Jump to content

John Cuthber

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    16962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Posts posted by John Cuthber


  1. I'm sorry that I can't think of a way to express this that doesn't sound like I'm being dismissive of the idea and condescending; that's not my intention but I have to ask; Do monkeys have regional accents?

     

    If they do then you might not be looking at the effect of captivity, just the fact that they didn't sound like each other.

    Even if you can't be certain of the reason for any difference between the vocalisations of the 2 groups then it's still a valid piece of research to see if such a difference exists.


  2. The earth has 2 different diameters (polar and equatorial), presumably they can't both fit.

    Ever heard of an annular eclipse? It's what you get when the moon doesn't appear to be the same size as the sun. Not as pretty as a total eclipse, but here are some pictures anyway.

    http://www.clocktower.demon.co.uk/eclipse2003/

    No great shock that it happens, the earth's orbit is not circular.

     

     

    "Swansont's question "What happens to your mystical numbers if you use Fahrenheit?" is a good one.

    OK the Rankine (sp?) scale uses Fahrenheit degrees above absolute zero in the same way the Kelvin scale uses celsius degrees above zero.

    The boiling point of water is 671.7 and the freezing point is 491.7 The difference is 180 and the ratio is 2.73 to 1 again. (well it is if I got the maths right).

    It's true that the ratio of the difference between two temperatures to the lower one will stay the same when you change units in this way. Ratios are like that.

    Anyway, the more important problem is that the temperatures are by no means fixed. The freezing point of water falls slightly when pressure is applied (about 1/100 degrees per atmosphere pressure). On the other hand the boiling point rises quite quickly with pressure.

    So this "magical" ratio only works at exactly 760mmHg. Most of the time where I live the pressure is rather lower than that. I could move to somewhere like the dead sea and then it would be higher.

    That ratio only works (so far as it does) at sea level. There's the killer, like the moon's apparent size, sea level varies.

     

    Sorry Typiko Abdul, but if you want to base a new theory of the origin of life on the magical properties of some number, make sure it's a constant otherwise your reason for life disappears every time the weather changes.


  3. What does this mean?

    "It is possible to model the cell in terms of one variable, i.e., hydrogen bonding."

    I suspect the answer is no because cells are really very complicated.

    I also think that most of the species he has talked about like H2O, OH- Cl- and so on are non-magnetic. And, I think the idea of electrons in nice circular orbits at 1/14 C are a rather simplistic way to think about orbitals in atoms and molecules.


  4. "One needs to look at the tetrahedral system as a specialty tool." One thing this tool seems unable to do is answer the equation I posted earlier, i.e. to find a square root of minus 1. Since that's the thread's topic, this failing wouuld seem to be pretty catastrophic.

     

     

    "If we assume a type of symbolic parallel between God and reality"

    I have a better (or at least, more scientific) idea, lets' not make totally unjustified assumptions about the existence of God, the accuracy of the trinity and the idea that Western religion has got the will of God right, even if He does exist.


  5. Look at the original post. It says " Idefined a vacuum to be 'the elimination of space between particles.' "

    The point I was making is that a vacuum is more or less the complete oposite of that. It is what you get when you eliminate (to a greater or lesser extent) the particles from the space.

    Let's make this clear; every post I made in this thread has stated that the vacuua that people talk about are not, and cannot be, absolute; they are always partial. So what's the point of telling me that "people who do experimental physics talk about vacuums all the time, and none of them are discussing regions completely devoid of matter"? It certainly doesn't detract from the fact that the deffinition given in the OP is odd, to say the least.


  6. "That's one definition of vacuum, and I already stated I wasn't using that one."

    Thanks Swansont, but I was actually thinking about the original poster who started talking about particles in a vacuum.

    Anyway, its not so much one definition of vacuum, it's essentially the definition of vacuum, for example here's Wiki's version

    "A vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than standard atmospheric pressure. The root of the word vacuum is the Latin adjective vacuus which means "empty," but space can never be perfectly empty"


  7. I'm noot sure but I think he means use 4 coordinates.

    Take a point in the middle of a tetrahedron and draw lines to each of the points.You get something that looks like a caltrop

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop

    label the 4 points a,b,c,and d.

    Now you can say that the vector corresponding to -a is composed of b+c+d (with some constant, possibly even 1, to account for scaling.

     

    I don't doubt that this coordinate system could be used, but I'd much rather use 3 orthogonal ones. The "resolution of forces" in mechanics would be ugly, to say the least, in this system.


  8. Well, I got in without doing the entrance exams. I'm not sure if the system still allows students to get offered a place on the basis of an interview and the school's recomendation (and, technically, the matriculation requirement of 2 "A" level grade E or better and "O" level English).

    One thing to think about is that, unlike most universities, it's a 4 year course. Great if you like it but an extra year of slog if you don't. I gather that they have the biggest chem dept in Western Europe (it was only the biggest in the UK when I was there) so they must be doing something right.

     

     

    This

    http://www.ousu.org/content/index.php?page=4801

    will tell you some things that the official guides leave out.

    (ousu is the student's union there).

    I had a great time there and I hope that, wherever you choose to study, you do too.


  9. "Very few people get taken to hospital for 'startled'."

    Actually I think quite a few may be, but it gets labeled as taken in for observation. The purely (well, OK, mainly) psyhcological effect of a suprise like a car accident can leave people in no fit state to look after themseleves- not least they may overlook reletively severe injuries. I that case it makes perfect sense to take them into hospital to give them a chance to calm down and re-evaluate things.

    Anyway, as I said, the truth is that the word "shock" has more than one meaning. "Clinical shock" is another matter.


  10. I have got a bit muddled up here. Are all atheists agnostics in the same way that all Christians are?

    I'm convinced there's no God (simply because I have no evidence to support the idea that there is one). I presume that most Christians have a similar belief that there are no fairies, again since there's no reason to believe in them.

    In the same way that I'm agnostic about God (because I can't prove he doesn't exist) and have a "faith" in his non existance most Christians must be agnostic about Fairies.

    So the atheists have faith and the theists are agnostics.


  11. Sorry to have to tell you allmee, but there's no way this is ever going to work.

    If it did then you could connect the output back to the input and have a perpetual motion machine. Perpetual motion machines don't work so your machine doesn't.


  12. I don't see this thread changing many people's minds (a few perhaps) but I'm not sure that's likely to be its biggests achievement. I hope that it provides some ideas for those who are not sure about religion.

     

    Anyway, I say I'm an atheist. Some people say I that means I have faith. I say that my "faith" in the absense of God is comparable with my faith in the absense of fairies at the bottom of my garden.

    There's no evidence for either of them so I don't believe in either of them.

    Perhaps someone would like to tell me what exactly I have faith in? And why they think it is comparable to the faith shown by those who get up early on Sundays and go to church or who start crusades to kill the infidels.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.