Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by imatfaal

  1. ! Moderator Note Ivylove Stop the infantile girl power / silly boys routine - it is embarrassing. Start asking questions that interest you and not poached from random places on the internet - if you cannot debate and interact with the other posters without ripping stuff off from other people's work then this thread will be locked too.
  2. ! Moderator Note thread locked. You are cutting and pasting from a sci.physics.relativity paper (that looks a little cracked to begin with. Stop this practice now or you will be sanctioned.
  3. ! Moderator Note Dumping irrelevant copynpasta from a usenet sci-forum is not acceptable. If you continue to troll you will be banned. Thread Locked.
  4. You gave 1/(85 * 5) = 1/(0.00235) = 425 425/(85 / 5) = 425/(17) = 25 Sqrt[25] = 5 1/(1/(x * y))= x * y (x * y)/(x / y) = y(x * y)/x = (xy^2)/x = y^2 Sqrt[y^2] = y What ever whole numbers you use for x and y you will always always always get a perfect square. In fact as the x's cancel then they are immaterial and this would work with x=pi Not gonna read further till you explain your paragraph I have quoted and why it is not completely wrong
  5. Please try not to be so rude when you are asking questions. Especially questions which have been well covered by Studiot and Strange above. I am not sure anyone is going to go to the trouble of reprising all of Cavendish's calculations - but Strange's post explains what was done and Studiot's post shows how G could be determined.
  6. ! Moderator Note The OP is just wrong. The basis of a good thread is an OP with either honest questions or challenging ideas - this has neither as it is based on a complete fallacy. To re-iterate all atomic nuclei are positive. Thread locked. If you have a sensible question about atomic physics then go ahead and ask in a new thread but I am not putting up with another trollish thread.
  7. No; it really is not. It is almost certainly stronger on boys than when you or I grew up - but then so is the pressure on girls; additionally, so is the ability of both sexes to do so due to greater disposable income. More importantly - Pressure to conform is also very different than the pressure to attain an impossible and unheathy bodytype.
  8. Indeed - the natural (?) tendency, more properly the systemic sexism, which means that women are paid less for the same job as men is invidious and dangerous. What amazes me is the spread of this behaviour amongst those who I would consider unlikely to discriminate and who would also consider themselves immune. I should find a link for the "lab assistant" placement questionnaire study which beggared belief
  9. If you see nothing but choice then you, unwittingly, are part of the problem. Far too many countries either have no protection (or do not enforce current laws) for women in the work arena. Women are asked if they are going to have children, how they will cope with childcare, even whether they are in a relationship when they are applying for jobs, seeking promotion, or apparently within periodic review processes. This is now illegal in the EU - but it still goes on. I have seen it happening in an underhand manner within the supposedly "right-on" academe and I know it continues in all manners of business. Take a look at those who are presented as role-models, celebrities, personalities etc. it is very clear that women are expected to maintain a youthful (for film/tv one might say childlike) appearance whereas men can grow old. Very few people are "forced" into surgery etc - but if cultural taboos stop you working (or lower your earning potential) then there is definite duress. There is also a huge amount of pressure placed on young girls to conform to unnatural body shapes with negative medical consequences from a ridiculously young age - whereas the counterpart pressure on boys is both minuscule in magnitude and towards a healthy and natural fitness Not sure how you can say that with any certainty other than as a personal opinion - I would and have said the same about the OP's opposing view The "leader of free world" (definition now under review) boasts about grabbing women by the pussy - so in 2017- yes And the argument is nothing to do with that - it is that men's attitudes and society's acceptance of machismo forces/pressurizes/cajoles women into making decisions which otherwise they would eschew. So either there is no problem or if there is it is the woman's choice. And alluding to frustration really is a bit off - it is ad hominem as it implies that the OP's arguments are worthless as they are founded in their own frustration.
  10. First point - the suffragette movement started about 100 years before then. I think there are more concrete and well-researched examples than yours - but unfortunately, most of them still hold true. I have seen sexism on the rise and equality on the fall in my lifetime - which I must admit I would never have expected when I was younger. You must be careful not to remove agency from women for their own choices as not everything is dictated - but more importantly to ignore societal, cutural, and religious pressures to conform is part of the problem. I would hesitate to base many conclusions on sexual predilections - they are slippery and hard to pin down (innuendo intended). If you want a well researched, current, and crucial problem look at women's control over their own fertility around the world - and in how many, supposedly forward thinking democracies, these rights to self-determination are being eroded.
