That combined with empathy, empathy is also a source of morality for religious and atheist people alike.

I agree.

I don't. I find empathy an illogical emotion which can be overturned by logic. Just like fear or disgust, it's a choice.

I am however, religious, and like single cell organisms, I am driven by pain and pleasure, and no pain is greater than what is promised in hell, and no pleasure is greater than what is promised in heaven.

I see no real reason to attach myself to what other people feel. Although I recognize the natural allure to do so.

Sociopathy is deemed a sickness by a society, not a surprise.

 

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

~ Steven Weinberg

 

Simply wrong.

To clarify needlessly; many people are good because of religion, and bad for a lack of it.

Also, lack of religion caused more people to do evil things, than an abundance of it has.

philosophy is the highest and most basic logic, it's the ability to go long distances back and forth between thoughts and conclusions using logic.

however, a characteristic of philosophy is that it is useless, as in it doesn't produce well-defined outputs, it's the realm of all logic half cooked, once it's something systematic and clear, it becomes a field of its own or a science.

it's kinda like mathematics, useless in itself and formless, with no direct impact on our lives, but its bits and pieces are used in all practical fields of our lives.

i think the egg will withstand an unimaginable amount of pressure, since it's applied evenly from all sides.

Why don't you just take an egg, and put some weights on it to see when it breaks? It's not a very precise answer, but then again, the quality of egg shells (depending on the diet of the chicken) is probably quite huge too.

no, this is extremely inaccurate, when you put weights on an egg you're multiplying the stress into a concentration factor, a big one.

when the egg undergoes pressure from all sides only normal stress will be developed, however when you apply a weight or hit it against something there will be shear stress, and that is what will break the shell.

it's like the difference between trying to crush a wooden plank under even weights and fixing it from the sides and applying the same weights to its middle.

Swansont, what you just said was implicit in how I worded my question, what I need is why? Why are hollow bones more resistant to torsional strain than solid bones would be? Why would it be easier to twist a solid bone than it would be to twist a hollow bone?

because it's easier to twist this than to twist this .

even in the solid bone, the closer you get to the core the less torque the material is withstanding [stress].

because stress here is a function of torque, and torque is a function of the arm length, which here is the radius.

if the hollow and solid bones had the same radius then the solid one would resist slightly more torque.

Can of hair spray and a Bic lighter.

possibility percentage of it exploding in your hand?

I'd guess that the paperclip would melt and create an open before that happens.

my guess is that the battery will run out before that happens .

hmmm, to know you have to compare the battery's energy to the energy needed to take the paper clip from solid to liquid state[refer to phase diagram?]... and i'd estimate the latter to be more.

also, i think you can't neglect the cooling of the paper clip, or it's thermal conductivity. a material can have a low melting point but transfers heat to air quickly.

as for batteries exploding, i'd imagine it's because the material of the battery decomposes into gases in the batteries sealed package, builds pressure, boom. which is i think why you're not supposed to dispose of it in a fire[speculation].

the function i know of flywheels in cars is to start them up.

an inline crank rocker four bar mechanism can maintain its motion from a linear force input, however, starting its motion from a linear force input might get troublesome since the crank rocker can be in its toggle position, which is why they have the flywheel.

think of it this way; you can't get your bicycle moving if the peddle you're pushing is in its lowest position, you have to bring it to its mid position to be able to turn it by pushing it.

your leg is the bar connected to the piston cylinder...[hope i made it clear]

but what i had in mind, is like a mechanical battery, big or small, to which you input mechanical work then retrieve that mechanical work, i didn't think of fluids really, but more of a solid mechanism.

something like this:

i also didn't mean 100m\h as a velocity, but just 100miles as a distance before needing to wind up the mechanism.

easy.

check "Brinell's hardness test", it's the inverse of what you want. but it'll give you what you want pretty much directly.

yay i'm useful

a mechanism to store mechanical energy then release it, like wounding a giant spring then having a full seize car go 100 miles.

the closest i found was NASA's human powered plane.

did you hear of anything similar?

