Jump to content

imatfaal

Moderators
  • Posts

    7809
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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. 16 hours ago, ivylove said:

     

    In Einstein's paper, "The Foundation of the Generalised Theory of Relativity" (1916), Einstein represents gravity with Maxwell's electromagnetic field using Maxwell's equations. 

     

     

    dh/dt + rot e = 0..

     

    div h = 0...

     

    rot h - de'/dt = i....

     

    div e' = p"

     
     

    (Einstein5, § 20). Einstein is representing gravity with Maxwell's electromagnetic field that is based on Faraday's induction effect but a small stone that is affected by gravity but not attracted to a magnet which is experimental proof gravity is not an electromagnetic phenomenon. Girl power definitely superior.

    !

    Moderator Note

    Dumping irrelevant copynpasta from a usenet sci-forum is not acceptable.  If you continue to troll you will be banned.

    Thread Locked.

     
  3. Quote

    These calculations will always be a perfect square root. Thus finding the product of 2 Prime numbers is equivalent to this equation being used to find a perfect square. Yes other products will also have a perfect square, but it will be a decimal and not a whole number

    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

     

     

  4. 1 hour ago, ivylove said:

    So now can you NOW tell me how Cavendish measured a 2 microgram weight in 1797....

    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. 

  5. !

    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.

     
  6. 2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    The pressure on contemporary adolescent boys to conform  to certain standard looks is as intense now now as it is for girls. The time spent grooming and stressing about appearance and what they wear is pretty much equal from what I've seen in the last few years. I know parents that buy fake 'name' clothes from China for their children so that they  can conform to their peers expectations.

    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.  

  7. 11 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Not to mention that (almost?) everything becomes harder for a single parent to manage if she is paid less than her male counterpart.

    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

  8. 16 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

    And? Are you implying that all of them want to study and work? I know a great deal of women who are more than fine with not working. Generally speaking, those who want to study will study and those who won't will prefer a man who works. Is there a problem with that? I know many intelligent women; all of them academically more successful than myself. These kinds of women will generally finish college and get a good joob. I see nothing but choice there....

    2

    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.

     

    16 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

    ...So? Is it men's fault that they do so? Are they forced to do it? What percentage of women do that?

    And what about the men who work out and build their body to impress women? Are men oppressed as well then? Women like men like that and they make sure to achieve that, so they are ''forced'' to do it just the same as the women who get silicone implants, no?...

     

    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

     

    16 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

    ...You have got the reason for that incredibly wrong. It is because the majority of porn viewers are male. Men, generally speaking, don't care and probably don't want to look at a guy's face during a video. It's completely foolish to say that men's faces are ''hidden'' because of ''chauvinism''. Either way, it's not true for the majority of videos anyway...

     

    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

     

    16 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

    ...In 2017., no....

     

    The "leader of free world" (definition now under review) boasts about grabbing women by the pussy - so in 2017- yes

     

    16 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

    ...You are aware, are you not, that a great number of women prefer ''macho'' men? They are naturally drawn to them for safety reasons. Of course, less so than in nature, but this is 100% true in nature. So you're just telling women what to like....

    1

    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. 

     

    16 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

    ...All I see is frustration here. Do you have any arguments? 
    I keep seing women shunning other women for doing things they don't like, such as not getting a degree or job, getting breast implants etc. It is like you are completely unaware that there are women who prefer that. All you are trying to do is force women to be a certain way, which is funnily ironic, given the context of the post.

    1

    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. 

  9. 18 hours ago, shyynore said:

    Although the feminist movement initiated in the 1960s the world is still chauvinist. Many women are independent, they study and work. But many do not. Many women do not let that the will of man prevail. But many leave. Many women are intelligent and insightful. But many are foolish. Some examples. In some countries the men like women with large breasts, the women put silicone. In other the men like women with big butt, the women stay with big butt. In many home sex videos, women show their face, but the men do not, because men do not want to appear? (chauvinism). Porn movies with scenes of abuse (woman object). Etc. Patriarchy and boss, many women still think so. Machismo still influences women in the world.
     

    4

    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. 

  10. 16 hours ago, Callipygous said:

    It sure is. I believe that should be an H. Thanks!

    You were able to decode it with just the first one?

    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. 

  11.  

    31 minutes ago, iNow said:

    algorithimic spiders (if that's a word)

     

    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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15.  

    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  \(3*3 \)

     

     

     

     

  16. 19 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    She actually was quoted as saying "just behind" with regard to ranking, which is better...though not by much for reasons you stated.

     

    Quote was: "If you ranked all the explosions in the universe based on their power, GRBs would be right behind the Big Bang."

    Merging black holes produce one hell of a bang

  17. 8 minutes ago, Sigmarus said:

    So in simpler terms(correct me if i'm wrong),There are 2 forces against each other,which is why the frictional force is pushed against the direction of moving object,therefore resisting motion of it and resulting in different direction

    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)

  18. 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.

     

     

×
×
  • 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.