  11. Yes - there were a few give aways. Your first word is always a good one to guess, two different two letter words starting with the same letter and a third ending with one of those letters, quite a few cross-checked double letters, etc.
  12. It is now; I for one shall use it - it has a nice william gibson ring to it. It is worth bearing in mind that some fora display email addresses - the algorithmic spiders could be harvesting as well; little do they realise that we do not display user email addresses
  13. imatfaal


    geordief - I am afraid it is very counter-intuitive mainly because our intuitions were forged on the savannah. We are remarkably good at understanding the slow and the earth-bound; when we move out of the ancestral comfort-zone some matters need to be thought about very hard and evidence must be taken at face value rather than compared to our own personal preconceptions. Contextualisation is very difficult as we just do not need to take account of einstein's relativity in our perception of our day to day experiences - but it still governs them. And when things are very heavy or moving at a high relative velocityetc. then you must use einstein's work in your calculations or they will be wrong - but these are extraordinary or not earth-bound . The only way to feel comfortable with it is to get a handle on the beginnings of the mathematics (SRT is not that bad at all) and to read up on some of the amazing experimental support. I would also note that this is not merely a property of light - it is a fundamental property of the universe
  14. OK - So how are you calculating average speed; because at first glance apart from constant acceleration scenarios that formula does not work. I ride my bike 1km with at a cruising speed of 10m/s; I accelerate to that 10m/s at 1m/s^2 from 0m/s. After 11, 12, 13 ....100 seconds I would have my KE as identical and unchanging. You would have it slowly increasing as my average speed for the trip increased. That is nonsense - how can an instantaneous measurement of KE depend on the length of the journey
  15. I believe - but I am not an expert - that the procedural trick used to allow this Bill to be passed with a simple majority is not easily repeatable within the year. Thus if McCain had not allowed the bill to go forward to the vote then this simple majority vote might have been used for a slightly less bad bill which McCain would have had trouble voting against (bearing in mind some of his electoral promises) . McCain deserves credit for out-foxing the GOP whips - but all three deserve credit for voting it down. MitchMc is gonna find a new way to move to simple majority voting soon unfortunately.
  16. and the last letter in the second to last word in your additional phrase is wrong.
  17. It is not too easy. Difficult without pen and paper and a knowledge of words/letters/tricks - but quite doable in a short amount of time
  18. I didnt read past the fist set of calcs but even with errors corrected you are just showing basic maths - I will demonstrate error 1/(85 * 3) = 1/(0.0039215) =255 - this is not true 1/(85*3) is 1/255 what you mean is that \(\frac{1}{\frac{1}{85*3}}=255 \) Well yes it must as 85*3 = 255 and it is basic that \(\frac{1}{\frac{1}{x}}=x \) we learnt it as the bottom of the bottom is the top so what you are doing is in fact \(\frac{85*3}{\frac{85}{3}} \) The three on the bottom of the bottom moves to the top \(\frac{85*3*3}{\frac{85}{1}} \) and the 85s cancel each other to leave \(3*3 \)
  19. Merging black holes produce one hell of a bang
  20. Are these homework questions? Are you a bot? Are you asking then answering questions from another site? This sudden flurry of one line questions is a bit weird.
  21. Not necessarily two forces. An object does not need a force to continue movement (N1L) . Friction opposes relative movement. There can be two forces - a man pushing a block across a surface ( if you look at the block it is being pushed by the man and this movement is being resisted through friction between the block and the surface). But there needn't be a motive force; The Man gives the block a huge heave and falls over - the block continues to slide but slows (there is now no driving force on the block but still friction)
  22. It doesn't always, just most of the time - it reduces "form drag" which is one of the factors of air resistance, but it can often increase "skin drag" which is another factor.
  23. Otherwise it would accelerate the body (this would be a positive feedback scenario in which acceleration was almost unbound - not likely or physically possible). Friction opposes movement therefore the force's vector is directed in opposition to the velocity's. Why we get friction is a complex subject and the simplifications are often not quite true - but in general it is a force resisting the relative motion of two substances; to resist it must be directed against the motion.
  24. FYG - Came across this today https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/an-act-of-genocide Being referenced next to reports from Saskatoon today - it is worrying when a historical narrative reporting acts from over a hundred years ago is informative and paralleled by a modern investigation
  • 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.