Acme
-
Posts
2399 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Acme
-
-
Maybe that's because the manufacturing jobs went overseas.I think the positives are very similar to the 60's. However, the negatives I believe, are much worse than previous generations. The 60's counter-culture fell into the same workforce mentality as their parents when they aged. I dont see the millenials doing that at all.
0 -
Since reverse osmosis requires pressurized water, an exact figure on the energy used would depend on the specific pump setup used. This Wiki article mentions a pressure of 600-1200psi for desalinization.:Does anybody know how energy efficient reverse osmosis is? Wondering what the most energy efficient way of separating salt and water is and reverse osmosis was suggested by a lot of people. Just wondering if anyone had exact figures on what it takes to get 1 gallon of clean water. Thanks
This process requires that a high pressure be exerted on the high concentration side of the membrane, usually 217 bar (30250 psi) for fresh and brackish water, and 4082 bar (6001200 psi) for seawater, which has around 27 bar (390 psi)[6] natural osmotic pressure that must be overcome. ...
Here's a 1200 psi pump setup. PumpTec 80346 Water Otter 1200 psi Pressure Washer Pump
Specifications:
14.3 amp 120 volt motor
2.2 gallons per minute
Calculate:
14.3 amps * 120 volts = 1,716 watts = 1.7kilowatts
1.7kw * 10cents per kw hour = 17 cents per hour
17 cents per hr / 60 minutes = .28 cents per minute
.28 cents per minute / 2.2 gallons per minute = 0.12 cents per gallon
1.7kwhr/60 min= .0283kwhr per minute/2.2gpm=0.01287kwhr per gallon=46332joules per gallon
0 -
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
0 -
I guess we need to ask 'they' if what they proffer is proof or no.Well, it is hardly surprising that they will look to their own sources to back up their beliefs. That isn't looking for "proof", just confirmation. The point at which it becomes odd (to my mind) is when they try and interpret or twist science to claim it supports their beliefs.
Erhm...but I posted that obviosity in response to you saying
Well, obviously. But the subject of religion (i.e. metaphysics and God or gods) is, by definition, outside the scope of science (which deals with understanding the natural world, not the supernatural).Religion is amenable and relevant to scientific investigation. History, psychology, archaeology to name three areas.
...religion is not, by definition, amenable to science.
Oh but I see, you meant 'the subject of religion'. But then that too is a subject of science insomuch as science is concerned with identifying the falsifiability of things.
Might? Really? Good grief man this very board is littered with examples of religious attacks on science. As to ascertaining whether 'those advancing our understanding through science' (why not say scientists here?), I doubt either you or I can accurately quantify the percentage, much less adjudge each and every instance wherein a religious belief might be in conflict with the science at hand.
Some might. Most don't. And, of course, many of those advancing our understanding through science are themselves religious.When reality disagrees with belief the religious set about attacking -whether rhetorically or physically- the presenters of reality or per se atheists.
[bolding mine]
Statistical problems
Statistics on atheism are often difficult to represent accurately for a variety of reasons. Atheism is a position compatible with other forms of identity. Some atheists also consider themselves Agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jains, Taoist, or hold other related philosophical beliefs. Some, like Secular Jews and Shintoists, may indulge in some religious activities as a way of connecting with their culture, all the while being atheist. Therefore, given limited poll options, some may use other terms to describe their identity. Some politically motivated organizations that report or gather population statistics may, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresent atheists. Survey designs may bias results due to the nature of elements such as the wording of questions and the available response options. Statistics are generally collected on the assumption that religion is a categorical variable. Instruments have been designed to measure attitudes toward religion, including one that was used by L. L. Thurstone. This may be a particularly important consideration among people who have neutral attitudes, as it is more likely that prevailing social norms will influence the responses of such people on survey questions that effectively force respondents to categorize themselves either as belonging to a particular religion or belonging to no religion. A negative perception of atheists and pressure from family and peers may also cause some atheists to disassociate themselves from atheism. Misunderstanding of the term may also be a reason some label themselves differently.
...
1 -
Then why do the religious go to so much effort to prove their beliefs by citing scripture and other such justifications? Who are they trying to convince of some truth or other if not unbelievers?
Exactly, religion doesn't (or shouldn't) need proof. Science is (or should be) independent of individual scientists beliefs, biases or preferences.It's not a matter of proving anything.
Religion is amenable and relevant to scientific investigation. History, psychology, archaeology to name three areas. And clearly science is relevant to religion else we would not be having this discussion.
Huh? I am saying the exact opposite. Science is obviously not a religion. But religion is irrelevant to sceince; religion is not, by definition, amenable to science....
and you seem only to present the old 'science is a religion' saw.
