Moontanman

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Kids waiting in the dark for a bus doesn’t present the same risk as an adult on their commute.

I wasn't trying to say it was, but adults do have to adjust their lives to the school times and this is the real driver to this. Adults have fewer options, employers are not particularly welcoming to changing their business hours to make it easier for adults to get their kids safely to school. Parents are expected to change their lives to suit employers than the other way around. Yes some jobs can be done from home but most cannot and most blue collar workers are expected to change their lives to suit their employers. 

This question is more complex than most think, IMHO DST is more trouble than it's worth, in the summer if I want more daylight I'll simply get up earlier, I love to surf fish, getting down to the beach, setting up my equipment  just before daybreak is an option I use with some regularity. If you are not free to decide what time you start your day then regular time would seem to be a good guide. Anytime you try to change something everyone relies on you will piss off some of the people to please some of the people. 

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Again. No solution is optimal for everyone. If there is a change it will benefit some but not all.

Right now all kids have to get up early, whether a parent has the flexibility for a later start or not. If you have a later start, some kids will still have to get up at the same time, but some kids will get to sleep longer.

What extra cost? You traded an hour of daycare in the morning for an hour of daycare in the afternoon.

Why? They go in at the same time but school start an hour later.

After reading several posts in this thread I wonder how many commenting have kid schedules, and or work schedules, I may be misreading this but everyone does understand that the time changes for everyone not just the school kids... right? The main problem with dst is that the sun pays little to no attention to human clocks, while time changes do concern us and they should, I worked for DuPont, rotating shifts, I changed my schedule every 7 days and the only way I could deal with it was to live like I was on the same schedule as everyone else or to be more precise I had to live like my shift was always 8 to 4, I ate, slept, and worked as though I was always on day shift. I slept, ate, and worked as though every day started at 8am even though it could be 4pm or 12am. 

If the sun followed DST there would be no problem and no conflicts other than the ones we already have, if not for the Sun's lack of cooperation shifting back an hour should have no problems.  Actually changing the time of school, work, or other activities would create problems for everyone... initially anyway.   

If we really wanted to maximize daylight activities then we would have to actually change the time we start our days and probably on a sliding scale as the seasons progressed. In the past we changed our work schedules with the sun, we got up with the sun and went inside when the sun went down if not go directly to bed, we knew the day length changed as the seasons progressed but we changed with it instead of trying to change the time. 

It seems to me at this point that DST as we know it now is the lesser of two evils in trying to fix this "problem" all the talk of starting school late or changing work schedules or relying on neighbors to take care of your kids is just not tenable in the real world. 

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Because it breaks people, like me. SAD is a real thing, then someone comes along and magnifies it with DST . I don't give shit which one is used, but it would be nice to see a smooth, natural transition through the seasons. It is psychologically terrible for a lot of people. My brother goes to Goa to soften the blow.

I feel you dude, SAD is a big part of winter life for me, I feel like I need to crawl in a hole and sleep for weeks... Goa? 

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you please explain why waiting in the dark for a school bus results in continued disruptions to the sleep cycle?

The main problem was children waiting in the dark for school busses but the danger of standing on the side of the road in the dark in rural areas was real and why the winter DST was cancelled. There was a lot of discussion about this in my area many years ago, in the winter the sun rises much later than it does in the summer resulting in children getting up well before daylight. I'm not sure if this could result in sleep cycle disruptions but the difference in getting up before sunrise was disruptive, I was part of a group that supported the DST for the winter and I had to change my mind and go with EST in my paper to the school board. To me the children's safety was paramount and long bus rides in rural areas won the day for EST. 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I would imagine a one hour change in sleep rhythm would be resolved rather quickly. I used to travel quite a bit and while I think I noticed a change in myself it wasn't very significant. I've heard many times that DST is bad for students but it is unclear to me why that is other than for a very short time.

DST, in the winter, causes students to have to wait in the dark for the school bus in the mornings. 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

How would one test a hypothesis concerning this?

Good question, I have no idea, I was not asserting that we need to be looking into it but knowing the curiosity of humans I would be surprised if no one has looked into it. 

10 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Still not a problem.  I don't think there's an answer to that question.

It is the same as asking how does a positive charge attract a negative charge.  That type of question is more of a why than a how IMO.

The difference between how and why is how our technological civilization was formed, how is always important, why is often nothing but a subjective desire.  

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

There is no problem.  Why charge creates a field is not a physics problem.

The question was how not why. 

7 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I would ask. There is no need to, but I would like to know. And this is the beauty of physics: there still are questions to ask and things to investigate/discover.

I know I am ignorant on this topic but I would be surprised to find out, that if no one knows how a charge creates an electrical field, that no one is looking into the problem.  

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You can’t have an expansion of energy. Energy is a property, not an entity. Energy has to be the energy of something, a physical system of some kind.

