Neil Obstat

1 hour ago, studiot said:

What ever way you choose to describe it, what do you understand 'the centre of mass to be' ?

I wrote a nice detailed answer to your question but someone apparently thinks it was somehow unmentionable so it was deleted.

Therefore your question cannot be answered. My apologies. I tried.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm pretty sure that we can logically concur that the universe, all of spacetime is expanding just as our observable portion is.

Please excuse me for being pinched here but I'm afraid to attempt any more than one reply to one statement otherwise the platform shuffles the cards and there goes intelligence.

Our observable portion of the universe is the only part that we can verify and test and observe (by definition of "observable").

By what means could we ever arrive at any degree of confidence that SOMETHING ELSE, OTHER THAN this observable "part" exists?

Furthermore, by what means could we ever hope to observe, test, know or verify that which is beyond our ability to observe, test, know or verify?

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

What ever way you choose to describe it, what do you understand 'the centre of mass to be' ?

I personally appreciate the various diagrams you have drawn previously. I think you did a good job.

I'm having some trouble, however, in reconciling concepts being presented here that impute relevance to "parts" of the Universe which are not "parts" of the observable universe.

We can all collectively thank the retarded platform for "merging" my two posts again, effectively DARING you to distinguish between them when or if you quote me.

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What language would you be using to describe that?

Last time I checked this is English describing that. Or are you presuming that the topic of the center of mass of the universe must somehow be confined to the language of mathematics?

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't follow this.

 

Perhaps you didn't notice yet that I added more to the post you're replying to, while you were posting your reply?

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well mathematically sin(x) is always finite and is considered a 'well behaved' function.

But tan(x) is another matter.

Then again the Gabriel's horn example has a finite volume contained in a 3D shape of infinite surface area.

I don't know how that would scale up a dimension or two.

It seems to me that you are presuming that mathematics can provide the answer to a question that is utterly beyond the scope of mathematics per se.

I see you have replied to that statement with, "I don't follow this." 

But it seems perhaps while you were posting that, I continued adding to my post here with the following three sentences:

Mathematics can deal with the reality of quantity all right, but when you proceed to other categories beyond the limits of quantity, mathematics fails to cope.

You are wondering here about scaling up a dimension or two, when you ought to be stepping up to a higher realm than that to which mathematics is confined.

It would seem that the question you have (why cannot a finite thing become infinite) is similar to asking why mathematics is confined to quantity.

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes, I apologise to J.C. MacSwell, I have just found it.

But to whoever said it I still ask the question why not?

It would seem to me that if something that is finite can become infinite, then there is no inherent barrier that exists keeping finite things as finite things, and any one of them or perhaps two of them or more of them (they are finite so their number may be great but never unlimited) could hence become infinite. If there is anything that is finite which CANNOT become infinite but something else finite that CAN become infinite, what is the principle which stands selectively in the way of the one but not in the way of the other?

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The known universe referred to (obviously not known at that time LOL, it's the known now as it was then) was, and therefore still is finite.

The remainder of the Universe may have been finite, or may not have been. We don't know, but the model says it would have expanded like the known part appears to have, so it would remain finite or infinite, as the case may be.

Perhaps this conversation is a kind of "big bang" inasmuch as it could go on forever...

If the known universe had a beginning, and at that time it was unknown since there was no one around to know it yet, therefore, the unknown and the known were one and the same thing. If the unknown and the known began as one thing they would consequently continue as the same thing, since what they were was as it was when it was, as it were.

And it would remain as it was when it was, at any time in the future, when the future would refer back to its former existence, as we are doing now.

But then you have: "the remainder of the Universe may have been finite, or may not have been." This would seem to apply to the remainder of the Universe which would not have been included in the "entirety of the universe as we know it," which had been contained in a volume smaller than the nucleus of an atom "at least as far back as t+10^-43 seconds," in other words, the entirety of the universe as we know it did not include the remainder of the Universe. Correct?

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Its unknown how small the entire universe could feasibly start at  in the origin however no finite quantity can become infinite. So if the universe is infinite now then it will always be infinite in the past.

Dear studiot, that was Mordred saying, "no finite quantity can become infinite," and then it was the retarded platform that put his words in someone else's mouth or whatever. 

This stuff is hard enough to keep straight, without being unsure of who said what when someone else was quoted. And of course, my replies were merged. Again.

Is this retarded platform designed to chase away members? (And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha They're coming to take me away hoho he he ha ha to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be ...)

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

The designer went to get medical help and they wouldn't let him back.

