Charles 3781

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

41 minutes ago, iNow said:

Less than 3% of the US population has been exposed. Herd immunity requires something closer to 70% exposure, plus millions of deaths along the way, plus likely wouldn’t work for covid anyway since it evolves like the seasonal flu. 

It’s also yet another off-topic trolling post baiting people into staying off-topic

iNow,  I respect your intelligence,  but  you do seem to think that "off-topic" means anything you don't personally agree with.  All I'm saying is this:

 If we can't quickly invent a vaccine against CV-19,  we'll have to develop a natural immunity.  This immunity will come about, by getting everyone exposed to the virus as soon as possible.

I can't see why you're fighting against this obvious fact.  Of course it isn't a pleasant thing. but that's how the biological world operates.  Trying to deny it won't help.

1 minute ago, moth said:

I would say it's meaning in science is more precise than in everyday conversation, but you are not wrong.

Do you know what a vector is?

I think it means " going in a certain direction".  Why giving it the name "vector" makes it more scientific, I'm not so sure about.

3 minutes ago, moth said:

 

 

Circular motion is an acceleration even with no change in speed

Then isn't the word "acceleration" being used differently in science.  It properly means to speed up.  Like when you "accelerate" your car.   Your car increases its speed.

If you claimed you could make your car increase its speed,  by driving it round in a circle with no change in speed,  that would not make sense.

So I think the word "accelerate" is used differently in science, from what it is in the real world.

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

I think it would be a good time to get back to topic. Apparently the White House has declined assistance from CDC for contact tracing and despite them knowing before that Hicks was positive. They did not warn other folks, so public endangerment seems to be the standard policy at this point.

Surely the White House is pursuing the only rational policy.  In the absence of an effective vaccine against Covid-19,  the speedy establishment of "herd-immunity" is the best response. 

1 hour ago, geordief said:

I always thought that a system was in acceleration  because  it was expending energy and that its acceleration could be maintained only so long as the energy lasted.

The longer the acceleration was maintained the more the system dissipated and eventually it would vanish.

On the other hand a system that was in motion wrt another system could maintain that state for ever.

 

 

 

geordief,  on reading your post, it brings to mind a point that I never quite understood -  when I was doing a Physics course, my tutor insisted that the Moon is constantly "accelerating" as it orbits the Earth.  This didn't seem convincing to me.   Because as you say, "acceleration" -  ie, an  increase in speed, surely requires an increase in energy input.

Whereas the Moon, when it orbits the Earth, isn't getting any energy input. it just travels round in a a constant orbit,  So  how can it be "accelerating"?

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Stephen Miller, bald racist ghoul who used to work as Jeff Sessions chief of staff and who’s now a key adviser to Trump that’s considered the architect of kids in cages / alligators in moats at the border and other similar “whites are better than everyone else” policies is now also covid positive. 

iNow,  What you're  posting makes you sound  a bit mental.

Just now, iNow said:

Thank goodness participation is entirely voluntary and you’re free to ignore it. But by all means, feel free to continue littering every thread you post in with off-topic drivel so that voluntary option is removed entirely from your account. 

I haven't posted a crude cartoon, on this scientific forum,  of President Trump looking at graves of Covid victims. You have.

That looks like off-topic politically-biased drivel.  Don't you think?

Perhaps you should consider your position.

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not even 1 week has passed, nor is he fully recovered, but he’s already come out and said the above.

 

Thank goodness this a science forum without any political views intruding on it

Just now, jdla22 said:

Nonsense! I thought it was a rather interesting addition. You never know what something off-topic will inspire.

Well of course it was.  But please understand my position.  When one has acquired a -25 rating,  and  faces the danger of getting booted off,  a degree of unctuousness is called for.

You're right. My post was definitely off-topic, Apologies for derailing the thread.

4 minutes ago, Dord said:

 

There's a (fairly) famous quote from poem The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Coleridge that emphasises this very point...

"Water, water, every where, nor a drop to drink."

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43997/the-rime-of-the-ancient-mariner-text-of-1834

(Although the modern version has not instead of the outdated nor.)

 

Thanks Dord.  On your remark concerning the outdated "nor",  I think  you raise a valuable point.

Consider these two lines:

"Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink" -  (18th century original)

"Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink" - (revised 21st century modern)

The modern revision gets rid of the awkward " nor".  Replacing it by the much smoother, and  more natural "and not".  A definite literary  improvement.

In a similar way, Science is always being revised and improved.  For example we have improved our understanding of combustion,  by replacing the 18th century  "phlogiston",  with "oxidation".  Shouldn't such scientific principles  be applied to past literature,  so as to update and improve it.

Science and Religion are both attempts to make sense of the world.  For that, they both deserve praise and credit.  Humans like to make sense of things. 