Most mainstream religions seem to find some way of reconciling their beliefs with reality.
Sure they do. When reality disagrees with belief the religious set about attacking -whether rhetorically or physically- the presenters of reality or per se atheists.Mind you I am just quoting parts I find germane to the discussion here.
This is a very good question; unfortunately, it isnt very easy to answer. There are perhaps as many reasons for being an atheist as there are atheists.
...
One common reason for atheism is contact with a variety of religions. It isnt unusual for an atheist to have been raised in a religious household and to have grown up living with the assumption that their religious tradition represented the One True Faith in the One True God. However, after learning more about other religious traditions, this same person may adopt a much more critical attitude towards their own religion and even religion generally, eventually coming to reject not only it but also belief in the existence of any gods.
...
Many atheists find their way to disbelief through science. Over the centuries science has come to offer explanations of aspects of our word which were once the exclusive domain of religion. Because scientific explanations have been more productive than religious or theistic explanations, the ability of religion to demand allegiance has weakened. As a result, some people have come to entirely reject not only religion, but also belief in the existence of a god. For them, gods are useless as an explanation for any feature of the universe and provide nothing worth investigating.
...
0 -
But many if not most do. Going to heaven, paradise, reincarnate, etcetera. Hedging by 'literal' is a cop out.Not all religions believe in a (literal) life after death.
It's not a matter of proving anything and you seem only to present the old 'science is a religion' saw.But those things are not in opposition to science, they are just outside the scope of, or irrelevant to, science. After all, science cannot prove there is not a god or life after death (any more than it can prove that there is).
Until or unless the findings of science contradict or seem to contradict some particular religious tenet.Most major mainstream religions seem quite happy to accept the findings of science.
0 -
The very definition of "god" is in principle disagreement with science inasmuch as science is an investigation of nature and gods are held to be above nature, i.e. supernatural.most religions do not agree with what is known in science.
Do you have any evidence to support that? I don't believe it is true.
Life-after-death also comes to mind as a religious principle/belief that is antithetic to science.1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
...
0 -
One non sequitar after another.For the primative man/civilization Religion must come before science, it is only now that we have a choice.
Is religion first needed to get us to this time and place where we now have that choice.
I like forbidden
it makes me wonder whether intelligent life goes Hand in hand with religion, you can't have one without the other.
Could a civilization of "Atheists" arise, What would be their values/traditions?
Ancient man would have looked at the stars and imagined gods, which then lead us to want to understand these "gods" which would then have led to the beginning of science.
Religion the stepping stone to science? So science is a branch of religion.
0 -
In the United States atheists tend to be more intelligent than the religious and also atheists tend to be more knowledgeable about religions, so I conclude atheists are actually more open-minded than the religious.
U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey...
Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."[12] A study published in Social Psychology Quarterly in March 2010[13] also stated that "atheism ...correlate with higher intelligence".[14] ...
Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions. ..
1 -
Yes; no end of misinterpretation and science popularizing of the grossest misleading kind extant. The Abstract & Summary of the paper I just cited:I understand that, I'm speaking of numerous other related papers I've read on the subject, albeit other forums. If you dig into it there are dozens of articles. They all usually include the solar winds and the Oort cloud. Some include the DM disk hypothesis. Many include extinction events.
Shoemaker is/was trying to exclude meteoroids as responsible for large impact craters in the solar system.Abstract: We review the subject of the time dependence of the component of Oort cloud comet flux due to the adiabatic Galactic tide, including the possibility of detecting such a signal in the terrestrial cratering record.
...
4. Summary
The Galactic tide dominates in making Oort cloud comets enter the planetary region during the present epoch, and likely over long time scales. Substantial modulation of the tidally induced comet flux must occur independent of the existence or non-existence of CDDM. This is due to the adiabatic variation of the local disk density during the Solar cycle. A Galactic oscillations model in which the Solar cycle is manifest in the cratering record will only be sustainable as a working hypothesis if the mean cycle period is found to include the interval 35.5 +- 1.5 Myr. Should the Holmberg-Flynn result be confirmed, we can reject Shoemaker's suggestion that impacts from long-period comets dominate large terrestrial crater formation.
Whether comet or meteoroid, there is very good evidence for large impacts coincident to extinction events, the Chicxulub crater being of course the first and best known example.
1 -
Hold on...I misspoke. I didn't cite the extinction paper. Here that is:VARIABLE OORT CLOUD FLUX( The bobbing action itself isn't that mysterious. The problem is that there was a rash of correlations to extinction events proposed due to this passing through the galactic plane etc. That got everyone's attention on it.). Not always rational lol.