So the nice young men in their clean white coats came to take him away? Ha-ha? 

(They're coming to take me away, ho-ho he-he ha-ha, to the Funny Farm - where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away, ha ha...)

5 hours ago, studiot said:

 

 

Unsubstantiated and therefore empty claims.

 

 

You therefore agree that the Universe has no COM?

 

I have no difficulty defining it. I just agree that there is no COM for the observable universe either, or rather that it has no meaning.

 

No matter how small the distance of observation away, the observation take finite time to arrive so refers to the past.

I cannot observe any part of the rest of the universe in my present.

So the entire observable universe is always in the past.

Quote

J.C. MacSwell said:

Why do you think it has ceased to exist. Conservation of mass and energy...

I don't necessarily but it would become a matter of blind faith not Science to believe it exists, before the event.

I can never prove it.

Whoever designed this platform needs to get medical help. This is a nightmare. It's impossible for me to post what I want to say. I can't quote members AS THEY POSTED. The platform simply won't allow accurate quotes. It's like the system is set up to PREVENT intelligent discussion. I got a message saying my browser won't allow copy and past like that. Then the tab went blank and I had to open a new tab. This thread is moving very quickly and it's hard to keep up with it especially when I have to take all this time to post something that the system doesn't allow me to post.

Now I can't remember what I was going to say! 

Studiot, I hear you saying you can't prove that (some part of?) the historical universe (which existed in the past?) no longer exists, and it would be "a matter of blind faith not Science to believe it exists, before the event." What event? Is the "event" to which you refer "the present?"

The topic seems to be too abstract for this retarded platform to allow any reasonable discussion of it. The website is obstructing the conversation. 

The FINAL STRAW is when I try to post a reply to another person (Mordred, below) and the system merges my post with this one, such that anyone quoting this whole post will get my two different replies WITHOUT any indication that I was talking to two different people. The conversation is thereby DESTROYED with confusion, because I'm not saying to Mordred what I was saying to studiot and I am not saying to studiot what I was saying to Mordred.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

It's unknown how small the entire universe could feasibly start at in the origin, however no finite quantity can become infinite. So if the universe is infinite now then it will always be [did you mean to say, "it has always been?" (present perfect tense)] infinite in the past.

All right, maybe I can deal with this much.

You said, "no finite quantity can become infinite," therefore, since the essence of the "big bang" says the entirety of the known universe was contained in a volume smaller than the nucleus of an atom, that seems to be obviously a finite entity, does it not? And since it (as it were) began as a finite entity it must continue to remain a finite entity. Consequently, the universe as it exists now and as it will ever exist in the future is equally finite as it has always been, from the beginning.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Yes, and he is correct according to the BB model. The BB tells us that it [the BB] was the evolution of spacetime from a hot dense state at least as far back as t+10-43 seconds. In other words all of spacetime, or all of what we can know that existed, existed in a volume smaller then [sic] an atomic nucleus.....The BB obviously then happened in all of space at the same time...no center, no edge, no outside, except obviously the center of one's own observable universe, which applies to whoever is doing the measurement and where ever it is being done. It is wrong to view the BB as an explosion emanating from any one point, rather as is highlighted, an evolution of spacetime happening everywhere.

 

 

Thank you for your reply, beecee. I'm having a hard time understanding this material. I hope you can help me! 

Please forgive me for changing the emphasis of your post I'm quoting here, because I'd like to focus on words other than the ones you had in bold and it got too messy that way.

You said, "...all of what we can know that existed, existed in a volume smaller [than] an atomic nucleus." However, you also said, "It is wrong to view the BB as an explosion emanating from any one point...," therefore, interpreted, you are distinguishing with the greatest possible emphasis between a volume smaller than an atomic nucleus and any one point, correct?

I'm sorry, but that seems to be a very clear contradiction. If you don't think it is a contradiction, can you explain why you think it's not a contradiction? 

I'm asking this question, because I hear you saying that since all of reality was hypothetically contained in this tiny volume smaller than an atomic nucleus, from that axiom we can conclude that therefore there was no "space or location" as we know it outside of those confines "at least as far back as t+10^-43 seconds," consequently, we are (under whatever set of someone's rules, you didn't say) forbidden from equating the "BB" with an explosion, because (am I right?) any explosion, as we know it, is necessarily surrounded by existing "space and location" as we know it, into which the explosion expands (Yes? No?), which was hypothetically not the case with the "BB," since EVERYTHING was within the confines of that very small space which must by all means be distinguished from such a thing as "any one point." Is that correct, or am I somehow off track? 

