Tres Juicy

Religion is a means of control:

Without it how many suicide bombers do you think we would have seen?

Belief in god is a cop out:

Difficult questions easily answered

Came across this, perhaps can help someone :

 

----> http://nedhardy.com/...-your-religion/

 

Cool, so I'm to be a wiccan then...

If I'm going to believe in gods I want as many as possible while still being able to eat bacon and get reincarnated

I became swordsman when I visited Arbia when I was a young boy, and I came across detection, the sword pivots on a frog when a nastic either plant extract or chemical put into the ball pomel and another place in the scabbard. This basics of ancient swordsman to identify an imposter of a human (their very clever. Spider dont drop down on your thread to hissper and snicker at me to rehide you). When some one either with amphibian or lactrodectus genetics approaches the sword pivots on ones belt to indicate the person is an hidden enemy and to draw the sword and kill it. Since it is not human no swordsman has to worry about the cops and makes it fun. Their was also, some emery cloth to wipe the swords blade with after killing one so, the swordsman can place the sword in the scabbard without it reacting. Now the stuff I remember was a white milk fluid and I cannnot remeber the name weather it was plant or element. Is their some plant extracts that react as I have explained. How could I make the magic stuff again from other elements of chemistry?

You know that this is a science forum right?

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

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

Try to spot the difference and then ask your question in the relevant place

What a shame there aren't any around today....

I've got to admit that the pressure idea seems more plausible than the idea of multiple hearts

There is no way to prove or disprove any of this

Thats why religion is still around

If you:

A) Disprove religion then everyone abandons it (you would hope)

B) Prove religion then it's not a religion anymore as religion requires faith/belief (I don't "believe in the postman, I know he's real because he brings me my post and says "hello" to me)

So religion is set up to be impossible to prove either way

And more than 10 times - cos I have plus rep´d it as i could not believe how many neg reps it had

Crazy.....

If people don't like the rules, why are they here?

Height 100% = Oh Baby

Height 90% = You are so strong pappy

Height 10% = My baby can hit harder than you

 

Not the most scientific of approaches....

What is a good strategy to derive physiologically relevant answers from omics based experiments. More specifically what would be the ideal workflow to reduce false-positive detections in quantitative analyses on the one hand and derive predictive models on the other.

 

Also what do you think are the implications of population averaging in proteomic samples?

So much for "all your questions professionally answered"....

Show the problem anyway - even if we can't help it may be interesting...

Or, watch the video from more than 20 years ago:

 

Even better!

I did struggle with that question yes it does seem to but surely as the question is a search for intellegent life then a distinction should be made between the two.

The distinction has been made already, when searching for intelligent life you must first find any old life. The steps are there in the equation

n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

f_ℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

f_i = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

In other words, if you want to find intelligent life you won't find it where there is no life possible.

So step 1 is

Find the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

Step 2 is

Look at the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (as there is no point looking at the ones that don't)

Step 3 is

Then look at the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

No, that's not how a ballistic pendulum works. It doesn't measure force. It measures momentum (aka impulse).

 

Nope.

 

You could produce a scale that says...

 

Height A = Impulse A

Height B = Impulse B

etc.

 

....But that's not the same thing as force.

 

Force. Momentum. Apples. Oranges.

I think we may have been caught up in the semantics here (Force/impulse)...

What I'm asking is can I use this to measure the impact energy? (whether you choose to call it the "force" of the impact or the "impulse" energy of the impact)

The Drake equation states that:

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;and

R^* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy

f_p = the fraction of those stars that have planets

n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

f_ℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point

f_i = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life

f_c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space^[3]

^{From wikipedia}

^{Doesn't this cover it?}

It's something I've been considering lately and wondered if anyone had an answer.

 

Excluding the megafauna which died out relatively recently, the current crop of fauna on the planet are the smallest they've ever been. Why?

 

Going back through all the various ages shows that animals and fish were a lot bigger before than they are now. Pick any era and the waterlife will dwarf everything except a Blue whale while the land predators would find an elephant "snack worthy". Pre reptiles, mammal like reptiles, reptiles and mammals, the rule for over 500 million years was "Big is better". The top of the food chain was always the biggest, meanest carnivore around.

 

So what changed?

 

I think one of the more interesting ideas has been put forward by Octave Levenspiel from Oregon State. His two relevent webpages are;

http://levenspiel.co...e/dinosaurs.htm

http://levenspiel.co...e/dinosaur2.htm

 

While I'm not backing it, his idea that atmospheric pressure was higher in the past than it is today would solve some problems. (And explain why the wing loading for some of the pteranodons is so wrong for flying.)

Interesting stuff...

It would explain a few things, but what would cause a global drop in atmospheric pressure?

Read 'Climbing Mount Improbable' by Richard Dawkins, he explains how the eye could have evolved. It's really not much of a problem for evolution.

