EdEarl

@Deacon

 

(it sucks being uneducated).

You are obviously trying to become educated; in addition, that you are reading about false vacuum means you know things that the vast majority of people don't know. Pat yourself on the back for me. You ask a good question and are working to learn.

Values 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... 1/2ⁿ do not cause rounding errors in floating point types such a double, for small values of n.

36-32=4

4/0.25 = about 16 iterations, depending on whether there is rounding. The final value of i is either 36 or about 36.24.

The question seems intended to show whether a person understands the type double.

Does it depend on rounding error? If it does, there is no way to figure it out in your head. You must know how double is represented on the computer to know whether there is rounding error. If not, the final value of i is easy to deduce.

Cogito ergo sum -- René Descartes.

It is so common one rarely thinks about it, yet it is astonishing to awake and be.

We're all geeks and science nerds here. You can't say something demonstrably wrong without getting corrected. It's a break in an established pattern up with which we shall not put. That we apply our critical thinking skills in fervent replies shouldn't be misinterpreted as emotional. It's a deep-seated need for clarity and detail that pursuing explanations via the scientific method ingrains in its users.

A few of us seem OCD.

Water usually contains trace amounts of many chemicals and minerals. You seem to be reacting to something in it, but getting a comprehensive test of things in your water may be expensive; IDK what it would cost. Knowing what is in your water would allow you to determine which chemicals/minerals affect you, but it could be a lengthy process. In some cases very bad chemicals have been found in water supplies, for example DuPont Found Liable in First of 3,500 Toxic-Water Lawsuits.

Right, so I did not misunderstand what was said. Or we both misunderstand ;-)

PoPp seemed to dislike almost everything anyone said; his frustration was obvious. He seemed to not understand, but how IDK. He is a mystery.

rant: to speak or declaim to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently

I'm sure no one is violent, passionate perhaps, but extravagant seems a bit much. However, there is obvious lack of communication.

It is possible your wheel is not perfectly balanced and a heavy spot settles to the bottom.

I've written perhaps 1/2 million lines of code, including some AI. However, your "points of existence" have no meaning for me. That you are convinced about your points is clear, but I cannot comment. Either I'm too dense to understand your point or there is nothing of value to understand; IDK. No one on this forum seems to understand well enough to help you either. Maybe you need to do a better job of explaining yourself. Good luck elsewhere.

Discussing atheism and science is a bit confusing and odd. According a poll reported by the Pew Research Center

 

... just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

This figure is less than the general public, but matches the position that no evidence for a god exists.

Seems to me the OP, who believes in God, is unloading on those who don't, and is trying to use science as a club. Unwittingly, he is unloading the scientist believers, too. I suspect no one is offended at his outburst.

Though, I've heard it all before, it always amazes me how some people think and emote--different from many of us on SFN as Phi said in #6. Even when people think alike, communication is difficult. When we think in different ways, heart to heart communication seems nearly impossible. I think this chasm has led to wars, and may again.

Seems like a scientific approach to this thread would be welcomed. IDK if it is possible to get # reputation points and total posts in a spread sheet, but that would provide the raw data, oh yes and sex, M, F, not telling.

PS if the thesis of this thread is true, then a male could post a pretty female pic, let sex = not telling and reap the benefit.

You might assume nanotechnology has matured and there are devices from nano-scale to macro-scale that people use, from medicine to pet doors, some soft like skin and others hard like steel, some computer controlled and some manually operated. In addition to binary computers, there will be artificial nano-neurons assembled into large neural nets that interface to people and the WWW. Let your imagination fill in the story.

@MacSwell I spoke without checking. There should be enough water in the comets. But, a six week bombardment might be bad for life on Earth, besides comets don't visit the inner solar system very often.

There isn't one best renewable technology. Consider Earthships (off the grid buildings) to be efficient per $ for homes and some other buildings. They typically use solar panels and batteries to run appliances, but heating and cooling the building is done without equipment, similar to adobe houses but better. If every house was an Earthship perhaps 15% of the world's energy budget would be renewable. in addition, the world needs energy for transportation, businesses and industry. Wind and solar panels are good for a big percentage, perhaps they take us to 75%. The about half the remainder is needed for nighttime use, so solar thermal with heat storage or PV with batteries can supply power day and night. The percentages used are not fixed; they depend on the cost of installation and maintenance of various technologies when renewable power plants are built, because technology costs and usage patterns change over time.

You tell a story and then say you learned as knowledge. Is the story knowledge before you learned it? If so, are all stories knowledge? If not, can all stories become knowledge? Is a story even necessary?

A Goldilocks zone will always exist. In a billion years, the Earth might be moved, but building cylindrical habitats that rotate to make artificial gravity would be easier IMO. They could orbit the Sun even as a red giant, and they could be moved closer as it becomes a dwarf. Another Earth might be constructed with asteroids comets and minor planets, all moved to an appropriate orbit. As long as the sun shines there will be enough energy.

I like this one from the dictionary:

 

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

In other words, it is a body knowledge found under proverbial rocks that scrape fingers, stub toes, fracture egos, and sometimes are thrown to blacken eyes.

Is the OP convinced or trolling? Rhetorical.

Sirona #28

It's impossible to judge whether all the electronic toys would have enticed us to stay inside. I'm too old to remember what it was like to have a young body. Society has changed greatly; mom actually cooked and we made ice cream by hand crank.

My grandson, 4, likes to watch TV, but sometimes he just needs to run, and outside is good for that. I hope he continues to be that energetic.

Sirona,

I agree that virtual relationships do not replace real ones. Today parents are afraid to let their children play outside whether they happen to live in the suburbs and have a yard or live in the city and have a park, a contributor to kids growing up playing video games instead of baseball, football, hopscotch, etc. as my generation did when young. My hometowns were typically small, and my parents allow me to walk a few blocks to the edge of town and walk into fields, as there were no parks nearby. It is fortunate virtual technology exists to replace outside play, but it is no where near as good for anyone as the real outdoors, but IMO technology is not the cause of the change in play venues. We had television, and I was an avid watcher, but friends and outdoor play were often a better option.

Mathematics Based on Science? NO

Thus, you need to start over.

There are many ways to misuse mathematics trying to model an observed process. Just because you get a wrong answer doesn't mean anything about the Universe or mathematics. You need to examine your math and whatever it is you are trying to model.