Don't!. Go into Medicine, Politics or the Clergy. But, if you insist on rocketry, go liquid. "Red fuming nitric acid" and UDMH. For short ranges under fifty miles and controllable, you can't beat it. Be careful of the (Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine) though, it can be cancerous. Otherwise, have a nice big bang!

wow man thanks, that was very specific, and am already in engineering btw .

however, i searched those two and couldn't get my hand on a brand name or product for them, know any?

also, what do you think of those?

___. Bentonite Clay (Search on ebay: "Bentonite Clay", got mine from ebay seller: "koinaturalenhancer", just make sure whatever bentonite clay you get that its a fine mesh type.)

___. KNO3 (Potasium Nitrate...aka "Salt Peter") <Please refer to the link about "KN/Sucrose Fuel" at the bottom of this page to find out where to obtain this stuff.>

from here.

i'm in an exams blizzard right now, and have just gotten the green light fromour dean for my project which i plan on doing NEXT semester, a rocket.

however, he said i have to tell him about the rocket fuel we need so he can order it early because of all the security stuff.

so, which should i choose? i'm not even sure about the rocket i wanna make! it's gonna be about 1 meter long, range of around half a kilometer, payload of around 1 kg..uh, idk what else is needed.

if this's better in engineering please move.

thanks.

actually my professor brought it up when we were studying external flows, the specific case of an incompressible flow over a horizontal flat plate.

sigh, before i go any further, anyone knows anything about boundary layers?

if yes then he[the prof] reasons that by increasing the tilt angle of the wing the separation layer will come closer till it engulfs the whole area of the wing and the flow becomes fully turbulent.

i think he might be wrong because the angle of tilt is[i think?] relative to the mean wind direction.

it was possible in flight simulator 95.

our fluid mechanics professor says it isn't.

well?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/home-robots/ar-drone-quadricopter-merges-augmented-reality-and-robotics

http://singularityhub.com/2009/08/18/commanding-military-drones-now-iphone-has-an-app-for-that/

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/06/23/iphone-irobot-control/

the reason scientists or people generally don't use cellphones for scientific stuff is because the same technology is sold in a more professional package, one of more reliable performance and guaranteed output.

what you are proposing would only fit those who want to integrate science into their lives, even if[actually usually] they are not scientists.

i once used my cellphone's bluetooth connection to control an NXT robot i built, and my other cameraphone to see on my laptop screen where the robot was going. many others did similar things.

the frustrating thing is, people seem only interested in the iphone, i admit it has great capabilities,but many other cheaper devices are out there with parallel or even better performance, and most importantly, cheaper price. how apple enslaves the market is a dilemma to me.

I added mine even though it is too late. I thought I might help dilute the "scientists are not religious" chestnut.

same here.

think that can be translated to "religious scientists are not welcome enough in science forums to log on in less than 17 days intervals"

..

just kidding ok, so don't y'all get your panties in a knot.

sometimes threads create an interesting trail of thoughts..one so unique that a new thought or idea would fit exactly there better than in a new thread.

i also don't see why people don't like resurrection of old threads.. what's so formidable about it? i see it as cute and refreshing as looking at photos of you when you were a kid..

it depends on who banned you.

if it's a psychopath xenophobe, then you can't get unbanned, unless you find the real mod in the flesh and put him in front of a computer at gunpoint and tell him to unban you.....and even then he may rather die.

otherwise, bans usually stay for a little while to begin with, they tend to give new chances, you can aslo pm the one who banned you or a channel mod. if it seemed like it took too long, but don't get your hope up.

A conventional house, made of bricks, wood, metal pipes etc... takes many professionals a long time to construct and so is expensive for labour costs and relies on there being people with these skills available. If the process was simplified but kept to resemble a conventional house, for example:

 

Bricks shaped like jigsaw pieces at either end requiring no cement.

Those bendy pipes made of many small segments like the sort you get for showers that screw on either end.