Good call

This is intended to be a thread that is a guide for folks on how to act and post on SFN.

 

Contents

i. General Information

ii. Replying to Threads

iii. Posting New Threads

 

 

I. General Information

 

 

Know the Rules

Read the rules before you post.

 

Grammar and Punctuation

Please try to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation when you post. It is much easier to understand a post when it is not full of run-on sentences and such. Sure, this may add a few seconds to the time it takes to post, but are you in that much of a hurry?

If English is not your native language, and you don't have good grammar, that's fine; we don't bite. Just try to do your best.

 

Spell Check

Eloquence can be severely hampered by words that don't exist. If you are on the Internet, use spell-checkers or reread your posts to make sure you don't have errors. You can also use the Preview Post function to see what your post will look like, before you submit it.

 

Emphasis Features

The different fonts, sizes, colors, bold, italic, underline and CAPITALIZATION features are there for EMPHASIS. Please avoid using them for entire posts. Let your ideas make you stand out instead of these features. Whole posts using different fonts and colors are very annoying and may decrease the likelihood of it being read. The Emphasis Features can also imply emotions you may not want, such as angry shouting from ALL CAPS. Remember that emphasis is best when used sparingly.

 

Don't know how to use the features? There's a tutorial.

 

Contact Information

Need to talk to a moderator? Private message them if it is something important. If you want to report a post that is against the forum rules, use the Report This Post function, which is visible as "Report" with a small warning icon in the bottom left of each post.

 

 

II. Replying to Threads

 

 

Don't Flame

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you need to insult them. They may be ignorant, but try not to flame them out of the forum. If they're intentionally insulting people, don't reply--just use the Report Post function to let the moderators know about it. They can deal with insult wars and rule-breakers more efficiently than regular users.

 

Be Coherent

When you reply, try to make as much sense as possible. Organize your post into paragraphs or sections as to make it easier to understand. If nobody knows what you're saying, they aren't going to learn anything from it, or try to reply to it.

If you are going to say "it" or "one" or "they" then make sure we know what you are talking about. "It" is not a very descriptive word and people may get confused as to what you are trying to say.

 

Don't Spam

Make your replies relevant to the topic. If there is a side conversation going on that is not related to the original post, don't reply to it. Keep everything spam-free.

If you see someone spamming, don't try to deal with it yourself: you can't. Instead, click the "Report This Post" icon (an exclamation mark in a triangle) in the bottom left of their post and let the moderators know what the problem is.

 

Give Sources

If you're telling us about a study or a theory that you've heard of, try to give links to a web site about it. If you're the only person saying it, not many people are going to believe you (many scientists are skeptics). Try to provide good links which support your point, and remember, dictionary.com is not a technical resource.

 

Linking

When you link to another website, don't do the "Click Here" gimmick. It gives people no idea what you're linking to. Rather, you should make the link text descriptive of what the link actually is about.

 

Use Quotes

If you want to reply to a specific post, press the "Quote" button on that post. This will make your reply include the quoted text, so users will know who you are replying to.

 

Don't Strawman

Don't strawman. It is quite annoying and you will lose your credibility, and seriously undermines any argument.

 

Read Links

If a user provides a link for more information, and you don't believe them, read the link. It may provide better information for you; if you ignore it, you may be missing vital information that supports their point. Purposefully ignoring it is strawmanning, and nobody likes that.

 

Don't be Mean

If you don't agree with someone, don't attack them. Tell them politely why you think they're wrong, and give them evidence. Insulting people won't get you anywhere but suspended.

 

I Hate You

Not everyone will agree with you, no matter how supergreat you are. Understand this, plus the difficulties involved in altering someone's deep-felt views over a text-only forum, and accept it. Don't try to force them into other beliefs.

 

One Source Arguments

If you can't provide more than one source, don't try to argue that position. Substantiating an event/opinion/theory requires more than just one source, even if the source happens to be the President/Prime Minister.

 

Me So Great

You may be intending to become a moderator by impressing the forum staff your superb skills, impressive vocabulary, witty sense of humor and ability to make derogatory comments to newbies. That's all fine and good, but do it quietly and don't annoy the rest of the forum members.

 

Hijacking

Try not to hijack a thread and bend the topic to your will. Nobody likes a megalomaniac. Try to stay on topic and keep to what the original poster said.

 

Converting the Heathens

Don't try to convert people to your religion. Leave them alone. If you try, you'll find yourself banned.

 

Pointing Out the Obvious

If you don't think anyone will care, why not keep it to yourself? Posting just for the postcount and not for actual content annoys people.

 

Acronyms

Try not to use too many acronyms in your posts. Not all of us know what they mean, so be sure to provide the full text the first time, to avoid confusing people.

