Jump to content

esbo

Senior Members
  • Posts

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by esbo

  1. Article here http://www.telegraph...-new-study.html The article is garbled nonsense but wind farms do cause warming because they slow down the circulating air which cools the earth. That is obvious they take energy from the cooling currents and slow them so they cool the earth less. Simples. Again the article is bad science which is right and wrong at random much like a monkey typing like this:- doejd uhf erfooireo fkler to e e dhwed the lwjrjwer werewjf r ehre ohlljhrere jflsjdfjs fis cfdokkfdp is wejf er;fon tree frhtg rtg t r car ijto;j;ej;t I expect the usually thumbs down but you can deny the truth but it will be true nonetheless
  2. Well what happens is they do an experiment and then come up with a theory to explain what is happening, however that does not mean the theory is correct just that it seems to explain what is happening. Often however the theory turns out to be wrong when further experiments are done, as happened with a lot of classical physics being out dated by all this relativity stuff. I mean there is all sorts of stuff which has been over turned by new developments. I recall one physicist saying "well this theory has been around for 100 years now so we can be fairly confident it is correct!!" (I forget what he was talking about). However I think he needs to recognise that in the past there were theories which had been around for thousands of years before they turned out to be wrong!!
  3. However if the object and target are not absolutely head on there may be this force causing the target to me missed. I am not sure whether the size of the force is proportional to the speed (which would make things worse) But I am now. http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys03/cdeflecte/default.htm
  4. Moving electric particles tend to create fields which produce force at right angles to the direction of movement that's how motors work. So I am just wondering about how that affects things, might not work if they are moving head on though.
  5. Well I did go to uni but to study electronics, I would rather have done physics maths or chemistry as find the pure subjects much more interesting but I though electronics would have been better jobs wise, maybe it was initially but not any more really I went into computer programming in the end, but that went downhill after a while. I had little interest in electronics and found most of it to be 'rubbish'. I could possibly do another degree but I don't think that is gonna happen for a number or reason not least cost. I do sometimes discuss stuff on forums from time to time but it is usually not long before I get my knuckles raped by the mods (lol) so I don't bother with it so much these days. Science forums seem to be particularly bad for this, free speech seems to have gone out the window a long time ago. That paper is a bit too long and mathematical for me to look at at the moment, it is difficult to follow stuff in mathematical symbols unless you know where it is going. So just to go back to the particle experiment, what does happen when you fire a high energy election at a proton? That's the kind of thing which is easier to discuss. Again the following is probably wrong, but when you fire an electron you create a current so we are getting towards thing like the left hand motor rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleming%27s_left-hand_rule_for_motors So I said this is all a bit wrong because maybe it is the corkscrew rule but what I am getting at which is probably don't wrong anyway is that if you fire an electron at a proton, don't you get a force at right angles which would make it impossible to hit the proton anyway? Again as I said probably all wrong but can someone see what I am getting at and explain why I am wrong, preferably start from where I am at rather than from somewhere else, if you see what I mean. Anyway I will leave it at that for now.
  6. Well as I said all theories are completely and utterly wrong when it comes to this sort stuff, so I can equally say the theories you describe are completely and utterly wrong but that does not get he discussion anywhere does it? I said we were in the realm of particle physics and I never said gravity was the same as electromagnetic force just that they were both force. I was just illustration a few points that even in the classical model the chances of hitting a proton are remote. Anyway it goes on to say that that energy cannot be confined in the nucleus because a nucleus cannot contain that energy but it does not say what happens. Furthermore as you cannot say where the electron is due to the uncertainty principle how can you say it does not orbit? How can you be so sure? You cannot say where the electron is so how can you say it is not orbiting? That's a contradiction? So I think you have to accept that according to the link you provided you cannot be certain the electron is not orbiting, so you are wrong on that aren't you? You are happy to call me 'completely and utterly wrong' so perhaps you will be big enough to admit you are 'completely and utterly wrong' on that. - I doubt it some how, I really do.... Well thanks for your courteous response I think one or two of you may have misread my post because you seem to missed where I said "even if I am technically incorrect accord into current theory" so some (one) of the attacks on me for being wrong are a bit over the top because I was the first to admit I was wrong. So for Questionposter to say I am completely and utterly wrong he must be saying I am right, as I said I was wrong? I will leave it for others to work that one out!!! Thanks for the negative rep, I don't take much notice of reputations myself, I am rather more concerned with facts and models and science than personal reputations, it is a very unscientific method to just correctness of someone by their reputation, that is why I do not use it myself but each to their own, it takes all sorts as they say. I do have a basic knowledge. I have A level physics at grade B, which would get me onto most university physics courses, that is more than most. You say you do not observe what I describe but to be fair you are not sure what you are observing, so how can you say, "well it is not that" when you can't say what it is? See the problem is the scientist do all these experiment and work out all these various laws and then find they do not actually fit together very well