It would seem, if I'm not off track, that you (and whoever else it is making the rules for this conceptual hypothesis) are not so much interested in the so-called tiny volume (smaller than an atomic nucleus), but everything outside of that -- which, by the way, according to this conceptual hypothesis, was NOTHING at all (since "everything" was INSIDE of that so-called tiny volume. Yes, or no? 

In other words, it is literally nothing, with which you are most concerned. Correct? Yes or no?

It seems to me that the subject of a center of mass of the universe (this thread's title therefore the TOPIC, no?) is not missing here, because, this "tiny volume smaller than an atomic nucleus" which hypothetically was the universe as we know it, certainly would have had a center of mass, would it not?

On 6/24/2018 at 7:39 AM, studiot said:

First of all the universe is not a rigid body.

The term centre of mass is only strictly applicable to rigid bodies.

I have a problem with this proposition, "The term centre of mass is only strictly applicable to rigid bodies." 

Mechanical engineers deal with systems in motion every day of the week, in which they assess the changing location of center of mass. 

In fact, typical examples include but are not limited to aircraft (fuel consumption is regulated so as not to leave one side or the other heavier), ships (whose changing centroid of buoyancy and hypercenter determine whether the ship would be in danger of capsizing), and submarines (whose complex systems of weight distribution must constantly be under intense supervision by engineers on board lest the submarine becomes unstable or rolls to the side, disrupting fuel storage tanks which are open to the salt water environment).

2 hours ago, studiot said:

The missing material is here, including the satellite maps etc.

I found no mention of "satellite maps" anywhere in that thread. Did you post the wrong link?

Hi, studiot. Thanks for the response. I'm just now seeing it.

I was afraid a mod might delete my post for being "off topic" or whatever. But I have questions regarding the contents of this thread and thought it would be nice to keep it all in the same place, is all.

It was a while ago when I wrote that and as I recall I came to new insight AS I was typing the post! Sometimes I have to read and re-read posts even on subsequent days to be sure I'm not missing a hidden meaning because lots of posts are made with one or more typos, grammatical errors or whatever which can change how the final product turns out. I wasn't sure if you were saying that a one-thousand meter tall hill or bulge (a rise) on the ocean floor produces a 2 meter rise or a 2 meter dip in the ocean's surface. I'm still not sure which it is. A "change" or "effect" could go either way. A mound of rock or sediment, on the bottom, would have more density than surrounding water, so that should cause increased gravitational attraction making water COLLECT there, I would think. Is that true? Or would it pull the water down making the surface DIP? I'm trying to be brief without being vague.

If the reality is the former, which I suspect is the case, then a so-called flat lake bottom could be one that is gently concave, that is, not really following the ellipsoid very well, which might cause the water surface to be less convex, as the earth's curvature would normally have it, but this effect could be too small for it to have any significant effect on the surface of a lake. What do you think of that idea?

As for the sea's surface (a sea could be smaller than a very large lake, such as the Dead Sea (605 km²), which is smaller than Lake Erie (25,700 km²)), since a body of water is constantly moving (little ripples, waves, undulations), the measurement of the elevation of any water surface must be an enormous problem, especially under agitated conditions like during a storm. It would make sense if some kind of floating GPS receiver would be required so that 4 satellites could send ephemerides to it which could be processed for elevation data which could then be relayed to a nearby monitoring station (since GPS satellites do not RECEIVE information from ground receivers). That would require a battery, and maintenance. Sounds expensive. But I have not seen that described anywhere. Have you? How else could the elevation profile of a large body of water be mapped out? Are there specially-designed satellites capable of receiving data from such a fluid surface as is water? 

I have read about the difference between "flat" and "level." Some forum members have been very helpful with their diagrams. Level, as in the local plane, tangent to a plumb line through the local geoid, is a relative term that only applies to a small zone, and when combined with other nearby zones effectively copies the geoid itself. Any ONE of those local planes are flat, but over a large area, the most you can ask for is an AVERAGE plane in regards to "flatness." Such an average plane would for example, cut right through a mountain or span above a valley.

I have studied a little in water hydraulics and open channel flow, so I understand how currents can affect the surface of moving water. The center or midstream of an open channel is lower in elevation than the extremities, depending on depth, bottom contour, channel width, and velocity of flow. A lot of factors to keep track of.

Finally, I haven't seen anything here on "critique of the experimental method." Perhaps you can point me in the right direction? 

Thanks again for your help!