Also, you can use BBCode tags such as the following

[acr=Laughing Out Loud]LOL[/acr]

to get

[acr=Laughing Out Loud]LOL[/acr]

Hover your mouse over it to see the effect.

There is also a list of common acronyms pinned in the general discussion forum.

 

 

III. Posting New Threads

 

 

Use the Search Function

Before you post a thread, use the search function to see if anyone else has posted the same topic. It's better to post in an existing thread than to start a new one.

 

Give Sources

If you are asking a question or making a point, give references and links so users can see what you are talking about. If they have context, they can better understand you.

 

Give Details

When you're asking a question, give plenty of details. Don't just say "my computer crashed, what do I do?" Give use details about what you're asking that will help us answer the question well.

 

Use a Descriptive Title

When you title your thread, give it a good title that will catch users' eyes and give them an idea of what it is about.

Bad title:

"Help!"

Good title:

"Computer virus. Help!"

 

Allow Comment

If you're posting an idea, be receptive to comments. If someone criticizes you, don't get mad at them. Take the comment well and, if necessary, reply to them to defend yourself (without being mean or nasty).

 

Homework

We will not do it for you. If you have someone else do it for you, you're not learning anything, and it's not fair that a lazy person with an Internet connection gets a better mark than someone who put the effort in himself.

Disguising your homework as a curiosity-based question doesn't work. We will probably figure it out, and we don't like people trying to fool us into doing their work.

Of course, we'd be glad to help you to finish your homework. Just not do it entirely.

 

Einstein is Wrong!

If you're going to try to disprove a major theory, or at least propose something that most people would never believe (there are a lot of sceptics on this forum), try to provide large amounts of evidence. Just because it "makes sense" doesn't mean it has to be right--much of science doesn't "make sense" to some people, but it has proved accurate.

 

 

I'm welcome to suggestions as to what else to add.

I've just read this and noticed that people had given negative rep 10 times! Why? There's nothing in this post that warrants negative rep

I have given positive rep in order to try to address the balance

maybe users under a certain threshold of posts should not be able to give rep?

Forget about the drama, later you will see what I mean....

 

I need the derivative of these two values please in relation to time using 1 light second of 186,000 miles. Do it in your expertise I do not care. Then you will be able to understand what I am doing when you see my results compared to yours.

 

If your find and my find are legitimate and we both agree on this, then you may learn something new and thank me later, for making you think out of the box..Let go of the assumptions until their facts remember???? I think it is only fare as there are two pages here I completely worked on with math, that's lots of brain power!

 

These are the values...

 

this is the same as

 

x 1776

 

y 2029

 

 

2029 is the delta change

Once again, and I quote "Tomatoes are a ladder in the fructose of fruitiness"

In other words - you are talking rubbish

"2029 is the delta change" What?!

Perhaps we should wait until the "notified individual" replies to the comment "I" sent them. Therefore there wont be any confusion... Thanks!

Or, you could have read his post properly in the first instance

still waiting for your pi=3

md65536, on 6 January 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

 

"I think this calculation is in error.

Unless you're purposefully limiting yourself to only one significant digit, in which case I'm not impressed. I could prove that pi=3, if 1 significant digit is good enough."

He's not saying Pi = 3

He's saying "If you only take 1 significant number then Pi is 3"

If your only taking 1 significant number then my phone number is 0, you can dial it but it won't work.

You're dodging now, stop stalling and get to the point.

Avoiding valid questions is against forum rules and not conducive to good debate

Therefore GPs are scientists even if they do not engage in research.

 

 

http://medicalsciences.med.unsw.edu.au/somsweb.nsf

School of medical sciences - faculty of medicine

 

 

When I was working at the austin hospital I was not engaged in research, merely routine laboratory work, but I was never the less a grade 1 medical scientist.

 

Exclusive engagement in scientific research does not seem to be a requirement for the title of 'scientist'.

 

But then again the art of diagnosis is very much like research. The GP gather's initial evidence from the patient and formulates a hypothesis as to their illness. He then orders appropriate diagnostic tests, looks at the results and then decides whether his initial hypothesis is correct or not. Eventually he forumulates a conclusion or diagnosis and then embarks on a treatment regime for the patient.

 

How can one argue that this is not a scientific process?

By this logic it could be argued that an electrician, plumber or mechanic is also a scientist

"But then again the art of diagnosis is very much like research. The Plumber gather's initial evidence from the boiler and formulates a hypothesis as to the problem. He then does appropriate diagnostic tests, looks at the results and then decides whether his initial hypothesis is correct or not. Eventually he forumulates a conclusion or diagnosis and then embarks on a treatment regime for the boiler."

Not really. If you were talking about a bullet or something? Sure, you could. But you're asking about a punch. With that in mind... What is the effective mass of the "projectile?" Is it just the hand? The arm? How much of the shoulder's mass would be involved? The torso? Much is going to depend on body build and technique. Thus, while you could in theory come up with some energy numbers, I would put precisely zero faith in them.