  7. Yea there is a force of attraction between and electron, but there is the same force of attraction between the earth and the moon, so would you ask why the earth is not pulled into the moon? It's basically the same question except the force is gravity not electro static but it is essentially the same 'problem'. So the answer is the electron is falling towards the electron just as the moon is falling towards earth, without that falling the moon would fly off into space or the electron would fall away from the proton. I guess it the electron did hit the proton it would become a neutron, however once it is an electron in orbit it will never hit the proton same as the moon will never hit the earth. Even using that model, say another planet passed by earth and pulled the moon away, is it likely the moon would crash into that planet? I think that is fairly unlikely. A hydrogen atom is 100,000 time the size of the nucleus so the chances of it hitting are tiny. Who is to say they do not hit, can we detect one neutron in 100,000 hydrogen atoms? I don't really need another model to understand why it does not hit really, even if I am technically incorrect accord into current theory. So with that basic model you would expect the electron to orbit all the time and would be very surprise it it hit the nucleus. You seem to be under the impression a collision is likely, which is understandable as there is a force of attraction, but the 'trick' is unless it is aimed directly at the centre it will accelerate towards the proton, but it will be going so fast it will over come the force of attraction and loop round into and orbit which will never collide with the proton. Now if you want an experiment it woudl be hard to do wouldn't it? Basically you would need a particle accelerator firing electrons at protons. Then you are in the realm of sub atomic physics and strange particles etc.. http://www.emsb.qc.ca/laurenhill/science/quark.html [note] to any over zealous mods (I know they exist sometimes) I am just throwing out some ideas out for discussion not presenting a paper to the Royal Society, please don't pull me up on 'the rules' or whatever. I am just putting out a model which like all models, is wrong.
  8. Yes I remember finding it difficult to understand, it's every pair. There is no limit on the number of contestants specified so there isn't an. I recall the answer is achieved by showing a contradiction between some equation you derive and the number of contestants does not come into it. Helps to see here http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=267&t=44575&start=0 But it's tough to understand.
  9. Yes it is the overlap where the fun really begins. I remember trying a similar problem, I will see if I can find it, the solution to the problem was also given I think. Ah!!!! I have found it! In a mathematical competition, in which problems were posed to the participants, every two of these problems were solved by more than of the contestants. Moreover, no contestant solved all the problems. Show that there are at least contestants who solved exactly problems each.
  10. Yes I know what they are ie 4! = 4x3x2 This is about perms though and it's more complicated than just perms I believe. for example consider these two 11111111110000000000 01111111111000000000 Looks nice consider the first two line - but you miss the this line of 5 11111111110000000000 01111111111000000000 10111000001000000000 I expect the answer is ugly, what was your attack? A computer program? Even that would require a lot of though on the strategy??? Or maybe I am missing something? I suppose you could do all the number of perms of 10 from 20 and get an answer X then find all the perms of 5 from 10 and multiply by X But you may get loads of duplicates?
  11. Mmmmmm nasty problem, I remember seeing something similar to this but with smaller sets, can't remember exactly immediately. Not sure if there is an easy way to solve it. As imafall says "you need at least 62 groups of 10 if your coverage is perfect - whether that is possible I do not know yet." I would guess it is not possible. Starting from a simpler example, say a person picks a set of 1 from 3, now how many sets of 2 do you need to cover all the sets of 1? 001 010 100 110 011 answer 2!! Now try 2 from for covered by 3 from 4. 0011 0101 1001 1010 1100 0111 1110 so 2 sets nearly does it but it misses:- 1001 so you need a 3rd set 1101 or 1011. For the original problem suppose you go 11111111110000000000 00000000001111111111 Well that covers two halves but big problem for those straddling the two halves!! It is at this point the head spinning starts.
  12. The problem reoccurred which I put down to change in weather conditions perhaps so I decide to try your suggestions. Unplugging the sound made no difference. Then I tried the video but then realised I could not see the screen to play the video anyway whilst fiddling around with the connection the problem seemed to go away, but further fiddling 'killed' the video card, so I had to reboot and hope it still worked, which thankfully it did. The card is rather loose in it's slot, it's has no securing screw so it's a bit dodgy messing around with it so I will leave it as it is. Anyway the problem seems to have gone unless the climate conditions improved suddenly. Still rather puzzling how one video seem to cause interference, maybe it just happens to set up or hit come resonant frequency. I suspect it may be something to do with the black box round the video.
  13. esbo