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Now, the whole Universe is another matter. I don't believe it has a centre as we understand it.

Is this the way scientists think? How does what you believe have any bearing on what is real? 

On 6/24/2018 at 10:45 AM, studiot said:

Yes only.

 

The concept makes no sense if external forces applied to the system would deform it as well as move it.

The binary stars you mention act as a pseudo non deformable 'body' or system, as does the solar system, as does a galaxy, as does a rocket and its exhaust.

But apply a sideways force to the exhaust once it has left the rocket and tell me what happens to the 'centre of mass' ?

Alternatively, what happens if the rocket collides with an asteroid?

Does it hit with the momentum of the whole system or just the rocket part?

But when does the effect of the asteroid begin? When it collides, or before that?

Since the the rigidity or deformation of the system is assessed without collisions taking place, it would seem the asteroid should be part of the system before collision.

Therefore, the asteroid should be considered long before it collides with the rocket, just as the rocket exhaust is considered in your COM calculation. Therefore, it ought to be a COM calculation of rocket, rocket exhaust, and approaching asteroid all considered together! What happened -- someone forgot to anticipate the asteroid? 

On 6/24/2018 at 7:39 AM, studiot said:

First of all the universe is not a rigid body.

The term centre of mass is only strictly applicable to rigid bodies.

Secondly you have to decide if you are talking in Newtonian or Relativistic terms.

This is because of the time taken for any force applied at one point to act on  another at significant distance.

It is even possible for one part of the universe to have responded to a force before the effect of that force has reached another part.

Here are the newtonian formulae for the coordinates of COM.

It's too bad that right angle / sideways "L" artifact got included in your z-bar equation because it makes the otherwise neat appearance rather messy.     

On 6/8/2018 at 6:20 AM, Externet said:

With the  English language being reversed, would make more sense to call them trailer tractor.  (traction for a trailer).  Some buses are also articulated but not tractors, with their engines and propulsion at the back, being 'pushers' instead...

In the motorhome business here in California large bus type motorhomes often have the diesel engine in the rear, behind the rear axle, and they're called "diesel pushers." That design has been in production for many decades now, one of the more prominent brands being Crown Coach. They made a lot of passenger buses and school buses and earned a high reputation. Even after many years of productive service retired buses were made over ("conversions") into motorhomes and traveled the country's highways. Nowadays, the older converted buses are not welcome in trailer parks where it's getting to be a standard rule that to rent a parking space with hookups long term you must have an RV (recreational vehicle) that is no older than 10 years. They don't want the old ones around anymore, which makes it rather pointless to build really well-constructed motorhomes. You're wasting money if it's built to last any more than 10 years! I was very impressed with a particular model, by Itasca with a Mercedes diesel in the front end. The cab is a lot like an aircraft cockpit but a LOT bigger. The cabinets, furniture, external fresh bait drawer, storage compartments are solid, durable and easy to use. But the price ($70K) is about 30% more than similar competition (of less durability). Good for 10 years of fancy travel, I guess. After that, it's going to be challenging to find a parking space with hookups. I hope this isn't getting too off-topic.

The Tesla trucks would make excellent motorhomes, I'm sure, but it seems rather contradictory to make it fit that market when Tesla trucks are built very well and certainly should have a useful life of more than 10 years. I just heard on the news that Elon Musk is laying off thousands of employees, something to do with cutbacks for volume deficiencies and a need to turn a profit this year. So it seems rather unlikely that there would ever be a Tesla motorhome version of the truck (lorry for our Brits).

On 10/5/2016 at 11:38 AM, studiot said:

Are you posting this in the right thread?

Local surveys of the lake should surely be discussed in the lake Balaton thread?

The lake Balaton thread is locked as of April Fools' Day, 2017!

Why has this simple question been left unanswered for nearly two years? 

"However I did answer your questions in post  #19 here in this thread." (from post immediately above this one)

I read your post #19 and did not see any answer to this question, 

On 10/5/2016 at 11:38 AM, studiot said:

But it doesn't seem that evidence has been presented to show that a shallow lake which is flat on the bottom would have a surface whose shape is in any way influenced by that.

(Actually, that was maximillian12 asking that question but the system inserts the name of studiot apparently because I quoted it from his post which was a quote of maximillian12)

Perhaps it would help if you could provide some links to sites where this is described, either as an anomaly or as an effect of the surface of a shallow body of water mirroring the contour of the earth's surface that forms the bottom of the body of water, whether it's a shallow lake or a shallow portion of the ocean? Doesn't have to be lake Balaton. Pick some other place you're familiar with, if you prefer that. (The depth of Balaton is something like 4 meters average, apparently, not enough for larger boats with much draft.)