In a decent punch you use as much of the bodyweight as possible behind it to increase the force of the impact, so the mass of the projectile will vary depending on technique (each punch will have an unknown quantity of mass behind it)

If I were trying to measure the speed of the punch I would need to know the mass involved, but I'm not interested in speed only the force of the impact.

 

Are you familiar with the concept of a ballistic pendulum? Here, read the wiki article.

 

There is no need to produce a scale. You just measure the mass of the pendulum and how high the pendulum swings. True, there's still the issue of the mass involved, but you don't really care. Mass is only needed if you want to back out a velocity. But if you're just interested in *impulse* (ie, momentum), simply using a heavy pendulum will minimize errors.

"You just measure the mass of the pendulum and how high the pendulum swings."

Yes, but there must be a way (knowing the mass of the pendulum) to work out how much force is required to make it swing to a certain height?

From this I could them produce a scale:

Hieght A = Force X

Hieght B = Force Y

And so on...

Been on these for quite some time now about four years to be exact and I completely disagree with the above link http://hyperphysics....se/mod6.html#c3 in relating to the functions for black body radiation:

 

here are my reasons:

 

They use these:

 

8*pi, 4*

 

c^3,

 

Since you all are such experts, then please explain why does most of every constant in known science use the base numeral system of ten as in the following:

 

 

 

Values of h

6.62606957(29)×10−34

4.135667516(91)×10−15

6.62606957(29)×10−27

 

 

 

 

Values of G

G of 6.754 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2

(1 Da = 1.660 538 782(83)×10−27 kg)

 

 

 

electron mass

9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms

 

 

 

 

proton mass

 

1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms

 

 

 

Here I will give you a hint:

 

 

-10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 3.14159265358979

 

 

3.14159265358979 second = 0.000872665 degree

 

 

+10.86902388503848+14.01061653862827 = 24.87964042366675

 

24.87964042366675 second = 0.006911011 degree

 

 

 

 

G+14.01061653862827 = 23.81061653862827

 

23.81061653862827 second = 0.00661406 degree

log(0.006911011) = -2.16045841578005 =10*10 = 100%

 

 

 

 

It seems that all known systems of measure are predicated on the denomination of 100!

 

 

I will wait for your answers and hope you can put your math in your words such as I have, if there is no reply that can prove this wrong using your math skills, then this means I win, and you loose and my creation of math over rules yours! HA!

 

"It seems that all known systems of measure are predicated on the denomination of 100!"

"I will wait for your answers and hope you can put your math in your words such as I have, if there is no reply that can prove this wrong using your math skills, then this means I win, and you loose and my creation of math over rules yours! HA!"

You have put it into words, yes. Now put it into words that make sense to the other people here.

We are trying very hard to understand what your point is and what you are trying to prove here.

From your last post it appears that you have discovered (and got very exited about) the fact that we use a base 10 numerical system

"Since you all are such experts, then please explain why does most of every constant in known science use the base numeral system of ten as in the following:"

Actually i was talking about mutants. I came upon some articles like this, where amateurs are making genetic modificated bacterias. And I'm very curious is there any way of making plants or animal mutants in your garage?

Yeah, definitely don't please

I don't want enthusiastic amatuers whipping up viable strains of some horrible bacteria in their garage thanks

This is how black body radiation is calculated:

http://hyperphysics....se/mod6.html#c3

 

How in the name of all that is physics did you even start doing the above (SIMPLE) formula with the nubmers we gave you and your "throwing a number and multiplying with another number to get colorful numbers" method any similar to that?

 

Not only do you not know math,you don't know physics either. If you really want to be taken seriously in any sort of scientific venue, you HAVE to stop claiming weird numbers mean stuff, take a few math and physics courses, and get back to your claim.

 

We keep asking you for clarification and you give us back just a repeat of the method that is total gibberish. Repeating yourself won't make you right. It will just make us give up.

 

 

 

You also seem to only read the parts of posts that you can "handle". Everyone in this thread tell you that your math is utter gibberish. Maybe there's something to this claim. Have *SOME* humility, and consider the idea that you might actually not do things properly.

 

~mooey

For example:

Give ME as many numbers as you like and I will give you some numbers and tell you what it "proves" (but not how I got them)

So 'life' decides whether a trait will go to gene level or not? Do we call it nature? Is it like a game of chance?

No, mutations happen at the genetic level and may be passed on (if beneficial).

As to how aquired traits go to gene level I'm not sure (I'm not even convinced that they do, I mean body-builders don't generate really strong muscley offspring)

Youre quite right - it seems I had assumed that in order for the question to be answerable.

The question is broken, unless it tells you the amount of gallons ordered