Greg H.

This website refuses to ignore the Elephants sitting in the corner of the room i.e. the overwhelming evidence of zionist world domination; zionists' initiation of the so-called war on terrorism which the zionists refer to as either world war III or world war IV; the benefits reaped from world war III/IV by the zionist state in palestine; zionists' dominance of pre bush administrations; zionists' dominance of the first bush administration; zionists' dominance of the second bush administration; the American Zionist Lobby: zionists' indoctrination of christians i.e. de-christianized Zionists (the so-called Christian Zionists): zionists' dominance of the american media

Off topic, but, these people are bat shit crazy.

... what feels right.

In GR, QM, and cosmology, if it feels right, it's probably the opposite of the right answer.

LOL. I didn't even notice the date. Apparently neither did the chap who necro'd the thread.

The biggest difference between stack and heap is how they are shared (or not) in a multithreaded application.

The stack (see also stacktrace) is the memory space a thread runs in, and is dedicated to that thread.

Heap memory is shared by all the threads in an application (and causes issues for thread safety if not accounted for).

More information here: Heap and Stack

Assuming that matter and energy cannot come from nothing (and there really is no evidence that they can) and assuming that there really is no God, then what really caused the big bang?

 

What caused time to suddenly start ticking from t = 0?

In all honesty, we still don't know. We don't yet have the physics to describe the moment.

Please also be aware that as the Earth is drifting away from the Sun, it is expected that 4.5 By ago the Earth was closer to the sun.

Say what?

I can balance a ruler on the end of a pencil. That doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.

These are the kinds of claims that just make me mad.

"Hoho! Gravity is a myth."

"Great. I'll tell my car to stop sticking to the ground so obstinately then."

Seriously...wtf?

I use rep points to identify particularly good or particularly poor posts. So if a post addresses the topic at hand, provides solid information with supporting evidence, I'll +1 it. If on the other hand, it's generally oft repeated and refuted bunk with no attempt at an original thought or to address a prior refutation, I'll -1 it.

How does a rocket moves in the space? By newton's third law of physics a force must be used to boost the rocket. In the earth it can be easily done because the rocket;s fuel use force to move on. But in the space there's no air or gas or anything.

So by this law, how does a rocket moves in the space?

Actually, a rocket doesn't push against the air - which is a good thing, otherwise they wouldn't be able to move in space at all. The only thing the rocket is pushing is it's own exhaust, as swansont points out. Because of the conservation law, the exhaust must push against the rocket with the same force - viola, lift off.

You can see the same sort of effect if you watch a group of firemen manning a hose, especially if they let go, such as in this video. The hose is being forced around by the "exhaust" of the water jetting out of the end of it.

Keep in mind too that in some places on Earth, it already routinely gets to half the boiling point of water (or hotter) during the day. A little closer to the sun, and it wouldn't be hard to imagine a scenario where all the water boils off, and joins the atmosphere as water vapor, insulating the planet and further raising the surface temperature.

Sound like another planet we've been discussing?

It receives a good deal more solar radiation, and has a much thicker atmosphere, both of which conspire to keep the surface temperature much higher. However, Venus is in equilibirum in terms of heat in versus heat out, just like Earth.

The inverse square law applies here. Venus orbits at .72 of the earth's mean orbital radius, which means it receives about twice as much solar energy per square meter of surface area as the earth does (assuming my math is right).

 

 

What this has to do with Grass Fed vs Corn Fed is beyond me? The rest of what was said doesn't really answer anything, so why it's even posted in here is also beyond me.

You asked your question in terms of fitness and losing weight. I answered in the same terms. As for the rest of it, discussion forums are naturally organic, and occasionally topics stray out of their neat categories because that's how people discuss things.

Feeding them food and turning it into another sort of food lacks efficiency.

 

This is really the crux of the matter, to be honest.

You'll lose more weight by exercising and eating a sensible diet than by changing how your meat is fed.

Let's start with the first element:

Sun heat contribution – for the last 4.4 Billion years the sun keeps the earth at the same temperature (more or less). With this assumption, even if we go back 100 Billion year, than the temperature on Earth should be the same. However, somehow, we must increase this temperature. Therefore, let assume that the max temperature to hold life is 50 °C. That was 3.5 Billion years ago.

So, 3.5 Billion years ago, the temperature was 50 °C. If the temperature today is 30, then it had been decreased by 20 °C in 3.5 Billion years.

Now, let use the second section:

The heat loss falls off, as the temperature difference decreases- So, in 3.5 Billion, the temperature had been falls by 20 °C .

Let's use 3.5 Billion year as a constant time segment and the 20 °C as heat increase segment.

