studiot

Surely it's because the short leg on tables and chairs is getting shorter . Merry Christmas everyone! 🙂

Thank you for your detailed response. I think perhaps it is over pessimistic although I note the difference in students over history. It is, however , hard to get historical data, especially for a non specialist historian. Here is some I have managed to find This is a table of the % of students going to higher (University) education in the UK at various dates. 1950.............. 3.4% 1970.............. 8.4% 1990..............19.3% 2000.............33.0% As can be seen the numbers have increased tenfold over the second half of the 20th century. So the makeup of the group in 1950 is widely different from that of 2000 with those would have been included in 2000 swamped 9 : 1 by those who would not have been there in 1950. It is interesting to note that the maths teacher I was referring to had never had a pupil getting less than a 'B', out of pass grades A - E and an impressive record in the further Maths of the Oxford and Cambridge entrance exams.

I came across this short but brilliant, 4.5 minute talk from the BBC about the subject of misinterpretations. Answers here to refer to most of the fallacies we see all too regularly at SF. How to avoid falling for the ‘gambler’s fallacy’ - BBC Ideas

Note swansont's first response, I have emboldened the relevant part So you are both working in the frame of reference of that individual atom. If you want to reconsider from another point of view (Earth) you will need to do the transformations.

Nor have you posted any helpful summaries as requested so I doubt you will get many responses.

I can't see why not.

This seems to be a sequel to the researchgate article you posted a link to earlier in the year, from the same author. The general concensus of the first article was that it was fanciful nonsense. Why would we expect anything different from the second ? You should also realise by now that we need sufficient summaries of the points to comment. I will tell you that Penrose offerered a very much non mainstream interpretation of some of the difficulties inherent in Quantum Mechanics suggesting interaction via the observer's brain. But I stress this is non mainstream and raises more questions than it answers so I cannot advise pursuing it.

Not only was your chemistry question answered by professional chemists or materials engineers, but you were offered a tried and tested simple rapid and reliable method of destroying the drives. Yet you couldn't be bothered to reply to any of the members who took the time to answer. I consider that rude and disrepectful towards those members.

I know that you are actually talking about "are indeed crafts of some sort from another place", and to this I would reply they are reflections of another dimension or set of dimensions as my explanation. But The question has been raised here as to whether any extra terrestrial life we encounter is more or less intelligent than we are. First observation to consider. How many intelligent species are there on Earth and how many small and microscopic species ? Second observation to consider We know that such small life can tolerate extreme conditions way beyond our own ability. Also some of these have had the ability to lie dormant for thousands of years and then revive or be revived. Both of which lead me to believe that it is much more likely that these characteristics would help such small organisms in crossing the distance from far off places. So I consider it much more likely that our first meeting with alien life will be with a less intelligent form.

Yes that's the story, though I seem to remember it was slightly more detailed when I first read it. +1 I have never heard of Pandora's Legions , though if there are more like this one they could be good. You link give 2002 as a publication date, but I first read this one in the mid 1960s. I used to look forwards to receiving the Gollanz Worlds Best SF annual (book) every year at Christmas. This would have probably been in the 1966 or 67 one.

Thank you to both of those who replied to my post. The point about thestory in the second part of post was that humans were more intelligent but wated it squabbling amongst each other. I wish I could remember the name of the story. It was really good.

Dutch find 'anti 5G' devices (dangerously?) radioactive. Anti-5G braclets found to be radioactive https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-59703523

Indeed you did. But John is right that you seem to be a bit confused about what is an isotope. Perhaps you are mixing this up a bit with allotropy or perhaps it is just a language difficulty. You also mentioned physical properties only. Physical properties are rather more affected than chemical ones because the extra neutrons add extra mass, but not charge. So properties that depend upon atomic or molecular mass such as colligative properties do vary a bit. International tables such as Lange give values for these for different isotopes where they are known. Within the atom most electron orbitals stay the same and the number of electrons stays the same to spectra from these (X ray and UV) are pretty much the same, as are the actual chemical reactions involved. So dielectric and magnetic properties that depend upon electron spin will be unaffected but NMR spectra are changed. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6389648-proton-deuterium-tritium-nuclear-magnetic-resonance-intramolecular-hydrogen-bonds-isotope-effects-shape-potential-energy-function But IR spectra are dependant on vibrating atomic masses so will change the most. As already noted by exchemist mass spectra are clearly affected and a very important method of both istope detection and separation. However some bond strengths and/or angles can be altered. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15137048/