The extinction idea is that Oort cloud comets'/meteoroids' orbits are disturbed and they head into the inner solar system.
0 -
Is this hypothesis something you have a reference for, or is it just from for a speculators?I've seen this come up on other forums. The hypothesis is that a dark matter disk is involved.
That part is exactly the subject of the first paper I cited on the oscillation through the plane. It does not invoke dark matter.Also that this passing through the galactic disk also coincides with the extinction of the dinosaurs. Etc etc etc.
Yes.Try this thought experiment. Start with our solar systems momentum which has an inclination to the galactic plane.
As it approaches the galactic plane it will gain momentum.
When it crosses the galactic plane it's momentum carries it past the galactic plane. Then the mass tried to overcome that momentum. The result is it starts losing momentum until it starts heading back towards the plane. (Sinusoidal arc). Then when it passes the galactic plane the same process continues.
0 -
That movement -the oscillation- has a period of ~33 million years so we cross the galactic plane roughly 7.5 times for every orbit of the galactic center.
0 -
Yes; gravity keeps the solar system and all stars in the arms near the plane.Thanks for the clarification. Your message with regards to the dark matter was very clear from the beginning.
However, do you still agree that gravity is needed to change the momentum of the sun and keeps it in the galactic plane?
As pointed out in Sensei's link in post #3.
Stars escape velocity shows how to exit the Milky Way...
From this survey and a previously published star catalogue, the team selected 90 high-velocity stars whose speeds and positions had been determined most precisely. Some of them are moving at speeds of more than 300 kilometres per second, about one-thousandth of the speed of light.
...
To escape the gravitational clutches of our galaxy, a spaceship would need to zoom out of our solar system and hit 537 kilometres per second. ...
So, even the fastest moving stars in the Milky Way do not have the velocity to escape the galaxy.
Yes. However that is not the oscillation of the solar system through the galactic plane which is what David was asking for clarification on.since the whole solar neighborhood (including the sun) orbits the galactic center once every 250 million years. ...
Thats the Sun's orbit.
...
0 -
No, I don't think the oscillation is the orbit. From the paper I cited for David:The oscillation is the orbit. There's nothing keeping the sun in the galactic plane.
The Galactic Environment of the SunHowever, the suns motion relative to the local stellar neighborhood should not be confused with its movement around the center of the galaxy, since the whole solar neighborhood (including the sun) orbits the galactic center once every 250 million years. ...
0 -
To be clear, my comment on dark matter was a separate response to the last clause in your question "..."The sun oscillates through the plane of the galaxy with an amplitude of about 230 lightyears, crossing the plane every 33 million years."
Therefore, some force is needed to change this momentum and keep the Sun in the galactic plane.
Acme claimed that this force must be gravity as dark matter is hypothesized.
...
Is it gravity force or some dark power?". That is to say, I was not saying dark matter keeps the solar system oscillating through the galactic plane; I was only saying that dark matter is hypothesized because of observed large-scale movements for which we do not see enough matter to account for such movements.
To be more clear, I do not suggest dark matter is keeping our solar system near the galactic plane. Moreover, I have never read any such suggestion.
0 -
Here's a page with some energy comparisons, including explosives. You can scale them to your truck.
Comparison of Relative Energies and Powers
So for example, your 7,016,409.78 ftlbs = 5,192,143.2372 joules and from the link 1 lb of high explosive releases 2 mega joules so the truck at 58mph has the energy equivalent of about 2.6 lbs of high explosive. Of course without knowing what kind of damage that much explosive does, the comparison is somewhat meaningless.
Let us know how it goes.
0 -
A quick search finds naught but hand-held portable gas leak detectors. I have a travel trailer that has a propane leak detector that is fixed and it is located a few inches off the floor.
If you find a unit simply follow the enclosed directions.
In a house with gas appliances, another important detector/alarm to have is a carbon monoxide detector. Mine mounts on the wall a few inches down from the ceiling.0 -
Yes, gravity. Dark matter is hypothesized because of its gravitational effects.
Thanks.So, our solar system and [presumably] other stars oscillate with respect to the galactic plane, moving 'above' and then back 'below'.
But why? What kind of power is needed to change the momentum (and the velocity vector) of each individual star
Why it Is working only for above and below the galactic plane? What about right or left momentum? What is the source for this power?
Is it gravity force or some dark power?
Yes.If Stars attract other stars in their neighborhood, than by definition it is gravity force. Binary star system is excellent example for gravity force.
Therefore, can we assume that all stars in the nearby Solar Neighborhood attract each other by gravity force?