Let's assume that as we move backwards in time, for each constant time sector, the heat increase should be doubled.

Hence...

You're wrong, which is what these experts in their field have been trying to tell you. You can't just make these assumptions - there are formulas that would give you the rates of cooling - I am assuming you could use calculus to derive a graph that showed the rate of cooling over time, but it's not just as simple as assuming the temperate change doubles ever so often.

I addition, your notion fails to account for things that could have temporarily raised the average temperature - impacts with large objects, for example.

My thread, my question. Whether you choose to give value to my marks is up to you.

I'll be somewhat blunter than Phi. I don't know if it's intentional, or you think you're being amusing, or what, but - you come off as an arrogant ass.

Where was it in the first 100 My?

It was there, but it wasn't enough to keep the planet from radiating out massive amounts of heat into space.

So if you have heat coming in, and heat radiating out, the temperature will either rise or fall (depending on which of those values is higher) until they balance each other.

 

 

O.K.

Let's agree that the Earth had been cooled down from 6000 °C to 32 °C in 100 My. Hence, by average, the temperature had been decreased by 59.68 °C per My. As the space is still very cold, it is expected that the Earth will continue with its rapid heat lose. Therefore, after 110 M years the temperature should be around -68 °C and after 150 My -266.4 °C.

However, based on our knowledge, this isn't the case.

So, the Earth had been cooled down from over 6000 °C (or even 10,000 °C) to 32 °C in less than 100 My, and for 4.5 Billion years it holds the temperature at the same level (more or less).

Wow, is it real?

That would only hold true if we weren't bathed in heat sources. We receive heat from the sun, as well as from decaying radioactive material in the planet itself. Also, the heat loss falls off, as was pointed out, as the temperature difference decreases.

 

Definitely not like this. It's confusing and jumbled.

 

Most people who don't work with maths have a misunderstanding of what logic is. These days, far too many people treat logic as "this makes sense to me". But common sense fails us often. It seems logical that spacecraft entering our atmosphere should be aerodynamically designed to cut right through the air in the most efficient manner, but the opposite is true. Blunt designed modules and capsules provide better heat shielding.

 

You should read up on critical thinking instead of logic. That's really what you're talking about here.

The problem is critical thinking skills are not as highly valued by the education system (at least here) as the ability to memorize random peices of information long enough to regurgitate them on a test.

The most important question I was ever asked as a child was "Why?" because it forced me to actually use that 3 pound lump of flesh inside my skull. (It also helped that my father was never satisfied with "I don't know" as an answer.)

 

There is another way to calculate it and it gives an even scarier number. Here based on observations they give an average number of O₂/N₂ ratio decrease at ~19 per meg per year. The current ratio in the atm is (21/78*1000000) = 269231 per meg. Assuming that nitrogen doesn't come from anywhere in massive amounts and all O₂ lost will be incorporated in CO₂ and other oxides than we're looking at a target level of ~140000 per meg and with 19 per meg/year reduction it gives us 7368 years and now this is a very scary number.

This is my opinion - 7,000 years is optimistic. At the rate we breed and consume natural resources, if we're not off this planet in a sustainable fashion in the next 1,000 years, I doubt we'll make it as a species.

That answer is weak-sauce, you can do better. It depends on the boundary's you choose yourself. Technically the only truly closed system is the entire universe, make some approximations.

Was I supposed to be impressing someone?

Angular momentum is only conserved in a closed system.

The wheel isn't a closed system.

The basic issue here is that ANY material object moving that fast is going to release a lot of energy interacting with whatever it hits, including the atmosphere. It really doesn't matter what the material is - and whatever effects you observe at non-relativistic speeds may no longer hold true.

Which is why I often say you cannot do physics by common sense.

Your warning has been noted. Also, your lack of reasoning behind the warning has been noted.

Thank you.

Was there some discussion to be had here, or were you just anxious to show off your slime in a cup?

And so would it follow that if a family/families of psychopaths that were horrible and cruel took control of the world and stayed in control, cruel and horrible happenings would go on forever until these families were relieved of their control?

 

When We are growing up and We are taught to be kind, courteous etc, aren't these kind of teachings meant to lead us away from animal like behaviour and make Us into Human Beings?

Societal mores are, by definition, defined by the society. Our society values those qualities, and so they are taught to our young because that's the best time to ingrain the lessons. If you have a society that values different qualities, I expect those would be the ones they teach to their children (indeed, look at the comparisons between ancient Athens and ancient Sparta in terms of youth education).

Regardless, we are no less human without these qualities. Nor are we less of an animal with them. We may not be accepatable to the society we find ourselves a member of, but we are still humans.