It seems to me that there could be some confusion coming from understanding how the surface of a body of water can be measured in the first place. It is a surface in motion, so how do for example satellites measure the distance to a moving surface like that to establish its elevation in reference to an ellipsoid or a geoid? Influences like currents, waves and air pressure to be removed would mean that the very things that are causing the surface to change would have to be somehow deducted. This seems to be rather impossible to achieve with any accuracy. Two different scientists could come up with two entirely different sets of data and who would know which is closer to the truth? And in any case, the conclusions they arrive at would not be applicable to the "present state" of that same body of water because water is constantly changing. What stops them from saying anything they want to say? There would be no physical evidence left of where the surface level of the water was at a previous time, except for the very data that is under question in the first place. 

6 hours ago, Bender said:

That's pretty difficult, since the valve is at the inside of the tire.

Thank you. (I made "value" into "valve" -- correct?)

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's very easy to provide air that's "dry enough" for this application; you just compress the air to a pressure that's higher then the pressure you use in the tyre, wait for any water to condense, and then expand the air down to the right pressure. The relative humidity will fall with the pressure.

Easy like when you have your own compressor? How about out on the road and you go to a service station for air and their pump has no storage tank but the air comes straight from the compressor into the hose, so you have no control over the pressure -- take it or leave it!  In any case, how do you remove water once it's in your tire? 

I suspect regenerative braking would be a performance problem too, since generating electricity via braking at the rear wheel would promote tire slippage on the road, since most of your braking power is through the front wheel not the rear wheel. Therefore, trying to slow down by applying resistance to the rear wheel which turns an alternator to charge a battery could mean that when you're approaching a red light at the bottom of a steep hill you'd find your rear wheel intermittently skidding down the hill and your bicycle not slowing down quickly enough, so then you'd be forced to apply the front brake which is not driving the alternator. Therefore, what good is having the alternator in the first place? You would say, "This bike weighs twice as much with the alternator, it makes pedaling harder, other cyclists pass me up, it never has enough power to move the bike forward, and my rear tire gets flat spots on it from skidding." 

But the OP asks about putting the alternator on the drive chain, which would be separated from braking at the rear wheel since the coasting ratchet frees the chain drive from the wheel. Unless your bike is a direct drive type which has no ratchet coaster and the pedals are ALWAYS connected to the rear wheel. I'm not aware of any e-bikes that have a full-time connection with the pedals. 

On 4/26/2018 at 11:53 AM, John Cuthber said:

Unless there's liquid water in the tyre, the vapour pressure of water is irrelevant.

If there is liquid water in the tyre someone has screwed up so badly that the point is moot.

All air compressors generate liquid water in the storage tank. The water vapor in the air gets included with the compression action.

Then after it's in the storage tank, as air is taken out for use, the temperature drops and condensation precipitates to the bottom of the storage tank.

So there is increased humidity in the storage tank, which must be drained off or else it builds up.

You can install a dryer in the system that extracts the moisture, but service stations generally don't bother with that detail because it costs money.

Any tire service technician can tell you that most of the time when he removes a tire from a rim he finds water inside. 

Moisture inside the tire reacts with steel rims causing corrosion (rust) on the rim, which over time can eat through the whole thing, ruining it.

A product called "slime" is supposed to work for a sealant inside your pneumatic tires but ask a tire pro, he'll caution against leaving slime inside because it corrodes your rims.

But how to get it OUT? 

That's a good question! How do you get water out, too?

Try turning the tire around so that the valve stem is at the bottom where you can let off air pressure to extract collected water. Just TRY!

At local service stations compressed air is provided by a dedicated compressor that has no storage tank, so you get the moisture immediately.

It seems to me they blew it when they decided to make member M2 out of concrete instead of solid steel! 

It ought to be a RED FLAG when a reinforced concrete member is expected to withstand 1.2 times its maximum full strength (8.5 kpsi) when it's only at 6,000 psi test.

But even if M2 were steel, and presuming the rest of the span had survived intact, they'd STILL have an ugly bridge. 

Even after the installation of the FAKE diagonal tubing that was going to adorn the area above the span, still UGLY!

An ugly bridge with ALL the support for the whole thing depending on a critical path of a series of lousy BOLTS, any ONE of which failing causes the bridge to collapse.

IMHO a prideful attempt to have an unusual appearance was the problem from the beginning. 

We live in a time when appearances are valued far too highly.