Or just very long lived. or the perhaps the Scifi story in Analog SF is true. That is the one about invading monkeys from outer space. A monkey scientist wrote a paper entitled 'why the loptails don't have space travel'

Interestingly we have the following figures. Estimated mass of continental crust (ie mass of Gondwana) is 2.20 x 1022 kg Mass of existing Moon is 7.34 x 1022 kg

This is about the most ineffecient learning method I can think of, especially if you are learning for yourself. The sheer amount of material to learn is far greater than can be simply looked at in more than one lifetime. So everyone needs some reduction scheme. We periodically have those who ask the (sensible) question "If I am learning for myself how to I go about it ?" And we try our best to help them. But that would be a topic for another thread if you are interested, please start one. You might be pleasantly suprised at the response.

So why are you trying to tell me 'what I was taught' ? You have no knowledge of any 'teaching' I may or may not have received or how I received it. We actually have a couple of self taught members here with impressive knowledge, one has a knowledge and understanding of Physics well up to postgraduate level. These members also command great respect because of the attitude in being prepared to listen as well as offer their thoughts. In turn others are interested in their thoughts which are generally well worth listening to. The rest of your quote was question about imaginary numbers. No I was not thinking about imaginary numbers. You can use the decimal system with imaginary numbers. But there are numbers called irrational numbers and others called trancendental numbers that cannot be expressed in the decimal system. However some can be expressed in other systems. For example the number 1/3 cannot be fully expressed ind ecimal, but can be in a ternary system. Furthermore the numbers useful for counts can all be expressed in a decimal system. For example the number one hundred and one is exact. As to you examples about apples, you are trying to preach again instead of finding out. Isn't find out truth more interesting than holding to being wrong? How many electrons are there in a helium atom ?

Thank for telling us. +1 We should all do what we can to progress the situation, even if it is just swapping data. I'm glad someone reads my posts properly. +1

It would be better if you listened a bit more and preached a bit less. The highlighted statement in you post is just plain wrong. There are many quantities in Science where the unit is 'counts'. In that case the unit is exact to any number of decimal place you care to mention. You do also realise there are many other numbers than are present in the decimal system ?

I've seen nothing yet to make me think you understand those quite difficult concepts you are throwing about. Energy Infinity Singularity They all have very particular meanings in Science that are similar to but much more restricted than in general English. Please also take note of this excellent statement by swansont. +1

A point worth making is that even a pancake has thickness.

I'm glad to see someone has the entire history of peaceful fusion at their fingertips. Not so glad to see they couldn't make better use of it than petty quibbling.

Whilst gravitational sources include some hydroelectricity generation collecting natural rainfall for the lake, no I was referring to tidal generation. The largest tidal generator in Europe was installed in Orkney a couple of weeks ago. 'Most powerful' tidal turbine starts generating electricity off Orkney - BBC News also see some older ones (Shetland) Case study: Nova Innovation - Shetland Tidal Array | Scotland's Marine Assessment 2020 Australia has lots of sun, we have lots of tides.

Most people do not understand the origin of the term 'frames' and what makes them special and different from just coordinate systems. I am sure the OP is not listening to anything I say so I can't tell him. +1 for your previous post about the finger and eye experiment. Do you know about the second part of that experiment - the flying double thumb ? I think I am going to win that bet with myself that this thread will reach 5 pages of silly argument before the Moderators get fed up and close it.

As a mechanical engineer you will be familiar with tech drawing and projections, perhaps less so with cartographic projections. You seem to be using a Mercator projection which does not preserve shape in the large. For that you need something like a Goude projection. (fig 18 here) https://www.cbsd.org/cms/lib010/PA01916442/Centricity/Domain/1691/Map Projections- Text.pdf Shape is actually a poorer indicator of continental fit than the rocks themselves. Are you aware of isotope distribution analyses we have for Earth material different extra terrestrial bodies ? Animated Mercator pictures that rotate large landmasses must of necessity distort the shapes as they rotate them, something you can see in your animation. Perhaps you could also offer some calculation of the masses involved in your 'ball' of extra terrestrial material and compare these with the masses of continental material on your map.