I read it as the energy of expansion cooled into matter or at least that is how it was worded when I read it in several articles many years ago. The wording "expansion of energy" was "energy of expansion" is this significant? 

42 minutes ago, Externet said:

Often I bake cheese bread, yuca bread... many names for the same.   Not yucca !  Also known as cassava, mandioca, tapioca...

When the flour is manufactured, what is added or substracted for it to become/make starch instead ?  Am convinced is the same stuff with mythic beliefs.  How is it ?

Evidently the difference is that the starch is considered a more pure form of the root and the flour includes fiber, protein, and other impurities. IMHO it appears that the starch is what's left over after all the nutrients are removed but that is just me. Evidently there is a poison that needs to be removed as well but I have no knowledge of this. 

@Externet Were you aware of the poisonious nature of this flour or is this article mistaken? 

 https://www.starchprojectsolution.com/faq/cassava_starch_flour_1137.html

Quote

3.Different ingredients:

The cassava processing machine in the cassava starch production line removes impurities, fiber, protein and fine particles in the cassava raw materials layer by layer, so the cassava starch is more pure，the toxicity of cassava has been eliminated completely. Rather cassava flour still contain a little toxicity. So cassava flour can't be eaten raw, cassava starch can be used directly. It's worth to say that children can't eat cassava flour even it has been cooked.

The Blair Mitch project! 

22 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Did large cats get larger over the course of evolution or did the small cats get smaller?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudaelurus

or if you prefer a video description

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08

Cats started out from a small animal that resembled this

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, hubris seeds it's own demise, Trump is just a symptom of a deep seated disease.

Sadly I have to agree with you on this and the victims of this disease are anti vaccers!  

1 hour ago, swansont said:

First video is all you need. Merely by asking the question you can infer that this isn’t the consensus, and it confirms that mass warping spacetime is the basic idea of general relativity, which, of course, is the consensus. Time dilation is a consequence of the postulates of relativity.

But you can look at the equations and decide what causes what is different. If y= mx, does x cause y or does y cause x? It depends on the framework you use. If you don’t have some mechanism in place you can go either way. So sure, you can interpret things to say time dilation causes gravity. Is it the consensus? No, it’s not. ‘

IMO it’s a game. In SR time dilation is a consequence of motion, but does anyone insist that time dilation causes things to move? No. We still have Newtonian physics as a basis (even though the math is an approximation, valid at low speeds) where something starts moving only if there’s a force on it. Time isn’t a force. In GR things get muddled because gravity isn’t a force..But kinematic time dilation doesn’t cause gravity. The kinematic term is the wrong sign. Satellites at a radial distance of ~9600 km (~3200 km in altitude) have the kinematic and gravitational time dilation cancel. Is there no gravity at that altitude?

Thankyou, I had first learned of this "interpretation" several months ago and the way it was worded and my own ignorance of the subject made it sound interesting. I had assumed it to be mainstream science, I wish such information was graded a bit when it is consumed by interested laymen like me.

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Rules require that material for discussion must be posted. Files are for supporting information 

 

Time causes gravity? No, that not the current consensus

I tried to find a source that didn't include a video but this is the best I could do on short notice. I'll try to find more suitable sources but the OP has not explained his own idea yet so I'll wait and see, it's possible this is his idea.  

https://www.technology.org/2021/02/28/does-time-cause-gravity/

https://mediaplayer.whro.org/program/pbs-space-time/e/does-time-cause-gravity-5hns3m

Isn't it the current consensus that the flow of time and mass causes gravity? 

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

I think there are now community shelters for battered embryos there.  

No one wants to see someone become a scape-zygote.

Talk about dad jokes!

33 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Has anyone done this joke yet?
 

Now that is witty! 

Put that hotdog in my bun! 

On 1/7/2024 at 6:50 PM, TheVat said:

Lady Chatterly and Mickey Mouse enter the public domain this year and all you get is this column....

https://archive.is/DvUSQ

(paywall free screenshot of Alexandra Petri column in the Washington Post)

 

Could have been a movie, Lady Chatterley's Mickey Mouse Lover? 

Just one more reason to assert that religion is the great filter! 

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

Some saner voices are pushing back on this ruling.

(from CNN)

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall weighed in on the issue on Friday. Marshall said he “has no intention of using the recent Alabama Supreme Court decision as a basis for prosecuting IVF families or providers,” in a statement from Chief Counsel Katherine Robertson.

 

 

 

Is this the same voices that said that reversal of roe vs wade wouldn't keep women from having an abortion if their lives were in danger?  

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Unfortunately, 'truth' is subjective, Moon.

I'm somewhat mentally lethargic today.
What is the meaning of "Fifty billion flies ..." ?

I disagree, truth is that which comports with reality, truth by definition has to be objective. 

50 billion flies refers to the old saw about "Eat shit, 50 billion flies can't be wrong"