Yes.Hence, do you agree that the gravity force is the power which is needed to change the momentum of each individual star in the system?
You would have to be precise about 'nearby' to answer that.Where is the common mass location of all the stars in the nearby Solar Neighborhood?
Here's an article about our local neighborhood.
0 -
No. Our solar system and [presumably] other stars oscillate with respect to the galactic plane, moving 'above' and then back 'below'....However, the most interesting velocity vectors are those which are pointing up or down with regards to the disc plane of the galaxy.
Any star which has an up (or down) velocity vector will be ejected from the disc plane itself....
[bolding mine]
The Sun's motion perpendicular to the galactic plane
The period and amplitude of the Sun's motion perpendicular to the galactic plane are important parameters in some explanations of the terrestrial mass extinctions and cratering records15. Here we have calculated the range of periods and vertical excursions that are consistent with the distributions of tracer stars in the Galaxy and have also evaluated the probable phase jitter in the solar period. We find acceptable half-periods for the vertical oscillation that range from 26 to 37 Myr (including the range of periods that have been inferred from the terrestrial records on mass extinctions and on cratering), maximum heights above the plane from 49 to 93 pc, and an average phase jitter per half-period of the order of 69%. The largest uncertainty in all these calculations is caused by the unknown distribution of the unseen mass that must be postulated to explain the distribution of observed stars67. For all the models we consider, the most recent passage of the Sun through the galactic plane occurred in the past 3 Myr provided only that the present position of the Sun is between 0 and 20 pc above the plane. We extend the argument of Thaddeus and Chanan8 to show that the apparent periodicity in the mass extinction and cratering records cannot be caused by an population of objects (observed or unobserved) that contributes a major fraction of the total mass density at the solar vicinity.
1 -
Before one can engage in hermeneutics one must actually read, and per se know, what is written. On this, atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons know more about what is written than Protestants or Catholics.
U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey: Executive Summary @ Pew Research
Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.
On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Centers Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.
...
Note that this is a 78 page report and I have cited only the 2 opening paragraphs. At the link I gave is a link to the full report in PDF. Feel free to not read it at your leisure and/or at the same pace at which you don't read the Bible or the holy books/writings of other religions.
0 -
Floating point error?
Accuracy problems
The fact that floating-point numbers cannot precisely represent all real numbers, and that floating-point operations cannot precisely represent true arithmetic operations, leads to many surprising situations. This is related to the finite precision with which computers generally represent numbers.
For example, the non-representability of 0.1 and 0.01 (in binary) means that the result of attempting to square 0.1 is neither 0.01 nor the representable number closest to it. In 24-bit (single precision) representation, 0.1 (decimal) was given previously as e = −4; s = 110011001100110011001101, which is
0.100000001490116119384765625 exactly.
Squaring this number gives
0.010000000298023226097399174250313080847263336181640625 exactly.
Squaring it with single-precision floating-point hardware (with rounding) gives
0.010000000707805156707763671875 exactly.
But the representable number closest to 0.01 is
0.009999999776482582092285156250 exactly.
Also, the non-representability of π (and π/2) means that an attempted computation of tan(π/2) will not yield a result of infinity, nor will it even overflow. It is simply not possible for standard floating-point hardware to attempt to compute tan(π/2), because π/2 cannot be represented exactly
...
0 -
I mean that if the Bible didn't contain passages by which people justify evil [because the passages are evil], then there would be no need to make excuses/explanations/apologies for them as you just have.I don't quite get what you mean. Since Jesus himself was the fulfillment of the law, the law is considered to be no longer binding for Christians. That's the stance held by virtually every church in the world.
The number doesn't matter; what matters is how effective 'they' are at getting the message out. Seems those 3 and 5 reached you and now the rest of us. And after all, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, etcetera each and all were and are one.In the US there is an extremely obscure Calvinist denomination called "Christian Reconstructionism" that says Mosaic law is still binding. It is currently represented by two organizations - the Chaldecon Foundation with 3 members and the American Vision with total membership of 5 people - which gives a total of 8 people - not a big number in a country of over 300 million people, eh?
0 -
Jesus did fulfill the law. It is not binding on Christians precisely because he fulfilled it.
There would be no need of apologetics if there were nothing to apologize for. There is and there is.
0
What Is Americas Biggest Problem?
in Politics
Posted
This Chart Blows Up the Myth of the Welfare Queen
Article source: Spending patterns of families receiving means-tested government assistance @ Bureau of Labor Statistics
This graph from the BLS article goes to Willie71's point on education in post #139. Kinda hard for folks to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots, much less the means and opportunity to acquire boots.