 

etc... such that the house could be built by anyone from simple instructions then do you think the extra cost of production would outweigh the labour cost saving?

the headache you'll save in building is but relocated in manufacturing.

you either buy cheap simple materials and put some effort into building with it.

or buy materials which had effort put into them to make using them effortless for you.

and i guess the former is cheaper.

I've been thinking a lot about liquid propellent weapon systems that seperate the slug from the propellent. It makes sense to me that a few tanks of liquid would be easier and a magazine could hold a lot more without that component attached to each shell.I think wide area non-lethal systems may become prevelent. Good link btw, that is a pretty cool defense system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11

you should see some high camber aerofoils, they essentially approximate this design. used for applications that need high lift at low airspeeds.

perhaps you'd elaborate, as google couldn't help much.

And as a Newtonian description, it is as simple as altering the course of a mass of air more rearwards, and conserving momentum by moving forwards. There is no reason the boat cannot move faster than windspeed, as it's simply a matter of transferring more momentum, and the wind has more relative momentum the faster the boat is traveling upwind.

EUREKA!

sisyphus you're a GENIUS!

i've thought a lot about this, and reached an analogy, well, kind of..

if you have a vehicle running off a hamster in a wheel, the vehicle can reach a speed faster than the hamster running it.

i always had the problem when trying to imagine a sail boat running faster than the wind pushing it, that the wind particles would actually trying to reach the sail but couldn't, like you won't be able push a speeding car..

.. however, if the boat was going straight up[as a direction] and the sail was tilted at 45 deg for example, and the air came from the right side[90deg], the x component of the relative velocity of the boat to the wind is zero!.. so as long as the wind is faster than zero, it will hit the sail and add momentum to the boat as you said..

one problem though, the sail when moving up; its tilted sail will displace the air particles up faster than the ones from the right can replace, no?

i think i've grasped the concept but can't quite digest it fully yet..

The old "paired molecules splitting and meeting back together after traveling different paths" explanation leads to problems. It has erroneous assumptions leaving it only partially correct. Most sails can be made to work quite well.There really is no debate outside of how best to explain things. Newtonian explanations are correct if the right assumptions are in place. Bernoulli's Principle is based on certain idealized assumptions and is in agreement with and based on Newton's laws.

hey i didn't buy it either, but was what we were taught in school.

The sail is curved like the top surface of a wing.

which isn't enough to generate lift. there should be a flat surface as well. since the sail is extremely thin (unlike a wing), it shouldn't be able to generate lift according to bernolli's law, even if it is curved.

Both.

by the newtainian principle, the sail would move but never faster than the wind.

as for benolli's, let me get this right.

bernolli states that as the velocity of a fluid increases its pressure decreases.

a fluid will move and "push" from the high pressure area to the low pressure one.

by applying that to a wing to generate "lift", we'd want the air under the wing to push towards the air over the wing to generate "lift".

that'll translate to making the air over the wing go faster than the air under it, hence making the air above it with lower pressure than the one under it, hence lift. [something like this but horizontal: l) ]

that is acheived through curving the upper side of the wing ")" and keeping the lower one straight "l" , while my common sense said that the air travelling at the longer curved surface ")" will be slower than the one travelling by the straight short surface "l" because of friction for the former, our teacher said that no, if point A and B were absolutly next to each other before the wing sliced them apart, and point A went through the "l" route and point B went through the ")" route; it is assumed they will be next to each other after the wing seperates them, and hence one would've travelled faster than the other because one route is longer than the other and we assumed the time they took through them was the same, and so, one side faster than the other, one side with higher presser than the other, sooooo, lift, ta-da.

a curved sail with uniform negligiblw thickness wouldn't have that apply to it. i don't see how it can generate lift using bernolli's concept.

i never bought it anyway, i think it's simply newtainian. the engine scoops the air from the front to the back, the wing flaps tilt the plane and engine up, and that's it.

of course the fact that scientists and engineers are debating the issue of which concept is more relative gave me a hint of how much the design of stuff is mainly chance and luck, with little brushs here and there of intentional calculations or knowldge. it's more trial and error than prediction, more of it happening then speculating why and how, than knowing the why and how and then making it happen.