But isn't the essential difference between Science and Religion this  -  Science employs mathematics.  This is seen In any book of Science.  Whether the book is about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Sociology,  or any other scientific study.  Always,  in the book,  you will find maths.  In the form of precise numerical data, detailed tables of figures, . Which prove, or at least lend substantial credibility to,  the assertions made in the book.

But is this case with religious books, such as the Bible.  Are there any mathematical  data contained in the Bible, which enhance its credibility?

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, not if it’s seawater, or of similar salinity

”Human kidneys can only make urine that is less salty than salt water. Therefore, to get rid of all the excess salt taken in by drinking seawater, you have to urinate more water than you drank. Eventually, you die of dehydration even as you become thirstier.”

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/drinksw.html

Thanks swansont for clarifying that point.  I used to wonder how sailors could die in agony of thirst when surrounded by water.  I thought: "Well, even if the sea-water has got salt in it, surely a little bit of it,  would at least help relieve the thirst".  And you know -  I still kind of think that way!  But, as you explain in your post, both science and maritime experience testify to the contrary.  From the point of view of long-term survival, that is.

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 When our root problem is extremist billionaires who don't care about our society, why make one of them chief?

Do you really think the root problem is "extremist billionaires"?  I very much doubt it.  There are deeper forces at work.

Reading Tyler's and Endy's excellent and informative posts, I wonder whether any research has been conducted into how marine organisms, such as fish and cetacean mammals, cope with living in the seas and oceans.

In these aqueous environments, there would seem to be no effective gravitational force acting on the organism's body.  The body is being kept in a neutral state, where any downward gravitational pull, is balanced by an upward push deriving from buoyancy.

Doesn't this mean that the organism is effectively, in a state of "zero-G"  - just as it would be, if it were floating in outer space. 

You  can see where this is going!   I mean, how do dolphins and whales manage to survive in this zero-G situation?  Without suffering the bone-loss, muscle atrophy, and other concomitant  detrimental effects which Tyler and Endy rightly cite in their posts as afflicting human astronauts?

17 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Imprudent, incautious, irresponsible, injudicious, indiscreet, idiotic, reckless, rash, careless, corrupt, villainous, shady, amoral, unprincipled, ineffective, willfully uninformed... and others

But aren't those qualities what appeal to people?   Because he's so utterly different from all the other run-of-the-mill politicians who just make people feel fed up and sick and tired of the whole lot them.

Possibly, we are faced by a Universe with an infinite "onion" effect.   Where, however deep we penetrate into the scheme of things, layer upon layer,  elements, atoms, nuclei, quarks - we will reach no ultimate truth.

If you were dying of thirst, wouldn't sipping salt-water in modest quantities relieve dehydration?

We live on a planet which has ~70% of its surface covered by oceans with an average depth of~ 12,000 ft  of water. 

Given these facts, doesn't it seem strange that we're worried about water-shortage?

Isn't the Periodic Table founded on this proposition: that the nuclei of atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles -  ie,   protons and neutrons.

And by counting the number of protons and neutrons in each atom, we arrive at an arrangement for the Table.  That was very reasonable idea,  when we thought of protons and neutrons as "indivisible".  But nowadays we know that they're not indivisible,  but made of smaller components - the "quarks", which come in different varieties.

Therefore I wonder whether a revision of the Table based on the quark components of the nucleus, might offer advantages and provide deeper insights.

I offer this thought, in all humility - if Special Relativity theory can generate the above 6 long, complicated pages of debate among highly intelligent people,  without their being able to reach any agreement about what it actually means, as appears to be the case -  could this be because the theory isn't right?

(mod: reference is https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105185-time-dilation-dependence-on-direction/ )

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

How to call in one word somebody who can be easily manipulated, who is vulnerable to socio-technical tricks?

Is it  -  a  Liberal? 

19 hours ago, MigL said:

I would think your parents left you something much more valuable than an inheritance Area54.
They left you valuable life lessons, like caring and getting along with your siblings, and anyone else you care about.

Dig deep Charles, your cynicism may have buried those same lessons your parents taught you.

I don't remember that when I was a child,  I got taught any lessons at all from my parents about caring and getting along with siblings, and  other people.  I was horrid to my younger sister.

I had to figure out the correct operating principles for myself, in later life. This was accomplished by reading loads of books.  Mostly science fiction books. Especially Asimov's "Foundation" series, which reveal invaluable lessons about human behaviour.  I could go on to explain further.  But who cares?  

This forum is about hard Science, not fiction!

18 hours ago, zapatos said:

How dare you trash the bond I had with my father in such a way. I'm not prone to violence but if you said that to me in a bar I imagine you'd be picking yourself up off the floor right now. You are despicable.

 I never go into bars, as they tend to be full of drunks who start fights.  

🙂

On 9/20/2020 at 9:54 PM, MigL said:

One of the few things you've said I wholeheartedly agree with.

.🙂