AND the harried distraction of SPEED of construction leads to expecting too much of concrete which requires TIME to cure completely.

Imagine the implications:

A lousy design, if it had been completed (with M2 made of steel), then hundreds of students would have come walking across it to celebrate its "grand opening" with colored lights shining on the stupid diagonal tube decorations overhead, with traffic below on the highway honking and perhaps having collisions, then the students would start jumping up and down chanting some stupid song .......... and BOOM! Truss member M11 explodes and the whole thing comes crashing down just the same, but this time everyone standing on it comes down with the bridge. Not good.

When I first heard about flying a jet plane with one engine shut down I thought it was regarding one out of 4 engines, or one out of 3 (some have an engine in the tail). Then I found out, no, it meant one out of 2 engines. That was hard to deal with, but they say it's doable -- probably requires awareness of what flaps or trim to adjust. 

Then one day I saw a video of an Air Force pilot somewhere in the Middle East who suffered a missile hit on his starboard wing. he lost an engine, as in bye-bye physical engine, but he also lost most of his right wing, too. I think it was an F16. Nonetheless, he was somehow able to go land on the ground safely (not on an aircraft carrier), as his landing gear was all in the fuselage. The video showed a group of men who came out to look the plane over and talk to the pilot, and everyone was amazed. As I recall the pilot was heard to say he was glad he didn't lose even one more inch of wing. They didn't want to detain him since he needed to use the bathroom, really quick.

On 5/17/2018 at 10:20 AM, iNow said:

As of 3 weeks ago:

http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-that-ordered-tesla-semi-2017-12

 

I added up the pre-orders and got 449 trucks (aka, 'lorries'), plus 4 companies with unspecified quantities, including Walmart. If UPS ordered 125, Pepsi 100 and Sysco 50, certainly Walmart would have gone in for at least 80. Anyway it seems to me that the total pre-orders ought to total about 700 semis. 

Has anyone seen an approximate price tag for these? No doubt Tesla is making deals for quantity discounts and incentives for placing pre-orders with a deposit. 

Another thing -- I haven't seen one of these on the road yet, only videos of them, and the videos could be composed for advertising so who knows if they're not fake videos. But it seems to me that once say UPS or FEDEX or Pepsi start running deliveries with their new Tesla trucks, they're going to hold their heads high and prance down the road like a victory dance. I expect them to use whatever decorative lighting their lawyers will approve of, and likewise they'll be doing the two-or-three-trucks-with-only-one-driver-in-the-front-truck train thing. Someone is going to come up with a unique name for that train thing. Railroad industry: it's in your face. 

The thing that made me wonder is the material used for the windshield. In Elon Musk's promo video he made quite a splash out of demonstrating its impervious toughness, saying his windshield is guaranteed shatterproof, and if it breaks due to a thermonuclear explosion, "You get a free replacement." I thought, if it's that wonderful why doesn't the watch industry use it for watch glass? Notice Musk made no mention of hardness. He could say he was talking about toughness, not hardness.

On 5/18/2018 at 6:10 PM, Endy0816 said:

huh, that is true. Sem Eye vs Sem E

Never realized that before.

Engineers and scientists are accustomed to saying "SEM-ee" like in semicircular or semiconductor or semitranslucent, etc., but the working man on the road has his own language, and those are the guys that talk about trucks: truck drivers. And every truck driver in America says "SEM-eye" when he stops for a quick breakfast at a truck stop in Anytown, USA. I know some truck drivers and when I say "SEM-ee" in a sentence they stare at me with a blank face and have no idea what I'm talking about. It's that bad. The ones with a more open mind will correct me, saying, "You mean 'SEM-eye'." They can't even bring themselves to pronounce "SEM-ee" -- like it's some kind of profanity or whatever. As if truck drivers have any scruples pronouncing swear words!

I'm reminded of the longstanding mispronunciation of molybdenum in the material supply industry. They actually say "molly-BEAT-um," or "Moly" for short. Try explaining that to a chemistry professional. Go to a chemical supply warehouse and try ordering a bulk container of molybdenum disulfide, MoS₂, properly pronounced, and see what happens. When you bother to take a few seconds of their precious time to pronounce "mo-LYB-den-um" for them, they'll just shake their heads and go "no, no, no...," as if they won't dare to set foot across the grain in shop-talk tradition. Nobody wants to become the brunt of jokes in the blue collar environment. The man behind the order desk might not fill your order correctly if you can't manage to pronounce the words as he expects you to say them. They reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, you see.