    Capacitor

    the front desk work probable knows little more than to take the money and handover change and a receipt, don't expect an engineering mastermind.
  14. basically with a transistor, the carrier signal fed across a transistor and the message signal applied to the base thus controlling the amplitude of the carrier making it proportional to the message. A similar method can be used to control the frequency of the carrier signal, the advantage is the carrier signal is always full strength so you don't get noise problems with quite bits in music for example/. click the green + button
  15. It's not happening today, mind you I have moved the TV a bit. Different weather seem to have improved reception overall.
  16. Bit of a weird one, I have terrestrial digital TV though and aerial and booster. I noticed some interference on the TV ('blocking') as i was playing a youtube video. However when I paused the video the interference stopped and I found I could cause or stop interference by pausing or playing the video!! Weird I thought. The signal is not great on this TV channel but it usually OK. I also tried playing a video in VLC player but that caused no interference? Even weirder I tried other youtube videos and they did not seem to cause interference, certainly not anywhere near to he same extent. The video in question was. I even tried another U2 video which I think was from the same concert and that cause no or little interference!!! I tried playing it with the sound and monitor turned off and it still cause interference!! How weird is that!! I though it might be because the video is boxed but it occurs full screen and in different sizes. It does seem to help if I minimise the window seems to reduce it by over half. Strange eh? Bit creepy especially as Bono dedicates this song to his recently deceased dad. This is not a wind up!! I wish is was!! I will try it again tomorrow. Also it does not seem to do it playing the above embedded video Which was ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDkBzkA9L4s I put a space in to stop it being embedded automtically
  17. i think celeste has his tongue up the anus of the 1% (live at http://t.co/4Foew5Fz)

  18. I would say that without religion there is no society. If you look back al the earliest evidence of civilisation is religious based stuff, name me a early civilisation that was not religious? Without religion people turn into savages and that destroys society, I think we see a lot of that. But having said that religion is not about this world it is about the next. Having said that rats and cockroaches are not religious an they do pretty well. For humans the morality inherent in religion makes for a better society, natural selection is often misunderstood people use it to justify selfish and barbaric and immoral behaviour. People use it to justify their bad behaviour, it is a dangerous idea in the hands of the stupid, it seems simple but it is actually very complex.
  19. There are chemicals which will absorb all colours and a composite of those chemicals would absorb all colours.
  20. Do you enjoy the fact that when you join a forum you become a second class citizen denied free speech and freedom to choose what you read? So can we take an a vote on this ie indicate is you prefer censorship or freedom of expression? So vote either "freedom" or "censoeship" at the end of your post (or otherwise). Also give your reasons if you wish too. My vote - freedom!!!
  21. I think you are somewhat simpler than your answer!! Again the question is not being answered, you simply avoided it. You have to explain why they are green in terms of specific factors, in detail showing you understand the factors involved rather than omitting those factors. So not quite so simle. I am afraid that answer is not good enough because plants grow in an environment where there is blue red and green light, not just blue and red. The rest of your answer is flawed, full of asumptions you have not proven.
  22. Now all you have to do is explain why that happened, then you will have answered my question. Basically all you have done is turned my question into a statement rather than answering it. Now I will turn your statement back into the original question "Why has the trait of being green survived, and other traits like black or red or blue haven't so much?" Now try and answer that one!!!!!!!!
  23. No selection is not evolution it's just selection, nothing is evolving we are just witnessing extinction, which is nothing new. If you want to say that over times many animals have become extinct I am perfectly happy with that, because there is some evidence for it. The problem for evolutionists is that we fail to see all the new animals it should be producing that is why I feel the case for evolution is not there, the evidence is not there. That is the problem for you evolutionists, you have blind faith in it but sadly not the new animals it should produce if it worked. Unfortunately it is science which is changing the definition of things, ie it is turning 'theory' into 'law' inappropiately. The fact science has to redefine so many words to make it work should set the alarm bells ringing for you. You have elevated scientists into a god-like status and just blindly follow the dogma, failing to question why it needs to redefine words, this also makes it difficult to discuss when science has changed the meaning of word away from the true meaning in order bamboozle it's critics. Changing the meaning of words is the hallmark of a crook and a conman.
  24. No natural selection is just natural selection ie any kind of selection from a group of thing, ie if I select fish and chips from the menu that is my natural selection, it's a long way from evolution, the chips have not turned into a turnip and the fish has not turned into a turkey.
  25. Because it is selection within the same species, you are never gonna naturally select an elephant from a butterfly, that just aint gonna happen. Ginger haired people are never gonna evolve into a different species. That's just ludicrous This is what you lot fail to understand, variation within a species is limited. That is why evolution had never been observed or reproduced in the lab. Until it has it remains a theory because a theory must be proven before it comes a law. On and by the way the link to 'scientific theory' in wikipedia is unverified, I think some of you are being mislead by someone hacking wikipedia and putting in false unverified definitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
×
×
  • 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.